Was it ever possible for an Aztec army to go toe to toe with a European power? I know the timeline for Sunset Invasion is pretty wonky, but as a crazy 'what-if?' how would an Aztec army at its height do in say, 13th-14th century Europe?
>>45877785
Probably not, I mean the diseases and metal working of the European powers are just too great. Not mentioning the scare tactics and fancy siege equipment that the Euro's have.
>>45877785
The better question would be: how would aztecs fare against Nords.
>>45877785
It would get its shit wrecked after the first massed cav charge
>>45877785
Not really anon. The only reason the Sunset Invasion worked in Crusader Kings 2 was because
A) The Americas had greatly increased technology (it references Incans with actual guns in a flavor event I recall)
B)The Aztecs brought over a virulent disease that laid waste to European defenses
and
C)The whole thing is a joke to make fun of history spergs while also letting western players have some Horde fun.
They did not even have the sailing technology to be able to cross the ocean. And as with real history, they'd get buttfucked by disease.
>>45877785
The only way to do this would be to take disease out of the equation This could be justified by saying the disease found its way over to the americas a few centuries before and now everyone is used to it. With a full population, the Aztecs would have won through sheer numbers
>>45878170
This is of course the invasion of the aztec empire. If Any european power brought its full military down, the numbers of the aztecs wouldn't mean as much
>>45877829
>Playing Elder Kings
>Not playing as an Immortal
Doing it wrong.
no new world civ had wheels, draught animals, massed infantry, real metalworking, alphabets. they're classical-era civs, and second-rate ones at that. there was no serious progression between the olmecs and the aztecs except in some irrelevant (for our purposes) fields like astronomy and agriculture.
>>45877785
Not from one of my games but it fucking looks like how one ended up.
>>45877785
They'd still die to disease.
>>45877785
>Was it ever possible for an Aztec army to go toe to toe with a European power?
In the Bronze Age sure.
Otherwise the answer is a resounding "no"
>how would an Aztec army at its height do in say, 13th-14th century Europe?
Get utterly stomped by heavy cavalry.
Aztecs were suited to warfare in Mesoamerica. They had no tools for dealing with Old World armies
ITT: People who don't know jack shit about Aztecs or Mesoamericans
The Aztecs were extremely capable warriors with a firm grasp of complex tactics. Their technology was behind Europeans, but not nearly to the extent that Eurocentric historians like to believe (which is strange, because the conquest of the New World by Pizzaro and Cortez was HUGELY anomalous and really displayed their strength as commanders).
Aztec cloth armor was more than capable of stopping arrows and even muskets at a distance. In fact, not only was it only slightly less durable than European metal armor, it was also significantly more breathable and lightweight, and Conquistadors ditched their metal armor for Tlaxcalan cloth armor the first chance they got because of it.
The Macahuitl had piss-poor armor penetration against metal plate, but the majority of European soldiers at the time we're talking did not wear full metal plate. They wore perhaps a metal curiass and helmet, and MAYBE chain mail if they were well-equipped troops, which the majority were not. Only knights got the real heavy plate in a meaningful number. Macahuitls also had ridiculous cutting power against human skin (and by extension leather armor) to the point where there were documented occurrences of Aztec warriors cutting the heads off of horse in a single blow. This would more than fuck up the line infantry of most European armies.
Aztecs were at first terrified of guns, but Aztec generals quickly observed that they were inaccurate and made more noise than damage, and took a long time to reload. Using slingers, atlatlists, and archers, they could disrupt Spanish soldiers attempting to form a line and prevent them from utilizing their ranks effectively (which is why the Spanish stopped doing this immediately after the first battle). If they did manage volley fire, they would lie against the ground and wait for them to shoot, then jump up and sprint to the enemy line to engage them at close quarters.
Cont.
>>45877829
Is that mod up to date?
>>45879466
With regards to horses (because that would have been a major problem), the Aztecs learned quickly to target the horse itself with arrows, thrown spears, and slings, to fuck the horse up and then dismount the rider. They were not ones to wait in serried ranks for horses to charge them down - they also would charge in headlong to mitigate the effectiveness of the cavalry charge against the full body of soldiers. Again, macahuitls were surprisingly effective - they frequently cut the legs of a horse clean off, throwing off the rider and often completely disabling him permanently.
The Aztec army also did not fight with European tactics. One of the most common and valued military tactics in Mesoamerica was the ruse - deception and surprise determined the fate of nations more often than strength alone. Small elements of the army would draw out the enemy line to a pre-arranged point, and then the rest of the army would explode from cover to cut the enemy off and take them as sacrificial prisoners. This was so effective in some cases that the entire military force of a city-state would be annihilated in a single blow by clever tlatalonis.
They also had an interesting technique for sieges and long-ranged support. Like the Inca, the Aztecs would heat up stones in a fire to the point where they'd be red hot. Then, they'd quickly wrap the stone in pitch-soaked cloth, and sling it from a sling into the air. The stone would ignite the cloth in midair, and appear to literally rain fire down on the enemy (with the added bonus of being a rock the size of your fist). The Spanish and Portuguese described this as outright terrifying when they had it done to them.
Would a European army win? Probably, but that victory is sure as hell not set in stone, and if the Aztecs fought in dense terrain or had properly lain a ruse, it'd be actually in favor of the Aztecs (Though by no means decided).
>>45879466
>they would lie against the ground and wait for them to shoot
What sorcery be this
>>45879579
Ancient Caucasus secrets.
>>45879561
>>45879466
Machuitls and Cloth armor was mostly limited to the noble/warrior class. The average commoner used a spear and Atlatl and wore no armor
>>45878477
>no new world civ had wheels, draught animals, massed infantry, real metalworking, alphabets. they're classical-era civs, and second-rate ones at that.
Actual classical era civilizations had literally all of those things. Do you even realize that real life isn't a fucking civ 5 game?
>>45879610
Yes, but the average commoner was not a mainline soldier. Jaguars, Coyotes, and Eagles were mainline soldiers, with commoners hurling spears or acting as sacrificial units to lure out the enemy so the "real" warriors could slaughter them.
>>45879644
To be honest, I don't remember reading anything that tells us the exact composition of Aztec armies, so I couldn't say for certain wether that's true or not.
Do you have any sources for all that?
>>45879466
>to the point where there were documented occurrences of Aztec warriors cutting the heads off of horse in a single blow
Díaz tells us that the Aztec decapitated a mare in one fight. He says nothing about it being done with a single blow, going by the context it's entirely possible that the horse had collapsed from various injuries and was then butchered at the Aztec's leisure a bit behind the fighting lines. As far as I can tell the "decapitated with a single blow" thing is that incident re-told a few times too many. Maybe there's some other guy who does mention that specifically? (Not that it's unheard of for such accounts to be spiced up a bit.)
A modern day test suggests performance with a pristine edge that isn't rubbish, but in no way impressive compared to a steel edge. The first hit also destroys the edge in the contact region.
https://www.mediafire.com/?d8ezf1temrfrg1u
Diáz also never mentions the Spanish picking up macahuitls (despite generally speaking very highly of the locals, so it probably wasn't because they would have seen such as below them) whereas the does mention the Aztecs using captured steel at times.
As for the armour, would there have been much steel armour amongst the conquistadors to begin with? They don't appear to have been very well supplied in general, Díaz is to have nearly died of thirst on his first trip (he went twice before his trip with Cortés) since they hadn't been able to afford good barrels to keep their drinking water in.
This said, I do agree that the Aztecs don't appear to have been very lacking in general. Díaz spends quite a lot of words on being impressed by them.
>>45877785
In my opinion, the Aztecs were extreamly competent even among their military contemporaries over the sea, and unrivaled in the Americas. Had they been able to weather the initial storm of European contact, they would have certainly adapted to their tactics to their advantage. It's scary to think how efficient their military machine was with the comparatively limited resources available to them. I remember it was either Diaz or someone else saying that they had codices that contained hundreds of pages dedicated to military tactics and how to conduct warfare. It was a very sophisticated society.
>>45879830
>It was a very sophisticated society
Despite Montezuma II's best efforts...
His dad would have been so disappointed.
>>45879830
You're confusing the ritualisation of warfare with strategic and tactical sophistication. They fought in a certain way for certain reasons and the inability to quickly move away from those patterns is why they got their empire shreked.
Look up John Keegan's Face of Battle. It really is required reading before any adventures in alt-history.
>>45879466
Genuine delusion.
>>45879466
Stone age miltary tech sure would manage well against complex metalworking.
>>45879466
Wasn't the main disadvantage of the Macahuitl that the obsidian or teeth used to make it required frequent replacement to maintain its sharpness? Supposedly it was super deadly but went blunt/got chipped super easily.
Also isn't the Macahuitl slicing horse heads really just on the same principle as any thick blade held in two hands? With human strength and leverage surely its possible for say a longsword to slice through a horse's neck at certain points?
>>45877785
>Sad how a great game is destroyed.
>>45879973
I think it is complete bullshit. MAYBE if it was one obsidian blade, then it would work, but it is just a club with huge number of super sharp teeth.
>>45879054
And Europeans would die to Mesoamerican diseases.
>>45879960
What exactly do you think the massive advantage of complex metalworking is?
Certainly it allows for special armor, though that armor requires a lot of materials and time to make. It allows for weapons that last much longer and in many cases cut or pierce better, but is that what decides war?
I find it difficult to believe that the quality of a sword or spear is the deciding factor in warfare. Unless the advantage is overwhelming (modern firearms are an example or somehow fielding a force entirely clad in platemail) wouldn't numbers, strategy, information, supply lines and terrain be simply more important than who has the better hitting stick? I'd be much more scared of 2000 Assyrians or Zulus (not that they are identical) than 300 Swiss Halberdiers.
>>45880046
Properly made ones had the teeth very close together to form practically a blade anyway didn't they? The reason for the use of seperate small pieces of obsidian was ease of construction i thought.
The shark teeth ones weren't used by the aztecs, those things i think just dig in to flesh, then when pulled out rip open the wound. Sort of a saw like motion.
>>45879466
Angry aztec detected
>>45880059
Why didn't that happen historically? Is it simply because few indians were shipped to Europe?
>>45879906
Why exactly is he considered terrible again? Apart from losing the empire I mean.
>>45880101
That'd be my guess.
>>45880101
It did with Syphilis.
>>45880076
>I find it difficult to believe that the quality of a sword or spear is the deciding factor in warfare
All those videos where qualityarmor stops swords, axes, arrows, crossbow bolts and even maces and warhammers with no to minimal damage show that metalworking realy matters. Cimplex metalworking in pre-industral times required lots of effort. People wouldnt do it, unless it was useful. Seriously, I find it insulting that you compare cloth armor and stone swords to plate armor and weapon steel.
>>45877785
The sunset invasion assumes reverse history of sorts.
Aztecs have guns, better ships, more pople and diseases.
>>45878477
>agriculture
agriculture is never irrelevant when discussing civilizations, especially when considering warfare
>>45877785
Theoretically. If they kept house pets.
>>45880137
I didn't compare them, you are assuming this is a discussion between two to three people. Lots of anons are in here. My point was more on weapons, since armor is much more difficult to construct and was much less available to armies than weapons were. I even listed full plate mail as an "overwhelming advantage". You are reading way too deep into my post.
>>45880159
Especially since it determines the potential size of population and the potential ratio of soldiers to men. I know very little about american agriculture except that the incas could grow shit in weird places though.
>>45879664
The books off the top of my head are "The Broken Spears," and "Warlords of Ancient Mexico." and "1491." I don't know the authors, I'm at class and don't havve them in front of me.
Combat was considered a privilege in Aztec society. While commoners certainly fought, they were not the bulk of the fighting forces when an army went on the march. They acted primarily as irregular units and arrow fodder when they did go.
>>45879930
Genuine ignorance.
Serious question: have you ever actually been in a fight before? Have you ever actually had a group of people gang up on you and throw rocks at your head before? Doesn't matter that it's primitive and barbaric - it'll kill you all the same.
>>45879960
Their technology wasn't stone age. They produced temples and buildings that, by the Spanish's own admission, was more impressive and beautiful than anything even in Spain.
Also, metallurgy is important in the grand scheme of things, but you're not going to win a battle just because you have a better sword (otherwise there never would have been upsets against more "advanced" forces). Whether you have a purpose-built maul or a piece of rebar, it'll kill you all the same if you're not a good warrior.
Also, fun fact: The Spanish lost almost every battle before the very end, and the only reason they even made it out of Tenochtitlan alive is because the Aztec generals, having no clear leader with the death of Montezuma, couldn't stop their troops from looting and taking prisoners of the Spanish and Tlatelolcans instead of exterminating the Spanish as they fled in a boat filled with corpses. Even then, the fact that Cortez still pulled a victory out of his ass wasn't so much the "supremacy" of European technology or but rather Cortez's extremely effective leadership and capabilities as a soldier (which the Aztecs openly admired, even after the conquest).
>>45880100
Nah, I just hate Eurocentricism and the "muh superior technology" circlejerk. I'm a white American.
>>45880586
If it were not for European technological superiority, your continent would still be in stone age.
>>45880207
Mesoamerican agriculture was based almost exclusively around corn, and was very good for a lot of things.
Incans actually were phenomenal farmers, and there's been a serious reevaluation of their approach to terrace farming and the practice of planting a bunch of different crops that require and synthesize complementary nutrients (I forget the term), as evidence is mounting that modern approaches to agriculture are not as sustainable as was once thought. It's also way easier on the environment too.
>>45880628
Forgive me if I'm wrong, my knowledge in that area is sparce at best, but didn't the Incas never invent the wheel? Or was that the calender, I can't remember...
>>45880611
Perhaps so. But if not for Arabian agricultural practices, your continent would still be a bunch of hunter-gatherers. We can go back and forth all we like about who made what and why.
The greatest irony of the "superior technology = total victory" argument is that is actually makes the Spanish and Portuguese look worse. Blaming the success of the Europeans purely on their steel and horses totally ignores the INCREDIBLE achievements that Pizzaro and Cortez made in subjugating the New World. Cortez personally held the line and stopped the Spanish from routing in the face of overwhelming odds multiple times, and Pizzaro, in a single battle, killed over 6,000 Incans, took thousands more prisoner, captured their leader, and subjugated the most powerful city state...with not a single casualty. That was historically unprecedented, and required he make incredibly effective use of the terrain, his tech advantage (which of course existed), and raw cunning and guile. What should have been a massacre against the Portuguese turned into a decisive victory that won them an empire.
>>45880686
They discovered the wheel, actually. They have unearthed childrens toys that had wheels on them that are almost certainly Incan in origin, and if they aren't Incan belonged to a neighbor state.
However, wheels just weren't very useful when you had to constantly scale narrow and steep pathways all the time. Andean Roads, unlike European roads, didn't develop swithcbacks to go up steep cliffs, because the Inca had llamas. Llamas, unlike horses, are incredibly adept at scaling steep inclines, so they just built their roads right up the sides of a mountain or hill instead of switch-backing up it. In fact, Portuguese soldiers complained that the road was the single worst enemy they faced. Not even skilled riders could convince their horses up the sheer cliffs, so they had to carefully lead them by the reigns up the roads at an achingly slow pace, leaving them wide open to ambushes and attack.
>>45880767
Ah, that'd be it. Thanks for that anon.
>>45879466
>Macahuitls also had ridiculous cutting power against human skin (and by extension leather armor) to the point where there were documented occurrences of Aztec warriors cutting the heads off of horse in a single blow.
>FOLDED 10,000 TIMES
>>45880871
Nah, they had some pretty serious drawbacks, like others have posted.
The entire point of what I've been trying to say, though, is that Aztec technology and weaponry wasn't THAT far behind European weaponry and technology, especially not far enough behind to completely explain the success of Cortez and Pizzaro.
>>45880137
The "cloth armor" in question wasn't just a thick jacket. It was multiple layers of carefully treated, woven, and reinforced armor that was (somewhat) capable of stopping a Spanish blade by the Spanish's own admission, and was a very expensive and difficult product to make. Furthermore, it was SIGNIFICANTLY lighter and more breathable than steel plate, which for many soldiers more than outweighed the decrease in protective power in the hot jungle. If it was so terrible, then why did the Spanish ditch their steel plate when they got to Mexico?
"Stone swords" is a bit of a hypersimplification. The macahuitls of the warrior class were master-worked pieces, with so many jagged teeth of obsidian as to basically create a single blade. While yes, they did shatter, they were also specifically designed with easy replacement in mind. The wood of the shaft itself was also constructed of extremely durable hardwood, and could catch a Spanish blade in it without shattering.
Was it equal to steel in its capabilities? No, it wasn't. But it wasn't the equivalent of a 9mm versus a main battle tank like so many Eurocentric histories like to paint it as. They were still advanced enough to make some pretty ded killy tools and weapons.
Obsidian has one of the sharpest edges on earth, if you didn't already know that. It cuts human skin so cleanly that in some cases a person won't even bleed, and many high-quality surgical tools even today are stainless-steel blades with an obsidian edge or solid obsidian, because of its incredible cutting power.
>>45877785
So a couple things.
People keep talking about the different weapons used and the advantages they gave. The discovery has done a show on this topic that I felt was rather good in the following link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBa1G12KyTM
Right around 1:30 is a good place to skip to.
>>45880699
Agreed. Important as it is to remember the importance of "Guns, Germs and Steel" etc, I think it's also important to remember that the Conquistadores had some incredible commanders who did amazing things.
>>45881157
My man
I like how it shows EXACTLY how lethal a sling could be. So many people write off the sling as "barbarian" weapons, and are therefore inferior, but having a rock thrown at your body at 240km/h is pretty goddamn lethal, and even if it doesn't kill you it's gonna royally fuck your day up and at minimum take you out of the fight.
Also liked how they showed the direct match-up between the two swords (though I'd like to point out the macahuitl wasn't a high-quality version of one). Also, what they didn't show was that their shields were layered in furs and leather on hardwood, which often "grabbed" the sword of the enemy and made it useless (because it's now embedded in the shield), and pretty much every Aztec warrior used a shield.
Kinda wish they had shown the cloth armor though, though I think the actual formula and technique to make it is lost to time.
>>45881088
>We need to stop this"masterwork machete" bullshit. Macahuitls deserve much more than that. Much, much more.I myself commisioned a genuine Aztec macahuitl in Mexico for 60,000 pesos...
>>45880628
The terms you're looking for are permaculture farming, companion planting, or food forestry. Permaculture is kind of a foofy word and applies to a lot of things.
Also important to the OP, everyone here who is talking about Cortes and Pizarro are forgetting that they came in the late 1400s early 1500s; technology, particularly metallurgy, in Europe changed a lot between the 1100s and the 1500s. Medieval armor was a lot rarer and shittier than the armor of the 1500s, as well as the naval technology. Supposing that somehow Mesoamericans could GET to Europe, you would also be supposing a significant edge in engineering expertise, and possibly other advances as well.
>>45879505
maybe in a few years
>>45879466
Holy fuck this is the Aztec version of an angry weaboo. Cloth armor would repel arrows and muskets! Aztec swords would behead horses in one swing!
Fucking LOL. Your Aztec empire got BTFO by the smallest fraction of a modern military empire of the time. You're out of your mind and I guess that CK DLC was made for you
>>45878170
>the Aztecs would have won through sheer numbers
Pre-european Aztec population: 6 million
Population of Europe in 1500: 90 million
>>45877840
>Cavalry charging heavy infantry head on
Can anyone actually be retarded enough to believe this meme?
Please tell me you're trolling.
>>45879610
Bernal Diaz (conquistador) wrote that spears thrown with an atlatl could punch through spanish armor.
>>45879466
>>45879561
Good posts anon, thank you for the perspective in a thread full of 5-year old armchair generals who have spent too much time playing M2TW and not enough time reading history.
>>45879723
The horse decapitation incident occured during a fight with the Tlascalans.
The Tlascalans fought with giant two-handed swords, not that dinky little thing you have pictured.
>>45887794
I find it exceedingly hard to believe that Aztecs would have anything that could even remotely be called "heavy infantry." Furthermore, although I'm not an expert, I heavily doubt that they would fight in formations or be disciplined enough to withstand a cavalry charge - not only will a heavy cavalry charge cut through skirmishers like a lightsaber through butter, but it will also wreck their morale, as the savages probably have never seen a horse before, have no way of fighting a horseman, and most likely panic at the sound of galloping hooves.
Horses are fucking scary, yo. Even a disciplined unit is gonna have a hard time to not falter, and if they don't the horsemen just steer off and look for another opportunity. They can do that, because they're horsemen and much faster than infantry.
>>45879973
>blunt/got chipped super easily.
that's the beauty of obsidian: when it chips, it fractures into another razor sharp blade.
It can't go blunt.
>>45887618
>repel arrows
They did, in the sense that it'd stop the head before it penetrated deep enough to wound the target.
>and muskets!
No, they could somewhat stop them at long range, reducing the lethality. At point blank (which is where the Spanish used it) it ripped right through it. They used crossbows and cannon more in extended longer range engagements because they could fire crossbow much faster, could resupply them easier, and they were still just as lethal as a musket was (and it should be noted that their crossbow bolts could pierce the cloth armor, but not to the same extent muskets could.
Mayan/Triple Alliance cloth armor was much closer to a primitive kevlar vest, with multiple layers of treated and tightly-wound fibers sealed with thick resins and fire-retardant layers. It wasn't like they were running around in really thick pillowcases.
>Aztec swords would behead horses in one swing!
So say the Spanish, who had every incentive to make them look terrible. I say this not to say it's "better" than Spanish steel - only that it was still an extremely deadly weapon.
> Your Aztec empire got BTFO by the smallest fraction of a modern military empire of the time
Mostly because of the incredible leadership of Cortez and his capabilities as a warrior and diplomat. You forget that your "smallest fraction of a modern military" was augmented by tens of thousands of Mesoamerican troops like the Tlatelolcans and Tlaxcalans who were jumping at the chance to humiliate Tenochtitlan. Furthermore, even though they often inflicted extremely heavy losses, the Spanish and their allies lost pretty much every battle with the Aztecs until the very end.
Also, disease, nigga.
>>45884253
>Macahuitls deserve much more than that.
That's not what I'm trying to say. As >>45881157 shows, they had some pretty serious drawbacks when going toe-to-toe with Spanish steel. What I'm saying is they were still very dangerous weapons that could kill you pretty damn easily.
>>45880059
>>45880101
>>45880118
>>45880126
Europeans had resistances to a lot of diseases from living in close proximity to livestock such as pigs, sheep, cows, horses, goats, etc.
The Mexica only ever domesticated turkeys and dogs.
>>45887968
>I find it exceedingly hard to believe that Aztecs would have anything that could even remotely be called "heavy infantry."
They really didn't need it, but the closest analogue would be the Jaguar and Eagle Knights. While not "heavy infantry" in the European sense, they formed a similar function.
> I heavily doubt that they would fight in formations or be disciplined enough to withstand a cavalry charge
They did fight in tight formation in longer protracted battles, but most of their battles were extremely decisive due to deception and army-wide ambushes. In those cases it was better to get as close as you could as quickly as you could, so they charged headlong and fast even into archers and slingers (and later muskets).
Also, cavalry charges were not done on close-knit infantry formations as a rule, because horses won't charge a solid object. They were only done against already broken or regrouping formations.
>as the savages probably have never seen a horse before
Your prejudice aside, they did marvel at horses when they first saw them (and were routed once because of them), but they adapted very quickly by shooting a fuckton of arrows at them and massed slinger formations, and the horses wouldn't charge into them. They weren't stupid, despite what apparently everybody else likes to think.
>the horsemen just steer off and look for another opportunity
Being pelted by stones traveling at over 230km/h the whole time, unless it's an already engaged infantry formation. You ever been hit in the head by a rock? It tends to be lethal.
>>45887968
>Horses are fucking scary, yo
for sure.
horses are fucking gigantic.
Still, horses have historically been used mostly for:
1. chasing down routing enemies and killing them as they fled.
2. flanking
>>45888371
>>45888259
Of course they weren't used against tight formations. That is where their mobility comes in handy, as no nigga is gonna throw a rock far enough to kill a mounted knight. Now, if they are using slings, it means they aren't braced for a charge and get fucking rekt. But there's a thousand things that come into play there so it's pretty pointless to argue, as it all depends on terrain, army composition, strategy, etc.
But in the scenario op stated, Aztecs would still get destroyed against an enemy with superior armaments, tactics and home advantage that prevents Aztecs from using their biggest advantage - ambushes. They also have no answer to mounted infantry and European war machines.
>>45887968
>Furthermore, although I'm not an expert,
>I heavily doubt that they would fight in formations
>savages
>most likely panic
>>45880568
>Their technology wasn't stone age
it was, by definition. If you're gonna accuse people of being ignorant (even if you're right, don't say ignorant shit
>>45880699
>Arabian agricultural practices
>>45888042
As a side note, obsidian is the reason that the Aztecs never developed metalworking.
The Law of Iterative Advance is a real fucker when it comes to scientific progress: you don't bother inventing something that's worse than what you've already got. Metalworking as the western world knows it evolved out of "the local rocks don't hold an edge for shit, copper is at least better than nothing."
It's also the reason why the Industrial Revolution happened in England: China and India had all the natural and economic resources required, but in China and India when you needed another person for your textile mill you walked outside, threw a rock, and told the person you hit "you work for me now."
In England, courtesy of the fact that the English hadn't figured out the concept of not shitting where you eat, if you needed another person to work for you, well, tough shit, there are about twelve people capable of working within a day's walking distance, and all of them already have a job.
So when some crazy asshole says "hey if you pay me five times what you pay one of your workers I can get you another worker's worth of weaving capacity using a ton of coal and this contraption," the Indian guy laughs and tells him to fuck off, the Chinese guy laughs and tells him to fuck off, and the English guy says "SOLD, MOTHERFUCKER."
And without that first stupid contraption, all the rest of the stupid contraptions that follow don't get invented.
>>45889468
They had copper, brass, gold, and silver metalwork, and in fact made gold and silver objects in extreme abundance. They also made use of bronze in ceremonial objects. They were Bronze Age, not Stone Age (unless you mean "stone age" as the overarching category of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't).
They didn't have metal weapons, armor, and weren't designed around pitched formation warfare. They would have gotten pulverized.
>>45889619
>never developed metalworking.
See >>45889712. They made serious use of gold, silver, copper, brass, and bronze. They just didn't use them in weapons because obsidian was just so much better at cutting people.
>>45889006
>no nigga is gonna throw a rock far enough to kill a mounted knight
You don't have to kill him. You just have to hit the horse hard enough to make it veer off and not want to get any closer. Fun fact: Horses don't like getting hit by baseball-sized rocks traveling 230km/h, especially in massed droves like the Aztecs would field them. Even if you hit the knight and don't kill him, you're gonna knock the shit out of the guy and probably cause internal wounds/concussion.
Rocks hurt like a bitch.
>>45889844
If you're charging slingers, you'll take some losses, sure. It's inevitable.
But that unit of slingers? They get fucking butchered. Skirmishers aren't meant to facetank cavalry charges.
>>45889980
You're still thinking about the person on the horse, not the horse itself.
Unlike modern-day vehicles and modes of transportation, horses are living, thinking creatures with a mind of its own and self-preservation instincts that it reacts to. They will react to these instincts no matter how well trained they are, it's only a matter of how much they can resist them before they do what their hindbrain is telling them.
When you're pelting fastballs at a horse at a near constant rate (because slingers could throw stones very, very quickly, especially compared to muskets), that horse is going to turn tail and run, because it's a horse and doesn't like getting hurt. This is especially true if the horse in question is already spooked by the noise of battle (which is loud) and the stench of death and blood (which they CAN detect and greatly spooks them). It doesn't matter what the heavy cavalry can do if the horse isn't willing to get close enough to charge. It's not about killing them, it's preventing them from fighting you, which rendering the mount of a mounted warrior tends to do considerably.
You're right, if the horses DID make it to the slingers, the slingers would be butchered. But they have to make it there first, and unless the slingers are already occupied, they're not going to get there without drawing their fire.
There is a reason cavalry were primarily used to run down broken units or provide pressure on an exposed and unprotected flank.
Source: Worked with horses ever summer.
>>45890234
Modern horses are skittish and small compared to warhorses. Those things were fucking beasts.
My family owns a bunch of horses and my brother is a profesional riding instructor. I know a thing or two about the animals as well, and they aren't something you want to ride into battle. A real warhorse, on the other hand, is giving exactly zero fucks about some painted native throwing pebbles.
Again, cavalry CAN deliver direct charges to packed formations without the horses freaking out, even under fire. There is plenty of historical events where that happened. Usually that ends badly for the cavalry, though, which is why it wasn't done. If the infantry holds, you're now bogged down, outnumbered and fucked. It wasn't usually worth the risk.
>>45889746
They had silversmithing. Gold, silver, brass, and copper have this in common: they are soft as hell, and rich people like wearing/decorating with shiny shit.
They never developed ironworking because there was never any point to it: in a world where obsidian is readily available, figuring out how to make something else hold an edge better is somewhere between lol and never on your list of priorities.
>>45888095
>Aztec Macahuitls would behead horses in one swing
The same was occassionally said of Claymores and the like. There is a VAST difference between a supremely skilled and daring warrior achieving great feats with a weapon and relying upon it as a tactic and as the standard piece of equipment for your troops.
The Macahuitls was not, and was never going to be, an answer to cavalry. A skilled warrior acheiving something remarkable does not reflect upon the standard quality of the weapon.
More often than note, steel helm and curaisse of the Spaniard would turn away a blow whereas the padding of an Aztec would not do nearly as well. In the rapid, deadly environment of close combat that kind of advantage is all that is needed to make a warrior worth two or three of the foe, skill aside.
