Let's say that the Roman Empire and the Aztec empire had existed and flourished at the same time, and they came into contact in Roman times, at the height of Roman and Aztec military and civil power. Who would come out on top?
Assumptions include:
>both sides have greatest generals and leaders
>both sides are not impacted by other empires in the world militarily, but diplomatically and trade wise they have contact
>war is not a necessity, but is allowed along with economic and diplomatic victories as well.
What would happen /his/?
Depends man
>>301568
Personally, I think war would be inevitable. Both empires are conquest based, and arguably conquest would be necessary for survival. Also one other assumption, they are not separated by water. On the same continent.
>>301572
>But that's...like...just your opinion man.
Kek
>>301568
I don't think either one would invade the other's continent, as such an expedition would have been utterly impossible for both sides.
Rome.
I'm not even close to being a Romeboo, but there's really no way the Aztecs could win here. The Romans would have had iron, horses, siege weapons, advanced fortifications, etc. The Aztecs would have had obsidian and slings. Even if the Aztecs had iron and horses, they never had the same degree of military organization.
The Romans would absolutely dominate them. For the record, the Romans would absolutely dominate the contemporary Han Chinese empire as well, even if we disregarded that it was in a terminal decline when the Roman Empire was really getting going.
>>301615
Compare and contrast the two if you would. How were the Romans better than the Han dynasty? I'm curious.
>>301627
Not him, but they had a considerably higher population, and far more iron mining per year. (At least if you're talking about the Empire at the time of Augustus or so).
Tactically though, I'm less sure that the Romans would "dominate" the Han, especially if the Han are set up far away from the coast. The Han were way more powerful than the Parthians, and the Romans had a lot of trouble with them, or anyone that were too far away from their transport hub of the Mediterranean,
Furthermore, the Han, as opposed to most of the other "light infantry" armament that the Romans went up against, had crossbows. It would have been a very nasty surprise when the Romans ran into that.
As always it depends on where it's fought. On Roman turf? Rome wins, no doubt. Aztec territory? Good luck lugging all that gear and siege equipment through jungle, swamps and lakes.
A retarded flat plain age of empires style? Why would you even consider this, are you stupid?
>>301568
Romans would win militarily
Because obsidian blades can't melt iron gladius
>>301597
>Even if the Aztecs had iron and horses, they never had the same degree of military organization.
How complex was each military organization?
>>301568
Romans because the Aztecs would have been wiped out by disease.
/thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSticX_UYDU
>>301568
What's the geography and climate of their new shared home, and do they get a period of adjustment? We could get an early Colombian exchange, roman exposure to malaria, or both, depending on those details.
>>301966
Let's have it set in a european/Asian landscape, so very diverse, but all 3 empires begin in, and already hold the territory, the are they originated from. Also, fuck it, let's throw Han China into the mix.
>>301844
the Aztecs weren't only in the more tropical parts of Mexico, there's a lot of their territory that could match the mediterranean climate.
>>301924
Rome at first had a citizen levy where free Romans formed the ranks of military units depending on their individual wealth, age and experience, corresponding with their population distribution, it made them numerous and very adaptable.
After the marian reforms, they had permanently standing professional army with several legions of elite troops, all excellently equipped and trained soldiers, supported by a variety of auxiliary skirmishers, mercenaries, horsemen and any specific kind of unit the province they were would require, for example, legions had horse archer auxilias in Parthia.
Aztecs also had a wealth/power based recruitment system but since they did not have enough social mobility to actually form a considerable number of elite troops overtime, warriors were a social caste of it's own and their training and equipment might have been rather good even against European metalworks, however the vast majority of Aztec forces would be shitty half naked spear chuckers.
all in all, i'm much more interested in what the Roman influence would have done to Mesoamerican cultures. It'd be very similar to their first encounters with Iberians, i feel.
>>303168
Don't forget that Aztec way of fighting was more individualistic and less focused on formations. Also, they had no cavalry.
Also, smallpox.
Romans so hard it isn't even funny.
The Aztecs were barely to where Mesopotamia was at 2500 BC.
Rome had the experience, the technology, and the logistics.
>>303205
Aztecs would have shat themselves at the sight of horses but other natives in America started using them sooner or later. Roman era horses were smaller and less scary so who knows.
also, i'm not sure if smallpox was a thing before the middle ages, or flus of the potency the Spanish were carrying.
>>303213
The Romans themselves got crippled by large scale epidemics they never recovered from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Cyprian
>>303213
I would recommend A War Like No Other, by Victor Davis Hansen. Although it's about the Peloponesean war, not either the Romans or the Aztecs, he goes into a lot about how even the shit-tier Greek cavalry they had was enormously effective, in large part because of the even shitter-tier anti-cavalry tactics they had.
The Romans probably couldn't have formed up an armored horse column and punched through the Aztecs. But advantages in skirmishing, in having a tactical force with a lot of mobility, in reconnaissance, in message delivery, in having stronger small-scale foraging parties, etc would probably be hugely important in any hypothetical war between the two.
>>303302
i'll look into it, thanks
>>301568
The Romans.
Why is this stuff even asked?
The Romans beat pretty much anybody. They beat forces and civilizations much better than the Aztecs.
>>303302
People exaggerate on the size of horses. It's almost a meme at this point.
Horses in the past were smaller than today, but they weren't fucking dwarf horses, they were still large enough to ride and carry an armoured man. They were still well heavy enough that if one ran into you, your day would be seriously screwed up.
>>303464
True, and I didn't mean to give that implication, the Romans did have cavalry, and they did wear armor.
But Roman cav was pretty bad, I can't think of too many cavalry charges they did at the height of their power that actually worked; they were always a support arm to the dominant infantry arm.
>>303517
Roman cav was bad because they weren't a horse culture or a cavalry culture. Not because the horses sucked or anything.
>>301568
>literal stone agers with a penchant for raiding and demanding human tribute
>greatest european empire of all time
this is just plain dumb, might as well ask about a 1vs1 arena match between some Neanderthal and a helicopter gunship
>>303545
I don't have figures in front of me, but I thought their horses were inferior to those of a lot of "horse cultures", people on the Steppes or in Iran and the like.
>>301568
If the Aztecs could have their asses handed to them by a bunch of feudal, degenerate latins, what makes you think they would survive again well organised imperial latins who are probably motivated by the same greed and opportunistic cunning?
A spaniard centurion would be just as ruthless and canny with his alliances as a conquistador, and just as inventive in building boats on Lake tenochtitlan. Maybe they would use greek fire instead of gunpowder.
>>301568
Depends entirely on geographic proximity. If they were far away, they'd have some contact and nothing else much. If they were close, they'd interact like Rome and Carthage.
If they go to war... The Aztecs were kind of a shitty empire. They had a good economic situation but their political dominance was even more tenuous than the Romans. On top of that, their war was less about fighting to win and plunder, and more of a ritual thing that you do because that's just what you do. Not that there wasn't victory and plunder too, but the Romans needed to win in order to get resources they needed while the Aztecs, who had plenty of resources, just needed vassals to die to prevent them from getting uppity.
>>303443
And were defeated in turn by forces and civilizations much worse than the Aztecs.
>>301568
I'm pretty sure the Aztecs were still using wooden tools of war when Spain contacted them.
>>303614
Yeah I bet. With their shitty language, I'm sure Rome would have been the greatest ally.
Dude, you are asking a question so detatched from reality that you can have it go whichever way you want.
It's like saying what if the Romans actually had magic powers, would they have collapsed?
Just play turn on the Sunset Invasion DLC and let it play out their.
>>301568
The serious, yet boring, answer would be: not much would happen and nobody would win. Naval capabilities and the immense distance would severely limit any party to successfully invade and the other with any force worth mentioning, not even speaking about supply difficulties. But in a fictional, equal land battle, I believe the superiour Roman discipline, tactics, body armour and siege equipment would make for a Roman victory.
I'm assuming this is where you got the idea OP.
If not check it out.
