Europa Universalis IV Nations - Native Americans: Aztecs (with Quil18!)

[Dafool]

People far more articulate than I have answered all of those points. You don't like the word "primitive" because your liberal background forbids you from objectively judging cultures and civilisations. Now there's nothing wrong with that but political correctness is not endemic.

That fact that you had to start your argument with a personal attack, not to mention one based around your conspiracy theories, is not a good sign. But I'll humor you. Let's move on.

I've outlined above why I judged the aztecs as primative. The fact that they had a small amount of bronze is hardly relevant when Europe had been making arms and armour out of bronze for millenia - the Mesoamericans clearly did not, this makes them objectively inferior to European heavy infantry from hoplites through to legionarries through to the knights of the EU 3 era.

Please point out this "outline" that you've supposedly offered. Additionally, you've yet to demonstrate why bronze is the definite marker between primitive and civilized. That's a thesis that I don't think many scholars have supported since the 19th century. I'm going to outline why.

This is a suit of Gothic Plate Armour, produced around the fifteenth century:

This will stop literally anything that the aztecs could throw it it. It is a serious piece of equipment.

That's quite a fancy picture. Impressive, I'm sure. However, you do realize that the Spaniards weren't wearing this during most of their adventures in the New World? Additionally, you have read the Spanish accounts of Native weaponry? Del Castillo explained how Native soldiers armed with slings could knock a man unconscious despite their metal helms. Similar descriptions report that Native archers using obsidian arrows and well crafted bows to penetrate Spanish armor. The same could be said of an atlatl and spear, which the Spanish reported could pierce armor. So, I think your conclusion that Spanish armor could stop "literally anything" that the Aztecs could throw at it is false. They could literally throw something at it quite effectively.

The aztecs by contrast were rolling around in this:

Which clearly, is going to do bugger all against a broadsword or a pole axe, or an arrow from a crossbow or longbow.

The ironic thing is that this is what most of the Spanish were wearing. This cloth armor is fairly protective from slashing and projectile weapons. It's also significantly more mobile and far cooler than metal armor.

Again when it comes to weapons, the Aztecs are woefully behind the rest of the world. Almost entirely wooden, or wooden with obsidian shards, they would have simply shattered against chain mail, in fact obsidian would wear out very quickly even cutting through flesh, when metal weapons simply wouldn't.

Some of your observations about obsidian seem very generalized. While obsidian is more fragile than metal, it is not so fragile that one can get only a single strike in. Obsidian in and of itself is comparably sharp to a steel sword. While it can't be resharpened, obsidian blades are drastically easier to produce. Hundreds could be produced by an artisan in a single day, meaning that the durability of obsidian was significantly less of a disadvantage for the Aztecs than it might appear. With a ready supply of some of the highest quality obsidian in the world, it makes quite a bit of sense to use it.

Their ranged weapons don't seem to be more advanced than in antiquarian times - hunting bows and slings/darts, certainly nothing like the longbow, let alone a crossbow (which was a far, far more advanced piece of tech).

See my previous comments. If their ranged weaponry was so antiquated, then why was it effective against the Spanish? Slings alone were quite common in most of the Old World until the end of the Middle Ages and the development of more advanced artillery. De Guzman reported that skilled sling users could kill a horse or shatter a metal sword from 100ft. Clearly if the Spanish were as impressed with this as they reported, then antiquated weapons were still quite effective.

So in warfare alone, we can see that the Aztecs were *way* behind Europe. It seems to me that had one of the MesoAmerican cultures had developed the capacity to produce a large amount of bronze weapons would have quickly dominated the surrounding states - who would in turn have adapted themselves. Such an event never happened, so either the Native Americans don't bother competing with each other for land and resources, or they lacked the capacity to do so. And this is something that happened elsewhere 2000 years prior. Yet in EU they start off more or less the same level as the rest of the world, which is rather generous.

If anything, you've shown that warfare in Mesoamerica and the Andes were simply different. Obviously in fields like artillery and metallurgy they were behind, but you've yet to really show the tangible "primitiveness" of the other aspects of their warfare. And again, I don't think you're familiar with Mesoamerican history or metallurgy. Bronze was known there and they did have small scale domestic production. It's believed that this knowledge was transferred from South America in the 13th or 14th century. We do find its usage in a few tools and weapons, but the result was hardly that this region "dominated the surrounding states - who would in turn have adapted themselves." Much like my previous example with the Romans and steel, it's often not practical to adopt new technology if the production and application can be filled by more reliable and economic alternatives.

tldr; Aztecs had primative warfare. Can't be arsed going over any other areas, other people have already done it better.

I think you've got more to explain if you're actually looking to have a discussion. While this post was better than many you've made, it's still mostly composed of very generalized claims and lacks insight into the historical details.

 

[Dr_Doom00]

The difference is one that could be overcome with sufficient manpower or superior tactics. That's simply not the case in EU3. European armies in that game can consistently wipe out native ones five times their size. For the time period of victoria, that's potentially accurate. In the late middle ages/beginning of the early modern period, not so much.

I don't understand from where you are basing these numbers, as in almost every early European-Mesoamerican conflict, the Europeans (whilst being significantly outnumbered), crushed the Mesoamerican forces. It's not enough to abstractly claim that Mesoamerican and European weapons are practically equevillent when history almost always has shown the opposite. Also, it proves nothing when these Mesoamerican civilizations are compared to Rome, when they existed almost one and a half millenniums later. Furthermore, it is not the Romans that the mesoamericans faced, it was the Spanish!

 

[AdamPA1006]

Obsidian striking metal will simply shatter, yes you could do a powerful enough blow to concuss the person wearing it, but then you may as well use a club. Cloth armour by contrast, would be useless against Western weapons - greatswords, lances, flails and maces wouldn't give a damn about padding, nor would anything with a metal point. It may have been useful against contemporary weapons, but it was no good against knight's weaponry or a musket shot.

Atlatls are simply javelins - well made yes, but still just sharpened wooden shafts. How you can call it a "definite improvement" over a Roman pilum, a javelin with a sharpened iron shank that was designed to break off and lodge in the opponent's sheild, I do not know. Their bows were still simply larger versions of hunting bows, we don't even know if they were composite.

The arrival of a mere handful of Spanish troops was enough to crush the Aztecs with the help of the Tlaxcalans. Years earlier the Axtecs defeated the Tlaxcalans in a protracted war, during which many of the Tlaxcalans' best warriers were captured and executed. Despite this, with the help of the Spanish they utterly crushed the Aztecs within two years. That is one hell of a force multiplier, I think that "five to one" is very, very generous all things considered.


Tell you what...I'll put on a suit of plate armour, and you bash my leg with a club. We'll see what breaks first, your club or your shoulder.

lmao that last line was the funniest thing ive read in a long time. Thank you for this discussion guys I've learned a lot about native american culture seriously thanks

 

[AapoAlas]

A lot of the Spanish victories, especially the victories with the Tlaxcalans leading to the sacking of the Aztec capital, seem to lean quite heavily on a big number of local allies and diplomacy, either through fear or promises. The Spanish alliance certainly did not crush down each and every city they came about, but instead, it seems, they convinced many of these to ally against the Aztecs.

Through that and by looking at two fights where the Spanish are basically alone (well, one of them was badly set up by the Spanish), namely the first meeting with the Tlaxcalans and the Spanish rout from Tenochtitlan after the massacre in the Main Temple, could well have finished off Cortés' army. What the Aztecs seemed to be lacking (take the Battle of Otumba) was proper understanding of how they should fight. Fighting horses on an open field proved to be a disastrous idea. Then again, can't blame them for not knowing fully well.

Anyhow, given that the Spaniards probably would've died without the Tlaxcalan alliance, I'd say that a truly unified Central American Indian nation could've fought off the Spanish, or at the very least kept them on the coast for a much longer time. Infighting and bad tactics is what caused their fall, and of course the epidemics. But of course that kind of knowledge, tactics etc, is only gained by fighting in relevant wars, and it's not like the Aztecs could've found out in time no matter what.

 

[Eagle_eye]

Obsidian striking metal will simply shatter, yes you could do a powerful enough blow to concuss the person wearing it, but then you may as well use a club. Cloth armour by contrast, would be useless against Western weapons - greatswords, lances, flails and maces wouldn't give a damn about padding, nor would anything with a metal point. It may have been useful against contemporary weapons, but it was no good against knight's weaponry or a musket shot.

That's simply not true. Cloth armor can deflect blades. It's not going to stop a point blank crossbow, but neither is plate armor.

Atlatls are simply javelins - well made yes, but still just sharpened wooden shafts. How you can call it a "definite improvement" over a Roman pilum, a javelin with a sharpened iron shank that was designed to break off and lodge in the opponent's sheild, I do not know. Their bows were still simply larger versions of hunting bows, we don't even know if they were composite.

Atlatls are vastly superior because they provide more leverage. You can throw a javelin much, much harder with one than without. As for the bows, a longbow is essentially just a really large bow. The increase in size is where the increase in power comes from. Plus, English Longbows aren't composite either.

The arrival of a mere handful of Spanish troops was enough to crush the Aztecs with the help of the Tlaxcalans. Years earlier the Axtecs defeated the Tlaxcalans in a protracted war, during which many of the Tlaxcalans' best warriers were captured and executed. Despite this, with the help of the Spanish they utterly crushed the Aztecs within two years. That is one hell of a force multiplier, I think that "five to one" is very, very generous all things considered.

"the help of the Tlaxcalans" amounts to hundreds of thousands of warriors.

Tell you what...I'll put on a suit of plate armour, and you bash my leg with a club. We'll see what breaks first, your club or your shoulder.

Why would I hit you in the leg when your head presents a much better target?

 

[Kyoumen]

I'm glad you're reminded often because it bears repeating. Are you going to argue that the game is not European focused?

No, just that it is European focused due to the devs being by and large European and demand from a lot of the fanbase, not due to anything explicitly about the game (as only the latter portion of the game covers when Europe actually began to start outstripping their rivals, the great nations of East Asia, and so forth).

To put it another way, focus on mechanics have a lot to do with what the devs and players are interested in. Byzantium was one of the most fleshed out countries in the game in EU3 (in terms of unique mission, decisions and other flavour) - do you think that was related to how actually important they were? Japan, for all its potential, was a global zero in this time period whose most important international act was a manifest failure to invade Korea. Yet they have an entire unique system built around them that is getting fleshed out considerably in EUIV (at the very least by including actually historical daimyos and removing the mechanically glitchy "Japan" representing the emperor). That's because Japan is popular, not because Japan is important or even relevant to Europe.

If half the fanbase cared deeply about getting India to work right, India would be a fleshed out and flavoursome region with lots of regional differences and fun things to do, and the title "Europa Universalis" wouldn't matter one whit.

So saying "it's called Europa Universalis, so Europe is important!" is meaningless. It's called that because it's based on a boardgame, and there's things given lots of mechanical attention in the game that have absolutely nothing to do with Europe. At the moment, the native states that actually DO have a very significant importance to Europe (no native states, no Spanish empire, European history becomes unrecognisable almost immediately) are so mechanically poorly represented that it's laughable. This should be improved. Saying "it's called Europa Universalis" isn't a counterargument. In fact, if you think the game is and should be entirely about Europe, then it's even more important that one of the most epochal events of the entire time period for Europe (the discovery and colonisation of the Americas) should be given time and attention to bring it at least modestly closer to reality.

Look, the video dev diaries almost all focus on Europe, unless they're explicitly talking about non-European features. When you start up the game, you're looking at a map of Europe. The interface is European in style. The advisor portraits are all European. The music is European. Even the metagame (concepts like having rigid borders) is mostly European. Native American concepts of land ownership are not represented in this game because it's a game focused on Europe.

But they should be, because if you can't represent the situation in the New World with at least an acceptable nod to reality then you're basically playing a fantasy game in Europe too. If you cannot represent the colonisation of the New World with anything approaching realism, then how can you seriously argue that Spain, Portugal, Britain and France can be played with anything approaching realism? Africa's lack of any sort of realism hurts too, and when Portugal can conquer all of India in the 1500s (and China a century later) you've departed so far from what kind of power and problems Portugal really had that you might as well be playing Risk insofar as a realistic depiction of the era goes.

If you care about playing a game with European countries, you should care that other parts of the world are well-represented, because this is a time period and game marked primarily by Europe's interactions with the rest of the world.

 

[Jomini]

That's simply not true. Cloth armor can deflect blades. It's not going to stop a point blank crossbow, but neither is plate armor.

Wrong on both counts.

Deflection requires a hard surface off of which to bounce the blade, cloth armor, by design, offers no such hard surface. Cloth armor attempts to protect the wearer by absorbing the blow, a completely different process than deflection. The problem with trying to absorb the blow is that you are limited by geometry and material strength into how much energy you can dissipate before you run out of armor. Cloth armor was used way back in the Classical Era and abandoned as a primary means of defense not long after. A metal point can easily concentrate the force and velocities that simply shear most organic fibers without flexing the entire garment are not that hard to achieve. Now cloth armor was retained in use ... under metal armor from the Greeks to the Spanish it was very common to have a padded cloth armor under the the rigid metal. The metal would deflect & blunt the tip of arrows, thrusting weapons, etc. while the cloth would distribution the residual force over a large surface area. Against dull weapons or fragile weapons cloth is quite good. Against steel and iron it fares poorly. There are some intrinsic advantages to cotton over wool or linen, but cloth without metal is pretty poor.

A crossbow will only penetrate high end plate if it is extremely powerful. Most period crossbows could not penetrate plate. Now a volley of bolts will down the mail - because a small fraction of the bolts will hit the joints and other weaker spots, but you need an insanely high amount of energy to penetrate plate. I would bet a lot of money that no crossbow lacking a steel lath (or something with similar mechanical properties or better) can penetrate plate even at point blank ranges.

Atlatls are vastly superior because they provide more leverage. You can throw a javelin much, much harder with one than without. As for the bows, a longbow is essentially just a really large bow. The increase in size is where the increase in power comes from. Plus, English Longbows aren't composite either.

Again you are in error on both counts. Atlatls work by increasing throw speed, they fail however as they lose a lot of accuracy. The Romans had the amentum which also increased the effective length of the throwing arm (like an atlatl), but it could also be applied at the center of gravity and wound around the javelin (imparting spin on release) both of these greatly increased accuracy so while the amentum could have been used just to increase throw speed like an atlatl it was more commonly used to improve accuracy.

The English longbow used a different geometry (with a disproportionately deeper "D" section), and while by some definitions the longbow was not a composite, it certainly had two different types of materials with different mechanical properties in it that let it get several of the mechanical advantages of a composite bow.

Why would I hit you in the leg when your head presents a much better target?

Heads presented a much poorer target in full plate. In order to strike the head you have to a hit a non-fixed point that has a lot of instinctive defense mechanisms. If you are just bludgeoning, the leg doesn't have as many effective parries. The knee itself is far easier to shatter than the skull and unlike the skull the needs of flexibility mean that any armor must be less effective (per unit weight) at the knee than the skull. Heads can easily bob and dodge whereas moving a knee disrupts your footing and requires shifting the center of mass. A mace against a knee is a much quicker armor failure than a mace against the head.

Please remember that most maces had only a pound or two of weight (500-1000 grams or so) in the head for a single handed mace. Heavier clubs are going to be much slower and tire out even big burly guys (imagine trying to work a sledge hammer over your head ... for three hours with no water).

BoR:

Why would I confront someone with a plate armour face to face? I'd use different tactics. Think about how fast I would be and how slow you'd be as well.

Actually you would not be appreciably faster. Plate armor is about the same as my old combat loads and my sprint speeds with full battle rattle are not sufficiently slower to give you a tactical edge. Remember also that plate distributed its weight over the whole body, so I'd actually be more mobile in plate mail than in modern body armor with SAPI.

Yeah not too many conquistadors used full plate, on the other hand their records state that their armor was overkill in fights against the Aztecs. The big problem Cortez faced was needing to overcome hundreds to one odds - that is a lot of chances for lucky hits and a lot fatigue coming from killing yet another jaguar. You can overwhelm any fighting force with enough bodies if only because eventually the sword arm gets too tired to draw the blade from yet another corpse.

Dafool:

l Castillo explained how Native soldiers armed with slings could knock a man unconscious despite their metal helms. Similar descriptions report that Native archers using obsidian arrows and well crafted bows to penetrate Spanish armor. The same could be said of an atlatl and spear, which the Spanish reported could pierce armor. So, I think your conclusion that Spanish armor could stop "literally anything" that the Aztecs could throw at it is false. They could literally throw something at it quite effectively.

Slings have range issues and also the fact that the stereotypical crusader helmet is built precisely to deflect such blows. Yeah, if you get lucky you will hit the helmet dead on and not waste most of your projectiles force on moving/denting the helmet. However, most of the time, the rocks are not going to hit at all, when they hit they won't hit the head, and when they hit the head they will most likely not have favorable geometry for doing more than denting metal. Even when they get through, you aren't assured a concussion. Now in actual battles they did this a lot ... so with 100:1 manpower advantages you will see lucky shots often enough to win. But no, peltists are not a viable counter to mailed combatants in anything close to even numbers; if they were Rome would have continued its early tradition of using peltists and someone (Franks, Germans, Ottomans, Russians, etc.) would have revived it if it was a viable tactic.

Some of your observations about obsidian seem very generalized. While obsidian is more fragile than metal, it is not so fragile that one can get only a single strike in. Obsidian in and of itself is comparably sharp to a steel sword. While it can't be resharpened, obsidian blades are drastically easier to produce. Hundreds could be produced by an artisan in a single day, meaning that the durability of obsidian was significantly less of a disadvantage for the Aztecs than it might appear. With a ready supply of some of the highest quality obsidian in the world, it makes quite a bit of sense to use it.

Against steel armor? I just don't see how the obsidian doesn't shatter against plate unless you gimp the swing. That is a lot of energy to dissipate and the high frequency vibrations from the impact alone should shatter the edge.

See my previous comments. If their ranged weaponry was so antiquated, then why was it effective against the Spanish?

Largely because:
1. These were the dregs of the Spanish forces.
2. Spanish forces were equipped to fight a different threat.
3. There were huge numerical advantages against the Spanish and low odds throws work when you have lots of throws.

Now I could totally see Cortez failing and the Aztecs giving a much more capable showing. However there was a LOT of gold in Tenochtitlan and I don't see the Spaniards (or any other European) leaving it in peace. Eventually, that much gold is going to draw in better, more numerous Spanish forces and all the peltists in the world are not going to stop a single heavy cavalry charge. Now some problems the Spanish had came from their equipment being optimized against the Islamic threat and not stone age weaponry. Like when Wellington famously wanted just one company of longbows (as they'd rip Napoleonic infantry into pincushions) but the equipment and training was against a more advanced foe, the weapons that beat older stuff fell into disuse. I believe every weapon used in Mesoamerica has an old world analogue and eventually people will remember how to defeat these old threats.

AA:

Anyhow, given that the Spaniards probably would've died without the Tlaxcalan alliance, I'd say that a truly unified Central American Indian nation could've fought off the Spanish, or at the very least kept them on the coast for a much longer time. Infighting and bad tactics is what caused their fall, and of course the epidemics. But of course that kind of knowledge, tactics etc, is only gained by fighting in relevant wars, and it's not like the Aztecs could've found out in time no matter what.

The Spaniards are not just Cortez. Knowledge of Aztec and Incan wealth were generally known and in time the Spanish will only learn more about the wealth of places they'd like to take. We did see that a larger, more unified empire (with arguably better tech) in the Inca also failed to stop the Spaniards. With the epidemics, you are likely looking at the collapse of the corvee system. That in turn means that the agricultural base of any unified states that rely on it (Aztec, Inca, etc.) will likely fold as well. I'm not convinced that by the 1540s (with 40%+ mortality rates) that there would even be empires left to fight. In any event, a full army with sufficient horse and armor is going to go through tens of thousands of native troops like a chainsaw through butter. In a straight up fight with Spain, the only question is how much will it cost to win, not can Spain win at all?

 

[Kyoumen]

Obsidian striking metal will simply shatter, yes you could do a powerful enough blow to concuss the person wearing it, but then you may as well use a club.

By this comment, you are betraying that you have no idea how obsidian was actually used in Aztec war weaponry. They didn't use obsidian swords in battle at all, and shattered obsidian was both to be expected and would not actually significantly reduce the fighting effectiveness of the macuahuitl in the short term. There's nothing wrong with having no idea how Aztec war technology worked, but why pretend you do?

Cloth armour by contrast, would be useless against Western weapons - greatswords, lances, flails and maces wouldn't give a damn about padding, nor would anything with a metal point. It may have been useful against contemporary weapons, but it was no good against knight's weaponry or a musket shot.

The Aztecs beat the Spanish (and their allies) more than once in a straight up fight. European technology was simply not a decisive factor in that conflict (horses were more important, though still not the most important factor). It had more of an impact on the conquest of the Inca, and even then it had more to do with surprise and how top heavy the Inca political system was, because no technology (including modern technology) could actually have bridged the numbers gap there. You actually do the conquistadors a disservice by supposing their technology is the primary cause for the breathtakingly audacious things they pulled off.

Tell you what...I'll put on a suit of plate armour, and you bash my leg with a club. We'll see what breaks first, your club or your shoulder.

Your leg will. In fact, I'll beat you faster and with a greater possibility of killing you than if you give me a sword. Give me an Aztec macuahuitl and it'll be easier still - they are attested by several contemporaneous accounts to be able to decapitate or eviscerate European warhorses in a single swing. If you don't know that much, consider that perhaps you don't know enough about the subject to be so sure of your conclusion.

 

[Kyoumen]

Why would I confront someone with a plate armour face to face? I'd use different tactics. Think about how fast I would be and how slow you'd be as well. Besides;

Actually, it's only fair to point out plate mail was designed very cleverly and didn't impede people nearly as much as it looks like it should. You can do a cartwheel wearing full plate mail.

However, it is equally absurd to think it makes you as impregnable as a tank. Full plate mail has a fairly mixed record in actual combat and a very short time of historically being important, and while many factors went into that, the fact it was far from impossible to kill someone in it no matter how well-designed it was (and I'm not just talking about crossbows and guns) was definitely one of them.

"By the time the Spaniards arrived in Mesoamerica, I don't think they were wearing a full plate armour. Even if they were wearing, in a battle you don't really need to kill someone, a broken leg can even be enough to get the soldier out of fight."

Also, trying to fight in full plate armour in a mesoamerican jungle would be hilarious. It was bad enough trying to use heavy armour in the Middle East.

 

[Sepulcher]

How can anyone honestly think that Mesoamerica was more advanced than europe and asia?
They were less advanced in general I would say but considering the conditions in mesoamerica they must have all had the genius trait to have gotten as far as they did in the time they had.

 

[unmerged(584823)]

How can anyone honestly think that Mesoamerica was more advanced than europe and asia?
They were less advanced in general I would say but considering the conditions in mesoamerica they must have all had the genius trait to have gotten as far as they did in the time they had.

Technology is not linear, nobody told Mesoamerica was more advanced than Europe and Asia, we just say that thier technology inferiority doesn't make them primitive.
Judging everything from european standards is not that smart, you know

 

[Dafool]

Slings have range issues and also the fact that the stereotypical crusader helmet is built precisely to deflect such blows. Yeah, if you get lucky you will hit the helmet dead on and not waste most of your projectiles force on moving/denting the helmet. However, most of the time, the rocks are not going to hit at all, when they hit they won't hit the head, and when they hit the head they will most likely not have favorable geometry for doing more than denting metal. Even when they get through, you aren't assured a concussion. Now in actual battles they did this a lot ... so with 100:1 manpower advantages you will see lucky shots often enough to win. But no, peltists are not a viable counter to mailed combatants in anything close to even numbers; if they were Rome would have continued its early tradition of using peltists and someone (Franks, Germans, Ottomans, Russians, etc.) would have revived it if it was a viable tactic.

First off, you're making three false assumptions here. One, is that every conquistador was wearing full plate. Reading just about any account of their conquests will show you that this isn't true. The reference to knocking a soldier unconscious with a helm is illustrate the actual damage that a sling could do. Second, you're assuming that these are just masses of common soldiers with slings and rocks and that they occasionally got in a lucky shot. That is incorrect. Aztec slings were well made and they produced projectiles suited to this use. Warriors were often trained to excel with a handful of different weapons. Someone trained to use a sling would have a very good understanding of how to use it effectively. Third, the Aztecs were not facing hundreds of thousands of armored Spaniards. Indeed the Spanish were often a small minority in these battles. It wouldn't have made sense for them to devote their tactics solely to defeating heavily armored Spanish troops, who even then were a minority within the Spanish forces. The 100K Spanish vs 100K Aztecs comparison is fantasy and doesn't tell us anything about these battles.

Against steel armor? I just don't see how the obsidian doesn't shatter against plate unless you gimp the swing. That is a lot of energy to dissipate and the high frequency vibrations from the impact alone should shatter the edge.

Once more, the conquistadors were rarely wearing full plate. Secondly, please reread what Kyoumen and I previously stated. Obsidian may not be as durable and will break, but it's effective ability to deal damage was not greatly hindered by this and the easy replacement of these blades meant that the long term durability of a particular weapon was not of great consequence.

Largely because:
1. These were the dregs of the Spanish forces.
2. Spanish forces were equipped to fight a different threat.
3. There were huge numerical advantages against the Spanish and low odds throws work when you have lots of throws.

1. These were not the "dregs of the Spanish forces". Many of the men who fought in Mexico and Peru were born out of one of the most militaristic societies in Europe. Additionally, some of them had previous experience against the Natives and were amongst the most suited to fight them.
2. As were the Aztecs. How is that an argument?
3. Often the battles were not focused solely on the Spanish. The Aztecs had much larger Native forces to deal with as well. Even then, they did show some degree of effectiveness against the Spanish and the Spanish did often report how lethal some of the Aztec weapons were.

Now I could totally see Cortez failing and the Aztecs giving a much more capable showing. However there was a LOT of gold in Tenochtitlan and I don't see the Spaniards (or any other European) leaving it in peace. Eventually, that much gold is going to draw in better, more numerous Spanish forces and all the peltists in the world are not going to stop a single heavy cavalry charge. Now some problems the Spanish had came from their equipment being optimized against the Islamic threat and not stone age weaponry. Like when Wellington famously wanted just one company of longbows (as they'd rip Napoleonic infantry into pincushions) but the equipment and training was against a more advanced foe, the weapons that beat older stuff fell into disuse. I believe every weapon used in Mesoamerica has an old world analogue and eventually people will remember how to defeat these old threats.

I'm almost certain that the Spanish would have returned. They did this in the Yucatan after being defeated there. The main question is whether they would have found such an opportune time to attack again. Most of the Native states are likely going to be opposed to the Spanish following the previous war, but disease and other social issues are likely to have weakened them as well. It's quite hard to say exactly how that situation would have played out, although it's likely that the Spanish (or maybe someone else) would have won in the long run even if direct conquest wasn't the result.

 

[WeissRaben]

I'm almost certain that the Spanish would have returned. They did this in the Yucatan after being defeated there. The main question is whether they would have found such an opportune time to attack again. Most of the Native states are likely going to be opposed to the Spanish following the previous war, but disease and other social issues are likely to have weakened them as well. It's quite hard to say exactly how that situation would have played out, although it's likely that the Spanish (or maybe someone else) would have won in the long run even if direct conquest wasn't the result.

Can I underline this line, please? The point of the thread is NOT to have the Mesoamericans buffed up in military power (even if other parts of the world would indeed need said buff), but in social and administrative options. The idea that comes from PI representation of the area is UGH UGH ME BEAT YOU WITH STICK, because they can't trade, they can't build, they can scarcely have diplomatic relations. This was NOT the situation, and the almost complete lack of comparison with the European armies doesn't really justify changing complex civilizations, with economies, reforms, high and low points, into a bunch of fur-wearing, chest-beating savages. That's all.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Dafool would you mind explaining how, when the native allies lost a war against the Aztecs shortly before the Spanish arrived, they then managed to not just beat but destroy the Aztecs within two years? When they lost a hundred year war shortly before the Spanish arrived.

And how did they do it in such a small time frame? Clearly far beyond anything that'd been seen in that part of the world.

 

[Kyoumen]

Dafool would you mind explaining how, when the native allies lost a war against the Aztecs shortly before the Spanish arrived, they then managed to not just beat but destroy the Aztecs within two years? When they lost a hundred year war shortly before the Spanish arrived.

Since the Spanish are so invincible, how come the Aztecs killed 70% of their roughly 1000-man force, captured all their artillery that was also supposed to make them invincible, and added a good thrashing to the Spanish native allies in one battle?

Also, destroying the natives of one powerful city-state as a political force in a portracted war when over 50% of the population is dying of disease is hardly some sort of miraculous feat.

And how did they do it in such a small time frame? Clearly far beyond anything that'd been seen in that part of the world.

Yes, clearly no political upheavals ever happened in the Americas in the span of a couple of years lololololol man what.

 

[Jomini]

First off, you're making three false assumptions here. One, is that every conquistador was wearing full plate. Reading just about any account of their conquests will show you that this isn't true. The reference to knocking a soldier unconscious with a helm is illustrate the actual damage that a sling could do. Second, you're assuming that these are just masses of common soldiers with slings and rocks and that they occasionally got in a lucky shot. That is incorrect. Aztec slings were well made and they produced projectiles suited to this use. Warriors were often trained to excel with a handful of different weapons. Someone trained to use a sling would have a very good understanding of how to use it effectively. Third, the Aztecs were not facing hundreds of thousands of armored Spaniards. Indeed the Spanish were often a small minority in these battles. It wouldn't have made sense for them to devote their tactics solely to defeating heavily armored Spanish troops, who even then were a minority within the Spanish forces. The 100K Spanish vs 100K Aztecs comparison is fantasy and doesn't tell us anything about these battles.

1. No I'm assuming that united native polity that takes out Cortez will end up being invaded by a real Spanish army of a few thousand. These will have better armor, artillery, and more horse. I don't know if they'd opt for heavy plate mail (the Aztecs fighting style is really weak against heavy armor lancers), mass artillery, or just a lot of pike & shot, but any of these will defeat mass peltists and limit their utility for concussions.

2. I'm assuming that the peltists will be using natural fibers that will have variable tension loads over time. Also, given the fibers (wool and cotton being the best) they had you are going to have inherent torque in the strings and that puts an upper bound on your accuracy. Trying to hit a moving target with inconsistent tension in the string is a pretty tall order. Remember if they could consistently make head shots then the Aztecs would never have used melee weapons - when your helmets are made from wood (and few troops had them), a concussing hit against even the crappiest Spanish helm is a death blow against the mainline Aztec troops. It is not like the Aztecs got magically more proficient with their weapons when the Spanish arrived.

3. I'm assuming Cortez will still set off a smallpox epidemic and that all the other European diseases will be sufficient to start another epidemic or two when another army comes back. Native armies of 100K aren't going to be possible after the depopulation starts. If a regular army of a few thousand Spaniards shows up, it won't be equal numbers, but it will be close enough that all those wonderful things about armor, artillery, and musket volley fire will easily beat any native force in a traditional fight.

Once more, the conquistadors were rarely wearing full plate. Secondly, please reread what Kyoumen and I previously stated. Obsidian may not be as durable and will break, but it's effective ability to deal damage was not greatly hindered by this and the easy replacement of these blades meant that the long term durability of a particular weapon was not of great consequence.

Once more, I'm assuming that even if the conquistadors get massacred the Spanish will be back for the gold and back with a real army and not just 15 horses. This isn't a question of holding off 500 men once. It is a question of holding off an Empire you cannot directly attack until they deem it to be cost ineffective to take your unbelievably wealthy city.

1. These were not the "dregs of the Spanish forces". Many of the men who fought in Mexico and Peru were born out of one of the most militaristic societies in Europe. Additionally, some of them had previous experience against the Natives and were amongst the most suited to fight them.
2. As were the Aztecs. How is that an argument?
3. Often the battles were not focused solely on the Spanish. The Aztecs had much larger Native forces to deal with as well. Even then, they did show some degree of effectiveness against the Spanish and the Spanish did often report how lethal some of the Aztec weapons were.

1. These were the dregs of the Spanish forces. The equipment they had was old and not of good quality. They were several stops down the supply chain and you had only those willing to gamble on trans-oceanic voyages and likely lose all contact with their families and any holdings in Spain.
2. Every Aztec military technique is one that was faced earlier by the Spanish. The Spanish, for instance were some of the last sling forces in Europe (using a fantastically powerful sling staff with cast lead projectiles), shockingly this means that they know how to deal with sling weapons. In contrast, the natives have never fought mounted troops and they have to learn by experiment how to fight against mounted troops. Likewise, if any Aztec technique was truly superior, the Spaniards had the means to adopt it; the Aztecs cannot adopt most Spanish weapons. In short, no matter how good of a balance the Aztecs can manage at contact, the Spaniards have the advantage of having seen these tactics before (e.g. classical Latin sources have good accounts of how to fight peltist troop) and the ability to duplicate the technology (revive the 14th century sling staffs). Two forces are both optimized to fight dissimilar threats, one has historical knowledge of the other type of threat and the wherewithal to copy and produce any basic weapons used by the other; the other does not - which side would you want to be?
3. As noted, this was a numbers game. We know that the Spaniards inflicted disproportionate losses - as it was their performance in battle that lead to the Tlaxcalan alliance. Likewise, we know that Aztecs had fought the Tlaxcalans to a standstill or worse many times without Spanish aid. Being able to kill people when you outnumber them heavily is not enough, you need to be able to consistently win battles and do so with a population in free fall from disease - that is a very tall order.

I'm almost certain that the Spanish would have returned. They did this in the Yucatan after being defeated there. The main question is whether they would have found such an opportune time to attack again. Most of the Native states are likely going to be opposed to the Spanish following the previous war, but disease and other social issues are likely to have weakened them as well. It's quite hard to say exactly how that situation would have played out, although it's likely that the Spanish (or maybe someone else) would have won in the long run even if direct conquest wasn't the result.

Almost universally in history, corvee systems break down badly in times of epidemic. Because native agriculture was man-hour inefficient (pre-contact it was much more important to maximize land efficiency) this will be really hard on the terraces, chinampa, etc. and you may well see civilization collapse. It is worth noting that Txacala, which was never conquered, was recorded as having a population dip from 300,000 to 700 between Cortes and 1625. Now some of that was due to emigration, and some due to disruption caused by the Mexico City canal, but the bulk of that came from disease. Whoever the Spanish face are going to end up like Peten - who are estimated to have suffered 88% losses to disease, agricultural disruption, and warfare.

The big point is that the most important thing about Native empires is that they fall regularly to European AI. This means that while setting up a bunch of more realistic states might be more accurate and even fun for the player, most games this will just make it worse for the European AIs to take the place and finance havoc in Europe. Once this is assured (e.g. giving European nations a lot of powerful missions directly them to take out the native gold and making them able to easily acquire native allies while still retaining most of the territorial gains), then we can start looking at ways to make the native states more fun. Them holding off the Europeans indefinitely without human intervention is the complete opposite of game balance.

 

[Kyoumen]

1. No I'm assuming that united native polity that takes out Cortez will end up being invaded by a real Spanish army of a few thousand.

Then it's a pity that assumption underlies your entire argument, since that is just about as likely as the Sunset Invasion scenario in CK2.

It's impossible, full-stop. Europe does not have the technology to mount that sort of invasion over the Atlantic at this point in history. They can't transport or supply it, they don't know how to live off the land very well, they rely on native help for everything, they have no way of maintaining equipment or replacing ammunition, and that's only the start of the massive problems with the idea. You might as well argue Spain's going to shoot the Aztecs with their moon laser.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

If Cortes dies unmourned, the Aztec Empire may very well still collapse (I'd put my money on it, though not my life savings), but Spain is not going to be the beneficiary. They may well own the area eventually (I suspect it would be someone else, for several reasons), but it will be long enough (at least several decades, possibly a century or more depending on various factors) that the situation when they do invade will be unrecognisably different.

Edit to add:

The big point is that the most important thing about Native empires is that they fall regularly to European AI.

Only if they're mechanically separated from the native North Americans and subsaharan Africans, who did not do any such thing. It should also not be inescapable for people playing the Mesoamericans, because that's not fun (and to be honest, not historical either given the freakish amounts of audacity and good luck that factored in the Spanish conquests).

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Then it's a pity that assumption underlies your entire argument, since that is just about as likely as the Sunset Invasion scenario in CK2.

It's impossible, full-stop. Europe does not have the technology to mount that sort of invasion over the Atlantic at this point in history. They can't transport or supply it, they don't know how to live off the land very well, they rely on native help for everything, they have no way of maintaining equipment or replacing ammunition, and that's only the start of the massive problems with the idea. You might as well argue Spain's going to shoot the Aztecs with their moon laser.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

If Cortes dies unmourned, the Aztec Empire may very well still collapse (I'd put my money on it, though not my life savings), but Spain is not going to be the beneficiary. They may well own the area eventually (I suspect it would be someone else, for several reasons), but it will be long enough (at least several decades, possibly a century or more depending on various factors) that the situation when they do invade will be unrecognisably different.

Edit to add:



Only if they're mechanically separated from the native North Americans and subsaharan Africans, who did not do any such thing. It should also not be inescapable for people playing the Mesoamericans, because that's not fun (and to be honest, not historical either given the freakish amounts of audacity and good luck that factored in the Spanish conquests).

Logistics isn't everything; wait for a decade or two and the rich land of Mexico falls to a small force easily.

You also use the term "luck" what you should use however is "Cortez" was he lucky that the Aztecs sacrificed by the tens of thousands making any other overlord and any other deal attractive to those not in the triple alliance? Was it luck that Germs helped even in the short term?

As for Aztec technology there really is no question it was incredibly inferior.

Try these rules if you don't follow them you are deceased.

1. You can only hit arms, parts of the face (very hard) arms and legs (again difficult), he could hit your entire body
2. You can not block his sword because your sword falls to pieces if you do; however he could block your sword and effectively destroy it in the process
3. Break the rules you die; plain and simple

As you could see a very inferior setup for combat.

The Spanish needed their local allies and the aztecs handed Cortez those allies on a silver platter.

Here is the tech they could reasonably change while awaiting Cortez Jomini by the way; I however agree realistically I don't think Aztecs could have in an alternate situation be prepared for Cortez if they do human sacrifice the way they did.

That said they should be able to escape their fate; vassal offers, releasing the Tlaxcalla and ceding land while offering that etc; there should be some variety in how they are conquered besides straight annexation to make playing them possible.

 

[Heatth]

Logistics isn't everything; wait for a decade or two and the rich land of Mexico falls to a small force easily.

Jomini argument was that Spain would come back with a huge army latter and Kyoumen countered this was just not possible due to logistics. Yes, you can say Spain could just send an small force latter and that this small force would succed. In this case, logistics is not quite important. However, it was not about that Kyoumen was talking about.

LYou also use the term "luck" what you should use however is "Cortez" was he lucky that the Aztecs sacrificed by the tens of thousands making any other overlord and any other deal attractive to those not in the triple alliance? Was it luck that Germs helped even in the short term?

...Yes? Both were events that Cortez had no control over. Thus, it was his luck that these events happened. Granted, the first even was something that Aztecs could "control" so, in this case, Cotez "luck" was that the Aztecs were incompetent in that regard, not just random happenstance. But the thing about the Germs was pure and simple chance. I can't see how you could possible claim otherwise.

 

[Jomini]

Then it's a pity that assumption underlies your entire argument, since that is just about as likely as the Sunset Invasion scenario in CK2.

It's impossible, full-stop. Europe does not have the technology to mount that sort of invasion over the Atlantic at this point in history. They can't transport or supply it, they don't know how to live off the land very well, they rely on native help for everything, they have no way of maintaining equipment or replacing ammunition, and that's only the start of the massive problems with the idea. You might as well argue Spain's going to shoot the Aztecs with their moon laser.

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

:huh:

What are you talking about? Portugal sent a couple of thousand men to Malacca prior to this period and fielded them quite well. The Spaniards have more than enough hulls to ship an army from Spain to Mexico. The tonnage making the Hispanola - Seville run every year is multiplicatively more than needed for an army by 1550.

As far as not knowing how to live off the land ... are you serious? That is all Spanish armies ever did. No period Spanish army ever supported more than 10% of logistical burden from the logistics train. They had well established methods for procuring food and, of course, they can just go sack towns on their way into and out of Tenochtitlan. Enough grain to feed a village for the winter is normally more than sufficient for an army for a few days.

Maintaining armor and blades is pretty easy, we know that Spanish armies had mobile armorers & farriers who traveled with the baggage train. As long as there is a steady supply of something to burn, you can keep up lances, armor, and swords for about the weight burden of 5 horses per 5K men. Shot is reusable and in the worst case scenario period cannons can fire stone; of course mesoamericans made heavy use of galena (Lead sulphide) which could produce lead in crucible self-reduction. I mean seriously, have you read any period accounts of campaigns at all?

The biggee that Spanish cannot supply in the field is gunpowder. Of course powder mills can be found in Cuba and Hispianola and it frankly doesn't take an insurmountable amount of logistical burden to supply enough for a sustained campaign. This isn't WWI, of course armies can live off the land - they are well experienced at pillaging as they go.

If Cortes dies unmourned, the Aztec Empire may very well still collapse (I'd put my money on it, though not my life savings), but Spain is not going to be the beneficiary. They may well own the area eventually (I suspect it would be someone else, for several reasons), but it will be long enough (at least several decades, possibly a century or more depending on various factors) that the situation when they do invade will be unrecognisably different.

Perhaps it might not be Spain, but the epidemics are going to doom the Corvee labor system for a good century or more. Given the amount of gold that was flowing down to the coast, Spain is going to come back for it. Remember people are fighting for the right to launch wildly crazy conquests even before the Aztecs are known.

Only if they're mechanically separated from the native North Americans and subsaharan Africans, who did not do any such thing. It should also not be inescapable for people playing the Mesoamericans, because that's not fun (and to be honest, not historical either given the freakish amounts of audacity and good luck that factored in the Spanish conquests).

Nope, Africa had things like malaria that stopped horses and large army movement inland. Also, given the trade routes down through Morocco and the Swahili areas Africa isn't hitting all the disease at once for the first time. The disease imbalance, if anything, was flipped on its head from Mesoamerica - European armies melt away to disease, not the natives. Of course Africa had things like iron working and draft animals that Mesoamerica lacked. Africa was a lot more advanced than America in a lot of key technologies. While isolated (particularly places like Mutapa and Kongo) in some respects, they were at least marginally connected to the Eurasian trade bloc and had many advantages compared to the Americas due to that.

North America doesn't have a huge pile of gold that the Europeans covet. The cost/benefit of overrunning the Iroquois (completely doable by the English or French if they want to pay for it) is pretty low. Give them more gold than the English crown has seen in the last 100 years, and they wouldn't last either. Of course, North American tribes weren't defending stone cities and easily conquerable population centers (which you kinda need if you are going to do heavy mining) so taking a town was much less useful.

Look, this isn't that hard. European weapons followed a long evolution that started out like those of the Aztecs, Huron, etc. those in turn were replaced by better weapons (as happened for the Aztec and Huron). But the European lineage went through a lot more iterations. Iron really does make better weapons than stone, wood, bone, or bronze. Guns really were superior to all but the best bows. Horses are fantastically better than manpower for a lot of tasks and terrifyingly good on the battlefield. It isn't that American civilizations were more stupid or less clever (though some of their cultural aspects were problematic for technological progress), but that they lacked animals that they could domesticate. They might have developed iron working given time, but it takes a long time to go from bronze to iron (the Egyptians had limited iron working for centuries before iron was used as the main cutting edge). Every weapon used by the natives has at least an analog in antiquity - weapons are defined by the mechanics of the human body. Eurasia had several thousand more years and multiplicatively more people to try every battle technology and tactic ever tried in the Americas. If a technique wasn't being used, it was almost universally because something more effective had been found.

Historically the Aztecs are pretty much doomed. Peten and Txacala show pretty well what the best the Aztecs or anyone else could hope for - civilization collapse through plague and attrition. You need better weapons to stop a proper army (like the one the Portuguese fielded in Malacca). You need a completely different agriculture setup to maintain civilization post epidemics. You need to (somehow) unify all the potential native turncoats ... but do so without sapping your manpower, economy, or provoking internal revolts by abandoning time honored practices (like mass sacrifice and enslavement of the neighbors). Maybe, you might get a century more out of a highly competent united polity ... but even that is doubtful with a certainty that someone will come for the gold and silver eventually.

What is pretty much the only hope for the mesoamericans is what kept the North Americans in the game for a long time - making nice with the Europeans and westernizing to some degree. Sending gold to Spain at some horrible exchange rate while purchasing horses, guns, and iron might let you get to a point where your troops can withstand some other European assault. Likewise, having a symbiotic relationship with Spain means that Spain will not be keen on just letting the English (or whoever) waltz in and take the gold. This will mean abandoning a lot Aztec/Incan/etc. culture, likely a lot of religious conversion, and at the very least adopting huge amounts of European military technology. I don't get why people knock this - the natives sure thought this was their best option and the ones that took it actually held out the longest.