Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[Madmonkey24]

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.

Much as was the case with early settlements in Northeastern America, native power brokers saw an opportunity in an external ally and took it. This is a pattern that has been repeated throughout history. If you looked at my post you would notice that I do say that European military technology was sophisticated and useful. But it was not the determining factor in the conquest.

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.

Anyone who has actually played EU3 should know how ridiculous this argument is. Nor is it enough that in .01% of encounters natives would prevail due to a random number generator. That does not reflect the historical reality of these combats at all.

 

[FOARP]

Banking and cash were just being developed in Europe at the time and were still relatively crude.

. . . but had existed for some centuries at this point. Unlike in the Americas.

Machinery? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to.

Mills, farming equipment, metal-working equipment, horse/ox-powered machinery.

And learning was no more developed in Europe at the time than in the New World.

You mean except for the mathematics used in architecture, siege warfare, ship-building, the distance of the sun, navigation etc. etc. etc. Did I mention that the Aztec system of writing was even a full system of writing and couldn't convey abstract concepts?

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.

And in the Aztec Empire. Or do you really believe that all Aztecs had to take part in higher education?

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.

You mean except for the ones that came out of their guns.

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.

Even with native allies they were greatly outnumbered, and it was Spanish arms that made the difference. Same happened at the Battle of Otumba

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.

The specific claim being made was that it would be difficult to say whose weaponry was superior before 1399. This is simply wrong - iron, steel, horses, made a huge difference. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

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.

Which still begs the question of why people defected to the Spanish, who were a numerically tiny force. Put simply, their technology is the only thing that could have made them that valuable.

Madmonkey - Sorry, but if you're seriously going to do things like describing the Incan Empire as a "sophisticated command economy" (as in, a planned economy like that of the Soviet Union, in a society without writing), make out that iron/steel are basically nothing, and state that Aztec/Incan "systems of agriculture, state organization, and trade . . . were similar to . . those of [the] Europeans" it's really difficult for me to take what you're saying seriously. Misreading what the person you're addressing wrote (pretty obviously I meant 'learnings' - as in knowledge, I'm not saying the Incans/Aztecs were incapable of learning) also is a big demotivator if you want someone to respond.

 

[Arilou]

Anyone who has actually played EU3 should know how ridiculous this argument is. Nor is it enough that in .01% of encounters natives would prevail due to a random number generator. That does not reflect the historical reality of these combats at all.

But that's not what happens. I've seen the natives survive plenty of games, far more than 0.01% of the time. And that's survive wholesale: The number of times they've actually beaten european armies is far greater (that happens just about every game I'd say) you're overstating your case.

Anyone has a greater knowledge of the math of the actual combat mechanics care to weigh in? Because natives seems to have no problem beating european armies if they take advantage of leaders/terrain.

 

[Madmonkey24]

Madmonkey - Sorry, but if you're seriously going to do things like describing the Incan Empire as a "sophisticated command economy" (as in, a planned economy like that of the Soviet Union, in a society without writing), make out that iron/steel are basically nothing, and state that Aztec/Incan "systems of agriculture, state organization, and trade . . . were similar to . . those of [the] Europeans" it's really difficult for me to take what you're saying seriously. Misreading what the person you're addressing wrote (pretty obviously I meant 'learnings' - as in knowledge, I'm not saying the Incans/Aztecs were incapable of learning) also is a big demotivator if you want someone to respond.

Archaeologists believe that the Incan writing system was preserved in a system of knotted lines capable of conveying meanings and tallying data. Some suggest that the best way of describing the Incan state - which conducted forced movement of populations and had sophisticated storage and trade systems - was as an early example of a relatively centralized command economy. As I've suggested, do yourself a favor and actually read some scholarship on the subject.

The Inca did not use iron and steel in the same manner as Europeans, as I have stated myself and argued was an important factor in the relative superiority of European arms. However, Incan metallurgy was highly developed if focused, instead, on the production of intricate cosmetic gold-based craftwork.

You seem to consistently or intentionally misunderstand what we're saying. Native Americans were technologically more advanced (again, whatever that means) than Europeans in some areas and less so in others. The blanket characterization in the game of a uniformly less-advanced civilization is patently wrong. If you want to talk about the Incan conquest, as we have in detail, please read the literature on the subject before continuing to make claims that are widely contested as if they were undisputed fact.

 

[Madmonkey24]

But that's not what happens. I've seen the natives survive plenty of games, far more than 0.01% of the time. And that's survive wholesale: The number of times they've actually beaten european armies is far greater (that happens just about every game I'd say) you're overstating your case.

Anyone has a greater knowledge of the math of the actual combat mechanics care to weigh in? Because natives seems to have no problem beating european armies if they take advantage of leaders/terrain.

I wasn't being specific enough, my apologies. I was referring to the "native population" mechanic in colonization in much of the Americas.

 

[Dafool]

. . . but had existed for some centuries at this point. Unlike in the Americas.

Actually money lending and debt were relatively new in Europe. They had been looked down on highly during the Roman times and Christian views only reinforced that. It's only in the late 12th and 13th century that money lending and financing began to emerge in Europe on a notable scale, and this was mostly limited to the Eastern Mediterranean where the maritime republics often needed to fund investments that were too far away to directly control. So "existed" might be right, but we're not talking about structured institutions or long standing financial traditions. The "basics" existed in the New World as well. They just never evolved into anything overly complex.

Mills, farming equipment, metal-working equipment, horse/ox-powered machinery.

Mills and farming equipment they would have had. Metal working was a fairly well established industry in certain areas. Horse/ox powered machinery was obviously not there, but that's like condemning the Europeans for not raising llamas.

You mean except for the mathematics used in architecture, siege warfare, ship-building, the distance of the sun, navigation etc. etc. etc. Did I mention that the Aztec system of writing was even a full system of writing and couldn't convey abstract concepts?

Native Americans often excelled in mathematics. Their Architecture was well suited for their environment and their circumstances. Siege warfare was not common in Mesoamerica because wars were not usually fought to destroy, but instead to subjugate. Warfare in the Andes was primarily siege warfare. Ship building we've discussed. Knowledge of celestial bodies and their motions was well known to the Natives. The Inca had enough navigational skills to be able to give the Spanish reliable routes to islands in the Pacific that they knew of. And Aztec writing varies quite a bit. In some areas it's basic pictograms and ideograms. In others it turns into a more complex form of logographic writing not unlike what most East Asian cultures use.

And in the Aztec Empire. Or do you really believe that all Aztecs had to take part in higher education?

Like most parts of the world, only the nobility of the Aztec and Inca Empires would have extensive higher education. However, in the Aztec Empire it was required that everyone rather attend a trade school, where they would learn a craft, train to be a soldier, or do apprentice work, or they had the option to pursue a career in the clergy, where they would be taught religious principles, history, and other topics we would usually label as "humanities".

You mean except for the ones that came out of their guns.

The firearms used by the Spanish did not fire bullets, they fired lead shot.

Even with native allies they were greatly outnumbered, and it was Spanish arms that made the difference. Same happened at the Battle of Otumba

The enemy having 2 or 3 times as many soldiers is one thing, but this it's hardly "greatly outnumbered". And Otumba came after a decisive Aztec victory and was partly won because the Spanish immediately killed the Aztec military leadership. Such behavior was unheard of in Mesoamerica and also in Europe. The resulting chaos largely came from the lack of leadership on the part of the Aztecs and hence the horrendous losses.

The specific claim being made was that it would be difficult to say whose weaponry was superior before 1399. This is simply wrong - iron, steel, horses, made a huge difference. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

I think his point is that firearms are the only military technology which the Natives clearly lacked (Cavalry aside). In most cases European weapons were more durable, not more effective than their Native counterparts. Taking a slash from a steel sword or an obsidian blade are going to cause very comparable amounts of damage. It's not say that Europeans didn't have more going from them, but without firearms there isn't anything particularly astounding or unique about them when compared with a Native army.

Which still begs the question of why people defected to the Spanish, who were a numerically tiny force. Put simply, their technology is the only thing that could have made them that valuable.

Incorrect. While the Spanish did make some allies through simple survival, many were made because the Natives saw the Spanish as a tool. Small numbers, a distant homeland, and unfamiliarity with where they were all made them look easily manipulated. In Mesoamerica it was particularly common for a city state to turn to any potential ally in order to throw off an overlord. When they found a small band of well armed soldiers tromping about it would have screamed opportunity. Cortes himself often appealed to the Natives by positioning himself as an ally, not a leader of the coalition against the Aztecs.

Madmonkey - Sorry, but if you're seriously going to do things like describing the Incan Empire as a "sophisticated command economy" (as in, a planned economy like that of the Soviet Union, in a society without writing), make out that iron/steel are basically nothing, and state that Aztec/Incan "systems of agriculture, state organization, and trade . . . were similar to . . those of [the] Europeans" it's really difficult for me to take what you're saying seriously. Misreading what the person you're addressing wrote (pretty obviously I meant 'learnings' - as in knowledge, I'm not saying the Incans/Aztecs were incapable of learning) also is a big demotivator if you want someone to respond.

The Inca taxation system essentially worked as a rough command economy. Taxation on took the form of goods or labor which was then moved via their excellent road system to another part of the empire. So if an earthquake hit one area, they would call on the owed taxation of another area to provide things like food, soldiers, and material to help the damaged area. This is how they managed to maintain so much infrastructure across such a large area. The Inca were generally more centralized at the time than most European states. It was simply how their society and government functioned.

 

[Fawr]

Just to pick up on a few points here.

So "existed" might be right, but we're not talking about structured institutions or long standing financial traditions. The "basics" existed in the New World as well. They just never evolved into anything overly complex.

Why didn't it evolve into a complex system in the New world? My answer would be that their backwardness in other areas was similar or worse than Republican Rome, and so they didn't have the broad framework needed to really advance technology at the same rate as the old world. In a game I'd simulate this as a massive penalty to research speed.

The enemy having 2 or 3 times as many soldiers is one thing, but this it's hardly "greatly outnumbered". And Otumba came after a decisive Aztec victory and was partly won because the Spanish immediately killed the Aztec military leadership. Such behavior was unheard of in Mesoamerica and also in Europe. The resulting chaos largely came from the lack of leadership on the part of the Aztecs and hence the horrendous losses.

To me military technology is less about having a few hundred iron weapons or a few guns (the iron is more important to production tech for me), and more about knowing how to use what you have effectivly. I'd put the Aztec's land tech a long way behind Europe because the Mesoamerican way of fighting didn't make the best use of what they had (by a long shot).

 

[Dafool]

Why didn't it evolve into a complex system in the New world? My answer would be that their backwardness in other areas was similar or worse than Republican Rome, and so they didn't have the broad framework needed to really advance technology at the same rate as the old world. In a game I'd simulate this as a massive penalty to research speed.

A few reasons if we're just discussing economic developments.

Mesoamerica is a relatively small place. Long distance travel was never really necessary when it came to luxury goods, unlike Europe where they had to be imported from afar and thus Europeans needed to develop a rudimentary credit system to handle those far off investments. The lack of standardized money or financial institutions is exasperated by the Mesoamerican political structure, in which luxury goods were one of the primary ways of paying tribute. This meant that prosperous city would siphon off trade and goods from it's vassals and thus Mesoamerican economies were ran through political and military pressure on a state level rather than trade on a individual level. That can be examined under a lot of different modern political and economic theories, but the basic point is that the movement of people, goods, and wealth were a political, rather than economic matter.

The Inca are an oddball case. They ran their economy almost entirely on a state level. People, goods, and wealth were almost exclusively handled by the state. The entire Inca taxation system was reliant on being to draw up resources and manpower when needed. When you combine that with their expansive empire which comprised of most of the population centers in the Andes, there really wasn't much need to private trade. Credit is a different issue. On one had you could say that a state run, "universal" economy eliminated the need for credit, but you could also look at their taxation system as being one large form of credit.

To me military technology is less about having a few hundred iron weapons or a few guns (the iron is more important to production tech for me), and more about knowing how to use what you have effectivly. I'd put the Aztec's land tech a long way behind Europe because the Mesoamerican way of fighting didn't make the best use of what they had (by a long shot).

I guess that depends. The Aztec and Inca were, at least at first, absolutely terrible at fighting in a European or Old World style of warfare. On the other hand, they were well adapted to handle their own military needs. So I guess that comes down to what you want to represent that as in game. It looks like it should tactics, but functionally speaking that's an unrelated feature. Units perhaps better represent the lack of cavalry and metal weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the EU combat system isn't really designed to handle that difference.

 

[Arilou]

Taking a slash from a steel sword or an obsidian blade are going to cause very comparable amounts of damage.

No, not really, they'd inflict quite different types of wounds. (and that's before we get into the issue of armour penetration) now, partially it's an issue of culture of warfare: Obsidian blades were arguably designed to be less lethal (since it would mean an easier time taking captives) but a steel or iron sword works significantly different.

 

[FOARP]

I guess that depends. The Aztec and Inca were, at least at first, absolutely terrible at fighting in a European or Old World style of warfare. On the other hand, they were well adapted to handle their own military needs. So I guess that comes down to what you want to represent that as in game. It looks like it should tactics, but functionally speaking that's an unrelated feature. Units perhaps better represent the lack of cavalry and metal weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the EU combat system isn't really designed to handle that difference.

Classic example of the kind of hand-waving you see too much of on this thread. The Aztecs/Incans could not compete with the Spaniards on the battlefield man-to-man or even at times at 20-to-1 odds. Full-stop. It wasn't a case of them being good at "their style" and the Spanish being good at "their style", when it comes down to it killing is the same game and the Spanish were simply better at it. As for the Aztecs/Incans being well adapted for 'their needs', those needs do not appear to have included defending themselves against the Spanish.

Mesoamerica is a relatively small place. Long distance travel was never really necessary when it came to luxury goods, unlike Europe where they had to be imported from afar and thus Europeans needed to develop a rudimentary credit system to handle those far off investments. The lack of standardized money or financial institutions is exasperated by the Mesoamerican political structure, in which luxury goods were one of the primary ways of paying tribute. This meant that prosperous city would siphon off trade and goods from it's vassals and thus Mesoamerican economies were ran through political and military pressure on a state level rather than trade on a individual level. That can be examined under a lot of different modern political and economic theories, but the basic point is that the movement of people, goods, and wealth were a political, rather than economic matter.

All of which is an elaborate way of saying that Aztec society hadn't reached the level of development in terms of long-distance trade and transportation infrastructure that necesitated banking. They not only hadn't developed banking, but hadn't developed the things that necessitated banking. This places them millenia behind the major societies of Eurasia.

The Inca are an oddball case. They ran their economy almost entirely on a state level. People, goods, and wealth were almost exclusively handled by the state. The entire Inca taxation system was reliant on being to draw up resources and manpower when needed. When you combine that with their expansive empire which comprised of most of the population centers in the Andes, there really wasn't much need to private trade. Credit is a different issue. On one had you could say that a state run, "universal" economy eliminated the need for credit, but you could also look at their taxation system as being one large form of credit.

If you did so, however, you'd have to concede that the Incans were at a very low level of economic development compared to the main societies of Eurasia without cash, markets, merchants, borrowing, etc. Which puts it at a level of development millenia behind the Old World.

In the abscence of a more complex development model than that found in EU3, the nerf makes sense on this basis.

 

[Dafool]

Classic example of the kind of hand-waving you see too much of on this thread. The Aztecs/Incans could not compete with the Spaniards on the battlefield man-to-man or even at times at 20-to-1 odds. Full-stop. It wasn't a case of them being good at "their style" and the Spanish being good at "their style", when it comes down to it killing is the same game and the Spanish were simply better at it. As for the Aztecs/Incans being well adapted for 'their needs', those needs do not appear to have included defending themselves against the Spanish.

*Sigh* I hate repeating myself, but Native warfare, especially in Mesoamerica, was not about killing you opponent. It was about capturing soldiers alive for use as slaves and forcing their city into submission. And the Natives were quite good at it. When they first started to fight with the Spaniards, the Aztec mentality was to capture them alive, not kill them. It was a costly mistake. When the Aztecs really hunkered down to fight, they did occasionally defeat the Spanish. It is similar with the Inca. You can't dismiss cultural differences as "hand-waving" when it's those same types of cultural particularities that had fostered the people we call the conquistadors.

 

[Sir Iain]

If you did so, however, you'd have to concede that the Incans were at a very low level of economic development compared to the main societies of Eurasia without cash, markets, merchants, borrowing, etc. Which puts it at a level of development millenia behind the Old World.

Again, techology or development isn't stricktly linear.
The level of state-control in the Inca-empire was far higher than in Europe at the same time. From a free-market economic perspective, that would mean that europe was more developed.
But from a state-building perspective, in wich the state slowly takes on roles it hadn't before, the Inca were more devoloped.
It's very easy to try to see all development as linear progress, but history is far more complicated.

 

[Madmonkey24]

Classic example of the kind of hand-waving you see too much of on this thread. The Aztecs/Incans could not compete with the Spaniards on the battlefield man-to-man or even at times at 20-to-1 odds. Full-stop. It wasn't a case of them being good at "their style" and the Spanish being good at "their style", when it comes down to it killing is the same game and the Spanish were simply better at it. As for the Aztecs/Incans being well adapted for 'their needs', those needs do not appear to have included defending themselves against the Spanish.

From Wikipedia, which seems to be your main source of information:
- The expedition of Pedro de Alvarado to Guatemala was composed of 250 Spaniards and between 5000 and 6000 auxiliary Indians.
- During the siege of Cuzco, Francisco Pizarro had 200 Spaniards and 30,000 native huancas, cañaris and chachapoyas.
- The column of Diego de Almagro, who went into in Chile, had 500 Spaniards, 100 African slaves and about 10,000 auxiliary Indians.
- In the case of the conquest of Chile by Pedro de Valdivia, the original group who left Cuzco included 11 Spaniards and 1,000 auxiliary Indians.

What, if anything, can you say about the relative contributions of the Spanish and natives in campaigns of conquest in the New World based on these numbers? Don't make snide comments about hand waving when you yourself refuse to actually read about this subject.

If you did so, however, you'd have to concede that the Incans were at a very low level of economic development compared to the main societies of Eurasia without cash, markets, merchants, borrowing, etc. Which puts it at a level of development millenia behind the Old World.

In the abscence of a more complex development model than that found in EU3, the nerf makes sense on this basis.

The fact that you think these developments were in any way necessary to the development of advanced civilization means you haven't though much about this period in history or about human diversity. The Inca built a complex civilization with the same capacities as those you describe in Europe without the need for a system of banking or credit not controlled by the state. That has absolutely nothing to say about the "development" of the Incan Empire.

 

[Grubnessul]

*Sigh* I hate repeating myself, but Native warfare, especially in Mesoamerica, was not about killing you opponent. It was about capturing soldiers alive for use as slaves and forcing their city into submission. And the Natives were quite good at it. When they first started to fight with the Spaniards, the Aztec mentality was to capture them alive, not kill them. It was a costly mistake. When the Aztecs really hunkered down to fight, they did occasionally defeat the Spanish. It is similar with the Inca. You can't dismiss cultural differences as "hand-waving" when it's those same types of cultural particularities that had fostered the people we call the conquistadors.

This. Militaries are horribly conservative and slow to adopt to a new paradigm. More often than not because of their commanders were trained in a certain tradition and had interests in keeping the status quo. It would have taken years for the Aztecs to change from a ' fight to capture your enemies as slaves' to a 'kill as efficient as possible' type of warfare. You need a complete change of mindset.

 

[Colombo]

This. Militaries are horribly conservative and slow to adopt to a new paradigm. More often than not because of their commanders were trained in a certain tradition and had interests in keeping the status quo. It would have taken years for the Aztecs to change from a ' fight to capture your enemies as slaves' to a 'kill as efficient as possible' type of warfare. You need a complete change of mindset.

Unless opposite happens quite often and when dire need, adaptation happens realy fast.

 

[Arilou]

This. Militaries are horribly conservative and slow to adopt to a new paradigm. More often than not because of their commanders were trained in a certain tradition and had interests in keeping the status quo. It would have taken years for the Aztecs to change from a ' fight to capture your enemies as slaves' to a 'kill as efficient as possible' type of warfare. You need a complete change of mindset.

And this slow adaptation is pretty well represented by a tech malus.

 

[FOARP]

*Sigh* I hate repeating myself, but Native warfare, especially in Mesoamerica, was not about killing you opponent. It was about capturing soldiers alive for use as slaves and forcing their city into submission. And the Natives were quite good at it. When they first started to fight with the Spaniards, the Aztec mentality was to capture them alive, not kill them. It was a costly mistake. When the Aztecs really hunkered down to fight, they did occasionally defeat the Spanish. It is similar with the Inca. You can't dismiss cultural differences as "hand-waving" when it's those same types of cultural particularities that had fostered the people we call the conquistadors.

Like Grubnessul and Arilou point out above, the Spanish were in the killing game, and this was the only game that mattered when facing them on the battlefield. The Aztecs/Incans never really turned this around, and would have required a long time to learn a different mind-set, just as the Iroquois did. The Battle of Otumba was one of those where the Aztec were out for blood BTW.

From Wikipedia, which seems to be your main source of information:
- The expedition of Pedro de Alvarado to Guatemala was composed of 250 Spaniards and between 5000 and 6000 auxiliary Indians.
- During the siege of Cuzco, Francisco Pizarro had 200 Spaniards and 30,000 native huancas, cañaris and chachapoyas.
- The column of Diego de Almagro, who went into in Chile, had 500 Spaniards, 100 African slaves and about 10,000 auxiliary Indians.
- In the case of the conquest of Chile by Pedro de Valdivia, the original group who left Cuzco included 11 Spaniards and 1,000 auxiliary Indians.

What, if anything, can you say about the relative contributions of the Spanish and natives in campaigns of conquest in the New World based on these numbers? Don't make snide comments about hand waving when you yourself refuse to actually read about this subject.


The fact that you think these developments were in any way necessary to the development of advanced civilization means you haven't though much about this period in history or about human diversity. The Inca built a complex civilization with the same capacities as those you describe in Europe without the need for a system of banking or credit not controlled by the state. That has absolutely nothing to say about the "development" of the Incan Empire.

To be honest, I still lack any motivation whatsoever to respond to arguments framed in this way. Pretty obviously I have read the histories. The fact that the Spanish had allies does not mean that they were entirely reliant on them for their military supremacy. I have given examples of battles between the Spaniards alone and Aztecs where the Spanish quite simply massacred the Aztecs despite being at a great numerical disadvantage which you may read at your leisure. If you want to dismiss the total abscence of banks (controlled by the state or not), money, markets, long-distance trade, or even a system of writing that would have been necessary for these things to develop in the Incan Empire, be my guest - but you'll be ignoring the demonstrable fact that the Incans were millenia behind the Old World.

 

[StephenT]

What, if anything, can you say about the relative contributions of the Spanish and natives in campaigns of conquest in the New World based on these numbers?.

That the Spanish troops were clearly even more effective in combat compared to the native Americans than EU3 depicts. After all, they were so clearly outnumbered by their allies, and yet it was the Spanish, not the Tlaxcalans or the Huanca, who were in charge and ended up ruling the countries they conquered. That, it seems to me, is the big problem the revisionists have failed to answer.

Not to mention that if you try reading descriptions of the battles and campaigns in question, instead of just taking the overall numbers from Wikipedia, you can see that time and again, it was the Spanish troops - especially the cavalry - who broke the enemy forces. The rest of the army, including the "Indian auxiliaries" (indios auxiliares), then merely served to mop up the fleeing survivors.

 

[Talq]

Again, techology or development isn't stricktly linear.
The level of state-control in the Inca-empire was far higher than in Europe at the same time. From a free-market economic perspective, that would mean that europe was more developed.
But from a state-building perspective, in wich the state slowly takes on roles it hadn't before, the Inca were more devoloped.
It's very easy to try to see all development as linear progress, but history is far more complicated.

Heh, the kind of thinking that infuriates development agencies everywhere. (An astonishing number of new developing country bureaucrats believe their jobs will involve controlling production and distribution of essentials. Fortunately, very few of them get into a position to act on that belief).

 

[thekinguter]

The Mapuche tribes expelled the Spaniards from the Araucania until their eventual pacification in the XIX century. Guerrilla warefare and a decentralized organization led them to defeat multiple times the spaniards, even marching into spanish territory and burning multiple cities. The resistance was so powerful that for centuries that region was named as independent native american territory or uncolonized lands, leading to a french expedition authorized by Napoleon III well beyond the EUIII timeline. The largest amount of spaniards sent to fight was about 500 white men, and that already was a huge drain on the viceroyalty's resources. Why can't the Incas or the Aztecs do the same, with geography to their favor?