Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[illapa]

I mean we can all find the 1 problem child of the tech group if we wanted to but on the subject of uniqueness. Who here would be opposed to them getting some more flavor? Is it really that much to ask for some unique decisions and maybe a series of events/missions to unite a nation and a series of events to simulate the contact with Europeans? The Biggest of these being some way for Aztecs or Inca to expand to their historical size its ridiculous that you literally have NO WAY to expand as the Inca you cant even create your historical sized empire. (no colonists)

 

[Grubnessul]

He's been continually pushing the idea that Native Americans nations were largely identical to Ancient Egypt in terms of their technology, culture, and society. A small number of things fit, like the use of bronze and stone, but he's also saying the lack of trans-oceanic travel or the use of a logographic alphabet also makes them very similar to the Ancient Egyptians. These characteristics largely make them non-European, but that hardly connects them to the Pharaohs.

Well, the ancient Egyptians are a good old world comparison. They are not connected to the Pharaohs, their tech was about the same level of sophistication.

I don't see how this is such a problematic comparison. He could have picked Ancient Babylon as well. Point is the Americas were vastly behind in technology and that's not an insult.

 

[Dafool]

Well, the ancient Egyptians are a good old world comparison. They are not connected to the Pharaohs, their tech was about the same level of sophistication.

I don't see how this is such a problematic comparison. He could have picked Ancient Babylon as well. Point is the Americas were vastly behind in technology and that's not an insult.

My problem isn't so much with the comparison as much as it is the insistence that every aspect of Native technology and society was roughly identical to their Ancient Egyptian counterparts. There are a few things that fit such as metallurgy, but other things, or the lack thereof, are not really anywhere near as sound. He has claimed that because Natives primarily kept to their coasts and didn't sail to far off places they resemble the Ancient Egyptians, as if such a quality could not be found elsewhere in different time periods. He's claimed that the usage of ideographic and logographic scripts is another quality which ties their technology and society to Ancient Egypt, as if such forms of writing had never occurred anywhere else. Ultimately it's fine to make such comparisons if you're talking about something specific, but to simply say that two distinct cultures are very similar based on a small number of shared qualities is pointless. It would not be hard to compare the Aztecs to the Holy Roman Empire or the Inca to the Mongols if one is to make comparisons in that manner.

 

[Garek Maxwell]

Only if you don't consider the Blues Brothers to be important!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_American

And Regis Philbin?! Curses! You win this time Albania... But I'll be watching!
You can't see this, but I'm pointing to my eyes and then at a picture of Albania.

But yes, I'm totally in support of first contact being disastrous for New World countries and very destabilizing, I just would like some better and more historical treatment. That's all.

 

[Styrbiorn]

. It would not be hard to compare the Aztecs to the Holy Roman Empire or the Inca to the Mongols if one is to make comparisons in that manner.

Please try, because I think it would be very difficult indeed, at least if you make such a manner as he did (architecture, science, writing, technology).

 

[Dafool]

Please try, because I think it would be very difficult indeed, at least if you make such a manner as he did (architecture, science, writing, technology).

He's not used just those things. Remember that their culture and society are apparently very similar to the Ancient Egyptians too!

For example, the Aztec Empire was in reality not an actual empire. Instead of a collection of cities and other small polities held together military and economic alliances. In Tenochtitlan, the de facto capital of this empire, the leader was elected by a council drawn from their own realm and also from their allied city states. What other famous collection of cities and small polities with an elected monarch do we have that is called an empire despite not actually being one? The Holy Roman Empire of course! And that's a very specific connection.

Or for example, the Inca Empire started out as a small tribal society. Under Pachacuti they spilled out of their homeland and began to conquer their neighbors one by one. Within a century they had united a vast empire that spanned over plains, mountains, deserts, and jungle. Their empire was split into several large provinces in order to facilitate administration. Under their reign trade and growth were fostered and transport of people and goods across the empire became easier. What other tribal society spilled out across a continent and conquered most of their neighbors, while maintaining an empire composed of large, united provinces, and eventually brought about an era of great economic and cultural exchange? The Mongols are the answer! And once more, it's a much more direct connection.

So my point is that just about any state can be connected to another state if you're looking at just vague qualities of their society, technology, or history. Were Mesoamericans like the Ancient Egyptians? In some ways, but hardly in most ways. They also share some qualities with the Chinese, some with Early Modern Europeans, some with the Romans, and so on.

 

[Madmonkey24]

The New World was pretty inaccurately represented in previous Paradox Games, which shouldn't be particularly surprising as the games are called Europa Universalis.

Representing inhabitants of the New World as the technological inferiors of Europeans at the game's onset is pretty silly as has been discussed here. As new archaeological and anthropological research shows, the primary factor that allowed Europeans to dominate the New World was waves of infectious diseases to which the native populations had little or no immunity. Population estimates in the New World before Columbus in modern scholarship tend to be around 25,000,000 on the low side, which is comparable with Europe at the time.

Having provinces, pre-European contact, with 1,000 or less unorganized natives completely overlooks the dynamics that went into colonialism in the Americas. Paradox can and should do its best to make the New World experience more realistic, not just for the people who want to play as the Aztecs, but for the people who want to play Europeans and have an interesting and challenging gameplay experience.

I would personally be more than happy to work for free to provide the historical information and research references necessary to make this happen.

 

[Arilou]

Representing inhabitants of the New World as the technological inferiors of Europeans at the game's onset is pretty silly

No it isn't. You can argue about whether or not that was the primary reason for their defeat (probably not) and how well they are represented in EU3 (not very) but in many (though not all) ways the native americans were technologically inferior to europeans. (not neccessarily through any fault of their own, mind)

 

[Fawr]

Well, the ancient Egyptians are a good old world comparison. They are not connected to the Pharaohs, their tech was about the same level of sophistication.

I don't see how this is such a problematic comparison. He could have picked Ancient Babylon as well. Point is the Americas were vastly behind in technology and that's not an insult.

Put it better than I could myself.

Sure comparisons are hard and you aren't every going to get a complete match, but when you break their advancement down to 5 tech levels ancient Egypt would be a good comparison.

 

[Sir Iain]

Even if the comparison between ancient Egypt and the states in the Americas would hold ground, it wouldn't mean anything. Because technology does not proceed in a linear fashion.
And, technology was never the sole dominating factor in winning wars. There are countless examples of a technologicaly underdevoloped country or people conquering more advanced states ("Barbarians" vs Romans, Mongols vs China, Afghans vs Persia etc.) or underdevolped countries succesfully resiting more advanced countries.

Technology was part of the reason why the Aztec and Inca Empires fell, but political instabilty was also a major factor, and EU3 doesn't represent that at all.

 

[Dafool]

No it isn't. You can argue about whether or not that was the primary reason for their defeat (probably not) and how well they are represented in EU3 (not very) but in many (though not all) ways the native americans were technologically inferior to europeans. (not neccessarily through any fault of their own, mind)

I agree. Putting them on the same level as Europeans is ridiculous. The level of nerfing they receive in vanilla is equally ridiculous, but there's no reason to try to overly buff their technology either. I usually advocate a 30% or so rating and a starting tech of 1 (compared to vanilla's 10% and 0 respectively).

Put it better than I could myself.

Sure comparisons are hard and you aren't every going to get a complete match, but when you break their advancement down to 5 tech levels ancient Egypt would be a good comparison.

Once again, it mostly depends on what you're talking about.

Government:
Despite being quite brutal, the Aztecs were not actually a tribal people. The Aztecs were essentially an elected, theocratic monarchy with a set legal system and a structured government. The Inca were also not tribal by this point. Their government was an absolute monarchy. They had very well established systems for law and taxation. These qualities are not particularly Egyptian and the fairly vague nature of government tech in and of itself also limits comparisons as these type of qualities could be said of many states.

Land:
It's very hard to make a comparison here. New World warfare was quite simply different. No cavalry. No metal. No one in the Old World, Egypt or not, was going to be quite like them in that aspect. And that has only a bit to do with technology and more to do with plain differences in warfare. EU's land tech system and units are not quite made to represent such a quality.

Naval:
This varies a bit. As we discussed earlier, the Inca had a naval tradition. They had ships and engaged in travel on open sea and occasionally launched attacks from the sea. The Aztecs on the other hand did not. Part of this has to do with them having little direct contact with the sea, but part of it also has to do with the lack of a true naval tradition. It's hard to represent that split between those two regions if we're to keep them in the same tech group. Nonetheless, Ancient Egypt was still developing ships and never gained much ability to go beyond their own coasts. Travel over open water was not really possible for them and thus South American nations had a clear technological lead there that makes them more similar to contemporary nations in the Old World than to the Ancient Egyptians. The Aztecs don't really resemble either.

Trade:
Trade is another elusive tech. Both the Inca and the Aztecs engaged in widespread trade and exchange. The Aztec Empire was essentially founded in order to siphon wealth and trade towards Tenochtitlan. Neither had a set currency, often using semi-bartering systems based off rare goods like cacao beans or luxury fabrics. This is a quality in common with Ancient Egypt, but the shift to a standardized monetary economy varies greatly across the world, having nothing in particular to do with Egypt (it could instead be compared the Medieval European economy and its use of labor and numerous different forms of coins as a form of currency).

Production:
Both the Aztecs and the Incas managed to support large populations easily comparable to the Old World. The scale of building and infrastructure is also comparable to their contemporaries. Production tech also tends to involve things like medicine, astronomy, and agriculture. These are all also quite comparable to the contemporary Old World. Ancient Egypt would not really be appropriate as the Ancient Egyptians lacked things like effective medicine or aqueducts. It would have been next to impossible for them to build and maintain a city like Tenochtitlan with their technology.


So I guess my point is that it really varies. Only land, naval, and production technology real show any clear cut progression over time. Land shows a clear inferiority, naval shows backwardness but not of ancient levels, and production shows relatively normal levels of advancement. Government and trade are a lot harder to pin down. Government varies greatly across the world and Natives weren't really any less capable of governing themselves than anyone else. Trade was not as developed as in Europe but some areas of the Old World would not have been drastically different overall. So Ancient Egypt really isn't a particularly good example, as they were ahead, behind, or similar in various places. As I stated before, we could easily draw comparisons to a number of different states.

 

[Arilou]

I agree. Putting them on the same level as Europeans is ridiculous. The level of nerfing they receive in vanilla is equally ridiculous

And that's where I disagree: They're both wrong, but not equally so.

These qualities are not particularly Egyptian

Egypt had a fairly regular set of taxation, and wasn't exactly tribal either. (it was divided into various nomes (or sepat) but these weren't tribal divisions but administrative ones. The exact status of the nomarch varied (remember: Egyptian history is looooooong) but they were at times appointed governors, and at times seems to have managed to make themselves heridatery rulers.

It's very hard to make a comparison here. New World warfare was quite simply different. No cavalry. No metal. No one in the Old World, Egypt or not, was going to be quite like them in that aspect. And that has only a bit to do with technology and more to do with plain differences in warfare. EU's land tech system and units are not quite made to represent such a quality.

Ancient egyptians used linen or cloth armour, they were armed with daggers, clubs, and bows and arrows made of stone or bronze. The main difference is that the egyptians had chariots and horses.

as the Ancient Egyptians lacked things like effective medicine or aqueducts.

The ancient egyptians had some quite complex water transportation systems, and were famously great doctors.

 

[Dafool]

And that's where I disagree: They're both wrong, but not equally so.

Vanilla EU3 has made it so that Native American lack most of the essential features of the game, such as forts, trade, functional armies, buildings and so on. These are all things they had. If you're basically going to make it an all or nothing approach, then Natives definitely fit the all more than the nothing.

Egypt had a fairly regular set of taxation, and wasn't exactly tribal either. (it was divided into various nomes (or sepat) but these weren't tribal divisions but administrative ones. The exact status of the nomarch varied (remember: Egyptian history is looooooong) but they were at times appointed governors, and at times seems to have managed to make themselves heridatery rulers.

Never said that Egypt lacked taxation or that they were tribal. I was pointing out that collecting taxes and moving beyond tribalism are not qualities that are unique to Egypt.

Ancient egyptians used linen or cloth armour, they were armed with daggers, clubs, and bows and arrows made of stone or bronze. The main difference is that the egyptians had chariots and horses.

Yes, but the style of warfare was significantly different and that is one thing modeled directly by land tech. Giving them mediocre units could make up for the lack of metal weapons, but it's very hard to make a battle system designed for Old World combat deal with ritualistic warfare.

The ancient egyptians had some quite complex water transportation systems, and were famously great doctors.

Ancient Egyptian water systems essentially made it as far as irrigation and, at their pinnacle, reservoirs. Things like aqueducts or a city like Tenochtitlan were simply beyond their ability. Beyond basic surgical techniques, the Ancient Egyptians were notable for having a largely superstitious manner of dealing with ailments. The Aztecs for example did systematic research into botany to develop medicines, as to where Egyptians lacked any organized system for handling the field and instead relied on tradition rather than research.

 

[Madmonkey24]

No it isn't. You can argue about whether or not that was the primary reason for their defeat (probably not) and how well they are represented in EU3 (not very) but in many (though not all) ways the native americans were technologically inferior to europeans. (not neccessarily through any fault of their own, mind)

Technologically "inferior" can mean a great deal of different things. Native Americans (which is a term that encompasses a huge, diverse group of peoples) at the onset of Europa Universalis's time period had complex systems of agriculture, state organization, and trade that were similar to, if not "superior" (whatever these ridiculous terms you choose to use mean) to those of Europeans. Native military technology was not sophisticated in the same way as European technology - the Incas were able to craft incredibly complicated armor from woven material and cloth that could actually protect you from a sword blow. That the Incas were unable to steal gunpowder techology from the Ottoman Empire has nothing to say about whether, given a different course of events, the massive empire they controlled could have defeated even thousands of Spaniards in combat. In fact, around 1399 pre-European contact (and before the widespread utilization of gunpowder weapons by European armies) it would be difficult to make claims about whose military technology was "superior" to the other's.

Let's not turn a game which otherwise does not bow to historical determinism into a game with a deterministic representation of the conquest of the Americas. There were specific sets of political events, combined with massive depopulation from disease, which led to European conquest of these regions. Saying otherwise is wrongheaded and simply false.

 

[FOARP]

Government:
Despite being quite brutal, the Aztecs were not actually a tribal people. The Aztecs were essentially an elected, theocratic monarchy with a set legal system and a structured government. The Inca were also not tribal by this point. Their government was an absolute monarchy. They had very well established systems for law and taxation. These qualities are not particularly Egyptian and the fairly vague nature of government tech in and of itself also limits comparisons as these type of qualities could be said of many states.

So basically on par with Ancient Egypt, with laws, taxation, levels of government etc..

Land:
It's very hard to make a comparison here. New World warfare was quite simply different. No cavalry. No metal. No one in the Old World, Egypt or not, was going to be quite like them in that aspect. And that has only a bit to do with technology and more to do with plain differences in warfare. EU's land tech system and units are not quite made to represent such a quality.

Ditto.

Naval:
This varies a bit. As we discussed earlier, the Inca had a naval tradition. They had ships and engaged in travel on open sea and occasionally launched attacks from the sea. The Aztecs on the other hand did not. Part of this has to do with them having little direct contact with the sea, but part of it also has to do with the lack of a true naval tradition. It's hard to represent that split between those two regions if we're to keep them in the same tech group. Nonetheless, Ancient Egypt was still developing ships and never gained much ability to go beyond their own coasts. Travel over open water was not really possible for them and thus South American nations had a clear technological lead there that makes them more similar to contemporary nations in the Old World than to the Ancient Egyptians. The Aztecs don't really resemble either.

Really don't know what you're referring to here. Egypt traded with Persia, Arabia, East Africa, the Phoenicians (who went as far afield as Great Britain), and rather than making rafts out of logs lashed together with vines they constructed ships out of planks nailed together with the seams made waterproof with caulking. Seems the Egyptians may have been ahead here.

Trade:
Trade is another elusive tech. Both the Inca and the Aztecs engaged in widespread trade and exchange. The Aztec Empire was essentially founded in order to siphon wealth and trade towards Tenochtitlan. Neither had a set currency, often using semi-bartering systems based off rare goods like cacao beans or luxury fabrics. This is a quality in common with Ancient Egypt, but the shift to a standardized monetary economy varies greatly across the world, having nothing in particular to do with Egypt (it could instead be compared the Medieval European economy and its use of labor and numerous different forms of coins as a form of currency).

Except Ancient Egypt had a semi-barter economic system for most of its history, and shifted to coinage and a basic cash economy in its later period. Again, this seems roughly equivalent to the state of development in the Aztec Empire.

Production:
Both the Aztecs and the Incas managed to support large populations easily comparable to the Old World. The scale of building and infrastructure is also comparable to their contemporaries. Production tech also tends to involve things like medicine, astronomy, and agriculture. These are all also quite comparable to the contemporary Old World. Ancient Egypt would not really be appropriate as the Ancient Egyptians lacked things like effective medicine or aqueducts. It would have been next to impossible for them to build and maintain a city like Tenochtitlan with their technology.

As Arilou pointed out, Ancient Egypt was home to some of the first irrigation systems in the world, and was renowned for the skill of its doctors, but if aqueducts are to be taken as a specific indicator of the level of technical development, then one need only proceed to the ancient Romans (who of course, were in every other way ahead of the Aztecs/Incans). Talk of the 'scale' of infrastructure and building is idle when it ignores the technologies used, which were mostly the lifting of giant blocks of stone into position without use of keystone arches, butresses, domes, pillars, spires, and so-forth that allowed smaller buildings to fulfil the same functions.

And with respect, these are not 'comparable' with the old world. They are 'comparable' with the ancient world of the Egyptians and earlier.

So I guess my point is that it really varies. Only land, naval, and production technology real show any clear cut progression over time. Land shows a clear inferiority, naval shows backwardness but not of ancient levels, and production shows relatively normal levels of advancement. Government and trade are a lot harder to pin down. Government varies greatly across the world and Natives weren't really any less capable of governing themselves than anyone else. Trade was not as developed as in Europe but some areas of the Old World would not have been drastically different overall. So Ancient Egypt really isn't a particularly good example, as they were ahead, behind, or similar in various places. As I stated before, we could easily draw comparisons to a number of different states.

I would say that since they were ahead in at least as many aspects as they were behind, and since none of the things used to show that they were ahead involves a level of technology ahead of the ancient Romans, the comparison between the Pre-Columbian Americas and the ancient civilisations of Eurasia is a sound one, especially the comparison with Ancient Egypt.

 

[FOARP]

Technologically "inferior" can mean a great deal of different things. Native Americans (which is a term that encompasses a huge, diverse group of peoples) at the onset of Europa Universalis's time period had complex systems of agriculture, state organization, and trade that were similar to, if not "superior" (whatever these ridiculous terms you choose to use mean) to those of Europeans.

Similar in what way? Europeans had banks, cash, machinery, learning etc. that Incans/Aztecs quite simply didn't have.

Native military technology was not sophisticated in the same way as European technology - the Incas were able to craft incredibly complicated armor from woven material and cloth that could actually protect you from a sword blow.

Or not. In fact most of the time, not - a steel sword thrust with the point would go straight through it (and did again, and again, and again), let alone a bullet.

That the Incas were unable to steal gunpowder techology from the Ottoman Empire has nothing to say about whether, given a different course of events, the massive empire they controlled could have defeated even thousands of Spaniards in combat.

But the fact that when they met the Spanish with a great numerical advantage and were handily defeated does.

In fact, around 1399 pre-European contact (and before the widespread utilization of gunpowder weapons by European armies) it would be difficult to make claims about whose military technology was "superior" to the other's.

No, it would have been. One side made use of steel weapons, long-bows, and armour. The other side armed their soldiers with cudgels, obsidian knives, short bows without re-curves, and cloth armour. One side rode horse-back, the other side had never even seen a horse and at first assumed a man riding a horse to be a centaur-like creature.

Let's not turn a game which otherwise does not bow to historical determinism into a game with a deterministic representation of the conquest of the Americas. There were specific sets of political events, combined with massive depopulation from disease, which led to European conquest of these regions. Saying otherwise is wrongheaded and simply false.

Those political events consisting of soldiers equipped with weapons and armour vastly superior to anything available to the Aztecs and Incans had landing and either over-awing or beating anyone who might have opposed them. This is the analysis favoured by respected historians.

 

[Arilou]

Native military technology was not sophisticated in the same way as European technology - the Incas were able to craft incredibly complicated armor from woven material and cloth that could actually protect you from a sword blow.

So could europeans.... Two thousand years before.

That the Incas were unable to steal gunpowder techology from the Ottoman Empire has nothing to say about whether, given a different course of events, the massive empire they controlled could have defeated even thousands of Spaniards in combat. In fact, around 1399 pre-European contact (and before the widespread utilization of gunpowder weapons by European armies) it would be difficult to make claims about whose military technology was "superior" to the other's.

Iron. It really makes that big a difference.

 

[Madmonkey24]

Similar in what way? Europeans had banks, cash, machinery, learning etc. that Incans/Aztecs quite simply didn't have.

The Inca had a sophisticated command economy with no real need for institutions of credit outside the state like those you highlight. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the Native Americans didn't have "learning," but I'm sure it's a view endorsed by respected historians!

Or not. In fact most of the time, not - a steel sword thrust with the point would go straight through it (and did again, and again, and again), let alone a bullet.

The battles you cite were not Cortez and his conquistadors against the Incans. Cortez, with a certain amount of novel and useful military technology, had huge numbers of native allies without whom conquest and consolidation would have been unthinkable. Cortez was able to exploit political divisions within the Incan polity as an outsider in conquering the country which, by that time, had been severely impacted by epidemic disease. The Battle of Cuzco, which you cite, was an example of the early effects of gunpowder's shock value - something that did not have a similar decisive effect in battles that followed. For example, David Cahill argued that despite the common contention that military technology played the key role in the Incan conquest, it was in fact the extreme willingness of the Incan elite to accept nominal Spanish dominion over a disliked monarchy which made the Incan conquest so successful and relatively bloodless in the long run. Cortez could not have won so easily, and could probably not have conquered the Incas at all, without the assistance or assent of large portions of the native population - a specific political phenomena.

Those political events consisting of soldiers equipped with weapons and armour vastly superior to anything available to the Aztecs and Incans had landing and either over-awing or beating anyone who might have opposed them. This is the analysis favoured by respected historians.

More useful? Certainly. Did 300 men subdue an empire of millions alone by the force of some "vastly superior" technology? No. That is not a thesis that is favored by "respected" historians, as you might know if you had actually read the literature. The points you describe with factual certainty are actually points of great dispute among well-respected and well-qualified historians.

I'm not arguing for a parity in military technology in 1492 between Europeans and Native Americans. However, the differences in military technology in 1399 were not as determinate as you seem to imagine. Moreover, technology, as has been argued by many historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists, was not the deciding factor in encounters between Native Americans and Europeans - as Europa Universalis depicts these encounters. Moreover, contests between Native Americans and Europeans long after initial conquests did not always go in favor of Europeans as EU3 suggests. As Armstrong Starkey wrote, natives in North America were able to adapt European technologies and styles of warfare to their advantage. In the period between 1513 and 1815 there are numerous examples of native prevailing over European colonists and military forces - not at all like the "over-awing" you describe. Let's leave some room in this new game for even a smidgen of historical accuracy, even where it might conflict with the Eurocentric viewpoints of most of its fans.

Rule #1: If you want to play ball in this thread, be prepared to bring and cite well respected, peer-reviewed sources.

 

[Arilou]

The battles you cite were not Cortez and his conquistadors against the Incans. Cortez, with a certain amount of novel and useful military technology, had huge numbers of native allies without whom conquest and consolidation would have been unthinkable. Cortez was able to exploit political divisions within the Incan polity as an outsider in conquering the country which, by that time, had been severely impacted by epidemic disease. The Battle of Cuzco, which you cite, was an example of the early effects of gunpowder's shock value - something that did not have a similar decisive effect in battles that followed. For example, David Cahill argued that despite the common contention that military technology played the key role in the Incan conquest, it was in fact the extreme willingness of the Incan elite to accept nominal Spanish dominion over a disliked monarchy which made the Incan conquest so successful and relatively bloodless in the long run. Cortez could not have won so easily, and could probably not have conquered the Incas at all, without the assistance or assent of large portions of the native population - a specific political phenomena.

But the incans would not have submitted had they not been confronted with a power they thought could take the place of their own rulers; And demonstrated such by military means.

contests between Native Americans and Europeans long after initial conquests did not always go in favor of Europeans as EU3 suggests.

But they DON'T always go in favour of europeans, yeah, they are *slanted* in favour of europeans, but it's still up to random numbers: I've had ten-thousand strong armies of frenchmen wiped out by 1000 natives occasionally. So this argument is silly.

 

[Dafool]

Similar in what way? Europeans had banks, cash, machinery, learning etc. that Incans/Aztecs quite simply didn't have.

Banking and cash were just being developed in Europe at the time and were still relatively crude. Machinery? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. And learning was no more developed in Europe at the time than in the New World. Both the Aztecs and the Inca had institutions of higher learning. The Aztecs even had mandatory universal education, something unheard of in Europe at the time.

Or not. In fact most of the time, not - a steel sword thrust with the point would go straight through it (and did again, and again, and again), let alone a bullet.

No, not in most cases. The heavier fabric armor used by most Natives were capable of withstanding thrusts and slashes, at least to an extent. There's a reason the Spanish were confident enough to wear it themselves. Also, the Spanish did not have bullets.

But the fact that when they met the Spanish with a great numerical advantage and were handily defeated does.

They were indeed outnumbered at that battle, but not by an incredibly huge margin. You can't forget that the Spanish brought thousands of Native allies to that battle. And that still fails to account for the battles the Spanish lost just before attacking Cuzco, or the defeats they faced later on when the Inca moved back in to retake the area.

No, it would have been. One side made use of steel weapons, long-bows, and armour. The other side armed their soldiers with cudgels, obsidian knives, short bows without re-curves, and cloth armour. One side rode horse-back, the other side had never even seen a horse and at first assumed a man riding a horse to be a centaur-like creature.

That doesn't take into account the massive Native armies taking place in these battles. It also doesn't take into account that Spanish mostly wore Native armor. It also doesn't take into account that many Spanish died to cudgels, obsidian knives, and short bows. It also doesn't take into account that the Spanish cavalry wasn't usable in every area and every battle.

Those political events consisting of soldiers equipped with weapons and armour vastly superior to anything available to the Aztecs and Incans had landing and either over-awing or beating anyone who might have opposed them. This is the analysis favoured by respected historians.

As I've been trying to tell you, armor and weapons did play a role, but a minor one. Most historians and their works will touch on the topic, but looking at the actual events and seeing where the Spanish succeeded and where they failed will tell you quite a bit more. Using the political situation in these areas was perhaps the most important part of fighting these wars. It simply could not be done alone. We know this now and the Spanish knew it then. There's a reason some of the Spanish literally pissed themselves when the Inca army marched in to meet them at the onset of the conflict. They were fighting an actual war against a large organized force and had only the few advantages their technology could afford them and the fickle Native allies that they hoped would support them.