Were Native American warriors actually that good? Or was it a matter that they only had to fight dudes with extremely slow guns. Did they develop any truly advanced tactics or strategy?
>>335649
>Were Native American warriors actually that good?
Nope. It was just Americans discovering, like everyone else before them, that horse nomads are fucking annoying to fight.
>>335656
How do they stack up to other horse nomads though? Better or worse?
>>335649
>Were Native American
Northern chichimec barbarians were pretty shitty, while southern settled civilizations, especially the incans, were decent for iron age standards
>>335703
"especially the incans"
>Cajamarca
Try the aztecs.
>>335719
mexicas were fare less organized, and with less technology. They had good mass tactics but nowhere near as disciplined as the incan semi professional armies.
>>335678
There's really no way to compare, Native Americans outside of Mesoamerica never took part in mass warfare. Horses were introduced to them by the Spanish and by the time conflict started with Americans moving west, most populations had already been ravaged by smallpox and other diseases from the Old World. As far as their ability to wage war is concerned, there was never any reason to think they were exceptional. Like all technologically primitive civilizations facing off against white people with guns, they did well when they had massive numerical superiority or could catch them off guard, and did poorly when the white people with guns had a chance to set up and array themselves for battle.
>>335649
they were probably pretty decent.
but thats because for a long time the bow was better than most earl guns, the thing is to become proficient enough with a bow to be better than a gun you had to dedicate your life to it, much like how knights dedicated themselves to their craft.
The problem is the guy with the gun was taught in a few weeks how to be proficient and thus its easier to arm and train men with guns so casualties isnt really a problem, where as the death of a warrior is a lifetime of training down the drain.
>>335656
>horse nomads
its crazy to think how good the Native American horse nomads were when in reality theyd only had horses for a few hundred years compared to the Mongols who had them for thousands.
>>335741
Im sure they learned quickly and learned from Europeans. Also America is pretty good horse territory.
>>335752
they didnt learn from Europeans horse escaped from some spaniards around ~1600 and found their way naturally to the Great Plains.
They were riding horses without stirrups or saddles.
>>335741
they inherited the hispano-arabic horse traditions, same with american cowboys. Iberia and to a lesser extent France had the best horsemanship traditions in Western Europe.
>>335774
But they came into contact with horses centuries before they came into contact with any Europeans
>>335797
I don't know man, I mean horses and european cattle did spread way faster than europeans themselves, but amerindians had literally no experience with domesticated animals, much less with animals used for warfare so I doubt they suddenly saw these shitton of foreign animals suddenly appear and tought to mount them. I figure the spread of horsemanship occured first by the southerner nomads imitating the european usage of the horse via their contact with spanish missions, the hispaniozed mesoamerican colonists and especially by the spanish vaqueros and ranchers that did combat them directly, and then spread it by migration towards the northerner indian peoples.
>>335813
Ironic considering mesoamerican indians were forbidden to ride a horse by the spaniards in the next two centuries after conquest.
>>335703
>especially the incans
I've haven't read that much into the inca but skimmed over it and watched a couple docos about the conquistadors fighting them, I heard they were considered "the roman empire of the new world" is that an accurate description of the incan empire?
>>335768
Man I always think how crazy it must have been when the first horse was domesticated
>dude you see that animal over there? Big beast, runs fast, lots of hair?
>Yeah?
>I'm gonna fucking sit my ass on it and ride it
>You ABSOLUTE MADMAN
>>335826
Yeah, altough I think the Tlaxcalans and other allied groups, especially their nobility, did retain certain priviledges like carrying firearms and possessing horses (hell, there was even a Tlaxcalan representative in the HRE court). Still I think some of those restrictions weren't enforced on those mesoamericans used to colonize and "civilize" the northern amerindians, seeing as they were the primary targets of their raidings and had to have means to defend themselves, as most missions and spanish ranchers depended on their agricultural output.
>>335830
I don't really know that much about them, but they did have a rather advanced administrative system used to rule their conquered territories very similar to the persian empire, as well as a standing army with access to crude metalurgy, as they used golden maces as a weapon.
>>335649
I think that they were pretty intuitive but they were way outnumbered and outgunned.
>>335840
iirc that was the main reason for granting mestizos the right to own and ride a horse, so that they could patrol the cattle on the northern territories, still, indians were largely used as infantry (kind of) when it came to moving up, that's why I said it was quite ironic that mexican (and american) horsemanship traditions were born out of mestizos and creoles when at least north american indians also proved to be quite efficient when it came to horse riding.
>>335876
Yeah, I find very interesting the way such traditions and cultural traits expand themselves over vast temporal and geographical scales, and how these techniques perfect themselves in a way that their transmission is way quicker than its conception. Think about horsemanship itself, how the domestication of the horse developed over milenia, and its perfection process spanned from the middle east and north africa all the way to the northern american plains in relatively few centuries via cultural contact and mostly conflict, amongst the moors and the iberians, the spaniards and the mesoamericans, the mestizos and the northern indigenous nomads, and finally the angloamericans all over vastly different frontiers that only had in common their propencity to raise cattle
they did kick the Vikings out of vinland
maybe if not for smallpox they would've posed quite the challenge.
>>335649
All Warriors are roughly the same. Only cultures with extreme heavy influence on single combat (like the Arabs) had truly talented warriors.
They where very good at raid warfare, which was way out of meta. Settlers had much more up to date rifle formations.
>>335741
They did get handed prime perfect Spanish horses though.
>>335839
You might like this, if you can get past the CAVEMAN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO7BA9i72Gw
They were atrocious warriors. Aztec empire essentially collapsed thanks to a bunch of drunken Spaniards. The northern natives were royally buttfucked pretty much everytime they fought the white man, one exception being the Little Bighorn which was such a shocking miracle people are still talking about it.
Other than that, the native "warriors" mostly just raided unguarded settlements and raped some women. Pretty much landpirates.
>>337701
They didn't kick out shit. The Vikings were just too stupid to see how could they benefit from the new land other than trading some furs.
Also much like the Indians, the Vikings were mostly just shit warriors able to score victories only against unguarded settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn
How did only 300 people die in this battle?
>>337763
>Aztec empire essentially collapsed thanks to a bunch of drunken Spaniards.
Is this a new meme or the average /his/ poster is this retarded?
The Cheyenne fielded some excellent light cavalry. They were preeminent amongst the Plains tribes
>>337739
>4000 BC
>Cavemen
triggered.
>>337988
How is it a meme? Just because they had some native allies supplying them with manpower?
My country was the last territory to be "conquered" by the Spaniards, so when they tried to do it the Natives already knew their military techniques and even knew Spanish, they also already had contact with the Jesuits and the such.
I used "" when I wrote conquered because it took place after the "New Rules" and the guys who did it were strong followers of the law and also pacifists so war or battle were their last options.
>the Huetares
They decided to ally themselves with the Spaniards, recognized the king and became Catholic very quick. There were a few battles to take control of the territories of the few Kings and Princes who didnt want to be under Spanish control.
>Bri Bris and Cebecars
They had an alliance and before the arrival of the Spaniards they were in constant war against the Huetares who used them as slaves. The Spaniards tried to conquer them by force because they were not allowed to use their Huetar allies for forced labor. They failed and the Bri Bris and Cabecares remained independent until they joined the country in 1905. Most people say their knowledge of the region and the terrain is what allowed them to defeat the Spaniards.
>the Maleku
They were savage warriors, literally, they killed anything that wasnt Amerindian at first sight. While some consider this very "evil" it helped them to remain independent until 1880~ when they voluntarily joined the country. They had commerce with the Brits and pirates during the colony.
>the rest of tribes of the country
They were peaceful or at least never tried anything against the Spaniards, and the Spaniards never tried anything against them. They had commerce with the Spaniards and the Spaniards were allowed to travel through their territory.
>>335741
Plains, man, plains.
>>335736
Literally everything you said is bullshit.
Guns were better than bows, hands down. Guns took more training to use than bows. Modern training and drilling manuals were invented specifically in response to the need for well-trained musketeers. Every military manual from the 16th century onward stresses that trained men are infinitely superior to untrained men, and that great masses of untrained men are worthless. Of course there are historical accounts of poorly trained musketeers, but there are also accounts of poorly trained bowmen.
The musket has a greater range than the bow, hit more often, and did tens of times more tissue damage.
The native americans themselves used muskets even though they already had access to and proficiency with bows and arrows.
>>338235
People who haven't done their homework seriously can't believe that a few hundred veterans of the Italian Wars with steel swords, cavalry and artillery could trounce tens of thousands of disorganized bronze age savages.
>>338695
not him, but crossbows were the most common ranged weapon amongst conquistadores, and while they still are far better than native bows I just wanted to point the common misconception that powder weapons won the conquest.
>>338695
>Guns took more training to use than bows.
That's a bit of a broad statement.
Bows gradually got replaced by crossbows and firearms as armor improved, but it took months to years to train a competent archer.
>>338695
>Guns took more training to use than bows.
Are you fucking serious nigger? The main reason early guns took off isn't because they were better weapons than bows - they were far less accurate and short-ranged than bows, but because in order to be a good bowman you'd have to train for years. In order to be a good musketeer you'd only need about a week of training.
>>340032
What do you base that on? Not on any period source, since they all emphasized that a musketeer had to be well-trained.
Here's Lindsay Boynton, the guy who wrote the book on this subject, on the training meme:
"One of the reasons that firearms superseded bows, it is suggested, is that they could be mastered in a shorter time. Such an argument runs wholly counter to the growing professionalisation of military affairs. Training, in particular, was becoming ever more comprehensive and the specious argument that firearms required less, not more, training, bears all the marks of a propagandist’s sophistry. No contrast could be more pointed between the old assumption that levies were briefly trained en route for battle, and that implicit in the whole conception of the trained bands, that a certain minimum of discipline and instruction were essential."
The Elizabethan Militia, page 113.
Not a single one of the military manuals published in the 16th century said that poorly trained men were acceptable, or that a musketeer was easy to train.
Robert Barret: “The fierie shot, either on horseback, or foote, being not in hands of the skilfull, may do unto themselves more hurt then good: wherefore the same is often to be practised, that men may grow perfect and skilfull therein.”
Thomas Digges: “Reason teacheth me, how barbarous that common opinion is, that an English man will be trained in a few weekes to be a perfect Souldiar. For if a Mason, a Painter, or other Mechanicall Artificer be scarcely able in seven yeares to learne the perfections of his Science, shall we thinke the Art of a Souldiar so base and abject, that it is to be attained in a few weekes or moneths?”
>>340043
> they were far less accurate and short-ranged than bows
No they weren't.
I could provide a dozen citations and historical examples proving you wrong but this 2000 character limit can suck my nuts.
Read this- just one of many treatises about the shortcomings of the bow and the advantages of the musket written by English veterans in the latter half of the 16th century.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05277.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
>>340026
>Bows gradually got replaced by crossbows
Not in England
>and firearms as armor improved,
No, as firearms improved. The big thing that pushed firearms ahead of bows in England was the invention of the caliver and musket, which were larger and more powerful than the harquebus.
>>341596
Of course training includes aspects such as discipline which require a lot of time, and to master a weapon requires a lot of time, but to be able to operate a fire arm at a basic proficiency does not take long, but try giving a bow with a decent draw weight to an untrained person and see how many arrows they can fire in an hour, even without taking accuracy into account
t.owner of muzzle-loading rifles (flintlock and percussion)
>>338235
tbqh smallpox and native allies were the main reason the aztec empire fell, horses, cannons and steel still proved quite ineffective when facing an organized native army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Noche_Triste
>>338695
>Guns were better than bows, hands down.
Something you guys are forgetting is that before repeaters were invented, guns too k forever to reload. Three or four rounds a minute was considered good. You can unload way more arrows per minute than that. If you're fighting someone who's struggling to reload his gun, and you can ride up and shoot a few arrows into him before he reloads, you win the fight.
>>341623
Yeah you can get the gun to go "boom" without much effort. That isn't the same as learning to juggle a match lit at two ends, your musket, your rest and your flasks, all while marching in formation and counter-marching to reload. Do that while keeping your match's tips hot and ash-free, and AWAY FROM YOUR POWDER. There's a really, really good reason why *every* military manual emphasized that a musketeer had to be well-trained. They would blow themselves up if they weren't.
They were also expected to be good, fast, and reliable shots. A musketeer was expected to be able to hit a man at 160 yards before he was accepted as a trained shot according to Thomas Digges, the Muster-Master general during Leicester's expedition to the Low Countries. That's not easy for a beginner even with a modern rifle. Digges also recommended that musketeers be trained six days a week and required weekly target practice.
Compare that to the supervised formal training given to archers until then: none.
>>341674
Humfrey Barwick in 1592:
The Harquebuzier that dooth perfectlye knowe how to vse himselfe and his weapon: will discharge more Bullets, then any Archer can doo Arrowes: and by this way and meane. If it be a Musket, so much the better for my purpose, and this is to be doone in great incounters, whereas armies cannot marche but easilye, for that the numbers are great, and being a Musket, I would firste deliuer a single Bullet, at 24. score off or there abouts, by that time they had marched fourescore neerer, I would deliuer another Bullet, and at 12 score two, and at eight score three, at forescore 6. Pistoll Bullets, with lesse pouder then at the first by the third part, for alwaies the more lead the lesse pouder, and yet shall the force be neuer the lesse.
Now consider, that betwixt eight score and the ioyning of the battell, how many arrows can a bow well deliuer?
>>341674
>if
>>341648
Smallpox wasn't a factor until the final attack on Mexico City. The Spanish had already been winning battle after battle before the first smallpox carrier arrived (ironically, with the band sent to arrest Cortez).
>horses, cannons and steel still proved quite ineffective when facing an organized native army.
I assume that's a typo.
>>341648
Also, the native allies didn't do much. They were afraid to engage the Aztec armies head-on until the Spanish had first broken the Aztecs. Although native auxiliaries often substantially outnumbered the Spanish, the Spanish were still doing the bulk of the fighting.
The Spanish usually preferred it that way- they felt like the native auxiliaries impeded their maneuvers.
The conquest of Mexico was so close-fought that the Spanish would have perished without friendly assistance, but the natives definitely weren't doing the bulk of the fighting by any means.
