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

[unmerged(612669)]

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.



...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.

1. I reread it and you are right; although the superhuman near impossible odds Cortez overcame would not have been encountered by a second force once germs devastated the Aztecs in a hypothetical Cortez death.

2. Well on germs every European would have brought them, and about the allies the Aztecs could have avoided that brutality. They made themselves so hated that Cortez overthrew them with a force 99% native. You could call it luck but it wasn't a volcanic explosion or a storm sinking an enemy fleet or a crop failure; it was luck in terms of who his opponent was. Of course for the Cortez expedition itself a lesser man might still have failed, as in failed to capitalize on Aztec brutality for native alliances, failed to inspire the army he was leading in the siege, failed to escape the night of sadness etc.

 

[Evie HJ]

Jomini - from my reading, the Portuguese operation against Malacca didn't feature a significantly larger Portuguese ground force than what Cortez had (900-1300 to Cortez, 1200 for the Portuguese at Malacca), though (and this is huge) at Malacca the Portuguese had naval support from their ships.

A determined, multi-thousand effort from Spain seems to me like it would require a lot more effort. Spain would have had the ships, but supplying the men for the crossing (hard to live off the land on a trans-atlantic crossing, and that's several weeks of supplies) and then for long enough for the fleet to regroup in the New World (to avoid piecemeal atttacks) would be a challenge.

However, I tend to think you're right on the principal: Spain was in a position to take Mesoamerica sooner or later - largely because of Havana. It was still too much in its infancy in the early 1500s to make a good staging ground for a large-scale operation, but the more time pass, and the more the town grows, the more Havana becomes a dagger held at Tenochtitlan's throat.

 

[Dafool]

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.

Ok, I think this is a big enough assumption that I don't need to hit your specific details. Basically, what you're suggesting here is the absolute best case scenario that could realistically happen for the Spanish. First, the epidemics did cause massive depopulation, but this came in waves. We're not necessarily looking at 90% of the population disappearing in a decade. Second, the size of the forces that the Spanish would face is highly dependent on the political consequences of Cortes's failure. The Triple Alliance regularly fielded anywhere between 100K and 300K men and even more porters during their wars. If a web of Native alliances were opposed to the Spanish, then an army of 100K or more is indeed quite possible. Note that such a result actually happened in the Andes. Third, a "regular army of a few thousand Spaniards" would require near miraculous logistics. A few hundred colonial soldiers was difficult enough to manage from their colonies. Thousands of well armed men are going to be drastically harder to organize, especially given that it's an even larger force with no major source of logistic support. Fourth, you're assuming that the Spaniards even know what happened. If Cortes disappears in Mexico, it's going to take some time for anyone outside of Mexico to guess his fate. While the lure of gold might bring more adventurers in, it would take years for this information to get to Spain and for any official response to be formulated. A royally commissioned army isn't going to be in Mexico for quite a while.

Basically, your assumption is that the Spanish will respond to that defeat with the utmost resolve and the Natives would simply wither and fall. Given that neither of those has any historical precedent (The Spanish often hesitated after their defeats in the New World and many Natives put up fierce resistance despite all their disadvantages), I can't genuinely see that as the likely outcome. In my mind, if Cortes fails, the Spanish continue their colonization efforts and conquistadors stay out of Mexico for a few years until his fate becomes more clear. Colonies on the fringes of Mesoamerica grow and the Spanish colonists become more aware of the situation in Mexico. Demographic and political pressure will probably allow the Spanish to force some Mesoamerican cities and states into subjugation, while others put up continual resistance. Gold and other valuables are probably extorted out of the Native states. The remnants of the Triple Alliance, if it held together, might still occasionally harass and besiege the Spanish, but lack the power to fully oust them from the mainland. Eventually, probably by the 17th century, the Native polities are so fragmented and depopulated that the Spanish control most of Mexico without needing to conquer or barter for it. My reasoning for such scenario is primarily based around the outcome of their early campaigns in the Yucatan and some of the events that happened in the Andes and North America.

2. Well on germs every European would have brought them, and about the allies the Aztecs could have avoided that brutality. They made themselves so hated that Cortez overthrew them with a force 99% native. You could call it luck but it wasn't a volcanic explosion or a storm sinking an enemy fleet or a crop failure; it was luck in terms of who his opponent was. Of course for the Cortez expedition itself a lesser man might still have failed, as in failed to capitalize on Aztec brutality for native alliances, failed to inspire the army he was leading in the siege, failed to escape the night of sadness etc.

This is a myth that I wholly detest. The Aztecs were not viewed as "brutal overlords", sacrificing countless men to the gods. First, the Aztecs were a successful but entirely normal empire in Mesoamerica. Mesoamerican politics followed a pretty basic pattern that both the Natives and the Spanish were aware of. A group of city-states would form an alliance. They would use this alliance to overthrow their more powerful rivals. After crushing their rivals, they would begin subjugating neighboring city-states. Eventually another alliance would be formed and the cycle repeats. The resentment of Aztec authority was wholly normal for Mesoamerican politics and the Aztecs were not exceptional in that case. Second, the human sacrifices instigated by the Aztecs was also relatively normal. Mesoamerican warfare was not one of pure conquest. Often it was a matter of bleeding your enemies dry to keep them in submission. This was done through two ways: One way was demanding tribute, usually in the form of luxury goods. This allowed the overlord to prosper while the tributary would have its economic strength siphoned off. The other way was Flower(y) Wars, where two states would engage in battle and capture slaves and sacrifices from each other. This kept the tributary states at each other's throat while simultaneous blunting their military and demographic power. The overlord in turn could use the sacrifices to fuel an image of a powerful and divine state. Basically, the Aztecs were engaging in a long tradition of violent politics.

 

[exenter]

I checked how it is to play the Aztecs in EU3. To advance to tech level 1 takes 400-2000 years (depending on your ruler stats, advisors and minting level) while in EU4 it takes less than 100 years. In EU3 you have no forts. In EU4 all your provinces have at least a level 1 fort. You can also core all your provinces much faster in EU4. Not only that, you can change the culture of the provinces by spending diplomatic (or was it adminstrative?) power. It looks like playing as the Aztecs will be much easier in EU4.

 

[Kyoumen]

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?

He was freakishly lucky that he was invited to personally see Moctezuma (and also lucky Moctezuma actually thought the Spaniards were interesting and cooperated fairly amiably even when they made him a prisoner), he was lucky that he caught the news that Spain was planning to have him dragged back in chains for exceeding authority, he was lucky his gambit of burning all the ships they came to Mexico with paid off and didn't get him killed, and he was statistically lucky to not be among the 70% of his troops that died trying to flee Tenochtitlan.

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

I laugh every time somebody thinks they know what they're talking about while confidently stating about how the Aztecs used obsidian swords.

As you could see a very inferior setup for combat.

Yes, the imaginary fantasy Aztecs that used highly impractical weaponry surely did. But since you don't know anything about what the real Aztecs used, why are you acting like you do?

 

[Dr_Doom00]

I laugh every time somebody thinks they know what they're talking about while confidently stating about how the Aztecs used obsidian swords.

Yes, the imaginary fantasy Aztecs that used highly impractical weaponry surely did. But since you don't know anything about what the real Aztecs used, why are you acting like you do?

Obviously none of us mere mortals even come close to approaching the mental capacity required to have an even rudimentary understanding of Mesoamerican weapons at the time the Europeans arrived, so please, englighten us. What did the Aztecs really use?

 

[Kyoumen]

Obviously none of us mere mortals even come close to approaching the mental capacity required to have an even rudimentary understanding of Mesoamerican weapons at the time the Europeans arrived, so please, englighten us. What did the Aztecs really use?

Many things, like every other militarised culture in the history of the world. You could try googling it, if you don't want to read up on the subject, but to tell you on this particular point - the closest thing to "obsidian swords" is the fact that some knives with obsidian blades were used by priests in their messy religious rituals. Probably nobody in the history of the world has ever used "obsidian swords", because they would not only be impractical against steel armour and weaponry, but impractical against any sort of armour or weaponry.

And once more, if someone knows so incredibly little about how the Aztecs actually fought that they think they used obsidian swords, where on earth does the confidence that they totally know how how effective European 16th century armour and weaponry is against Aztec weaponry and armour come from? You (colloquially, not you specifically, Dr) don't even know the most basic facts about the subject but you're acting like you're an expert.

 

[Xeorm]

Many things, like every other militarised culture in the history of the world. You could try googling it, if you don't want to read up on the subject, but to tell you on this particular point - the closest thing to "obsidian swords" is the fact that some knives with obsidian blades were used by priests in their messy religious rituals. Probably nobody in the history of the world has ever used "obsidian swords", because they would not only be impractical against steel armour and weaponry, but impractical against any sort of armour or weaponry.

And once more, if someone knows so incredibly little about how the Aztecs actually fought that they think they used obsidian swords, where on earth does the confidence that they totally know how how effective European 16th century armour and weaponry is against Aztec weaponry and armour come from? You (colloquially, not you specifically, Dr) don't even know the most basic facts about the subject but you're acting like you're an expert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl I'm pretty sure when people say "Obsidian sword" This is what they mean. Because it's roughly a sword where obsidian is the main schtick of it.

Or, are you saying that this is some sort of popular myth that they used such a weapon? In which case your derogatory talk is, well, annoying.

 

[Heatth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl I'm pretty sure when people say "Obsidian sword" This is what they mean. Because it's roughly a sword where obsidian is the main schtick of it.

Or, are you saying that this is some sort of popular myth that they used such a weapon? In which case your derogatory talk is, well, annoying.

This seems to be quite different from an 'obsidian sword', though. Particularly because its "blade" is not made of only "obsidian". If I understood right, a blade of obsidian is quite brittle, right? But in a macuahuitl, the blade is attached into a wooden support, which, I guess, absorbs the impact and make them more resistant to shatter. Note the article never claims to be a sword. In fact, it calls the macuahuitl "a baton with a cutting edge".

 

[Kyoumen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl I'm pretty sure when people say "Obsidian sword" This is what they mean. Because it's roughly a sword where obsidian is the main schtick of it.

Or, are you saying that this is some sort of popular myth that they used such a weapon? In which case your derogatory talk is, well, annoying.

A macuahitl is a large wooden club (some larger than others, as it came in one and two handed varieties) which through an unknown mechanism had numerous sharp bits of obsidian attached to it (Spanish who handled one couldn't figure out how they were so tightly slotted in, or how they were replaced, and none survive today). That isn't a sword, and more importantly, it would not and did not "shatter" when swung against a European sword or armour. Which is something that has been claimed by more than one person in this thread. The macuahitl, while far from the only weapon the Aztecs used, is the most famous and iconic weapon they used. If you don't actually know what their most famous and iconic weapon actually is, then you clearly know so little about the subject that it is absurd to make confident statements as to how battles would go between Aztec and Spanish combatants. Someone else said artillery was an instant war-winner, and that was wrong too. Other people have talked about guns being some sort of be all and end all, and that's also completely divorced from reality because guns in 1520 are a completely different beast from guns in 1820.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing anything about a subject. There's not even anything wrong with making a mistake, that happens even when you do know about the subject. Talking about how Aztec obsidian swords will shatter when parried by European ones makes you about as absurd as someone who talks confidently about how the Crusades went but thinks they happened in India.

 

[Dafool]

I laugh every time somebody thinks they know what they're talking about while confidently stating about how the Aztecs used obsidian swords.

Many things, like every other militarised culture in the history of the world. You could try googling it, if you don't want to read up on the subject, but to tell you on this particular point - the closest thing to "obsidian swords" is the fact that some knives with obsidian blades were used by priests in their messy religious rituals. Probably nobody in the history of the world has ever used "obsidian swords", because they would not only be impractical against steel armour and weaponry, but impractical against any sort of armour or weaponry.

You're actually somewhat wrong. "Obsidian sword" is a common description given for the macuahuitl. Many mistake the them for a club, but that's not a particularly accurate description. Macuahuitli, as designed and produced by the Aztecs, were primarily slashing weapons designed to inflict terrible wounds against lightly armored foes. They were about as long the swords the Spanish were using and a bit broader. The edge was usually covered in finely crafted obsidian blades. These blades were usually arranged in a flat, serrated pattern, although they might also be arranged into spikes or scales. Contrary to obsidian's reputation, those blades were arranged and secured in a way that prevented them from shattering during combat. Because of their relatively close resemblence to a sword in both function and appearance, many have labeled it as such since it was first observed by Europeans.

 

[Kyoumen]

You're actually somewhat wrong. "Obsidian sword" is a common description given for the macuahuitl. Many mistake the them for a club, but that's not a particularly accurate description. Macuahuitli, as designed and produced by the Aztecs, were primarily slashing weapons designed to inflict terrible wounds against lightly armored foes. They were about as long the swords the Spanish were using and a bit broader. The edge was usually covered in finely crafted obsidian blades. These blades were usually arranged in a flat, serrated pattern, although they might also be arranged into spikes or scales. Contrary to obsidian's reputation, those blades were arranged and secured in a way that prevented them from shattering during combat. Because of their relatively close resemblence to a sword in both function and appearance, many have labeled it as such since it was first observed by Europeans.

Sure, that's true as far as it goes (though there are still differences in form and function to a sword - after all, "primarily a slashing weapon designed to inflict terrible wounds against lightly armoured foes" is also an accurate description of most war axes, and it isn't a description of many types of swords). But, here's the important thing - if you know what they are, you know they do not "shatter", and you wouldn't refer to them as "obsidian blades", because they don't and they aren't. Moreover, it is a historical fact they were very, very dangerous to the Spanish, who had a much healthier respect for them than several posters here.

 

[murlocmancer]

This debate is completly ridiculous. In very few strands if any from the starting point of the game would the Native americans/mesoamericans throw out a europeon invasion. It was an inevitable fate that first disease would come then the superior weaponry of Europe. They had their own feats but I think some people are trying to say that their weaponry, cultur, and everything else about them is superior or equal for the sake of not being offensive. It is true that culture is a hard thing to depict if one is better then another (although i personally find human sacrifice as a step down on the culture level just as i found witch hunts a step down aswell) but you can not deny that Europeon weaponry was superior. And so much was on the europeon side that it is unreasonable to allow the aztecs or whatever mesoamerican culture to survive. Although i would like to see native american groups more vital in war politics like the French used (although that didnt turn out so well) and I agree their part in Europeon politics in the colonial era were not well shown. But to have them completly wipe the floor with the Europeons is something that just wouldnt happen.

 

[Jomini]

GHJ: Ehh, my standard estimate for logistics (cribbed from van Creveld) is about 2 lbs per soldier per day. Thus a galleon carrying 400 tons of provisions could supply around around 800,000 man-days of food (this is on the upper half for a merchant galleon, but on the low side for some of the military monsters). Columbus departed on 03 AUG and made landfall on Cuba at 28 OCT. This gives us a 50 day baseline, yeah galleons might be a bit slower, but they can take the most direct route and not stop for exploration. This means a single galleon making the voyage can carry sufficient food for 16,00 men with a single ship dedicated to food. In reality you'd parcel the food & men out to each ship, but feeding the men en route is simply a question of cost.

Unlike against the English, you won't need escort ships so you can get some very nice hull efficiency going. Resupply in Havana or Hispaniola makes this a relative cakewalk for period logistics.

Dafool:
1. No it didn't just happen in waves. One of the problems I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring is that epidemics lead to big holes in a manpower economy. Losing, say the head drainage engineer and his apprentice to an epidemic will lead to the failure of the drainage system. Having 4/5ths of the workforce sick (not dead, just not fit for heavy labor) during the wet season means that you lose a lot of the highly fertile ground. Once these things break down more people - who survived the sickness die. Places like Peten saw huge losses from the knock-on effects and only managed to eke along as shadows of the former selves because other cities were outright abandoned. Likewise, you will disproportionately lose women of child bearing age, this leads to a demographic bulge that depletes military manpower half a generation before it shows up the death rate.

Remember smallpox has 30-35% mortality rate in populations with hereditary immunity. It leaves 5% of the survivors blind, osteomyelitic, or otherwise unfit for labor or battle. Even the most simplistic model leaves you down 40% of the manpower in one go. Also recall that the Inca were hit with 4 separate waves in 1529-1534. In some particularly virulent epidemics it is estimated that 80%+ of the population died in a single year.

2. You can't just mass all the surviving native military manpower for one grand battle against a full Spanish army. You have no draft animals so you can't use wagons and you will eat the heavily depleted area bare in a brief period of time. Remember the chinampa are going to be mostly gone at this point - the corvee system will be faltering if not dead, and unlike the Spaniards if you eat the seed crops, you end up dead next year. The Spaniards can chose many routes inland so you pretty much would have to surrender all the other cities if you mean to pull all the surviving warriors together after. Lest we forget, massing that many soldiers in the field even for a day or two means that you will spark a fresh epidemic - if anyone is sick on either side, all 100,000 will become great spread vectors. Sanitation just doesn't hold up in large formations, particularly given that the diseases are new and the folk habits to prevent their spread are completely unknown.

Massing a huge army after the epidemics is suicide. It is just about the easiest way for the Spanish to win.

3. No it wouldn't. A galleon can carry enough food for transit from to Seville to Cuba for 16,000 men. It can restock in Cuba or you just send a "second ship". Once you land, a village of 500 needs to store enough food for say 100 days. That means sacking a single village will feed 5,000 soldiers for 10 days. Now maybe the Aztecs go scorched earth, but with the epidemics, that just kills the Aztecs as well - you need those places to try to feed places as the corvee system dies and high man-hour agriculture implodes.

4. Are you serious? The Aztecs are going to celebrate his defeat and pass word all the way to the coast. In any event, when conquistadors were lost (e.g. when de Niza had complete failure but made up vague stories about huge wealth, the Spaniards immediately set out another expedition.

Basically, your assumption is that the Spanish will respond to that defeat with the utmost resolve and the Natives would simply wither and fall. Given that neither of those has any historical precedent (The Spanish often hesitated after their defeats in the New World and many Natives put up fierce resistance despite all their disadvantages), I can't genuinely see that as the likely outcome. In my mind, if Cortes fails, the Spanish continue their colonization efforts and conquistadors stay out of Mexico for a few years until his fate becomes more clear. Colonies on the fringes of Mesoamerica grow and the Spanish colonists become more aware of the situation in Mexico. Demographic and political pressure will probably allow the Spanish to force some Mesoamerican cities and states into subjugation, while others put up continual resistance. Gold and other valuables are probably extorted out of the Native states. The remnants of the Triple Alliance, if it held together, might still occasionally harass and besiege the Spanish, but lack the power to fully oust them from the mainland. Eventually, probably by the 17th century, the Native polities are so fragmented and depopulated that the Spanish control most of Mexico without needing to conquer or barter for it. My reasoning for such scenario is primarily based around the outcome of their early campaigns in the Yucatan and some of the events that happened in the Andes and North America.

What part of this is based in reality? Smallpox, just prior to eradication when everyone had hereditary immunity, had 30-35% mortality rates with another 5% severly crippled. That isn't knock-on effects (which would be huge), that isn't multiple waves (as happened to the Inca), this isn't simultaneous pandemics (as happened in North America), and this isn't even trying to fight a war while sick. 30% of the population - gone - if you are lucky and somehow manage to have mortality rates like populations with centuries of exposure.

You will lose significant people (like say rulers, all of one type of skilled craftsman, or all of the middle managers in a region) - it is a statistical certainty. Once you include the knock-on effects as several months of disrepair and neglect disrupt public works, miss corn plantings, and lead to people abandoning the cities ... well you are just utterly screwed. Every time you go into battle, you risk yet another epidemic. I'll repeat this for you again: in 100 years Txacala suffered a recorded depopulation of 99.77%. As this is, at best, a logarithmic function that means the population declined by half every 11.43 years. In reality, it was much more front loaded. And this was for the winners who got to seize new territory, take advantage of Spanish draft animals, and get a bunch of slave labor.

You are completely correct that Mesoamerica had brutal and bloody politics and the Aztecs were not qualitatively different. However, I have seen some scholarship that says they were more bloody than other polities and quantitatively harsher in terms of tribute and sacrifice.

Kyoumen:

I laugh every time somebody thinks they know what they're talking about while confidently stating about how the Aztecs used obsidian swords.

Really, because my books, like Mexico and the Spanish Conquest, describe Aztec battles as, "When the barrage began, soldiers advanced carrying stone-bladed wooden broadswords (macuahuitl) and thrusting spears (tepoztopilli)." I eagerly await your sources as to why several noted Colonial Spanish scholars are risible for talking about the Aztecs using macuahuitl with obsidian blades.

 

[Heatth]

Really, because my books, like Mexico and the Spanish Conquest, describe Aztec battles as, "When the barrage began, soldiers advanced carrying stone-bladed wooden broadswords (macuahuitl) and thrusting spears (tepoztopilli)." I eagerly await your sources as to why several noted Colonial Spanish scholars are risible for talking about the Aztecs using macuahuitl with obsidian blades.

Did you even looked at the discussion just above?

 

[Dafool]

Dafool:
1. No it didn't just happen in waves. One of the problems I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring is that epidemics lead to big holes in a manpower economy. Losing, say the head drainage engineer and his apprentice to an epidemic will lead to the failure of the drainage system. Having 4/5ths of the workforce sick (not dead, just not fit for heavy labor) during the wet season means that you lose a lot of the highly fertile ground. Once these things break down more people - who survived the sickness die. Places like Peten saw huge losses from the knock-on effects and only managed to eke along as shadows of the former selves because other cities were outright abandoned. Likewise, you will disproportionately lose women of child bearing age, this leads to a demographic bulge that depletes military manpower half a generation before it shows up the death rate.

Remember smallpox has 30-35% mortality rate in populations with hereditary immunity. It leaves 5% of the survivors blind, osteomyelitic, or otherwise unfit for labor or battle. Even the most simplistic model leaves you down 40% of the manpower in one go. Also recall that the Inca were hit with 4 separate waves in 1529-1534. In some particularly virulent epidemics it is estimated that 80%+ of the population died in a single year.

How can you seriously argue that these diseases didn't hit in waves? Mesoamerica, for the sake of explanation, lost about 50% of its population in the first epidemic that hit in 1520. That outbreak lasted about 3 months. While it did cause a lot of damage, the Aztecs were still able to maintain an admirable defense less than a years later. Even the peripheral damage of this first outbreak left many states and cities intact. Another outbreak hit in 1531 causing similar damage. In 1545 and 1576, typhus (IIRC) swept through Mexico again. At the end of the century, only about 10% of Mexico's population remained. Your picture of the complete collapse of Mesoamerica happening in a couple of years is just plain wrong. You can talk about "manpower" and so on, but we know the effect of these diseases and what followed in their wake. Most states didn't just fold and many put up fierce resistance for decades. The Inca who faced slightly less deadly epidemics overall, still maintained an organized state and a standing army. Their resistance against the Spanish lasted several decades.

2. You can't just mass all the surviving native military manpower for one grand battle against a full Spanish army. You have no draft animals so you can't use wagons and you will eat the heavily depleted area bare in a brief period of time. Remember the chinampa are going to be mostly gone at this point - the corvee system will be faltering if not dead, and unlike the Spaniards if you eat the seed crops, you end up dead next year. The Spaniards can chose many routes inland so you pretty much would have to surrender all the other cities if you mean to pull all the surviving warriors together after. Lest we forget, massing that many soldiers in the field even for a day or two means that you will spark a fresh epidemic - if anyone is sick on either side, all 100,000 will become great spread vectors. Sanitation just doesn't hold up in large formations, particularly given that the diseases are new and the folk habits to prevent their spread are completely unknown.

Massing a huge army after the epidemics is suicide. It is just about the easiest way for the Spanish to win.

And this is based on what facts? The Aztecs mobilized most of their male population for the Siege of Tenochtitlan and maintained that for several months. Cortes was able to keep hundreds of thousands of Natives allies on the field at that same time. This is immediately following a large outbreak. With several years to recover, which is about the minimum amount of time it would take for the Spanish to formulate another expedition, political alliances, manpower, and supply networks are likely to have stabilized a great deal. Even if it was a desperate move, strategies for mass mobilization were employed in Mesoamerica when needed and they would sometimes push up to 90% of their male population into the armies during a crisis.

3. No it wouldn't. A galleon can carry enough food for transit from to Seville to Cuba for 16,000 men. It can restock in Cuba or you just send a "second ship". Once you land, a village of 500 needs to store enough food for say 100 days. That means sacking a single village will feed 5,000 soldiers for 10 days. Now maybe the Aztecs go scorched earth, but with the epidemics, that just kills the Aztecs as well - you need those places to try to feed places as the corvee system dies and high man-hour agriculture implodes.

Now you're just drifting in fantasy. "Woulds" and "coulds" are nice and all, but that doesn't say much about reality. Much of the Spanish exploration was done on a shoestring budget. The Spanish monarchs were usually reluctant to fund exploration. And this doesn't even mention that Cortes was a wanted man for his actions. With the Italian Wars and the first stages of the Reformation kicking up, I highly doubt the King of Spain is going to be sending high quality ships and troops into the New World. Their traditional manner of handling affairs in the New World was to allow colonial governors to take charge, at least until the late 17th when the began to incorporate these territories more directly into the crown. Your scenario in which 5K Spanish soldiers march into Mexico might as well be 100K Redcoats, because neither is going to happen in the 1520's.

4. Are you serious? The Aztecs are going to celebrate his defeat and pass word all the way to the coast. In any event, when conquistadors were lost (e.g. when de Niza had complete failure but made up vague stories about huge wealth, the Spaniards immediately set out another expedition.

You have no idea how Mesoamerica information networks work, do you? Following his defeat the Aztecs would install spies and merchants in the lands of most of Cortes's former allies to keep tabs on things and ensure that Spaniards are not contacted. This would likely be unnecessary though, because in Mesoamerican culture the loser generally accepts responsibility for the war, pays for their offenses, and in return does not face harsh treatment under their overlord. They would be in no position to contact the Spanish, and likely wouldn't try following the previous defeat. The most likely result is that Cortes's fate is assumed but unknown amongst the Spanish for a few years, until a some someone, probably a small Spanish party, tries to venture back into Mexico.

What part of this is based in reality? Smallpox, just prior to eradication when everyone had hereditary immunity, had 30-35% mortality rates with another 5% severly crippled. That isn't knock-on effects (which would be huge), that isn't multiple waves (as happened to the Inca), this isn't simultaneous pandemics (as happened in North America), and this isn't even trying to fight a war while sick. 30% of the population - gone - if you are lucky and somehow manage to have mortality rates like populations with centuries of exposure.

You will lose significant people (like say rulers, all of one type of skilled craftsman, or all of the middle managers in a region) - it is a statistical certainty. Once you include the knock-on effects as several months of disrepair and neglect disrupt public works, miss corn plantings, and lead to people abandoning the cities ... well you are just utterly screwed. Every time you go into battle, you risk yet another epidemic. I'll repeat this for you again: in 100 years Txacala suffered a recorded depopulation of 99.77%. As this is, at best, a logarithmic function that means the population declined by half every 11.43 years. In reality, it was much more front loaded. And this was for the winners who got to seize new territory, take advantage of Spanish draft animals, and get a bunch of slave labor.

As I've stated, you're relying heavily theoretical social and economic consequences, but are ignoring some of the historical results that actually happened. We know how the Inca and Aztecs held up in the wake of these epidemics. We also know how less organized tribes held up. While it was certain the start of a long decline, it simply wasn't the immediate collapse you're trying to describe. The idea that these civilization would close up shop in a matter of a few years is about as fictional as your 5K Spanish soldiers marching on Tenochtitlan in the 1520's.

You are completely correct that Mesoamerica had brutal and bloody politics and the Aztecs were not qualitatively different. However, I have seen some scholarship that says they were more bloody than other polities and quantitatively harsher in terms of tribute and sacrifice.

The Aztec rule was mostly exceptional in its scope. No state had had such an expansive rule in Mexico in a few hundred years. Because controlling such a wide array of cities and other polities required extensive administrative and military resources, the Aztecs often allowed a degree of sovereignty, but adopted a very harsh facade to prevent a cascade of rebellion like that which was instigated by the Spanish. The exact relative harshness of their rule will likely never be known, but modern scholarship doesn't tend to characterize the Aztecs as peculiar in that regard.

 

[Jomini]

Did you even looked at the discussion just above?

Nope, I neglected to refresh my browser before posting as my habit is to work on a post while doing other things, Kyoumen's most recent response was not seen before I posted.

In any event, this is still silly pedantic drivel. Professionals in professional publications refer to them as "swords" and "blades". With a fast enough strike against a hard enough target, obsidian edges will experience catastrophic brittle failure due to high frequency energy dissipation which is a specific technical type of "shattering". Now obsidian is forgiving that after you shatter the edge you still have sharp bits wedged in the sword and it can still do damage, but you can only experience so many catastrophic brittle failures and lose so much edge before you do end up with a club. Regardless, wooden hafts with that much weight on them will give out if they are struck hard enough against unforgiving armor.

Unlike probably most everyone one this board, I've actually swung a replica. Assuming it was accurate (and I am agnostic on that), it definitely was closer to a sword's balance that an axe, mace or polearm. Using basic longsword technique was fairly straightforward and I'm fairly certain it was an efficient killer against unarmored and and soft armored opponents. Against combatants in iron or steel armor, I'm highly doubtful that I could land a killing strike; it appeared that you had to have fairly precise technique to hit in proper geometry (it should be noted that I just play with swords for fun, I am stronger than just about all period swordmen on either side, and my technique even with my own longswords leaves a lot to be desired). Against plate, I don't see it working at all. As far as what happens in sword to sword contact, well my guess is that it won't hold up to a solid hit (we did not try that for obvious reasons).

My best guess is that your best shot is to go after arms and legs; the cuts I made were deep and narrow so I suspect you can hamstring an opponent pretty easily. Slicing open the arteries would also be pretty lethal. Again these fail against fully armored opponents and also those are really hard strikes to make if the other guy is going to skewer me with a thrusting weapon. Even against other slashing weapons, it just takes a lot more time to hit the extremities than to go for center of mass; particularly if the guy on the other side has a buckler.

In short, I've read military history, a lot of military history. I've handled period weapons, a lot of period weapons. I know logistics, I've likely written grad papers on logistics than most people on the board have read. It is very annoying to have people who disagree with you always come back with "You're ignorant". If you are going to make ignorance accusations then you really need to know your stuff. Maybe I'm wrong about Aztec paper production. Maybe I'm wrong about smallpox death rates. I doubt it because I've got reference books on the desk and direct access to a huge military research library ... but give me something concrete for your counter-claims.

 

[Jomini]

How can you seriously argue that these diseases didn't hit in waves? Mesoamerica, for the sake of explanation, lost about 50% of its population in the first epidemic that hit in 1520. That outbreak lasted about 3 months. While it did cause a lot of damage, the Aztecs were still able to maintain an admirable defense less than a years later. Even the peripheral damage of this first outbreak left many states and cities intact. Another outbreak hit in 1531 causing similar damage. In 1545 and 1576, typhus (IIRC) swept through Mexico again. At the end of the century, only about 10% of Mexico's population remained. Your picture of the complete collapse of Mesoamerica happening in a couple of years is just plain wrong. You can talk about "manpower" and so on, but we know the effect of these diseases and what followed in their wake. Most states didn't just fold and many put up fierce resistance for decades. The Inca who faced slightly less deadly epidemics overall, still maintained an organized state and a standing army. Their resistance against the Spanish lasted several decades.

Umm you are misstating my position. I'm arguing for a decade or two till you can't field 100K men. In any event the disease deaths come in waves, but no the deaths themselves do not and the depletion of military manpower does not.

More women of child bearing age die then men to disease and to the malnutrition that comes if you lose crops because people are down sick during planting or harvest or if public works like aqueducts or irrigation fail. More children die than teenagers and 20somethings for similar reasons. In the short term, this helps - you lose the least productive (in terms of raw muscle power) members of society and can do more later. In the mid-term (my decade or two), you are absolutely shellacked for military manpower. You can't plant corn when you have a 102 (39) degree fever. You also can't do manual labor when you body is covered is postules. You will have an epidemic induced famine. That in turn will kill people from malnutrition and kill people as their immune responses decreases to non-epidemic diseases (e.g. e. coli). Sanitation will falter and again the hungry, young, and weak will suffer the worst. Given the high mortality rate, odds are that some critical skill will be completely lost.

Now once you hit the giant decline in military age manpower, you will not be able to field the giant armies you envision, but you can still engage in irregular warfare. This will occur and this is most of the "fierce resistance" recorded - military formations that can pick off a few dozen enemy at a time. As already noted, gathering large armies for a fight only ensures that a new wave of disease will break out. This happened even in old Europe where people had immunity. More Europeans lost their lives to disease than fighting thanks to the ease with which disease spreads in armies up until WWI; native armies of such sizes are going to get sick and melt away.

And this is based on what facts? The Aztecs mobilized most of their male population for the Siege of Tenochtitlan and maintained that for several months. Cortes was able to keep hundreds of thousands of Natives allies on the field at that same time. This is immediately following a large outbreak. With several years to recover, which is about the minimum amount of time it would take for the Spanish to formulate another expedition, political alliances, manpower, and supply networks are likely to have stabilized a great deal. Even if it was a desperate move, strategies for mass mobilization were employed in Mesoamerica when needed and they would sometimes push up to 90% of their male population into the armies during a crisis.

3 months of "The effects of disease on military campaigns" at MCWAR wherein we studied most of the major epidemic campaigns from Egypt to Stalingrad.

Yeah, Tenochtitlan where they were on a freaking island limiting contact with the trivial number of Europeans present and with full city sanitation available. Yet they still ended up with raging dysentery that killed more than the Spaniards or their allies combined. Their agriculture failed so completely that it is recorded that they started eating bricks. The upper bound for the death toll from disease in Tenochtitlan is pretty dang high - I've seen upwards of 200,000 when you count the people recorded as being too weak to seek food who were left to starve. Given that they ate all their seed crop, Cortez could have walked away and the Aztecs were still spent and dead.

100K off the lake will be like that, only sooner with more dead people.

As I've stated, you're relying heavily theoretical social and economic consequences, but are ignoring some of the historical results that actually happened. We know how the Inca and Aztecs held up in the wake of these epidemics. We also know how less organized tribes held up. While it was certain the start of a long decline, it simply wasn't the immediate collapse you're trying to describe. The idea that these civilization would close up shop in a matter of a few years is about as fictional as your 5K Spanish soldiers marching on Tenochtitlan in the 1520's.

Virtually every city that held up more than 20 years did so because several other cities were abandoned and the survivors fled there. There is not a single polity that fielded an army of over 10K a decade after the first epidemic hit them of which I am aware. Please enlighten me of any cases you know of with 10K armies actually made it into the field.

 

[Jomini]

You have no idea how Mesoamerica information networks work, do you? Following his defeat the Aztecs would install spies and merchants in the lands of most of Cortes's former allies to keep tabs on things and ensure that Spaniards are not contacted. This would likely be unnecessary though, because in Mesoamerican culture the loser generally accepts responsibility for the war, pays for their offenses, and in return does not face harsh treatment under their overlord. They would be in no position to contact the Spanish, and likely wouldn't try following the previous defeat. The most likely result is that Cortes's fate is assumed but unknown amongst the Spanish for a few years, until a some someone, probably a small Spanish party, tries to venture back into Mexico.

Seriously? Spies and merchants? To keep a victory under wraps? Why on earth would the Aztecs want that? Why on earth would the warrior societies who lived for prestige put up with their heroic actions being swept under the rug? Any ruler who tries this is a moron. Let's suppose though this cockamamie scheme defies realty and works. Spain says "hmm Cortez and the guy who went after him both failed to report back this must mean ..." which of the following is more likely - "obviously he must have been killed by natives who are clearly our equals and we should not engage militarily" or "there must have been a storm that sunk the ships"? I'm betting on the latter every time. As the wealth of Tenochtitlan was known thanks to Julianillo and unlike the other Spanish territories, gold will draw in more Spanish troop like nothing else.

Now you're just drifting in fantasy. "Woulds" and "coulds" are nice and all, but that doesn't say much about reality. Much of the Spanish exploration was done on a shoestring budget. The Spanish monarchs were usually reluctant to fund exploration. And this doesn't even mention that Cortes was a wanted man for his actions. With the Italian Wars and the first stages of the Reformation kicking up, I highly doubt the King of Spain is going to be sending high quality ships and troops into the New World. Their traditional manner of handling affairs in the New World was to allow colonial governors to take charge, at least until the late 17th when the began to incorporate these territories more directly into the crown. Your scenario in which 5K Spanish soldiers march into Mexico might as well be 100K Redcoats, because neither is going to happen in the 1520's.

So?

Much of Spanish exploration had no draw of promises of vast swathes of gold ready for the plunder. All of the troubles you cite require gold for Spain, getting that gold is worth a lot. Once credible information gets to Spain - and it will, you can't hide an opulent giant city for long - greed will have a major impact. More soldiers sailed for less plunder many times.

 

[Evie HJ]

Ahhh, I believe you made a significant miscalculation, Jomini - you're feeding your soldiers on half-rations the whole time (896 000 pounds to a galleon, assuming long tons, so at 2 pounds per day, 448 000 men/day in a 400 tonns galleon).

And of course you're barely scratching the surface of the supplies issue. After all, if you have this one food galleon and the ships carrying men, your army and sailors die of dehydration within days of setting sail, leaving an interesting ghost fleet out on the Atlantic. Drinks from the estimates I can manage (doubtless you can do better) more than triple your daily supplies requirements. A quick run at an estimated 6.5 pounds per day (2 liters of water) give me enough supplies for 2700 men.

Oh, and no horse, which is both unlikely and a pretty daft move considering how much of an advantage cavalry proved to be. Which seem to require about 5-10x (recommended 10-20 pounds) the food and close to 10x the water humans do (recommended 6-8 gallons today). Even wanting to match Cortes's cavalry numbers (100 or so), and running low-end numbers (10 pounds and 5 gallons), you're basically locking up over a quarter of your galleon's total cargo capacity right there. Your 2700 men are now more like 2000...and that includes the sailors of all those ships.

At which point your lone galleon - a large ship by 16th century beyond-Europe-service standard (the flagship of the Portuguese Asian fleet at Malacca was a 400 ton ship) - has gone down from supporting a full-scale expedition to basically supporting Cortes's expedition.

And we have yet to explore how many ships it actually take to deliver such an expedition. Those horses need room - and they use up a lot more room than their weight would indicate. Same with the men. And each ship you had here increase the number of sailors needed for the expedition, thereby decreasing the number of soldiers you've supplied.

And with all that, they still absolutely have to be able to resupply in Havana, which means making sure sufficient supplies are available there. Water should not be too hard, food is a toss of the dice. Havana is still a small town (40 spanish families and some hundred natives in 1550). Did they have a bad harvest year? You might have an issue...