Aztec vs Egyptian empire

>"The Inca army's military effectiveness was based in two main elements: logistics and discipline. In order to facilitate the movement of their armies, the Inca built a vast road system. Staging areas were set along the roads so the troops and animals could rest, and weapons could be readied. Discipline was very rigid. Soldiers were not allowed to leave the battalion, not even during the approach march. Troops would maintain silence, only breaking it just before attacks by yelling and singing in order to intimidate the opposing force."
Umm...can you support your claims with any argument, sweetie?

Incas would beat Egypt hands down. They could probably take on Rome too.

Incas would beat aztec savages in a blink of an eye.

Militarily? Egypt.
Unpronounceable gobbledygook language? Aztecs.

I didn't mention the Aztecs. i said they beat Egypt and very likely Rome.

>Spaniards behind ancient egyptian level technology, beat the Aztecs.
>implying the aztecs could best egypt when they couldn't even beat a people inferior to them

This shit again. The aztecs didn't even have metal weapons.

Bronze Age > Stone Age every time

They're both going to be more or less even. The Egyptians have chariots and while their use as APC's or in conventional cavalry roles might be limited against organized infantry their use as cavalry archers means they can effectively control the flow of battle.

Its something indians have not answer for.

Infantry fight for all involved would be pretty even as no one has a significant technological advantage. Yes bronze is great but when your typical infantryman is unarmored your metallurgical advantage doesn't remove any effectiveness from the enemies weapons. So yeah, Egyptian infantry is better armed but the Aztec (or Inca) weapons are no less lethal. Then keep in mind that bronze age warfare was before the advent of professional militarism so it will inevitably turn into a slog fest regardless of what [insert narcissistic pharaoh name here] opinion of his own glorious forces was.

So the deciding factor is the cavalry archers which neither of the natives have an answer to.

see:
> Yes bronze is great but when your typical infantryman is unarmored your metallurgical advantage doesn't remove any effectiveness from the enemies weapons. So yeah, Egyptian infantry is better armed but the Aztec (or Inca) weapons are no less lethal.

I could be wrong of course but I don't remember depictions of the typical Egyptian soldier being clad in bronze armor.

They could just steal horses and learn to ride them like the chichimec and mapuches did.

...

Okay I'll give you an obsidion axe and I'll take a bronze pipe. Just a pipe.

Your glass axe will be shattered in a few blows traded.

>Chariots
Which weren't very effective against organized infantry.
>cavalry
The spanish actually didn't dominate the inca militarily. The traition and diplomacy the conquistators managed was one of the reasons of the fall of the empire. The massive deaths also contributed greatly to the fall of the empire, due to lack of the personnel which made the empire system sustainable and organized.

Lasted longer,had way better military equipment,they were better architects,they had a higher population and they were not in the stone age

Pal if you hit with those crappy wood clubs with obsidian shards to a bronce shield you will probably blow up your own wrist

They didnt use obsidian axes. Aztecs had copper axes.

>(About the people of the Gulf of Mexico) Besides ornaments of gold, every Indian had with him a copper axe, which was very highly polished, with the handle curiously carved, as if to serve equally for an ornament as for the field of battle.
Bernal díaz del Castillo, Ture History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter XVI

And then I'll still have a wooden club and you'll still have no armor at all to counter it with because you're just a shitty peasant levy.

>Which weren't very effective against organized infantry

In a charge, as horse archers (or their bronze age equivalent) they do fine.

And they could also develop guns given enough time, you going to extrapolate to the nth degree for everything fggt?

>to a bronce shield
Why do you think this is typical armament for the Egyptian? Metal shields for basic infantry aren't even normal going into the late iron age.

A conquest or war is not solved overnight. It took several years. Unless this is a hypothetical battle.

>A conquest or war is not solved overnight. It took several years
Or several months or maybe you do a coup with some local nobles and its over in a matter of days. You're still extrapolating to the point every hypothetical is equally plausible, you might as well say any old nonsense with equal validity.

Then again maybe you're not a child brained retard and that's your point.

Literally the other way around.

>muh bronze
Incas had bronze faggots. They used it on knives and spears.

No one gives a fuck about the Inca.

Egyptians would never be able to conquer the Incas because of the mountains, but the Incas would be at a disadvantage in Egyptian lands.

>socketless axe heads

I think those might be decorative user. Or maybe that axe money?

Well it is equally possible. Fact is a lot of luck was on the conquistadors side too. They came at the right time. Why not consider all possibilities on a what if scenario? Or do you want an easy answer? I mean the very premise of this what if in OPs question is open to a lot of speculation.

>muh daily aztec thread
Incas could destroy those savages in a blink of an eye.

Idk about the Aztecs but their neighbors the Tarascans and mayas used copper axes as weapons.

We also have daily rome, ww2 and hitler threads.Make your own inca thread if you want one so bad.

>INCAS
Potential progenitors for an entire civilization sphere. Civilized, advanced and cultured.
>AZTECS
Mongol tier savages who sacrificed children. Barbarous, primitive and uncultured.

>Well it is equally possible.
All things are equally possible if your time and possibilities are stretched to infinity. You've made a good point user, my gosh you are the genius the internet deserves. You alone have seen through the bullshit and faggotry of OP to deliver the truth to our concealed eyes which would not see. Thank you user, thank you. Yes it is true everything is possible, everything was merely speculative, therefore it stands to reason you can say any old rubbish thing like "the aztecs will just grab horses and make their own cavalry, haha now they win!" and you are totally unequivocally and unmistakably right! My goodness, I guess the Aztecs win guys, threads over.

Copper is a shit tool metal that is only marginally better than obsidian.

>The Incas performed child sacrifices during or after important events, such as the death of the Sapa Inca (emperor) or during a famine. They were then killed either by strangulation, a blow to the head, or by leaving them to lose consciousness in the extreme cold and die of exposure.

>being this butthurt

Egypytans would rape the aztecs. IDK much about the incas tho.

Coppers only benefit is that it can be hammered back into shape instead of cracking or breaking. Otherwise it's inferior in every way.

Glad we can agree user.

>From old Spanish:"hachuelas d'cobre" (copper hatchets), modern metallurgical studies classify most of the axes as bronze alloys

Only the flat ones were axe money.

And the people in the Panuco basin, as it was pointed by Bernal Díaz. The Triple Alliance could produce them too, but they preferred the Macuahuitl.
>Cortes issued orders to all the townships which lay in the vicinity of Texcoco, and were in alliance with us, for each of them to furnish him with 8000 copper points for our arrows, to be made after the model of our Spanish ones, of which some were sent them for that purpose.
>He allowed them eight days for the making and delivery of these; and indeed both the arrows and the copper points arrived at Tezcuco in the time specified. Our stock of these now consisted of 50,000 pieces, and the arrow points made by these people were even better than those we brought from Spain.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CXLVII

They probably adapted their weaponry to deal with the Spanish tactics, like the Chinantecs of Oaxaca with their pikes.

>Gulf of Mexico
>Aztec
Could the Mexica even draw armies from their tributaries, or were they too despised?

>Only the flat ones were axe money.
Then they're shitty poorly fixed axes.

>Aztec """"""empire""""""
>three cities clustered on a lake
>control a bunch of tribes and villages
>by raiding them regularly and taking their people to be killed for the fun of it
>found your nation on the ruins of great civilizations of old
>forget how they used to write, can't invent your own writing
>kill hundreds of people every month just because
>metal what metal
>tl
>what is money
>breed naked dogs, tiny dogs, but not useful dogs
>whatever, all dogs are equally useful if you just eat them
>same with people

D E L E N D A
E S T

>villages
They were cities.

>tl
What is up with the "tl" element anyway?

nice bullshit you got there

>>three cities clustered on a lake
>Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés arrived in Tenochtitlan on November 8, 1519. With an estimated population between 200,000 and 300,000, many scholars believe Tenochtitlan to have been among the largest cities in the world at that time.[14] Compared to Europe, only Paris, Venice and Constantinople might have rivaled it. It was five times the size of the London of Henry VIII.[6] In a letter to the Spanish king, Cortés wrote that Tenochtitlan was as large as Seville or Córdoba. Cortes' men were in awe at the sight of the splendid city and many wondered if they were dreaming.[15]
>"The next morning we reached the broad high road of Iztapalapan, whence we for the first time beheld the numbers of towns and villages built in the lake, and the still greater number of large townships on the mainland, with the level causeway which ran in a straight line into Mexico."
Bernal díaz del Castillo, True History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter LXXXVII

>>control a bunch of tribes and villages
>Our route now lay across the territory of the township Xocotlan. We sent before us two Indians of Sempoalla to the cazique, to acquaint him of our approach, and beg of him to give us an hospitable reception. As the inhabitants of this district were subject to Motecusuma, everything wore a different aspect, and we marched forward with the utmost precaution and in close array. For the rest, we were as much pleased with this spot as with many a Spanish town, on account of the numerous and beautifully whitewashed balconies, the dwellings of the caziques, and the elevated temples wholly built of stone and lime. We, therefore, called it Castilblanco, which name it still retains; for a Portuguese soldier, who was among our troops, assured us, the place was very like the town of Casteloblanco in Portugal.
Ibidem, Chapter LXI

>"On their route they passed through three provinces, that, according to the report of the Spaniards, contained very fine land, many villages and cities, with much scattered population, and buildings equal to any in Spain. They mentioned particularly a house and castle, the latter larger, of greater strength, and better built than the castle of Burgos (the castle of the kings of Spain); and the people of one of these provinces, called Tamazulapa, were better clothed than those of any other we had seen, as it justly appeared to them."
Hernan Cortes, Second Letter of Relation Charles V

>Egypt
>a civilization whose various dynasties reigned over a period of 3000 years, a period longer than all of civilization since the birth of Christ
>a civilization whose glory was already storied and ancient before the first Greeks ever sailed the Mediterranean
>being compared to a bunch of jungle savages who couldn't even maintain their empire for a single century
You guys realize how stupid you sound? It's like comparing a gorilla pack to the Roman Empire.

Nope, it's like comparing the roman empire to the Egyptian Empire.

That works too. Honestly all other empires are as babbies compared to the Egyptians. Only China gets close to the kind of continuity Egypt had for thousands of years.

>people being in a place for a long time=greatness
Lel. By any normal standards, the Egyptian empire fell like 10 fucking times. They got conquered, lost shit tons of territory, their gods or pantheons were changed forcibly, their rulers deposed, etc.
Hell, they weren't even that great after the Old Kingdom. Saying that they Egyptian empire spanned that long is like saying that the British Empire has been alive and well since before Rome.
Get conquered by some Hittites? N-no, that's just a new dynasty ruling us. Alexander conquers you? N-no, the Greeks are just the pharaohs now. Hail the Ptolemeic Dynasty!
China even did this to a less degree, (see Yuan Dynasty).
This would be like Natives saying that their civilization achieved the first moon landing, during the great Presidential Dynasties.

>>by raiding them regularly and taking their people to be killed for the fun of it
Why do you guys see the Aztec empire as the epitome of evilness. They didn't just raid every town or neighbor at will, otherwise no one would have paid them tribute. They helped to develop economically the people who voluntarily subdued to them (and many times those who didn't too, if important trade was involved).
Why do you guys think Tlaxcala was surrounded? Tlaxcala was in a coallition with other two important nations, that ended in the Aztec side because they joined them, not because they were conquered.

It's part of the Nahuatl language. A related language very similar to Nahuatl, Nahuat spoken in Central America drops the tl and just uses T.

Incas could BTFO rome. The incas actually accomplished more than Rome in a fraction of the time.

Aztecs did not live in jungle, you're thinking of the Maya who lived in the rainforest (some of them that is). Spaniards actually compared it to region similar to Spain.

They saw Apocalypto and consider themselves experts on Mesoamerica.

and bongs economically developed the nawabs who yielded to them yet leftists tell me this was the worst thing in the world ever

That's just a dialect of Nahuatl, there are dialects in which the tl is replaced by t and those in which it's replaced by l.

>Incas could BTFO rome. The incas actually accomplished more than Rome in a fraction of the time
>This delusion.

>he literally didn't read anything related to the incas
Yep you are retarded.

It's not a dialect, it's a language of it's own. In fact, Nahuat has it's own dialects. This is like saying Catalan and Castillian are dialects of Spanish.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipil_language#Pipil_and_Nahuatl_compared

There is a Nahuatl dialect similar to Nahuat, spoken in the gulf coast, but it is not Nahuat, it's Nahuatl.

Incas became at one time the largest empire in the world, stretching multiple current day countries across diverse terrain of desert, rainforest, coast, mountains, grasslands in 100 years. Took Rome hundreds of years to subdue barbarians.

Figured I'd up the stakes:
Feel free to make your own brackets if you think mine is shit.

The only one retarded here is you.

It's still bullshit to say that they could do anything to Rome. I would bet that the entire army of the Inca empire would lose against three legions unless the war takes place in the mountains. Not to mention that mobilizing everyone would devastate the Incan economy, while Romans had professional army. If you want to talk about achievements, these empires are really incomparable, they are too different, Rome started with writing, tech and culture taken from the Greeks etc, Incas are more like Egypt.

Incas did conquer the Chilean deserts pretty easily tho, so terrain wouldn't really be a disadvantage

mesoamerican armies would get smashed by chariots on open plains, they'd get shot to pieces and couldn't catch them

>mobilizing everyone would devastate it
Nope. There are both spanish and incan reports that generals managed to command 100000 units in a single battle.

>professional army
Incas had also a professional army. Have you read anything from incas?

>Inca
>Mesoamericans
Can I get uhhhhhh... Geography here

Incas don't have an answer for chariots

yes they do it's called mountains.

>Aztecs gay and sacrifice their mother and shit
>Egyptians based as fuck, hold jews as slaves, Cleopatra and shit

yeah nyugga home boiiiiiii

No one in those deserts had horses. Or organised armies for that matter. Still, I meant that the mountains would be an advantage for the Incas.

Okay, but that still is not even close to Roman steel, cavalry, war machines and tactical ingenuity.

>100000
Even though that's probably an overstatement, as I already said, I'd bet that three legions would be enough to utterly destroy such an army in a single battle.

Yea no doubt. The Inca, who have never fought anyone besides themselves (or people highly similar to themselves) wearing padded clothing with wooden armor using at best primitive copper axes and slings would dominate the Romans. An empire who had literally been at war against foreign adversaries in almost every climate and terrain since their inception, using at the time state of the art weapons and military tactics. Seems reasonable...

>this board

No they just had weapons made out the sharpest natural material, obsidian

Who do you prefer then?

I wasn't the user claiming that they could beat the Romans, but this guy got it wrong.

Steel is superior. I agree.

>copper
They used bronze spears and knives.

That would literally shatter like glass (almost like obsidian is glass...) if it hit a sword or plate armor. Obsidian is too fragile to even use in highly controlled surgical setting, the fuck do you think would happen if it hit a Roman shield?

>if it hit a sword
Not how rl sparring works.

>or plate armor
No one has plate armor as regular equipment anyway

>if it hit a Roman shield
>Roman
Oh my bad the thread derailed.

Anyway this in particular is a bad argument, Roman shields were typically wooden, same material as Aztec or Incan shields and really it all depends on the way the obsidian was flaked and its use. A macuahuitl will typically fall apart or inbed themselves in the wood which is why they didn't just smack shields with it. Things like an obsidian ax or mace head would be sturdier and simply glance off as the blades weren't as fine. Anyway, that's neither here nor there I'm just bored and this argument about the romans is entirely off topic.

but you're arguing they could contend on the plains because they conquered some lowland groups when clearly they'd be outmatched unless they hid in the mountains

>but you're
Well I guess we're both named anonymous.

Because those barbarians would have easily taken down the Inca empire by themselves. The main point was there were a shittton more of them than there were scattered village people that the incans subdued. Also, rome didn't even *want* to take over all that shit, mostly it was Just Caesar trying to pay off the debt he ran up as a an aedile. Rome really wanted farmland like Africa and Egypt, Silver mines of Spain, and favorable ports close to the near east like in Greece. After that they just wanted to take over the civilized world, which they did with aplomb

well it's a good thing mountains are so mobile! I'm sure the Incas have stories of when they would build mountains on the battlefield so they could take advantage of terrain....

Oh wait, only romans did that.

>noone has plate armor everyone uses LS hurr

Yes, and 18th century ottomans used arquebuses.

vile lies made up by the white devil

>Romans. An empire who had literally been at war against foreign adversaries in almost every climate and terrain since their inception
I hope you realize that, beyond this , the Inca empire was forged of something like 800 years of civil war between the various Peruvian civilization states across climate zones; Moche, Wari, Sican, Tiwakano, Chimor, Wanka, Aymara, Muisca, etc., not to mention the Tupi, Tukano, Panoan, Arrawakan, etc., tribes where the jungles get thick.

Bronze age Egyptian infantry weren't depicted wearing anything particularly effective at neutralizing stone age weapons.

>well it's a good thing mountains are so mobile!
No, it's a good thing Incas live in the mountains.

Going by this pic they weren't any better equipped than the average Aztec warrior. So infantry wise they were pretty equally matched.

what are they using around the shield sides? it looks like raw hide but it appears sewed in