Originally posted by pjcrowe
My list of arguements was based on my perception that you are arguing that the Aztecs among others were culturally indisposed to improve their warfare capabilities, while the Spanish among others were. My point is that both cultures made strides to best use their own environment for warfare. Your line of arguement is on par with saying that Europeans, having not invented glass blade which, with mainenance, have a far sharper edge than metal blades, were clearly disinterested in perfecting their weapons and prefered to be passive in relying on defence.
My first arguement, where I refer to Egypt, has to do with the fact that the American Neolithic (generally refered to as the Formative) didn't hit its stride until about 500 BCE, whereas in Middle East it occurred thousands of years earlier. If you really want to compare apples and oranges, at least compare the Aztecs to, say, the Minoans. Or, if you prefer, compare Rennaisance Spain with the present-day US. Since that Spain would clearly lose in a confrontation with this US, does that make that Spain lack a "rational approach to warfare"?
As for Cortes' trip back to Vera Cruz, my point was that without conquering, his return to Cuba would have meant imprisonment at best. He and his men had no real option but to conquer or die trying. Now there's something that can tip the scales of a battle. Just think of the 50th Maine at Little Round Top.
I'm not sure what logic you are following with your arguments about the Aztecs and Spanish. I am INDEED saying that the Aztecs were culturally indisposed to warfare. That is my whole point. The Aztecs were an incredibly advanced society. They had engineering feats that dwarfed anything Spain could do. Their biggest pyramids (ziggurats) were on par with the ancient Eqyptians. Their main city dwarfed the biggest city of Spain at the time. Their economy and art were at least as well developed as the Spanish. They had a long history of fighting and empire building, similiar to the Spanish. Yet, their fighting was ritualistic and ceremonial. Despite the Spanish technological advantage, if the Aztecs had simply bunched together and overrun the Spanish, they would have won. Sure they would have taken massive casualties but they would have won. Instead, they tried to fight their style of warfare, took massive casualties, and lost. They were culturally indisposed to decisive battle. The Aztecs did NOT make the best use of their resources for warfare. They had ample resources of metal, ore, etc. They hadn't even developed bronze despite being fairly good gold workers. Even if their best resource was manpower they used if frivolously. Would you rather lose 100,000 men and win or lose 100,000 men and lose? Their strategy and tactics never really changed when fighting the Spaniards despite obvious examples that they were losing.
I'm not sure where you can possibly say the Europeans were interested only in passive defence. There primary weapons were the Arquebus (sp?), the cannon, the sword, and the lance. They killed close to fifty Aztecs for every Spaniard killed (in battle, not by disease). If this isn't offensive, I don't know what is. The fact that they wore armor was to make them better offensive warriors, not to make them passive defenders. Also, you must be the only person on the planet that would prefer to have an obsidian blade to one of solid Toledo steel. It should be telling that the Aztecs used captured Spanish swords whenever possible as opposed to their obsidian blades. They even felt the steel sword was better. I'm not sure how you can possibly argue otherwise.
Comparing Spain and the US is silly. Both are Western nations. We are comparing the warfare of the West vs the rest of the world. France and England beat each other into a pulp in the 100 years war but it adds nothing to this discussion. Spain would clearly lose to the US but not because of its culture. It would be better to make comparisons of the English and Argentinians in the Falklands or the Israelis and Arabs in the '60s and '70s. In both cases the Western powers faced daunting odds and triumphed over equal or superior numbers of troops and equipment. In both cases, the Western culture of decisive battle, individualism, and discipline won out over the non-Western forces. Lets make the right comparisons here and try to avoid silly ones.
Finally, comparing the Aztecs to the Minoans is silly also. Most people agree that Western culture started in the Greek city states not in the Minoan civilization, although it was clearly one of the roots of Greek culture. I would take forces from the Greek city states against the Aztecs any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'll bet Xenophon's 10,000 could have marched from one end of Mexico to the other and wiped out the Aztecs despite having no firearms and being outnumbered 25 to one (at the minimum). The point here isn't technological level. Even is the Spanish had better technology, the Aztecs could have still wiped them out. One big concerted effort would have done it. They lacked the cultural will and discipline to do what was necessary to win. So they lost.
