Hypocrisy

Catholics (ie Romans) are shit too though. Hence why the only not shit part of the new world is the part run by Anglicans.

Because yuros wanted to justify the fact that their ancestors basically destroyed an entire civilization.

I'm not advocating for white guilt, but let's not lie to ourselves with flimsy justifications.

Because it was cool to watch people fight to the death, the best kind of entertainment at it's time for bored people. It's not cool to watch religious sacrifices.

I would too desu, spaniards are fucking dirty bastards

Well, it's kinda easy, gladiators were warriors of a tribe who were defeated by rome and criminals, but if they were enough skilled they will have the possibility to be free, the aztec raze other tribes only for doing their sacrifice not giving the people defeated the chance to be free and legally being protected by the nation.

GOAT astronomy

They did build Roads
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Transportation

>morals change depending on the time period

All pagan cultures are the same. Christianity is what put an end to sacrifice.

...

>tfw you think things literally can't get any worse and a dragon attacks you out of nowhere

>implying there is a universal morality

JUST

...

The reason the Spaniards were outraged at the Aztec sacrifices was not the brutality of it - the Spanish put just as many people to death, just as brutally. It was because they thought the Aztec veneration of blood was a mockery of the Catholic mass. They thought the Aztecs were literally Satan worshippers.

Pls no bully

Weren't those the Mayans?

>Why the aztecs get so much shit when they sacrifice people so the world can continue when the romans were doing it for entertainment alone?

it is basically a matter of preference, The Aztec city of Tenochtitlan supposedly had a population of 250,000 people.
/Pol/Translation
Aztecs could have been a modern Mexican Rome! If Malinche hadn't fucked us we could have easily held of the Spanish cowards long enough to steal their tech, sacrifice their children, and Secured Mechica for the Mechice

Isn't that the beginning of Skyrim?

Beginning of Skyrim is about drabonbro freeing you from Imperial retards

>etnocentric fucks demonize and understimate Aztec culture which I find fascinating
>I do the same just to mock them
lamo, you basement dweller stop bashing Spain-sempai

>Because aztecs were savages killing for religious reasons
this

>>B-But muh Aztec "Empire" with its 1 (one) cool looking city built on water n shieet
MUH Thread? MUH Thread

>The byzantines were shit tier pham, all they had was muh walls in literally one (1) rome copy

There is literally nothing wrong with burning witches.

I'd say you're just mad but you're probably right.

>implying people were being burned because of Christianity and not because they were FUCKING WITCHES

and the problem with destroying an entire civilization is what? Nobody misses the inferior cultures of the Celts or Germanics

>implying they are not burned to save their souls from eternal damnation for the crime of heresy and witchcraft

>Romans built over 200 000 km of road
Muh roads

Aztecs could build them, but that would have given an advantage to the tributary cities. This would have been certainly productive had the Aztecs forced their culture on the subjugated people to keep them from revolting, but they didn't, that's the difference.

>They agreed to work at it viribus et posse, and began at once to divide the task between them, and I must say that they worked so hard, and with such good will, that in less than four days they constructed a fine bridge, over which the whole of the men and horses passed. So solidly built it was, that I have no doubt it will stand for upwards of ten years without breaking —unless it is burnt down — being formed by upwards of one thousand beams, the smallest of which was as thick round as a man's body, and measured nine or ten fathoms in length, without counting a great quantity of lighter timber that was used as planks. And I can assure your Majesty that I do not believe there is a man in existence capable of explaining in a satisfactory manner the dexterity which these lords of Tenochtitlan, and the Indians under them, displayed in constructing the said bridge: I can only sav that it is the most wonderful thing that ever was seen.
- Fifth Letter of Relation by Cortes to Charles V

>and the problem with destroying an entire civilization is what? Nobody misses the inferior cultures
It's a problem when they are not superior.

>Tenochtitlan was founded on an islet in the western part of the lake in the year 1325. Around it, the Aztecs created a large artificial island using a system similar to the creation of chinampas. To overcome the problems of drinking water, the Aztecs built a system of dams to separate the salty waters of the lake from the rain water of the effluents. It also permitted them to control the level of the lake. The city also had an inner system of channels that helped to control the water.

>During Cortés' siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521, the dams were destroyed, and never rebuilt, so flooding became a big problem for the new Mexico City built over Tenochtitlan.

>Mexico City suffered from periodic floods; in 1604 the lake flooded the city, with an even more severe flood following in 1607. Under the direction of Enrico Martínez, a drain was built to control the level of the lake, but in 1629 another flood kept most of the city covered for five years.

>Eventually the lake was drained by the channels and a tunnel to the Pánuco River, but even that could not stop floods, since by then most of the city was under the water table. The flooding could not be completely controlled until 1967, with the construction of a Deep Drainage System.

>The ecological consequences of the draining were enormous. Parts of the valleys were turned semi-arid, and even today Mexico City suffers for lack of water. Due to overdrafting that is depleting the aquifer beneath the city, Mexico City is estimated to have dropped 10 meters in the last century. Furthermore, because soft lake sediments underlie most of Mexico City, the city has proven vulnerable to soil liquefaction during earthquakes, most notably in the 1985 earthquake when hundreds of buildings collapsed and thousands of lives were lost.

>- Fifth Letter of Relation by Cortes to Charles V
To add, this happened during Cortes expedition to present day Honduras, 1500 km away from the Aztec supply lines.

>1500+517
>being this hypocrite

>While Hernán Cortés was in Tenochtitlan, he heard about other Spaniards arriving on the coast – Pánfilo de Narváez had come from Cuba with orders to arrest him – and Cortés was forced to leave the city to fight them. During his absence, Moctezuma asked deputy governor Pedro de Alvarado for permission to celebrate Toxcatl (an Aztec festivity in honor of Tezcatlipoca, one of their main gods). But after the festivities had started, Alvarado interrupted the celebration, killing almost everyone present at the festival, men, women, and children alike.
>The Spanish version of the incident claims the conquistadors intervened to prevent a ritual of human sacrifice in the Templo Mayor; the Aztec version says the Spaniards were enticed into action by the gold the Aztecs were wearing, prompting an Aztec rebellion against the orders of Moctezuma. While differing so on Alvarado's specific motive, both accounts are in basic agreement that the celebrants were unarmed and that the massacre was without warning and unprovoked.

>Pope Clement VII had given his support to the Kingdom of France in an attempt to alter the balance of power in the region, and free the Papacy from dependency, i.e. a growing weakness to "Imperial domination" by the Holy Roman Empire (and the Habsburg dynasty).
>The army of the Holy Roman Emperor defeated the French army in Italy, but funds were not available to pay the soldiers. The 34,000 Imperial troops mutinied and forced their commander, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon and Constable of France, to lead them towards Rome.
>After the brutal execution of some 1,000 defenders of the Papal capital and shrines, the pillage began. Churches and monasteries, as well as the palaces of prelates and cardinals, were looted and destroyed. Even pro-Imperial cardinals had to pay to save their properties from the rampaging soldiers. On 8 May, Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, a personal enemy of Clement VII, entered the city. He was followed by peasants from his fiefs, who had come to avenge the sacks they had suffered by Papal armies.
>The population of Rome dropped from some 55,000 before the attack, to 10,000. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people were murdered.
>Many Imperial soldiers also died in the following months (they remained in the city until February 1528) from diseases caused by the large number of unburied dead bodies in the city. The pillage only ended when, after eight months, the food ran out, there was no one left to ransom and plague appeared.

>tfw no amount what aboutism will cover up the fact that the Aztecs were cannibalistic tyrants whose bloody rule was so intolerable that their subjects eagerly joined up with alien invaders from completely outside their cultural frame of reference to overthrow them

Europe rules.
Aztecs drool.

European Protestants (and probably Orthodox) happily supported Ottoman takeover to get rid of Catholic rule

Religious murders v blood sports. Why can't both sides be equally evil?

People do like to survive, yes.

Yeah, Europeans as well as Meso Americans

The Celts also practiced human sacrifice: digitalmedievalist.com/opinionated-celtic-faqs/human-sacrifice/

In a sense, Spain was Rome and the Aztecs were Celts.

Does that dragon have tits? Maybe its not so bad.

Hence the shunning of Roman Catholicism, the most bloody and violent "religion" known to mankind.

>tfw no amount of (You)s will cover the fact that empires cause coalitions and that even the pious Spain was at war with literally all its neighbors (Portugal, Italy, France, Netherlands, England, German kingdoms, the Ottoman empire and the Berbers), at the same time.

>Aztecs were cannibalistic tyrants
So were all Mesoamericans, including the Spanish allies, the Tlaxcaltecs.

>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[Pg 140] 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.
>One certain spot in this township I never shall forget, situated near the temple. Here a vast number of human skulls were piled up in the best order imaginable,—there must have been more than 100,000; I repeat, more than 100,000. (...) Similar horrible sights we saw towards the interior of the country in every township, and even in Tlascalla.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter LXI

Aztecs sacrificed prisioners of war, who were supposed to die in more horrible ways on the battlefield in the first place. But anyway, do you want me to post more of these?

The internet gave it tits

That's certainly the justification they went with, since not even the people at the royal court was conviced that they were bringing civilization.

During the second month of the Solar Calendar, the Aztecs used to organize 'gladiatorial' combats between their highest military ranks and the enemy elite warriors and commanders who were captured in battle. As part of the festival, nobles from all Mesoamerica were invited to witness these combats.
Nevertheless, only the Aztec warrior would fight with an obsidian edged weapon and his movement wouldn't be limited due to being attached to the sacrificial stone. The battle would be over when the Aztec warrior was unconcious or when he managed to bleed enough his foe.
Usually the first combatant for the captured warrior would be his captor and if the latter was victorious he would face several other contenders.
A famous Tlaxcalan warrior, Tlahuicole, was granted his liberty after killing 8 warriors and defeating 20 more but he prefered to be sacrificed than bring dishonor to his country's name (and also because he coulnd't return since he was captured by a foe in the first place) .

>gladiators were warriors of a tribe who were defeated by rome and criminals, but if they were enough skilled they will have the possibility to be free, the aztec raze other tribes only for doing their sacrifice not giving the people defeated the chance to be free and legally being protected by the nation.
The Aztecs additionally had landless serfs and slaves. Serfs worked land that was owned by nobles and did not live in the calpulli (self-governing trade guilds). Individuals became slaves (tlacotin) as a form of punishment for certain crimes or for failure to pay tribute. Prisoners of war who were not used as human sacrifices became slaves. An individual could voluntarily sell himself or his children into slavery to pay back a debt (the latter required permission of the court). Slaves had the right to marry, to have children, to substitute another individual in their place, and to buy their freedom. Slaveowners were responsible for housing and feeding their slaves, and slaves generally could not be resold. They were usually freed when their owners died, and could also gain their freedom by marrying their owner. Aztecs were not born slaves and could not inherit this status from their parents.

Malinche was one woman among a handful of tribes dissatisfied with Tenotchitlán's rule.

>hadn't fucked us we could have easily held of the Spanish cowards long enough to steal their tech
They certainly could have though. Here's an account on how Cortes acquired pikes to face the cavalry of Panfilo de Narvaez, who was sent by the Governor of Cuba to arrest him:

>As soon as Cortes was apprized of Narvaez's arrival in New Spain, and had received every information respecting the magnitude of his armament, he despatched a soldier who had served in the Italian campaigns, and who possessed an extensive knowledge of weapons and of the best method of fixing points to lances, into the province of the Tchinantecs where some of our men had gone in search of gold mines. The Tchinantecs were deadly enemies to the Mexicans, and had only a few days previously made an alliance with us. This people used a species of lance, which was much longer than our Spanish lances, and furnished with a sharp double-edged point made of flint.
(...)
>Cortes had heard of this weapon, and sent word to the Tchinantecs to forward him three hundred of such lances, from which however he desired they would take off the flint points and substitute a double one of metal, as they had abundance of bronze in their country. The soldier who was despatched with these orders took a pattern of the point required with him. Cortes' wishes were readily complied with, and as the inhabitants of every township of that province set diligently to work, the lances were soon finished and they turned out most satisfactory.
(...)
>The lances which Tovilla brought with him proved most excellent, and he immediately taught us how to use them, particularly against the cavalry.
(...)
>Considering the smallness of our numbers we reposed our greatest hopes in the use we intended making of our lances, in which fortunately we were not disappointed, as will afterwards be seen.

- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CXVIII

>So were all Mesoamericans, including the Spanish allies, the Tlaxcaltecs.
And it's bad their savage culture was replaced with a superior one why exactly?

History is written by the victor, OP.

Sacrifices had a 100% mortality rate and gladiators had a chance for fame and glory as well as freedom.

As a matter of fact they do. Slavery was fine 300 years ago, now it's not.

No one cares about your what aboutism Aztec lover.

Aztecs were shit and I'm glad they got their anuses wrecked by a superior people.

Do you guys even scroll through the thread before posting?

>Sacrifices had a 100% mortality rate and gladiators had a chance for fame and glory as well as freedom.
see A famous Tlaxcalan warrior, Tlahuicole, was granted his liberty after killing 8 warriors and defeating 20 more
(...)
Prisoners of war who were not used as human sacrifices became slaves. (...) Slaves had the right to (...) buy their freedom.

>And it's bad their savage culture was replaced with a superior one why exactly?
lmao >The Gregorian calendar is named after Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.

>Although there were only 365 days in the Haab year, the Mayas were aware that a year is slightly longer than 365 days, and in fact, many of the month-names are associated with the seasons; Yaxkin, for example, means "new or strong sun" and, at the beginning of the Long Count, 1 Yaxkin was the day after the winter solstice, when the sun starts to shine for a longer period of time and higher in the sky. When the Long Count was put into motion, it was started at 7.13.0.0.0, and 0 Yaxkin corresponded with Midwinter Day, as it did at 13.0.0.0.0 back in 3114 B.C.E. The available evidence indicates that the Mayas estimated that a 365-day year precessed through all the seasons twice in 7.13.0.0.0 or 1,101,600 days.
>We can therefore derive a value for the Mayan estimate of the year by dividing 1,101,600 by 365, subtracting 2, and taking that number and dividing 1,101,600 by the result, which gives us an answer of 365.242036 days, which is slightly more accurate than the 365.2425 days of the Gregorian calendar.

>European Protestants (and probably Orthodox) happily supported Ottoman takeover to get rid of Catholic rule

Not even REMOTELY comparable, as the Ottomans were not invading aliens from entirely outside the cultural frame of reference of Europe. Europeans were familiar with the Turks they had been interacting with them for hundreds of years, even longer if you consider pre-Islamic Anatolia. The Ottomans were just the heretics that live on the other side of the sea, they didn't just pop up on a beach one day out of the blue out of what were essentially the equivalent of flying saucers like Spanish did.

Because the Aztecs would often brutally ritual torture their victims. They had ceremonies where guys had spikes driven down their penis and women had stakes shoved up their ass. They had religiously established procedures for this and it was theologically important that their victims suffered. It was rightfully seen as barbaric.

>muh dams
>muh slightly more accurate calendar
Do not counterbalance the human sacrifice and stone tools.

Sorry Paco.

You're acting like the romans haven't been getting far more shit for this ever since the 4th fucking century.
Not to mention religious nutjobs killing people do tend to be less likeable than exploitative slavers and run of the mill plebs looking for a spot of fun.

>Aztecs were shit and I'm glad they got their anuses wrecked by a superior people
>the spiritual leaders of the superior people were being corrected on their latin holy lectures by men who barely studied the language for two years
kek

>”These people had no letters nor script, neither knew to write nor read. They communicated with images and paintings and all their history and books were recorded in figures and images, with which they knew about their ancestors and had memory of what they did and what they left recorded for more than a thousand years before the Spanish arrived to this land.”

>”Most of these books and recordings were burnt as other idolatries”, but many of them are still hidden. ”After we came to this land to preach our fate we gathered many young men in our homes and taught them to write, read and sing. As they did well we ensured to teach them grammar and a school in Santiago de Tlatelolco was built for this purpose. This school received the most able young men from all the neighboring towns. ”

>”The Spanish and clergymen who knew about this laughed and mocked, being sure that no one could teach grammar to people so unskillful, but working with them for two or three years they came to understand every art and subject of grammar and speak Latin, both written and spoken and even to write heroic verses. ”

>”As the secular and ecclesiastic clergymen saw this they became frightened of such thing being possible: I was the one who worked with them for the first four years and taught them about Latin and its knowledge. ”
>”As they saw that this project would continue and that they were improving, and they had ability for more, the clerics started to disapprove the school and object about the risks of idolatry this implied. ”
- Florentine Codex by Friar Bernardino de Sahagun, Tenth Book, Inform of the author

Aztecs were actually demonic though, like a literal hell spawned race. It was a divine duty of the Spaniards to fuck the evil out of them.

That don't play in favor of the Ottomans. Everyone knew who the Ottomans were, and that image was not positive but stained with propaganda and slander. The Spaniards on the other side while foreign and strange were still people, no hundreds of ears of propaganda to smear their repetition. Hell, coming from so far away just made it less likely they would be able to project power onto you.

>Spanish set up school for gifted Aztec kids and demonstrate that Aztecs CAN in fact be taught to be something other than cannibalistic savages
>this somehow disproves the statement that Aztecs were cannibalistic savages
:3

>that doesn't play in favor of the Ottomans
Sure it does. Obviously the Ottomans were slandered and subject to all sorts of propaganda, but so was everyone else. The worst behavior of the Ottomans was established and could be weighed against the worst behavior of whatever regional threat was proving a source of vexation. My whole point is everyone knew each other, so they could rationally weigh the pros and cons of alliance. The Meso-Americans could do no such comparison and were essentially gambling on the assumption that "nothing can possibly be worse than life under Aztec rule".

>>muh dams
And yet Spaniards couldn't come up with something at least equal despite not being an isolated civlization developed in an area barely bigger than the Iberian Peninsula
>>muh slightly more accurate calendar
Which took euros more than two thousand years to synchronize and still not be as accurate.
>Do not counterbalance the human sacrifice and stone tools.
muh rocks

>Cortes issued orders to all the townships which lay in the vicinity of Tezcuco, 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

I would take the point had Spaniards or Europeans developed iron by themselves, but they didn't. =)
>Mesopotamia was fully into the Iron Age by 900 BC. Although Egypt produced iron artifacts, bronze remained dominant until its conquest by Assyria in 663 BC. The Iron Age began in Central Europe about 500 BC, and in India and China between 1200 and 500 BC.

>muh human sacrifice
Agreed, the subhumans were just thinking on how to maximize pain on people, unlike pic related.

>The worst behavior of the Ottomans was established and could be weighed against the worst behavior of whatever regional threat was proving a source of vexation.
Top fucking kek. You don't actually believe that, I hope.
It was more like, the most recent well known act of the invaders compared to the worst the current rulers did within living memory. This regardless of who the invaders and the rulers were. I mean just look at the ottos in the balkans, greeks and slavs changed their mind with the day of the week.

>”The Spanish and clergymen who knew about this laughed and mocked, being sure that no one could teach grammar to people so unskillful,
(...)
>”As the secular and ecclesiastic clergymen saw this they became frightened of such thing being possible (...) the clerics started to disapprove the school and object about the risks of idolatry this implied. ”

here's your last (You) strawman

this is right

and also, sorry for going right wing christian on this thread but, people are always oblivious to the great evils of their time.
Romans thought nothing bad about having humans get eaten by beasts for entertainment, or men fighting to death for entertainment, aztecs though nothing bad about human sacrifices, Spaniards thought nothing bad about burning heretics, and right now most people think abortion is ok.

>The iron maiden with spikes

One had the chance to survive and was prepared for it, the other not.

Gladiator
>usually spared when he loses, trained by the best and is one of the best by the time he fights, given proper equipment and plenty chance to win and prove his valor. Treated like a rock star by the people, has the ability to earn his freedom, is actually paid, becomes part of a brotherhood that accepts him, gets to drink and fuck whores when he wins, generally a pretty rad life if he's a good warrior.

Aztec Sacrifice
>treated like livestock, herded into massive genocidal, sacrificial death rituals where he's tortured and then has his heart torn from his chest while he's still alive and his body thrown from the steps like an old piece of garbage with no glory in it whatsoever, never has a chance at life or freedom. Gladiatorial-esque combat is likewise just as illogically cruel, with the winners being sacrificed for some stupid religious reason.

>but but but but that 1 (ONE) guy that earned his freedom

hardly even worth mentioning compared to the relatively common freedom earned in roman arenas. In any case it's obvious where the practice of mercy and merit-based freedom was more common, and the answer CLEARLY isn't Mexico under Aztec rule.

On one hand you've got rock stars with the crowd behind them and a chance at a rock star's life, and on the other hand you've got sacrificial livestock with no hope other than the vague promise that their death means the sun will be satisfied for some reason.

Obviously there were admirable achievements made by the Aztecs in regards to engineering, astronomy, and city planning, but let's not kid ourselves by comparing the Roman system with its barbaric, subhuman counterpart across the atlantic.

You're clearly butthurt, but you're also right.

>All these Romaboo apologists ITT

Roman human sacrifice is more egregious than that of the Aztecs because iot was done for the sheer savage joy of it. The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was a necessity, the Romans knew it wasn't but did it anyway. Clearly the Aztecs are the more civilized of the two, on this metric at least.

In b4 >ABLOO BLOO BLOOO gladiatorial combat isn't human sacrifice!!11!!1: Yes, it is. The Romans took it from the Etruscans, who practised it overtly as a religious form of human sacrifice during funerals. That the Romans turned the Etruscans' pious murder into a bloodsport for the baying mob doesn't change this fundamental truth about the practise.

one word: meritocracy

(not to mention that gladiators had much higher living standards than sacrifices)

nah actually you're just being a contrarian shit

>And yet Spaniards couldn't come up with something at least equal
>Spaniards didn't care to rebuild the infrastructure of a dead civilization
ftfy

>still harping on about a calendar that had 365.242036 days, instead of 365.2425.
It MUST be autism.

>It was more like, the most recent well known act of the invaders compared to the worst the current rulers did within living memory.
Same shit.

If you were a kid and strange van pulled up outside your house and offered to take you away, would you get in the van?
Because that's essentially what the Meso-Americans did, only they weren't children and understood the risks that come with hopping into a strangers van.
Think about how desperate you would you have to be to get in that van.

>meritocracy

What are you trying to say? Use your words.

Aztec Warrior
>trained with experienced commanders who participated in Flower Wars against other Aztec city-states, was socially rewarded by its performance and allowed to participate politically, have more wives and therefore descendants, got more properties and better equipment, gets to capture the lives of other valiant warriors and offer them to their Gods, generally a pretty rad life if he's a good warrior.

roman thrown at the arena
>treated like a toy for the masses, forced to fight with beasts unarmed, tortured by being torned apart by mercyless beasts, ends up being forgotten as a waste of money who had no feelings and that wanted to be cool

On one hand you got brave men defending their country and offering their gods their life and the life of equally brave men on the other you got selfless pricks who want to get drunk and fuck whores. In any case it's obvious where virtues and merit-based freedom was more common, and the answer CLEARLY isn't Mexico under Aztec rule.

shit skins are just mad that Europeans have a badass roman empire to look back on with pride, the same empire that lives on today in our modern western societies, all of which are based on roman society as the cornerstone of their legitimacy. When I look at my capital city, I see roman style architecture, I see roman words in my law books, I celebrate roman holidays, my constitution is a republic based on their template, my president is based on their consul, my senate on their senate, my governors on their governors, and my entire way of life within this military industrial complex is all based on the roman template, because thats just how influential and ahead-of-their-time the Romans really were. Im protected by a military that is fashioned in the Roman style and fights in the Roman way (organization, logistics, training, state funding, warrior as a profession, strict bootcamps, stern discipline, focus on teamwork rather than individual glory, etc etc etc), and is in all ways other than name a modern version of the Roman republic.

What has my society taken from the Aztecs? Corn. Yup, that's it. Corn. And I'm allergic to corn so I couldn't give a fuck either way.

Aztec warriors weren't sacrificed you retard they were the ones that collected the sacrifices. You just made a false equivalency, a clear logical fallacy. Nice try though. It's only fair to compare the sacrifices to the gladiators, your comparison only works if we're comparing an actual roman soldier with an Aztec soldier.

>Aztec warriors weren't sacrificed you retard they were the ones that collected the sacrifices
yeah, i know bro, the bones in here were just a prank
>>One certain spot in this township I never shall forget, situated near the temple. Here a vast number of human skulls were piled up in the best order imaginable,—there must have been more than 100,000; I repeat, more than 100,000. (...) Similar horrible sights we saw towards the interior of the country in every township, and even in Tlascalla

Anything to shed light on the tens of millions of natives at the hands of Catholics is appreciated, yes.

The world needs to know how evil this organization is.

*murdered

Those were skulls of their enemies that they sacrificed, not their own warriors. Wouldnt make much sense to kill off your entire warrior class for a cool skull monument. It was a way of showing how powerful they were by how many men they had captured and sacrificed. Both societies functioned in basically the same way when it comes to collecting slaves. The winners got slaves, the losers became the slaves. Only difference really is that the Roman slave has a small chance at a rock star life whereas the defeated mesoamerican warrior is doomed to die no matter what (hur dur my 1 (ONE) example a bloo bloo)

>Clearly the Aztecs are the more civilized of the two, on this metric at least.
Nope.
Romans at least didn't eat the gladiators.

>Aztecs can't handle a mild case of the sniffles and die whenever a Spaniard with a scratchy throat looks at them
>this the fault of Catholicism.

lmao

XDDD

Interesting i remember a teacher telling us that mexito city was flooded a lot during the colonial times and there was an intention to move the capital. So its because cortes fucked all the dams

Even the pirest knew it was bulshit when the spaniards used religion duty as justification for killing natives. They were killing thousands in the mines and fields without showing them the true god.

Sees a lot of gold and gems, lets kill them