How is this even possible? Why couldnt they just zerg rush the spanish?

How is this even possible? Why couldnt they just zerg rush the spanish?

Did you see Blackhawk Down?

It was a similar imbalance of technology and tactics. The Spaniards were elite, armored, motivated, and had tons of help. The Aztecs were that outclassed.

The Aztecs had literally never encountered cavalry in warfare before, and didn't know what to do, while Cortes used them to run around killing all the Aztec captains and leaders. The loss of their leaders and flag, and the sight of armoured men riding around on horseback was apparently too much of a morale shock.

They tried to take advantage of their numbers, hence why they fought on a plain, but like every battle against the conquistadors, it all came down to a technological disadvantage and an inflexible warfare tradition:

>Swords allowed close formations since they could inflict damage by thrusting and not only slashing (like a macuahuitl), which required some space to swing
>First lines were equipped with steel plate armors, which no Aztec weapon was able to pierce
>While it's true that muskets had an awful accuracy, cannons were quite precise
>Mesoamerican commanders were easily spotted given their military insignia
>Mesoamerican armies immediately routed when their commander was captured or killed (for example Cortes was captured two times)

Even if the commanders survived the cannon fire, the volleys generated chaos among their lines and provided a path for a cavalry charge.

>While it's true that muskets had an awful accuracy
Stop with this meme. Muskets are reasonably accurate when fired at a massed infantry. You're not going to be sniping shit at 200 yards, but a row of muskets firing into a crowd of half naked savages isn't going to miss a single shot.

also they shoot salt rocks and shit at close range, the wounds must have been horrifying, extremely painful and bad for morale

i then mention i was referring to their capacity of sniping commanders

If 10000 men were arranged 5 ranks deep standing shoulder to shoulder (2 men per meter), the row would be a kilometer long. It would be over a mile if they had a meter to themselves. If there were really 100000 you can imagine how this colossal body of men would have been difficult to organize and how people on one end would have no idea what was happening at the other.

The Spanish were aware a defensive battle was pointless having just fled Tenochtitlan and being experienced soldiers they would have known about fatigue and other problems that typically arise in warfare. They would lose a battle of attrition and they couldn't afford to sit and wait for the enemy to surround them.

Spain was a highly centralized state with a hierarchy like the Aztec empire, it was elementary for them to strike at the enemy general who was carrying colorful extravagant standards. This was a success and I get the impression most of the Aztecs decided to withdraw after this to reorganize and the rest of the fighting was just to keep the pressure on them.

The Americans lost in Black Hawk Down though.

This would be more a case akin to 300.

A small elite core of heavily armored soldiers cutting down waves and waves of lightly armed infantry.

Its very very hard to believe that the Aztecs were able to field a force of over a hundred thousand soldiers. Logistically its near impossible, and regardless to that its just stupid.
Why would the Aztecs feel the need to send out such a massive army against an enemy who they had perceived to have beaten? Who was bleeding?
How could they have managed to levy so many troops in so little time?
How could they have fed them?
Theres just so much how here its incredibely hard to believe.
Im sure the Spanish fought a large Aztec army at Otumba but anything near 100,000 is most definitely exaggeration on the part of the Spanish sources.

>lost
Their objective was actually a success, which was to extract their high value targets. The sub-mission of securing the downed helicopters was kind of a wash, but casualties were minimal, and the Somalis were fucking rekt. I agree that wasn't the best analogy. I was speaking more in terms of total military superiority and inflicted casualties. Up-armored humvees and armed little bird helicopters were fucking shit up left and right in a way the locals could not match.

How is this even possible?

>thinks that k:d and micro strategy matter in relation to grand strategy and the trinity of warfare
The Americans were forced to withdraw from Somalia without the capitulation of adid.
The battle of Mogadishu was a victory for the Americans on a strategic level the same way asculum was for pyrrhus. More kills but they lost in the long run on a grander level.

*tactical

mount&blade.jpg

if they had armor and horses they would have won.

kek

The Mexico City core was Likley small (I'd estimate a maximum of 15,000) but if you get say 2,000 men from each nearby city/town under your control and there surrounding villages and they all bring enough food/supplied for a short final showdown then it seems entirley possible for a number near that to occur

Vast majority of those spaniard were veterans from fighting the muslims in the peninsula.
Now, imagine some veterans hungry from gold, with high morale and far superior technology, despite doing the gods work.

>muslims
More like the Italian wars.The muslims were kicked a while back

Tenochtitlan iirc was huge, like 200,000 minimum population.
But the logistics and what not of assembling, feeding, housing, and disciplining a hundred thousand soldiers is immense. Against an enemy who they had perceived to have defeated already, and who they had been inflicting slow and steady casualties on after the definite Aztec victory of Noch Triste, there is no reason the Aztecs would have assembled such a massive army.
Consider the fact that only under the threat of Hannibal did the early Romans assemble an army comparable to the Aztecs, and regardless of whether the Aztecs could have done it, it should be about whether they would have done it.
My guess is that the Spanish sources looked out and saw a massive Aztec army, and simply wrote down the largest number that came to their head. They typically do this a lot.

1492 was the seizure of Grenada
~1517 was Spanish conquest? Not unreasonable to think their would be veterans

The life expectancy was 40 or so. Besides the conquest of Granada was barely and skirmish.The sieges or Oman or other northern African cities were actual real battles, but most veterans came from the Italian wars.Besides most people that followed Cortez weren't veterans but low nobility that saw an oportunity to raise to something

Its a bit of a stretch. 25 years is a long time and consider too that the expedition wasn't that big anyways.
So while its possible its not probable.

>the figures are exaggerated
>horses are scary
>gunpowder is scary
>steel is useful
>morale exists
>zerg rushing doesn't

basically it's possible because real life is not a computer game

The life expectency was low because infant mortality was endemic. You get people to a healthy adulthood and they could live to 60-70 no probs.

>How is this even possible? Why couldnt they just zerg rush the spanish?
I'm going out on a limb here, but something tells me those 'few hundreds of Tlaxcallans.'..aren't.

they weren't fighting guys in pic related

Soldiers were exposed to a lot of diseases,had shit hygine and were constantly wounded. It would be a miracle for the average soldier back then to be a field soldier for more than 20 years.

This. Low life exp was for the high mortality in the child.
Anyways you guys might be on truth that more veterans from the Italian wars went to America than Reconquista ones.

>implying all of them were wearing that
They were trying to escape from the aztec army in a fucking jungle so I would think that they needed to go fast, carrying those armours wouldnt be very logical for me.

It was logical when it saved your life, and ffs read the thread

>They were trying to escape from the aztec army in a fucking jungle
user, aztecs were not mayans

The wealthy might have been wearing plate but the standard soldier was not going to be encased head to toe in steel.
There are also instances of Spanish switching to padded armor for whatever reasons, sometimes because heavy armor was so cumbersome.
Regardless, even though Aztec weapons would have had a hard time penetrating, they still could have and did kill armored soldiers.
Pic related even shows the weak spots.

incompetent commander