Is it true that Aztecs tried to capture more than kill?

>Is it true that Aztecs tried to capture more than kill?

well they weren't necromongers, that's fer sure

this===>
The spanish and the aztecs were not even playing the same game.

What are some good books.on the Aztecs?

When it was an enemy leader, or any high rank enemy because it was a great honour for the warrior...
Bonus fact: then in a special ceremony the prisioner could win his freedom if he defeat tree great warriors and then his captor with a weapon made with feathers (the others with conventional weapons of course)

i would have loved to have witnessed the fear and confusion the Aztecs felt as it dawned on them how inferior their warriors where to the invaders.

>inferior
Whatever makes you sleep at night, buddy.

...

they lost. They not only lost, they lost hard. The ability to follow orders and achieve victory are objectively the only meaningful qualities of a fighting force, everything else is just LARPing.

>follow orders
Literally incans incarnate. Have you ever read a book?
>lost hard
Thanks to the pestilence and evilness the european brought to America. The organization and population decreased greatly.

Keep trying, buddy.

>b-but muh this and b-but muh that
they
lost
They were inferior. This isn't up for argument. They also had vastly more forces. If they were not inferior they would have won.

They where inferior they lacked steel armor and weapons and had no cavalry.The very nature of their warfare was warped focusing on captives rather than the defeat of their opponents

Their entire civilization was rendered irreverent almost overnight.The sun rose regardless if the temple steps ran red it was all a lie.

>If they were not inferior they would have won.
But they did, pic related is the last battle they fought in Tenochtitlan before smallpox and salmonella were introduced.
And that's not even mentioning that Spaniards had steel armors and cannons while Aztecs only had wooden weapons.

>vastly more forces
Actually the spanish side outnumbered them. Incas weren't the unique culture on SouthAmerica.
>inferior=losing
So are niggers superior because they are conquering your women?
Are mexicans superior for invading your country?

Lmao

>lacked Steel armor
Almost every battle against the Incas were because of native alliances. You should check the reports of some new discoveries and rests of corpses.

Literally every wound of every soldier was caused by "inca"-weapons.
>captives
So you were talking about those mesoamerican savages right?

>Incas
we are discussing Aztecs not Incas

>an incaboo comes to the aztec thread just to shit on the aztecs and spam that incas were better
everytime, literally
i stand to what i said last thread, you guys are pol tier

were dude

>muh muh smallpox
>muh muh cannons
get over it, the spanish conquistadors were far better in any militar term than the natives. Gunpowder was practically not used, and they adopted the armor of the natives since it was more fit in those conditions.

>adds nothing to the thread and posts the twitter frog
>filename
You have no argument.

>a tired, demoralized spanish force is ambushed trying to flee the palace of tenochitlan (which they had successfully held against repeated aztec assaults for weeks)
>suffers heavy casualties, loses almost all of their cannons and arquebuses, many of their tlaxcanan allies desert immediately after the battle
>still manage to completely BTFO az-niggers at otumba

>Gunpowder was practically not used
You literally have not a single fact to back that up, Conquistadors used arquebusiers and cannons every battle.
Only reason Conquistadors survived Otumba was due to cavalry, and the Aztecs faced cavarly for the first time ever at Otumba. People in the Old World had thousands of years facing cavalry and still had defeats like pic related, even if they had equal weaponry and armor, unlike the Aztecs.
After that first encounter, Conquistadors couldn't even repeat a victory like that, even when they had more far cavalry, cannons and allies.

>they adopted the armor of the natives since it was more fit in those conditions
Quite impressive you won't accept indians were better at something even if it's only about armor.
Anyway, Conquistadors still wore breatplates along with the indian armor. Aztecs had no weapon to pierce the breastplates.

did the Conquistadors have difficulty procuring ammunition and gunpowder in the new world?

The conquistadors had barely two dozen arquebuses with them on their initial visit to tenochitlan.
>only reason the conquistadors survived otumba was due to cavalry
and cortez' tactic of going after the aztec warchiefs.
I don't know about ammunition, but cortez had natives collect sulfur for gunpowder from active volcanoes.

My teacher told me they got sulfur from the popocateptl volcano

There is way too much confusion and misinterpretation here. To start with:

>Usually the battle began with projectile fire— the bulk of the army was composed of commoners often armed with bows or slings. Then the warriors advanced into melee combat and during this phase, theatlatlwas used— this missile weapon was more effective over shorter distances than slings and bows, and much more lethal. The first warriors to enter into melee were the most distinguished warriors of theCuachicqueand theOtontinsocieties; then came the Eagles and Jaguars; and lastly the commoners and unpracticed youths. Until entering into melee order rank was maintained and the Aztecs would try to surround or outflank the enemy, but once the melee began the ranks dissolved into a fray of individual hand-to-hand fighting. Youths participating in battle for the first time would usually not be allowed to fight before the Aztec victory was ensured, after which they would try to capture prisoners from the fleeing enemy. It is said that, particularly during flower wars, Aztec warriors would try to capture rather than kill their foes, sometimes striving to cut a hamstring or otherwise incapacitate their opponents. This has been used as an argument to explain the defeat of the Aztecs by the Spanish[25]but this argument has been rejected by many historians — since sources clearly state that Aztecs did kill their Spanish opponents whenever they had the chance, and quickly adapted their combat strategies to their new opponents.[26][27]

But also it shouldnt be forgotten that in the actual siege of Tenochtitlan the forces on the Spanish side were almost entirely composed of native allies which were either equal to or greater in number to those of the Aztec warriors.

Also dont forget the smallpox which was spreading quickly through the city.

Also dont forget most of the Aztec high command was slaughtered during a dance festival by the Spanish.

>Also dont forget the smallpox which was spreading quickly through the city.
Were their natives allies immune?

>Also dont forget most of the Aztec high command was slaughtered during a dance festival by the Spanish.
Understandable

>and cortez' tactic of going after the aztec warchiefs.
Which simply wouldn't have been posible without steel armor and horses

>still manage to completely BTFO az-niggers at otumba
Conquistadors wouldn't have survived a single battle without steel arms, cavalry and artillery.
Just one of those advantages is enough to make up for numerical inferiority, with all the 3 of them they shouldn't have lost a single battle like in the rest of the Americas (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Muisca), but they frequently lost against the Aztecs.

>this argument has been rejected by many historians — since sources clearly state that Aztecs did kill their Spanish opponents whenever they had the chance
i don't know man, as far as i know the only sources that describe the battles are cortes and diaz and they both say that Spaniards were captured and sacrificed

>After we had at last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had arrived at our encampment, where we were pretty secure from the enemy's attacks, Sandoval, Lugo, Tapia, and Alvarado stood together relating what had befallen each of the respective divisions, when all in a moment the large drum of Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple, accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns, and other instruments. The sound was truly dismal and terrifying, but still more agonizing was all this to us when we looked up and beheld how the Mexicans were mercilessly sacrificing to their idols our unfortunate companions, who had been captured in Cortes' flight across the opening.
- Bernal Díaz del Castillo, True History of the Conquest of the New Spain, Chapter CLII

Broken Spears

Also dont forget most of the Aztec high command was slaughtered during a dance festival by the Spanish."

Good point, that was a huge blow to aztec society imagine sudenly if all the important politicans, generals and priests were wiped out and we were attacked by an enemy.

>native allies immune
I suppose there were more people allied with the spanish than aztecs.

And then your entire nation is enslaved and your women are raped

This thread actually has some stupid faggot trying to argue that the Aztecs were capable of beating the spanish or were somehow good warriors in comparison to people with steel, guns, cavalry and artillery. That's pretty fucking funny.

>>Cortes and Diaz account
While not be dismissed entirely as a source for obvious reasons, it also should not be taken entirely at face value. The spaniards had very good reasons to talk up the viciousness and brutality of their "heathen" foes.

yeah hilarious

>The wheel of fortune now suddenly turned against Cortes, and the joyous feelings of victory were changed into bitter mourning; for while he was eager in pursuit of the enemy, with every appearance of victory, it so happened that his officers never thought to fill up the large opening which they had crossed. The Mexicans had taken care to lessen the width of the causeway, which in some places was covered with water, and at others with a great depth of mud and mire. When the Mexicans saw that Cortes had passed the fatal opening without filling it up, their object was gained. An immense body of troops, with numbers of canoes, which lay concealed for this purpose in places where the brigantines could not get at them, now suddenly rushed forth from their hiding places, and fell upon this ill-fated division with incredible fierceness, accompanied by the most fearful yells. It was impossible for the men to make any stand against this overwhelming power, and nothing now remained for our men but to close their ranks firmly, and commence a retreat. But the enemy kept rushing on in such crowds, that our men, just as they had retreated as far back as the dangerous opening, gave up all further resistance, and fled precipitately. Now the awful consequences of the neglect to fill up the opening in the causeway began to show themselves. In front of the narrow path, which the canoes had now broken down, the Mexicans wounded Cortes in the leg, took sixty Spaniards prisoners, and killed six horses.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CLII

Yeah dude? None of that shit matters because most of the time the conquistadors won and mopped the floor with the natives.

>one battle
>with a whopping 6 casualties, all of which were horses, and 60 prisoners
>and the victory was made possible in no small part thanks to a massive mistake from the Spaniards
Whoa, better not mess with these superior Aztec Warriors and their superior weapons and tactics.

Spaniards are shit at war. They just got lucky for a while when they won the lottery. ( Lottery that even the pirates took a big portion from them kek)

deal with it.

not really, at least not during the 16th century

Just did a bit of research on it.
I found this:
>Along with the spiral, scholars tend to associate it [the step fret symbol you mentioned] with the whole idea of movement, the generation of new cycles and the weaving into being of the 5th Sun. James Maffie refers to it in his article for us on ‘Aztec Philosophy’
mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-philosophy
It's not just shields either. Here's some jewelry with the same design.

yeah a few good battles when spain was flooded with silver and could buy ships , guns ,and fill the tercios with mercenaries.

Also, that design is called xicalcoliuhqui.

So you're using a mistake made by a Spanish commander to explain the superiority of the Aztec warrior?

If an American Lieutenant walks his men into an obvious choke point, and one of his soldiers is killed in an ambush and they are forced to retreat, is the Taliban fighter suddenly the superior warrior?

With diseases on their side it was like playing on easy mode. Technological superiority was not that significant to their victories.

It's the same guy too. I don't get why he doesn't just make a thread for the incas instead of leaching on aztec threads like a parasite.

>>one battle
And the other 3 defeats of Alvarado, Sandoval and Lugo during the same day of which there are no accounts. Don't remember all the other ones around the Lake of Texcoco, but to my mind comes Xochimilco.
>Near Xochimilco the Mexicans had already dragged him from his horse; and had it not been for our Tlascallan auxiliaries, and the brave Christobal de Olea, of Old Castile, he would have been carried off by the enemy. In that unfortunate combat on the causeway, where sixty-two of our men were taken prisoners and sacrificed to the Mexican gods, the enemy had already laid hands on our general and wounded him in the foot; but in that perilous moment it again pleased the Almighty that Olea should come up to his rescue, assist him on horseback, and thus save him from a horrible death.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CCIV

>with a whopping 6 casualties, all of which were horses, and 60 prisoners
which means Aztecs didn't kill them on purpose, but wanted to take them alive

>and the victory was made possible in no small part thanks to a massive mistake from the Spaniards
will everything i post be a massive mistake from the Spaniards? Díaz clearly says that Aztecs set up the ambush

It is if people armed only with wooden weapons fight against
>steel armours
>cavalry
>artillery
fucking hell do i really have to repeat it every time?
See any other non-guerilla battle of the Conquistadors in America, just one of those advantages was enough to win every battle, but the Aztecs still won.

i understand Romaboos due to the glory of ancient Rome and weeaboos are often mocked but i cant understand aztecboos that are on this board.

They where the literal the definition of barbarians who sacrificed people on and industrial scale to insure the sun would rise.Ive read sources that they actually ate young women and children of enemy tribes .I could see why their culture and art around them could be interesting but they have no redeeming value as a people and where wiped out by a superior force.

I agree with you about everything, but that wasn't a "wooden weapon". Is pretty cool actually.

memes about the aztecs: the post

>i understand Romaboos due to the glory of ancient Rome
>I could see why their culture and art around them could be interesting but they have no redeeming value as a people
sigh
every thread i swear

>Gunpowder was practically not used
Stopped reading right there. You've clearly no understanding of this topic.

Yes, but they still did. Cortes even took a detour during his advance to scrap sulfur off the sides of an active volcano.

>and they adopted the armor of the natives since it was more fit in those conditions.
Factually wrong. Cortes commanded his men to never remove their breastplates, even while sleeping.

Partly to keep the illusion of them being metal gods so many natives had, and partly to always be prepared for ambush.

Source?

Read a book, nigga.

Conquistador by Buddy Levy is a good start for the conquest of the Aztecs. Or if you want to go in balls deep read Bernal Diaz del Castillo and Cortes' letters.

The romans and really any empire was no worst. For some reason I think people in the west and people from judeo-christianity view human sacrifices as some ultimate evil above other violent acts. When fact of the matter most human sacrifices were over after a couple seconds. The most horrific would have been being drowned or set on fire, but these were common punishments elsewhere in the world too. Aside from human sacrifice the Aztecs have many other fascinating features: their art in feathers (which sadly few survive), stone sculptures, murals, codices (books), jewelry, obsidian sculptures etc. Their theater and musical compositions (which we have no examples of anymore thanks to the Spaniards), their philosophy (see Tamachtianis and their concepts of Teotl, Malinalli and Ollin), Aztec poetry which ranges from comedic and tragic (huemacs tragedy) to erotic (song of the women of chalco) to existential (Nezahualcoyotl's poetry), to just talking about the beautiful things in the world, and lets not forget their architecture, floarting gardens and hydroengineering, and their aesthetic fashion.

They did use the cotton armor, and even applied it to their horses too during the campaigns against the Chichimeca.

>no source

>They where the literal the definition of barbarians
No they weren't. Barbarian isn't a catch all term for peoples who were especially aggressive or violent throughout history, although that's what it's associated with. Outside of Europe it has little worth when categorizing groups of people and if we were going to apply it to the atmosphere of Mesoamerica near the time of conquest, groups that were outside of the Aztec Triple Alliance would be better fitted for the term barbarian because they were not a part of the dominant culture of the time.

2bh it's a bullshit assessment, but that's what happens when you try to apply Western standards to non-Western civilizations. The conlusions are inconsistent and dishonest.

>Outside of Europe it has little worth when categorizing groups of people
Really now? Look into Asia. They have all sorts of uses for the word barbarian.

It's most as if you didn't read the rest of that sentence.

>almost as if
Ftfme

>too lazy to search

>tfw i'll never taste the ancient pozole

what does human meat flavour like?

Idk but the chocolate that they drank sure was tasty, and spicy.

Forgot pic

A lil bit like pork.

Take a picture of the paragraph you got it from.

agree dude, they also had popcorns

Is it true they invented peanut butter too?

The aztecs actually had their own word for barbarians that they used the same way the romans did

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichimeca

Hey, do you know the original photographer of that image? Wikipedia is currently using a bullshit ornamental replica by some asshat who doesn't actually into history for the main image in the macuahuitl article and I'd like to replace it with that one but i'd need permission from the creator of the photo to do so

That sort of geometric meander pattern tends to come up in mesoamerican art a lot, or at least fiction's generication of mesoamerican art even if it's not based on a specific historically accurate thing

Considering much of their weapons are pretty lethal? Not really.

Also bretty hard to capture someone skewered by atl-atl darts, arrows, and hurled spears.

In addition the enemies of the Aztecs were trying to kill them in battles so I doubt the Aztec Warrior was busy trying to capture them alive. Maybe in a rout I guess.

thanks that's very interesting.
normally there's some debate if a shield design is uniform or personalised but it seems they gravitated towards this a lot
memes >most human sacrifices were over after a couple seconds
Their still beating hearts where removed from their chests a lot of them would still be alive...

Furthermore the Romans didn't commit human sacrifice in fact it was one of the reason they gave for invading Britain to stop the druids committing it.They accused Carthage of sacrificing children,though we dont know if its true or not.The Aztecs where the perfect bait to western civilization.

I guess the closes comparison is the Colosseum since both where practiced during peace time.but i guess you could argue that you need to keep the audience on side so the participants outside of the professional gladiators had to be deplorable to some degree.

The coliseum? Really? How about the THOUSANDS of human beings Romans crucified and left to die for DAYS? So fucking sick of this "muh human sacrifice" while these retards glorify in the same breath the empire that would slaughter cities of ten-thousands in cold blood and sell their children into slavery.

Thats crime and punishment and your right its not nice and we could discuss that to the thread 404s but if we are using human sacrifice as a comparison its different as the sacrifice often did nothing wrong to offend society since they are required.

>barbarians who sacrificed people on and industrial scale
yet killed less people than christians
pic related

>Ive read sources that they actually ate young women and children of enemy tribes .
If we are to believe everything that the Spanish said they sacrificed 10 000 children every year., yet only 42 sacrificed children have been found in the most important temple of the empire. 42 children in 200 years.
On the same spot the Spanish killed 8 000 unarmed nobles and their children in a couple of hours.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_in_the_Great_Temple

>they have no redeeming value as a people
why do people always can't see other than sacrifices????
Who judges Roman culture for killing Jesus and 2 000 000 jews, another 1 000 000 of Gauls and who knows how many Germanics, Britons, North Africans, Iberians, etc?
Who judges Japanese culture for the millions killed in the cruelest ways in history by the Unit 731?
Who judges all European culture for burning witches and being the only culture in the world to make instruments of torture?

>.Ive read sources that they actually ate young women and children of enemy tribes
i die a little inside everytime poeple call the other factions tribes

>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."
>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.
Bernal díaz del Castillo, True History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter LXXXVII and LXI

That was the system they had though, the enemies of the aztecs did it as well and towards them too. Innocence is also a tricky word, as most sacrifices were prisoners of war, who were enemies of the state and would have otherwise been killed in battle.

>its different as the sacrifice often did nothing wrong to offend society since they are required.
They take captives while they expand their empire and war with other states, it's just about business as usual. The only thing different is that the method of killing them is symbolized as human sacrifice, which some people just can't get over for whatever reason.

The fact that the Aztecs placed so much value on flesh and blood as nourishment for the gods makes me think that they wouldn't have considered it to be too much of a dishonorable death, and that every person had some worth just by virtue of being corporeal. Anyway, that's just my theory. Of course, it sucks for the neighboring groups that lose members of their community. I wouldn't recommend that it be a common practice in today's world. However, in the context of history it's no better or worse than everything else that was going on.

That's funny, becuase the Aztecs themselves knew they were from chicimeca stock,in they myths.
>being the only culture in the world to make instruments of torture?
Are you retarded. The Assyrians would put people in a recipient in a way than only the head was out, give them milk with honey and let them rot in they excrements, than after a few days would be full of insect than would eat them slowly. [spoiler]Also about the witches it was mostly a protestant thing and in the 16th-17th century mostly. Catholic burned less than 100 witches/warlock, having judged over 125.000 people. And those burned were mostly after the French got an histeria than pased to north spain. After that I think the catholic church said "stop burning midwifes" and got a policy than magic existing was silly.[/spoiler]They let the Tlaxcalans and Otome be free so they could raid them for sacrifices, they did that on purpose too, so every so often they could amass an army and wreck them, pick they youngs and sacrifice a share (Tlaxcalan didn't have natives cotton lands, so no armor , and the Aztec blockade made them suffer a lot).

A lot of people

Is it true Assyrians skinned people alive?

And impaled people.
It's true? Who the fuck knows what happened then. People did put that in writing form so I believe it because I don't have any other source about them.

>That's funny, becuase the Aztecs themselves knew they were from chicimeca stock,in they myths.

They WE WUZZE'D themselves as being Toltec descendants, IIRC.

The Toltecs were like ancient Rome, everyone claimed to be them to gain some form of legitamacy. It's why nearly every group of Mesoamerica are called Children of the Plumed Serpent, i.e. descendants of Quetzalcoatl the great and final leader of the Toltecs. My theory though is that the Toltecs were also Teotihuacan.

In they myths and for what we know of they history, they settled along other Nahua relatively recently, some of they cousins were know later as chicimecas, but really they were kinda of ashamed of that and tried to We Wuz as Toltecs marrying with them and larping hard, like the Germans than conquered Rome territories.

but that's just the thing though the flower wars were purely to receive captives the goal wasn't even to kill or conquer purely to gain captives .They could have conquered the surrounding sates only they didn't they harvested them meaning when the Spanish came on the scene they had a willing alliance of peoples against the Aztecs

99% of aztec sacrifices were prisoners of war that would have otherwise been killed on the spot in europe.

Yeah nah, depending of the god it had to be a child, like the Rain one, where the sacrifice had to be weeping and a boy.

*several boys. The weeping because it made rain more likely. Seven Girls and seven boys for each Atlcahualo festivity, where they put out the hearts of the kids, every year, then you had another one involving skining them and puting the skins in caves...
There weren't all kids tough, some time they made dough boys of amaranth and picked the dough boys hearts for example.

I said 99%. There were some ceremonies where it wasn't but the vast majority were prisoners of war.

They tried to capture instead of kill so they could kill later, gruesomely

From where do you get that user? Lots of times they used slaves, other captives. You needed women for determined deities, kids for others, noble men from the city for yeat another and those you didn't get from the floral wars. The majority of victims were captives yeah but that doesn't count the other hundreds of victims.