what gave Spain the biggest advantage?
> weapons
> tactics
> native allies
> disease resistance
> not sacrificing people
> logistics
I read on here that many natives dropped their weapons after hearing gunfire and thinking it was thunder but I cant find a source for that
Apolcalypto is one of my favorite movies ever
was it realistic that Aztec culture was a horror movie freak show?
It was more like an advanced civilization with the death penalty. Instead of pyramid temple sacrifices, we have electric chairs and lethal injection. Had not yet obtained steel or firearms yet, though.
not an expert but this is absolute secular cope garbage college professor apologism
Advanced doesn’t mean enlightened or morally like us morons, it means their society was complex with organizational structures, record keeping, complex building projects etc. Aztec human sacrifice is a lot more restrained than people often portray in popular media. It was not daily sacrifices of humans - priests shedding blood was also acceptable as a sacrifice to the gods, along with nobility. Full on executions were mostly done during religious holidays, and consisted mostly of slaves, criminals, and captured warriors, and sometimes included tithes from vassal states too. There were exceptions to this pattern (the occasional child sacrifice when shit went really bad) but human sacrifice doubled as a way to get rid of those the ruling class didn’t like.
Aztecs were totally capable and fine with just straight up killing people. The Spanish conquest was not considered a flower war by the Aztecs outside of maybe some of the initial engagements with some of the tribes allied with the Spanish.
no, they were savages that ripped peoples hearts out for a god that doesn't exist
>for a god that doesn't exist
Proof?
Their entire religion ceased to exist centuries ago and the sun still rises.
>the death penalty
>demanding a few hundred sacrificial victims from your "allies" every year to make sure the sun rises
You're a sick person and your cope is sick as well
>death penalty for severe criminal offenses
>raid other tribes who have to give a tithe in food and sacrifices(also food)
I mean I don't care and am genocidal myself but this is either bait or delusion. Moral subjectivity is a verifiable fact as differing opinions on moral behavior demonstrably exist, moral relativism is a verifiable falsehood as the different outcomes of behaviors defined as moral demonstrably exist.
It was a simpler time.
Apolcalypto is about the Mayans
Apocalypto isnt supposed to be completely historical. it depicts a generic pre-colombian civilization thats inspired by both the Aztec and Maya. great movie tho
In a political marriage a tribe sent their princess to marry the Aztec leaders. The Aztecs being autists believed their chief god is their leader literally and simply sacrificed the princess in the same way theyd do to other sacrifices to the gods. The high Priest then fricking shows up the the father of the Princess in his court wearing the princess' face as a mask where he proceeded to pretend to be the princess and say how happy she was with the gods. The Aztecs almost got stomped out for this before the Spaniards even showed up.
That wasn’t them being autistic, that was them deliberately starting a war with their neighbor. The girl was supposed to be a bride to the war god, not one of the Aztec nobles. And in a way, she does become the bride of war, as she’s used in starting one through her sacrifice.
Weren't they Mayans?
They skinned and ate people, even children.
Many of the noble and honorable native American tribes you worship had genocide, rape, and infanticide as their way of life for five hundred years before they first set eyes on a white man.
And Christians commit actual cannibalism by the doctrine of transubstantiation weekly, what’s your point?
do you usually get upvotes when you act like a moronic loser online?
Apolcalypto is pure fiction and is meant to be an allegory for EEEEEVILLLL modern society.
Being white and holy.
>Apolcalypto
>Aztec culture
They were Mayans but yeah there is an overlap in Central American cultures. The more amusing thing is people used to think the Mayans were some peaceful farmers who like astronomy. No one cam build large complex cities without a sizeable standing army to defend it and when you have that why not expand? The western noble savage ideal should have died long ago.
A politically useful tool is rarely discarded even when it openly contradicts all physical evidence and every historical narrative preserved regardless of the perspective of the those who recorded it.
Seriously though if all these other races were what liberals claim they to be I'd hate them far more, because they'd have been disgustingly weak.
The board ate the picture I had intended for you.
I bought one of these helmets and larp as a conquistador when I nut in my latina Gfs tight pussy
She's into it btw
Do you make her wear shit too?
Couple points, firstly the USA wasn't a shithole when it was 90% white and areas that are 90% white are not shitholes in the USA today. Why is that?
Secondly why are you bringing up white vs indian wars prosecuted on US Territory by English and Germans when the thread concerns a spanish campaign against a different population centuries prior?
Thirdly lets talk about the indian wars. The government didn't actually genocide the injuns, we did. And I mean "we" because not a drop of my blood got here after 1680 and my family actively participated in driving Indians out of Pennsylvania and Ohio and we are not sorry. We even chased them to Ohio and then came back to PA afterward, we didn't even want the land we just wanted to fight. When Ben Franklin was colonial governor he engaged an expedition to stop us from geocoding Indians, and failed. Then his town house near what is now State College burned down and several prominent men who accompanied him where killed or disappeared under curious circumstances. The Federal government tried to stop us from driving them out of Ohio and failed. The Indian Wars were prosecuted in part to keep the Indians away from whites permanently because conflict inevitably lead to whites enacting reprisals on the Indians which wiped them out. Ironically the Indian Wars preserved them from total extermination.
What are you a freshman english major? If the federal government falls it won't be the revenge of the Indians which is enacted, but likely a genocidal white nationalist empire would arise with expansionist ambitions and nobody to stop it.
>Prosecuted on US territory by English and Germans
Cmon anon, let's not be moronic about things
Those English fighting in the war made up much of the later settler stock, with some significant named characters among them
It's almost like the colonies and England were both English
I'm talking about the racial background of those who killed the injuns, perhaps I didn't make that clear. I think it is pertinent because most of those families engaged in seizing and clearing land on the frontier were Cavalier and Landsknecht exiles in the early days and generally English and German latter on since that was the source of most immigration. While the Spanish and Portuguese were Iberian. The way they conquered was different, deriving from differences in culture and natural predisposition. The Iberians interbreed with native populations while we did not, to their detriment given how their countries turned out.
I mean my family is explicitly derived entirely from Englishmen exiled for stealing cattle on behalf of the King and Germans who burned down half the Cantons. So my inclination toward killing people and taking their shit is eminently natural.
You'll also see in the historical records that elites are always more accepting of ethnically foreign populations, probably because they see them as a potential source of revenue, and cooperate with alien elites. While those of only moderate affluence see land and children as the primary way to secure their interests and thus are more likely to be genocidal. It's all very logical of self interest is accounted for.
Which probably had influence on the Spanish and Portuguese campaigns because there were government supported campaigns conducted by those of relatively high status. Whereas those conducted in North America weren't government approved until almost the end of the conflict. And there even local elites had much more interest in acquiring land as a raw resource rather than a population to work it as that had never been their culture unlike the remnants of feudalism in Spain. So elites outside the government itself didn't interfere with the yeoman killing Indians.
>conqueeftador
The genocide of the Indigenous people never truly ended, it continues in the border camps. The Indigenous people were never truly wiped out, most people in the Americas have some Indigenous ancestry. Full blooded Europeans are the minority in the Americas, but a majority in the USA. Even if the standing federal government were to fall, which perpetrated the Indian Wars across the American West in wake of Spanish colonization, the people will still be here. The Indigenous people were never eradicated, and may very well outlive the federal government that waged war upon them in the grand scheme of things. I know that OP is gloating tongue-in-cheek over atrocities they didn't even commit, but pride comes before the fall.
Kys homosexual
In pre-Columbian mesoamerica a ritual war was waged to gain human sacrifices for religious rituals. Hence the azetcs (?) tried to capture them when they were fighting while the conquistadors just were stabbing them to death.
The following helped of course:
- having steel weapons and armor
- having the support of the non dominant indian tribes, cause they're were sick off getting their hearts cut out
- the conquistadors literally being top notch warriors which came from one war (reconquista) to another (conquering the Americas)
>the conquistadors literally being top notch warriors
>martial arts chads
Why did this myth take on? Conquistadors (Btw, that term is a retroactive thing started by the british as a slur because the Spanish monarchs banned referring to the conquest of america as conquest, it was officially a war of conversion. They didn't call themselves Conquistadors.) weren't considered Elite, quite the opposite. They were rabble, chancers and ruffians.
Oh I'm not saying Spain didn't have some amazing troops by the time. But they sure as shit weren't acting as "Conquistadors", for the most part that task was left for lower noblemen seeking fortune and whatever mercs they could find with their modest fortunes. Look for example at Hernán Cortés himself, the guy that toppled the Aztecs. When he left Spain he didn't do it as a royal envoy in a military campaign leading elite spanish guards. He was fleeing the crown who was trying to get him jailed for his massive debts along a bunch of poor fricks and literal convicts whom he promised a cut of the gold they found. Which is why indeed the Spanish army would at one point interrupt his campaign to try and jail him again, and why the soldiers he left behind were so ill disciplined they immediately chimped out as soon as their wrangler was out of sight.
The "Conquistadors" were litterally the weakest troops you could find on the Spanish payroll. (Which also explains why they used crossbows and trebuchets long past the point at which the proper army had substituted those for guns.) And much like any Viking that got famous enough became a Knight, any Conquistador successful enough found a better job with the regular army as an Hombre D'Armas or got knighted into Hidalgo status and became a merchant.
You forgot
>cavalry
i am moronic but did they really ship that many horses to the new world to be useful?
Columbus shipped horses to the West Indies for breeding. Cortez later landed with 13 horses imported from Trinidad on the mainland in 1519, and had imported enough of them by 1525 to start breeding horses in Mexico. So while they didn't have a lot during the conquest of Mexico, they had enough for a small contingent of cavalry. And in the years afterwards, the conquistadors had plenty for future wars in South America.
It's not so much the numbers. If you want to see how chad Steppe lads where before other people got horses, look at the battle of Otumba, where the Aztecs rallied they own and allied forces to deal with the aftermath of La Noche Triste.
Everyone in the area really fricking hated the Aztecs and thought these random buttholes coming in by boat would help them stop the Aztecs
>be gigantic butthole to everyone around you
>magical wizard space aliens with super-AIDS show up
>...
>"buenos dias!"
The various narratives from those who participated seem to indicate is was mostly the Tercio and general physical superiority which did it. Most of the native population were small, they are short in stature today so I assume this is an inherent trait but their corn heavy diet couldn't have helped and what bones we have do support that assumption. They originally fought several city states which they defined as "republics" probably via association antiquity and their level of development(ie stone paving in some places) rather than the actual political structure. They claim to have suffered tiny losses. This cannot be attributed entirely to steel weapons either as they lost most of their pikes when the fled from Tenochtitlan, and later replaced them with copper shod pikes they had allies construct to their specifications. They won allies by crushing them in battle so its unlikely that the allies contributed most of the actual force in direct combat, instead providing logistical support and porters. So you have large men with a superior mode of warfare taking on and defeating thousands of men of smaller statue who practice inferior modes of warfare. Indeed the Triple Alliance seems to have lost a border war with tribes near what is now Texas a decade prior, so maybe there was something wrong with their entire method of warfare.
They defeated large armies prior to gaining allies, and prior to disease becoming a factor, and without their steel weapons or guns. It seems like their men and their way of fighting were just superior in every way that mattered in this war.
>corn heavy diet
They also had beans and wild game/forage to supplement the corn. And their habit of eating human flesh meant valuable amino acids were essentially recycled, or kept in the system so to speak.
What people forget about Wikipedia stats when they read (usually embellished) figures is that the battle is only as big as the engagements within it
If your backwater confused mass of men hear that the devil men are slaughtering your greatest warriors, then it's quite commonplace for your scum to GTFO
Swords and fencing skills. Unironically.
American Conquista was literally teh case of amateur morons trying to jump on martial arts chads who studied and perfect their fighting skill methodically. You know like in those those kung fu movies. Only it was real and armed martial arts combat ends for loser brutally fast.
dude's using mount and blade movement tactics lmao
Wut
He's keeping his assailants all in line of sight and backpedalling away, not really a warband exclusive thing
and they are clustering into a narrow blob after him.
like mount and blade npcs.
All of the above?
I think all of those things came into significant effect at one time or another
Everyone hated the Aztecs and praying was preferable to child sacrifices.
if the conquistadors were so efective, then why they never conquered the mapuche?
what made the mapuche so diferently from the mesoamericans and incas?
probably the horse in your pic.
he looks tuff
Not worth the effort, they lived in a scarcely populated wasteland, also mapuche women are fugly,
What about the chichimecas? They lived in silver rich lands.
>Not Sacrificing People
>Logistics
>Urbanization
Sounds like a meme but anything that favored battlefield performance wasn't even close to a deciding factor.
>Had some guns but mostly crossbows.
>Had extremely little armor despite modern memes.
>Were generally inexperience and low class by Spanish standards, hence poor access to armor and guns. So lol tactics.
>As for Horses, Hernán Cortés had 13. Bleeping 13 of them. Not even enough for a full squad and by the time you see them more they had started selling them to the natives so you saw them on both sides.
Sure they were physically stronger due to Spain's better access to nutrients and even with all I said compared with the aztecs their weapons might as well have been fricking space magic. But their real advantage was way simpler.
>Thanks to better logistics they could endure the campaigns better than the natives who opposed them had ever planned for.
>Thanks to not sacrificing people and having actual citizen rights most minor tribes willingly joined them and even fought for them.
>Thanks to better city building and architecture, plus the many advantages of european tech at the time, any native peoples that got annexed rapidly learned to like being annexed, so most rebellions ironically came from the Conquistadors themselves. Until the issues that came with the Bourbon reign and 19th century insanity the natives would actively defend their right to stay Spanish, so any village taken by them stayed that way.
My history professor said it was really the allies they had who hated the Aztecs and spreading diseases. Also don't forget horses, which scared the shit out of Aztecs.
>Spreading diseases
I hate this cope. Doesnt make any sense. Why would natives of the new world be more susceptible to imported european diseases than the conquistadors were to south american diseases? Same goes for any other colonisers.
I think this just gets applied post-hoc to the history of any conquered colony. Disease was everywhere in pre-modern times.
Not all diseases are the same, and european diseases were deadlier and the result of centuries of infections from iberia to asia and north africa.
The native americans suffered literally the biggest and deadliest pandemics in the histoey of humanity. Only recently archeologists have realized how even the Amazon was full of towns, cities and trade networks before they got wiped out, years before seeing any european.
While the plagues were indeed pretty bad. They've been COMPLETELY overblown. And no. It didn't wipe out whole towns.
1-Yes, Archeologists are now finding trade networks that got wiped before seeing any european... And before Columbus set sail too. It wasn't disease that wiped them. Empires rise and fall Mesoamerican ruins are being found from centuries before contact with europeans, plagues aren't retroactive, it had nothing to do with disease.
2-If you're gonna quote that moronic 80/90% statistic. IT'S BULLCRAP. That stat was taken from estimates of the deathtoll in Tenochtitlan. The Spanish never claimed it had been disease killing all those people, which makes a lot of sense when you take into account they literally besieged the town and fought street by street until it was practically burned to the fricking ground. Disease was only one of many, many causes of death counted there, of which the largest was getting stabbed by a very angry spaniard.
Estimates from everywhere else, and the Missionary hospitals were fastidious record takers, set the deathtoll at a bit less than 30% of those hospitalized, which were over two fifths of the population so lets put that at 50% and we get an upper limit of 15%, most scholars put it lower. WHICH IS STILL FRICKED UP BEYOND MEASURE. For comparison the Spanish flu killed between 2.7 and 5.4% of the population in countries it affected. 15% is a whole damned order of magnitude beyond that shit and it was already a serious catastrophe. I mean just to put it into perspective, make a list of everyone you know, and start counting, every time you count seven, strike that name and start counting from 1 again. That's the scale we're talking about. But that's extremely far from the destruction needed to end a whole ass city. It would get fricked but it's still 85% alive, it's not gonna go all easter island due to that. So stop making up shit about it. That only serves to make the real suffering it caused seem less than it was.
Remember there is a difference between dying and getting crippled, a disease doesn't have to kill most of the population to frick you over, even if say 60 percent of the population survives the amount of people who have lost body functions and no longer at peak of physical capacity means you have received a deathblow if your economy is heavily dependant on physical labour.
We didn't feel the effect of the pandemic that much because we heavily rely on machines to do the heavy lifting, we for the most part create such as surplus of food there is an epidemic of obesity and we understand how COVID works, back then people thought eating beetles or covering yourself with ash was effective medication, when you add to that all the wars first by the incans and the aztecs and thein the conquista then yes, your population will go for something similar to what Europe got during the Black Plague.
To be fair, a disease leaving 30% of people in bed it's still hellish and capable of crippling an agrarian society if they miss key periods and causing many additional deaths due to hunger and warfare.
Horses were very useful in the Inca conquest IIRC. Heavy cavalry was a big factor in why Cajamarca was so one-sided. While relatively low in numbers, the natives were just completely unprepared to face it.
Also Inca military organisation was quite primitive - you had some bigshot noble in charge and that was it really, no significant delegation of power. Take him out and nobody knows what to do. The Spaniards could just ram their heavy horsemen into the guys with the biggest feather crests or whatever it is that they wore, and the whole enemy force would fall apart soon afterwards.
They also got a lot of native support, in fact, imagine the whole thing as a civil war among regiments of Imperial Guard, the spaniards were the equivalent to space marines, we are talking some of the toughest motherfrickers Europe has ever produced, they had not just repelled the arabs from Iberia a few years ago, they had traveled half the planet in early modern age ships across uncharted lands, they were immune to the diseases which was decimating the local population, while they werent really taller than the natives they were armored with steel, iron and tanned leather against peoples who were still grasping the use of copper, along with the horses they got warhounds and firearms, which means once they unleash a frontal assault it was night impossible to stop them with local weaponry.
By the way, to their credit the natives put a fierce and bloody resistance, while the central bodies of the native empires were beheaded it took on average half a century for the spaniards allied with some of the local population to eventually grind down all resistance into nothing, the myth of a quick conquest has been disproved many times, with ambushes, betrayals and skirmished which made Spain pay a considerable price in blood to take over the continent, ultimately more than numbers it was the spaniards willingness to use the locals what allowed them to hold a grip of 3 centuries upon the region and they only lost their colonies when it became clear to the new locals they had become equalized in technological terms and Spain.
>Also Inca military organisation was quite primitive - you had some bigshot noble in charge and that was it really, no significant delegation of power.
Well that's just not true, the Incan military was well organized into a decimal system, similar to the Romans or Mongols. The Spanish themselves said that the Incans were "as well organized as the Turks," keeping in mind that the Ottoman Empire had the most professional military in the world at the time.
They cavalry was a significant advantage, but really disease was by far the biggest thing at the end of the day. When the of half the population, including the emperor and his intended heir, all die of smallpox, and the country gets thrown into a succession war, things are pretty bad. Then all the tribes that were recently conquered start thinking it's the end times and decide to side with these strange new people who promise salvation.
Ah yes, your mad lefty teacher thought it was everything besides the Spanish ability to fight battlrs
Having about 90% of the people in the region already being pissed off at the Azteca.
No idea, but I'm a fan of the results.
You see amigo, when you invade a nation first you ally yourself with some of the disgruntled native factions, you offer yourself as allies in the form of elite armored heavy infantry, artillery operators and shock cavalry to complement their hordes of light infantry and skirmishers, since your are putting your necks in line you obviously deserve a good slice of the terrain and peasants you are going to conquer.
But you must not just ally them, you must marry their women, do tons of nakadashi with them, got children who then will ensure you have a thriving mestizo population with family connection who call you papa/abuelo/tio and are going to bash the skulls of your enemies once you become too old to do it yourself (never ever send married men to an expedition of conquest, always send horny young men who imagine themselves becoming some sort of local chief).
If locals demand you drink until unconsciousness and eat until you vomit you must do so cabron, you must also leave some third party like some catholic priests to do the dirty job of removing those aspects you don't like of their culture, and you must make it clear that you only tolerate them because otherwise ill luck will plague you and those are the conditions to you staying around, apus? Yeah, they are kinda saints, whatever, pass me more chicha and I will show you how to make some aguardiente.
TL;DR: you present yourselves as allies to the locals who are unhappy with management and let them do most of the heavy lifting while portraying yourself as absolutely needed to get rid of the native opresors, also you marry some of their women so you are now family.
It actually helped a lot both the incas and the aztecs had fricked up their own reputations with silly things such as human sacrifice, forced migrations and heavy taxation.
To my understanding, it was primarily the native allies bit: the Aztecs hadn't exactly been the most benevolent of subjugators, so the sudden appearance of a meaningful challenge to their hedgemony caused many subjects to rise up against them like a spark to a gas leak.
Even with their major technological advantage, the Spanish had nowhere near the numbers to topple the Aztec empire on their own (to say nothing of the logistical obstacle of being on the opposite side of the Atlantic), so the entire thing hinged on support from native states such as Tlaxcala.
They were fighting people that had not invented the wheel and they were armed with clubs, its a lot like then the moors conquered them.
open a history book moron
Didn't they also have a complement of vicious armored war dogs? Like the size of small horses? I remember one was even named, recorded for history, and venerated for killing like 20 injuns when the camp got ambushed.
most of the natives were on spain's side, since they were better than the aztecs/mayans. a lot of latinamorons ignore that fact, opting to say that 3 fleets of spaniards were able to conquer almost all of a continent
100,000 Tlaxcalan allies did, Cortez narrowly escaped Tenochtitlan