Egyptian vs Aztec empire

...

Is no one gonna point out that Aztecs never made it out of the stone age?

>Dumb people built impressive structures. Smart people built nations
stupidest claim I've seen in a while.

African tribes neither have impressive structures nor nations while mesapotamian people were the first to build powerful nations as well as impressive structures like the tower of Babel.

If you look at Europe, which became the hearth of civilization after Renaissance, you'll see that it's filled with magnificent structures.

Same with places that were under the rule of nations like the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient greeks etc.

Depends on where they fight. If in shitty mesoamerican swamplands aztecs would win no doubt but on a wide open North African plain Egyptians with their calvalry would definitely have the advantage.

Aztecs didn't have metal weapons.

Where they fight changes a lot though. Egyptians probably couldn't do much in Aztec forests while Aztecs couldn't do much in a desert.

Egyptians were bronze age and had domesticated horses and other livestock. The Aztecs were still stone age and could only move on foot. The Egyptians would win.

only if you ignore the geographical factor
i could claim the mongols could wipe a roman legion in the steppes, but i could not claim the same in a place like rome, where you have to fight an infantry close combat

Egyptians had horses, Aztec's did not. If aztec's had horses maybe South America would be a much different place, but they didn't so Egypt stomps em

What era? Later era is basically just an appendage of Greece.

But in the earlier case, Egyptians would win. They had warships, chariots, military tactics, etc.

Aztecs never even invented metalworking. They were just barbarians who hit things with clubs.

Egyptians easy. Better tech. Aztecs didn't even have machines as simple as the wheel. Egyptians had chariots. Also, being isolated, people of the new world were vulnerable to the diseases of the old world. Bunch of Aztec people died after their first contact with the Europeans.

...

Aztec would kick their ass.

The Pyramids were cool and all; great on them.

But imagine if they used those resources and man hours to build an actual city of megalithic proportions that actually benefited the whole of society instead of stupid ass pyramids.

shit i never thought about it that way. They were just oversized tombs after all.

So what, it's not like the Aztec land was all jungle, there's plenty of area where the Egyptians could use their horses to their advantage.

>Aztecs are extinct,
>Former jew slaves rules the world
I think its apparent who won

>Egyptians
>Jewish

What about the eagle warrior?

>imagine if they used those resources and man hours to build an actual city of megalithic proportions
implying they haven't?
what are all those other temples, ruins and them?
do you even sacred geometry bro?

there's a theory that the pharoes were jews who larped as natives

aztec

>Aztecs didn't have metal weapons.
They had obsidian tho, which is sharp AS FUCK

youtube.com/watch?v=GCX-YHzPb3w

>Aztecs line up for battle with their stone axes and wooden shields
>Egyptians just steamroll them with chariots, horses, and metal weapons
Aztecs would get smashed. Seriously, Cortez defeated their entire nation with 200 guys.

quora.com/Why-dont-more-surgeons-use-obsidian-scalpels

>Cortez

Not ancient fuckhead

This, Egyptians for sure. They literally had bronze, hydraulic ballistas, but they could never get the seal on the piston made right. If they would have had access to rubber they could have started the industrial revolution, no joke.

Too be fair the Aztec's were getting wrecked by every disease that tore through Europe

Egyptians. Aztecs were despised by all of their client peoples to the point where a couple hundred cumskins could flip them and march on Tenochtitlan.

I would hope they be more advanced. The aztecs were defeated by the Spanish what 4000 years after the Egyptians peaked or something.

Egypt. They knew metalworking and possessed swords, armor, spears, chariots, etc.

Egyptians

Native Indians are retarded

Didn't Egyptians have horses? It's no contest if they did

No they didn't, you dumb ass. They couldn't even work metal and used obsidian/wooden blades, spears, and clubs.

Aztecs only had one city, and no beasts of burden. Not to mention their weapons were just clubs with little bits of sharp obsidian glass stuck in the sides.

Meanwhile, the Egyptians had an entire Kingdom, including horses and chariots. They had bronze swords and armor, not to mention amazing bowmen who were lethally effective shooting on the move from their chariot platforms.

It's not even close. The AEgyptians 6000 years ago could have beating the Ameriniggers 600 years ago.

Bronze age vs stone age.
Bronze age wins.

Have you never seen the bible movies, they did have horses

However horses in Mexico are useless as a weapon

It was called Thebes user

but how would they cross the ocean to fight each other?

The scale of the population of pre-plague eras is hard to comprehend. There are ancient Egyptian buildings designed to halve half a million people in them. These guys had tons of brainpower to work with. The past is filled with so much untapped human energy it's tragic.

Egyptians had camels and horses.
Oh, and bronze.

...

*have

Forgot to mention THE FUCKING WHEEL

Jesus Christ people. Blood drinking jungle savages would get stomped.

The only reason why they died so much from disease is that the europeans were super fucking filthy and had no hygiene, meanwhile the aztecs were a very clean people

...

>At least the Jews didn't cuck the Aztecs

They did

Cotez also allied with the other mexican tribes that had beef with the Aztecs.

citation needed

>Aztecs couldn't do much in a desert.
Aztecs are known for running from former Tenochtitlan to Quiahuiztlán (Now named Veracruz), which is around 300 km in a day, they were pretty athletic, also most Mexico is diverse in geographic areas, and while deserts are northmost part of the country (Places that Aztecs never went to), there are a few desertic spots around Mexico City (El desierto de los leones). Also keep in mind Mexico city is one of the highest cities in the world compared to sea level, foreigners coming to Mexico city suffer and have troubles breathing when practicing sports.

However I think it could be a tie, Aztec warriors were trained as warriors since kids, but Egyptians had superior long range weapons (Bows, spears, chariots), and Aztecs had very few warriors (For the same reason that warriors were chosen as kids), they were great in hand to hand combat but they had no organization compared to Egyptians.

read a book fag

Egyptians had whole slave armies to throw at them. They couldn't have competed with a wheeled wagon logistics line.

The ones whos empire discovered wheel, invented the chariot, and had metal weapons

Read basically any book of history.

Chichimecas, Totonacas and other smaller tribes were under the Aztec empire and they were forced to pay tributes (Either food, tools or humans). so many smaller tribes hated Aztecs and quickly allied Spaniards.

HAHAHAHAHA, you idiot. If they were clean people, then the diseases wouldn't have spread so quickly.

Europeans are a very clean people due to having lived in cities for millenia. People who lived in cities basically invented the concept of hygiene. People without much exposure to disease never needed to.

Serbia. Bigger than all of them

Aztecs had no horses so that is enough to lose

Egyptians.

>bronze weapons
>horse
>chariots
>advanced economy(relatively, compared to the aztecs)
>archers

Belligerents
Spain Spain
TlaxcalaGlyph.jpg Tlaxcala Aztec Empire Triple Alliance
Commanders and leaders
Hernán Cortés
Gonzalo de Sandoval
Pedro de Alvarado
Cristóbal de Olid
Xicotencatl I
Xicotencatl II Executed Cuauhtémoc (POW)
Strength
16 guns[1]
13 brigantines
80,000–200,000 native allies
90–100 cavalry
900–1,300 infantry[1] 80,000-300,000 warriors[2](including war acallis)
Casualties and losses
450–860 Spanish[1]
20,000 Tlaxcallan 100,000 warriors
100,000 civilians

Chariots are terrible and nearly useless in war outside of transportation. The Mexica would also probably be able to raise a larger army.

>80,000–200,000 native allies
>native
>allies

>Egyptian vs Aztec empire.

Neither had the ability to cross an ocean, so what scenario are we talking about here?

>Mexica=/=Aztecs

They had obsidian though.

in space

Anyone who thinks the aztecs would win is retarded. Their weaponry is inferior even to the copper the egyptians would be using. They were also extremely likely to flee as soon as their unit commander was killed. Additionally, they were far more preoccupied with taking captives in combat, instead of actually killing their enemies. The aztecs were great in a lot of different areas (mathematics, education, social planning, etc), but not in the area of warfare.

>horse
The type of horses they had were small and not the giant steads that Spain had access to.

>archers
The Mexica fielded large numbers of archers and slingers.

I think it really depends were the battle is settled. Egypt? Egyptians win, Mexico? Aztecs win hands down, because the single factor of high altitude, I know of profesional sportsmen that even have trouble running 15 minutes in Mexico city, just because altitude (Mexico is one of the highest above sea level cities)

Aztecs had public baths and swimming pools, they also carried clean water from lakes and had a primitive sewers.

However some diseases like smallpox are quite contagious despite hygiene.

What are you trying to say with this memetexting?

Obsidian is a shit weapon when you consider their swords became almost unusable after the first hit.

that unlike amerifat here thinks hernan cortez beat the aztecs singlehandedly with his dick tied behind his back

Mexico is also a smog choked hell pit.

They knew how to wage full scale war. Garland wars achieved the same goal over a longer period of time without the cost of supplying huge armies and large casualties. They also had some success against the Tarascan kingdom despite them having access to copper weapons and shields.

aztecs had wheels dumbass

>In 1521 Hernán Cortés, along with a large number of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies, conquered Tenochtitlan and defeated the Aztec Triple Alliance under the leadership of Hueyi Tlatoani Moctezuma II.

>The aztecs were great in a lot of different areas (mathematics, education, social planning, etc), but not in the area of warfare.

Then how did they conquer a huge empire?

Egyptian warrior vs Aztec jaguar warrior.
>Eqyptians runs the Aztec down on his horse
>The end

Egyptian warrior without horse vs Aztec jaguar warrior.
>Aztec warrior smashes his obsidian mace against the Egyptians bronze shield.
>Mace breaks
>The end

Ranged Egyptian warrior without horse vs Aztec warrior with their obsidian throwing darts.
>Egyptian hits the Aztec before he's even in range
>The end

because their neighbors were unorganized stone age savages.

It was so bad at the end that two of the members of the Triple Alliance were besieging their former ally.

True dat, but even clean places like Lima or Himalayans are a nightmare to live in.

that's what i meant i was being sarcasticabout his asking for a source on herna cortes having native allies

a little terror can be more effective than armies

Flower wars also resulted in far fewer casualties, due to the aforementioned preoccupation on capturing their enemies rather than eliminating them. Aztec success against the tarascans was also extremely limited. This is especially damning when you consider that axayacatl got absolutely trashed by a nation much smaller than the aztecs.
because they were fighting other nations with access to more or less the same technology.

Forget that, what about Aztecs vs Assyrians? Both were known for terrorizing their neighbors and instilling horrific torture on their enemies and practiced mass sacrifice.

>axayacatl got absolutely trashed by a nation much smaller than the aztecs

Only because he severely underestimated the size of their kingdom and invaded with a smaller force.

>wheel
So Aztecs then?

Egyptians were known for being terrible warriors due to living an easy life. They were also held in low esteem and seen as occupying one of the lowest class of society. Compare that with a society built on military expansion and where military exploits are the only path to social mobility.

Aztecs picked warriors since they were kids, and they were formidable warriors, however, due to this elitism, very few warriors existed back then.

>Egyptians were known for being terrible warriors
Then how did they did this?

this basically

Only one, Texcoco, and not unilaterally. Some Texcocans supported the Mexica and others the Spanish, quite surprisingly the leader of the latter faction established an alliance with the Spanish even before the Tlaxcalans did.

with space choloescuincles and camels

They learned superior military technologies from their Hyksos overlords. They also could field larger armies than their much smaller and less organized neighbors due to the bounty of the Nile. They were large enough to bully the smaller principalities of the Levant but not organized enemies like the Hittites. They were also punching bags for the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, and Persians.