Why were native fighters so terrible. I'm not talking disease...I'm talking about the actual battles.
>5,000 Incan soldiers
>80,000 more not far away
>Under 200 Spanish
>All 5,000 Incans killed with Atahualpa taken hostage
>No spanish killed
How the hell can anyone take the Inca or Aztec seriously when they were BTFO so easily?
Talking in general, Spaniards had shitload of native allies.
Besides that, they had steel weapons, firearms, steel armor, even war dogs.
Don't forget, Spain was literally Total War: The Country for centuries. They had long and awesome martial tradition.
>200 Spanish
all vets of wars against the moors and the french
>5000 Incan soldiers
never seen an horse a gun a culverin in action
The same thing happened in Africa 300 years later
Military discipline and higher technology
And also the biggest cojones in all history
>>1353508
>icans
They were poor warriors indeed, look up for how they were organized, basically they had huge armies with poor training.
>Aztecs
these were actually good warriors, but they were doomed by the tech gap plus lots of enemies, plus what they believe (prophecies of their own end and stuff like that)
Natives in S.A had some success when they learned to ride and shot. Check out charruas, and Lautaro (pic related) he was some kind of strategy wonder boy.
>>1353508
You think any stone age technology fighters could have stand a surprise attack with canons, cavalry and steel weapons?
The "battle" in cajamarca must have been a pretty nasty mass panic slaughter
Had the incan empire been united and engaged in consequent war at that moment the spanierds would have been lost
It was really a lot of cunning, ruthlessness and a big chunk of incredible luck that led to the spanish victory
100 trained, equipped and professional soldiers can easily turn thousands over, once panic sets in and the mass retreat begins it becomes a slaughter.
>They weren't poor solider they just had shit morale and routed with 50 times their numbers!
lmao, 100k spear chucking ethopians beat italy because they didn't rout. Equipment isn't soldiers, morale is
>>1353922
You are aware that the Ethiopians had guns when they were fighting the Italians, right?
Anti-cavalry tactics are hard to come by, not to mention anti-artillery ones.
>>1353922
>beat italy
As if that's noteworthy at all.
>>1353934
based aztecs
>>1353930
You are aware the majority of the troops indeed used spears and weren't even paid outside loot. Truly much better soliders than your sissy fuc bois, along with all of europe and asia
>>1353934
>but he caught it before it reached him. He fought with the spear for more than one hour
What a badass.
>>1353947
>only aztec "victory" in all the war
>even so the spaniards achieve strategical victory
Will they ever learn?
>>1353962
No, because that's bullshit. I would recommend either The Ethiopians: A History, The Peoples of Africa Series (by Pankhurst), or McLachlan, Sean (2011). Armies of the Adowa Campaign 1896.
Roughly 4/5 of the Ethiopian troops in the 1st Abyssinian war had rifles. And if you're talking the 1935 one you're out of your mind , the Ethiopians even had very limited forces of tanks and planes.
All these comments above, plus the fact that the Native American Empires in these regions treated war as a religious, ceremonial event, hence the fancy get-up and the goal of capturing warriors to be sacrificed to the sun god.
\(T)/ praise the sun
>>1353966
After the battle of Otumba smallpox single handed won the war for the spaniards, there wasn't much of a war going on tbqh
>>1353966
>only aztec "victory" in all the war
>in all the war
If we count the siege of Tenochtitlan as only one, the war was basically just three battles. They lost at Otumba due to never have faced cavalry before and the outcome of the siege would likely have been different without smallpox.
If I remember the battle correctly the incas were carrying the emperor over and the spanish started cutting te limbs of those Who were carrying him, basically everyone panicked because the emperor couldn't touch the ground according to their culture so they got slaughtered by theSpaniards while trying to prevent the emperor to touch the ground
>>1353962
Plenty had spears, but the Ethiopians had spent the last few decades building a weapons stockpile and had tens of thousands of soldiers armed with firearms.
The Ethiopians were one of the biggest African counties for importing European weapons and experts, anon. They were very similar to Japan in regard to their philosophy on Europeans.
>>1353980
Okay fuck off dick head. 200k soliders, 120k with spears. Ridiculous nerve to run to a search engine to bring up "book recommendations" in order to talk down to me instead of doing so to confirm even the percentage of rifle use
>>1354018
Bull. Shit. Do some reading you dickweasel. Ever hear of Adwa? No, of course you haven't. You can even just go look at wikipedia. You'll see, le gasp, Pankhurst's work fully replicated. 4/5 of them with guns, 1/5 with more primitive weapons.
You. Are. Wrong. Stop being retarded.
>>1354032
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Italo-Ethiopian_War
Whew ten seconds
>>1354040
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Italo-Ethiopian_War
>Wiki as source.
Go team retard!
>>1354062
kill yourself faggot
>>1354111
This probably isn't worth it, but I'm hoping someone else in the thread is capable of learning, even if you clearly aren't. Be a good fellowactually look at that wiki article instead of just hopping along for something to support your inane position.
It claims that there were 196,000 Ethiopian soldiers, and that 80-100,000 of those men were armed with guns, and the rest with spears and swords.
However, the claim for that 196,000 troop count comes from here
http://www.historynet.com/first-italo-abyssinian-war-battle-of-adowa.htm
A history/news article with 0 internal citations. Which is about the battle of Adwa, which isn't the entirety of the Abysinnian war, even if it was by far the largest engagement.
The article itself claims, and I quote
> When the army had assembled, 196,000 men–more than half armed with modern rifles–were available to the negus, including 34,000 absolutely loyal Shoan royal troops.
Nowhere is it mentioned how they came up with that number, and even then includes a claim that more than half had guns.
The article, by the way, is not used for wikis own article on the battle of Adwa, which instead lists the Ethiopian numbers at about 100,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adwa
And you'll note that it keeps to the roughly 80,000 number for modern rifles, while shaving away lots and lots of "spearmen". This is based on some Osprey books, which actually do source their shit.
>>1353966
During the siege of Tenochtitlan numerous skirmishes were fought in the towns surrounding the lake of Texcoco and many of them were won by the Aztecs.
>Firearms
Seriously? Dogs did more than fucking firearms in the conquest of America.
It was because the spaniards were all veterans, had superior discipline and their generals were good enough to know when to fight and when to make alliances.
>>1353508
the spanish also had tens of thousands of local allies, closing the numerical gap in soldiers precipitously
Why did the humans get rekt at the beginning of independence day?
>>1353995
The Americas never had a chance, EurAsia would always be the most advanced. No matter how much time you give the Americans to dwell in isolation, they wus still moon and sun worshipping jungle dwellers who used wooden armor and weapons, when EurAsians already knew what the elements were
20 GOOD MEN
>>1357322
>jungle dwellers who used wooden armor and weapons, when EurAsians already knew what the elements were
>The Long Count calendar required the use of zero as a place-holder within its vigesimal (base-20) positional numeral system. A shell glyph was used as a zero symbol for these Long Count dates, the second oldest of which, on Stela C at Tres Zapotes, has a date of 32 BCE. This is one of the earliest uses of the zero concept in history.
Granted, 1500 years after the Egyptians, but still at the same time than in India and China and 1000 years before Europe.
>>1353508
>Aztec
I'm not sure about the Incas but I know that a huge part of the reason why the Aztecs fell so thoroughly was because they were a hated predatory tributary empire: they kept themselves in power by having a network of satellite peoples around them whom they periodically pillaged in order to stimulate their economy with war booty.
The Aztecs were universally loathed and few mourned their passing. The arrival of the Spaniards was the salvation that many had been waiting for from the endless cycles of recovery and pillaging
>>1354002
>>1354002
>about 300.000 warriors each side
>some 120.000 casualties +civilians
that must ve been a HUGE Fuckin battle
>>1357773
Well they weren't all engaged at the same time, but yeah I guess.
> 200 Spanish+10000 incan turncoats
fix'd
>>1357773
It was
>>1353934
these guys:
+steel weapons/armor
+cannons
+horses
can you even imagine
>>1357488
>Natives were bad ass and spainards dindun nuffin
juan please fuck off back to pole
What I have read they had totaly different mindset. When the spanish first fougth against the people of Tlaxcala they were in danger of beign wiped having no food and water the lord of tlaxcala sent to them food to eat because they had to be defeated by strenght no by hunger =S
>>1359342
There should be a good fiction about astecs winning the spanish invasion, assimilating their technology and becoming a third reich tier world power.
>>1354005
>and I told the emperor that the floor was lava and he believed it the absolute madman.
>>1353508
Are you talking about Cajamarca? The Incas were mostly unarmed except for a couple of ceremonial weapons. How is people with guns and cannons killing lots of unarmed people exceptional?
>>1359821
'The redemption of Christopher Columbus', by Scott Card
>>1353508
i'd be fucking surprised if the inca could have taken on warriors from civilizations like the hittites or ancient egyptians even.
>>1360663
The Egyptians had 20,000 soldiers, the hittities about 40,000 at their bests, the aztec had 200,000
>>1360759
They also had metal weapons and armor, a feat that the Aztecs never matched.
Also, I'm pretty sure the Egyptians fielded armies larger than 20,000 at big campaigns.
>>1360783
They would have trouble on most incan terrain but i can't imagine the incas dealing with chariot warriors well if they were caught in open battle either.
>>1360799
To hell with the chariots. People with wooden clubs and obsidian blades are going to have a hell of a time with even the simplest metal armor. The Egyptians did field infantry, with metal spears and what a DnD dude would call scale mail.
Would they be invulnerable? No. But they'd be much tougher for the Incan soldier to bring down than the Egyptian soldier would have bringing Incan guys down, and you can't face contact of disproportionate losses like that for very long without a rout starting unless you're an extremely well drilled mass of soldiery, which none of the mesoamericans did.
Not to mention the composite bows chewing up Incas and Aztecs at far longer ranges than they could retaliate in kind with.
>>1360783
>Also, I'm pretty sure the Egyptians fielded armies larger than 20,000 at big campaigns.
I doubt it, the biggest army that they ever put together was that of the battle of Kadesh against the hittities and it was made of 20,000 men divided in 4 divisions.
the Hittities had twice their army, since they recruited everyone from Anatolia (Trojans, Lycians, Mysians) and people from all of Syria and beyond.
>>1360817
I don't see anything there about soldiers discipline or group cohesion, just that the Aztecs had individually strong and skilled warriors.
>>1360819
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#cite_note-Gabriel6-16
I'm just going by wiki here, but they mention that Ramses could pull together an army of about 100,000. Bear in mind, that Kadesh is quite a way away from the Egyptian centers of power. Consider how much more men medieval armies fielded on defense than offense, take the size of forces the English fielded on the War of the Roses compared to the HYW in France.
>>1360833
Then why did he pull together an army of only 20,000 mean against the Hittities risking to be killed?
>>1360833
>I don't see anything there about soldiers discipline or group cohesion
>closing ranks
>not group cohesion
>face horses, cannons and muskets without routing
>not discipline
>>1353661
>They were poor warriors indeed, look up for how they were organized, basically they had huge armies with poor training.
Curiously, no source I've seen so far confirm this.
>>1359821
Peru is what you're looking for, intact native cultures and peoples.
>>1359821
there's a comic but i can't remember the name
>>1362517
just imagine what would the Aztecs have done with cavalry in that battle
>>1359342
The term "Super Aztecs" would take on a whole new meaning.
>>1360807
The macuahuitl was actually a fantastic weapon. It was also very simple, and easy to make. Along with the insane edge it wouldn't be all to surprising if any conflict would be atleast even between the two.
>>1353508
There's an interesting (though probably fake or at least romanticized) folklore story about the time when Pedro de Alvarado (a lieutenant of Hernan Cortez) first entered the territory of Cuzcatlan (much of modern day El Salvador).
The local native people were called the Pipils, and their leader (Atlacatl) had sent notice to the Spaniards as soon as they crossed the river into their territory that he would be giving up the city without fighting. When Pedro de Alvarado, his men, and his many native allies, arrived to the city of Cuzcatlan, however, they found a ghost town and a notice alerting that the Pipils would be giving up the city, but they wouldn't give up their arms; if they wanted them, they'd have to climb up to the hills and take them by force.
The Pipils were able to repel Pedro's force, supposedly killing many of his men (both Spaniards and natives) and even managing to injure him with an arrow to the knee (no joke), but the Spaniards responded by founding the city of San Salvador (current capital of El Salvador) as a new base of operations and slowly but surely taking control of the hills. Atlacatl was executed and the Pipils were subdued.
When you sacrifice conquered people to your batshit sun god on a daily basis you shouldn't be surprised when those nigs team up with the motherfuckers riding wind demons, caring magic death sticks, and whose skin shines in the sun.
>>1362826
>The macuahuitl was actually a fantastic (cutting) weapon
fix'd
It had no point to stab with and the weight balance and lack of durability would all be a huge disadvantage against the steel swords the Spaniards had. The only true advantage other than being able to get two or three at razor sharp cuts out of it at best are that it was indeed cheaper to make than a sword.
