If Rome were to fight the Aztecs, who would win?

If Rome were to fight the Aztecs, who would win?
use evidence to support

Edit, (due to my own retardation) setting is in Greece's mountains/Rome's landscape.

The romans had access to horses and were more advanced in general presuming this would be a battle and not a war.
In a war scenario it would be a stalemate due to the giant fucking ocean between them.

This is completely hypothetical, it's a battle scenario. The outcome would be totally different depending on where it is but I think Rome would win on both their own land or the Aztec's land. Rome had great improvisional battle strategy, and they were just way more technologically advanced. The Aztec's knowledge of their land can only do so much.

did the aztecs not have armor? also why does it look like theyre wearing feetie pajamas

They had nonmetallic armor, which AFAIK isn't that different from a gambeson or a linothroax that was fairly common in the Roman world.

Their armor would only do something against the Roman's slingshot or weak projectile weapons. Whereas on the other hand, an Aztec weapon like the Maquahuitl would barely get through the Roman's armor depending on the strength of the Aztec. A block from a standard Roman shield could absorb most of the shock from the maquahuitl.

legionnaires crush them then

Do the Aztecs have immunity to Eurasian diseases or would that cripple them in real life? Is it an open battle of comparable troops or would it be the army sizes of the time? Is it a campaign or a single battle?

Rome
>Had steel, iron
>Had professional armies designed to utterly destroy an enemy force that frequently outnumbered them
>Exceptional siege equipment and knowledge
>Logistics force designed for long range troop transport and supply
>Horses (often talented gallic or celtic auxiliaries)
>Smallpox

Aztecs
>Obsidian weapons and troops designed for ritual capturing of lesser tribes
>Syphilis


The aztecs would be utterly crushed anywhere but their home turf. Even then, they'd probably still go down, or at the very least couldn't defeat the Romans in open battle.

ATTENTION THIS IS NOW OFFICIALLY A CHINA VS ROME THREAD

off the rock you go china

Romans did not bother exploring the Americas because they feared the powerful tlatoanis

Mapuches win

this is the worst post i've seen today

If Isaac newton and Einstein got into a tickle-fight, who would sneeze first?

Einstein seems to me to be the type of gu who always had a head cold.

Were the Aztecs and Romans even aware of each other's existence?

Aztecs would get fucking wrecked.

Rome would win. I love talking about Aztec stuff but they'd get their asses kicked by the Hittites if they were pit against each other. The lack of horses, stone weaponry, and culture of kidnapping in war rather than killing puts them at a serious disadvantage. Their battles, even with the other large tribes of the area were probably closer to ambush/brawls rather than the disciplined, tactical warfare that even the Hittites were capable of.

Good point, not sure why I made this thread. Just thought the size of the Aztecs would pose a difference

Of course not, you doofus.

What? Are we just lining up every legion and their auxiliaries on one side and then lining up every Aztec warrior on the other?

Nigga, Aztecs ≠ China

Unironically that

Mapuches, and some other native tribes in NA adapted quickly and fought against governments into the later decades of the 19th century. They figured out horses and firearms right away and knew ambushes and assymetrical warfare were the way to go.

It took Romans several decades to pacify Iberians, Germans and Jews who did similar tactics, but the Americans would have a massively higher population to grind Romans. They were far more suited to fight off invaders than the Aztecs ever were.

They might be a threat to the hmm Mycenaean people.

is such thing even possible ?

Fun fact: in a round-about way, Roman Legions actually did conquer the Aztecs. Most of Cortez' troops were Rodeleros, which were a Spanish attempt to revive the Roman Legion's short-sword-and-shield combat. Pic very related.

So I say the Romans would shit firmly and roughly upon the Aztecs, because the Spanish did while cosplaying Romans.

If less than 500 conquistadors with a few thousand native allies can take on their style of warfare against armies of 40,000, even 100,000, then Rome at its peak would squash them. It could be a long campaign, but the romans were professionals at the long drawn out conflict.

such a handsome helmet

Slingshots are not weak projectiles

Rome would win because organization and steel.

That said it bugs me how many people on the history board think the Spanish beat the aztecs with just their own men. And underestimate the importance of their native allies.

In open field battles, the spanish would have NEVER gotten as far as they did without gundpowder or their handful of cavalry.

The aztec empire wasn't even founded until 1428, it was less than a century old when it was conquered.

China and Rome would make love, not war.

This.

Didn't the Han decide that the only reason a great empire like the Roman Empire could exist was that the Romans were lost Chinese or something like that?

500 conquistadors and their ships with cannons/guns/plate armor + alliance with local tribes

Cortez was only able to win with the help of native tribes who hated the Aztecs.

This must be a joke. The Aztecs literally had nothing on the Romans.

Cortez sank all of his ships so

Strategically yes but we're talking about a single battle itt

i heard but i cant remember the source.
The Aztecs used macuahuitl and other top heavy swinging weapons to make the most use of them ,they dispersed and fought individual fights.
if this is true a well drilled Roman line would make mince meat of the Aztecs, warrior by warrior.

They did not have horses in the Americas, so cavalry would just run them down while the tritari would finnish the job.

If the Romans get horses it's over.

When Cortes busted out his horses the tribes fucking freaked out because they thought they were dragons. For some time after they thought the horsemen were some type of centaur.

Horses were incredible for the Spanish. When one of the horses died from injuries in an early encounter with one of the outlier tribes Cortes had it buried so that the Indians couldn't examine it.

The dogs (mastiffs, etc.) they brought along were useful too. They were thought to be vicious deer that killed anyone the Spanish wished.

i thought the Aztecs had dogs like the Mexican hairless? or was it that they had no large breeds comparable to European breeds?

Rome

Metal

They had smaller dogs mostly meant for eating.

European dog breeds were still pretty muddled back then but the ones they brought along were pretty close to mastiffs.

>Implying feetie pajamas aren't the most advanced form of armor

Better question.

If Athens were to fight the Aztecs, who would win?
use evidence to support.

Honestly, it would be closer than against Rome but I'd still give the advantage to Athens.

They had metal armor and weapons, plus the goals of Aztec warriors was to wound and capture, not kill.

This.

Most Amerindian civilizations would lose to anyone on the other side of the pond on their turf, disease would probably fuck the Romans up if they're fighting on the Aztecs Turf. I don't know enough about the Aztecs to confidently say this but the Aztecs could also whittle away the Romans if they go full VietCong and wage a guerrilla war in the jungles.

Aesthetic wise? Aesthecs, but it'd be close.
Combat wise? Romans no doubt.
Never understood why people never ask what if Aztecs had had ironworking, horses and gunpowder.

Who wins?

Smallpox.

>ywn fuck chinese qts with your legionnaire bros
why

>Never understood why people never ask what if Aztecs had had ironworking, horses and gunpowder.
Because that involves accepting that indigenous America peoples were thousands of years behind China and Europe despite even greater mineral wealth and hunting grounds.

The natives did have metallurgy. They also invented the wheel but didn't have much use since there weren't any beasts of burden.

>indigenous America peoples were thousands of years behind China and Europe despite even greater mineral wealth and hunting grounds
Jesus Christ why are polacks so insecure?
Horses were domesticated by Kazakhs, ironworking was invented by Mesopotamians and Turks were frequently invading Europe, while Europeans couldn't do the same for 500 years.

most aztecs went into battle as protoges to an aztec aristocrat. if the dude they went into battle with died they'd flee. this is part of the reason it was possible for the conquistadors to win against such large numbers.

read John Keegan and Victor d. Hanson

would be an easy victory for the romans considering this, weaponry, and tactics of both sides

well you'd also have to accept that Aztec civilization was entirely shaped by the fact that they rose from the ruin of the Maya.

it's not a coincidence they were obsessed with sacrifices and appeasing the gods, they were the crazy religious nuts that survived the apocalypse and doubled down on the crazyness.

He clearly meant the empires of antiquity, considering that's what this whole thread is about. Stop throwing a shit fit because you think everyone is a Nazi, despite them properly adding to the thread

you can't invent horses lol

If they fought in Italy the Romans. If they fought in Mexico the Aztecs. If they fought in Antarctica they would all die, so a draw.

>Hittites vs. Aztecs
Jesus Christ.
Other than the Eastern Front, I'm having a hard time imagining a comparably dense conglomeration of historical assholes in one location. it would be a miracle if they didn't collapse under the weight of their own brutal assholery and form a black-ass-hole.

A concentration of assholery so shitty not even light can escape.

Horses alone would intimidate the shit out of Aztecs and spread fear among them. Now imagine if Romans broke the "no elephants" meme and actually brought elephants.

Also cohesion, the reason Rome was a super power was because they had the first and only professional military with organised structure, standardized equipment, officers, discipline, etc. They would easily win. Cavalry is just icing on the cake

Europe had its own "we're thousands of years behind others" periods, lad.

Roman politics was FAR more dynamic than the Aztecs, who were hated by most of their allies

Roman military technology was also better (high quality iron and steel, catapults and ballistas, limes forts, better navy etc)

there are stories of the maquahitl being able to chop the head of a horse off in 1 hit, as well as stories of aztec spear's being able to penetrate spanish armor

lol not really

>indigenous America peoples were thousands of years behind China and Europe despite even greater mineral wealth and hunting grounds

>Stop throwing a shit fit because you think everyone is a Nazi, despite them properly adding to the thread

Not lost Chinese but they respected them for being civilized like them.

You mean Chinese male qts

Rome and China relations would usher in a whole new era of homosexuality.

The small horses the Romans had were not the mighty war steads the Spaniards had centuries later. Also Roman cavalry was a joke aside from auxilia like the Batavi, etc.

China/Rome is the best couple that never happened.

>/pol/ tripfag
opinion discarded.

Only in ritualized Garland Wars. They fought actual wars with hundreds of thousands combatants.

Assyrians and Aztecs would probably be worse.

China was aware of rome but rome was not aware of china beyond "the place silk comes from".

Roman merchants reached as far as southern China, however this was just on the cusp of the fall of Han and the crisis of the 2nd century.

Byzantine monks famously obtained silk worms.

Radhanite Jews set up trade networks from Europe to China.

Well a few things to consider when it comes to Rome vs Aztecs regardless of terrain is the way these people lived.

Most Aztec conflicts with foreign powers occurred because they believed if they stopped powering The Sun God with blood that eventually the world would literally come to an end. In that most of their tactics were based around live capture. They liked tactics that emphasized small masses of troops as well, though these were not advanced such as shield or spear wall tactics, instead their combat was more based on gaining honor as an individual combatant. This is pretty much what Rome was made exactly to fight.

Even Aztec social structure in warfare was made out of a noble caste of warriors and gatherings of commoner levies that were raised for warfare, though of course were not professional warriors.

Roman Legions met this all the time when fighting Germanic Tribes, as they too fought in mass hordes throughout most of their existence and found themselves getting fucked up by the way Legions were organized into rotating ranks of men that left wide open spaces between soldiers so that any opponents that dared try and run between the columns of soldiers got stabbed from either side.

Along with this if we start to take into account things like sickness and army attrition we'll also see that The Aztecs lose out on this quite a bit too. Romans carry diseases from grand stretches of land due to their wide reaching boarders and trade routes with many separate cultures both internally and externally. Romans would have many more diseases o gave to The Aztecs, and would have higher natural immunity to anything they could offer in return, as Aztecs for the most part were seen as massive xenophobes by the other tribes around them. This leads to them trading less, and having far less contact with foreign tribes and diseases unless it was to fight them or steal their population as sacrifices.

Also Aztec Mountains are only half the size of Rome's.

This is pretty much the right answer.

Mesoamericans didn't wage war to capture people for sacrifices. Inexperienced soldiers were sent in after battles were essentially over to capture surrounded or fleeing enemies. Capturing them was seen more productive and requiring more skill than killing them, hence why it was a means of improving a soldier's reputation.

Mesoamericans did fight Flower Wars, which were battles specifically designated for capturing enemy soldiers for sacrifice. However, these were not common and they were agreed upon by both sides beforehand. In addition to serving a religious role, these battles also allowed cities to demonstrate their strength and establish a hierarchy with low intensity combat instead of full on battles.

Would you care to elaborate or are you just gonna post a Pepe and pretend you're responding and refuting what's being said.

I don't even care if he's right, I'mma go with that

You forgetting about diseases, it killed most of the aztecs before they had a chance to fight

yes really. Leave Veeky Forums if you have any bias clouding or obstructing your view of history.

>Roman Legions met this all the time when fighting Germanic Tribes, as they too fought in mass hordes throughout most of their existence and found themselves getting fucked up by the way Legions were organized into rotating ranks of men that left wide open spaces between soldiers so that any opponents that dared try and run between the columns of soldiers got stabbed from either side.

are you talking about the checkerboard formation? it wasn't meant to allow enemies to run through, rather, to allow legionaries to push through their own ranks and always cycle out tired soldiers for fresh ones.

shit cavalry > no cavalry

Unless volcanic glass can penetrate steel, no, I don't think the Aztecs can win.

>Also Roman cavalry was a joke
Which somehow routinely beat numerically superior cavalry that was "better" than them.

Those stories are gross exagerrations, then

Considering the aztecs never managed to find an effective way of dealing with cortez's cavalry, they'd be fucked if they went up against roman cavalry.

>Access to ponies means WAR HORSES
????

>Logistics force designed for long range troop transport and supply
Only by Euro standards.

The romans had accesss to war horses, yes. Also, the roman logistical system was every bit as good as the aztecs (as long as we're assuming this is a post-marian army)

>hordes of lightly armored barbarians with poor quality weapons, and who are trained at individual combat and not fighting as a unit
>vs the army literally designed to counter the above
aztecs would get utterly curbstomped.

The aztec dogs were comperable to chiuhahas or however you spell it.

>cortez was only able to win with the help of native tribes who hated the aztecs
In the final siege of tenochitlan the native allies were used more for auxilliary roles than actual combat.

The ships cortez used on the lake were actually built similarly to roman ships, and operated in more or less the same manner.

sources?

Conquest: Montezuma, cortez and the fall of old mexico by Hugh Thomas

>Horses were domesticated by Kazakhs.

Aztecs because Rome is across the Atlantic and their ships sucked but at least they had ships so they would be the ones attacking the Aztecs but they're still across the Atlantic so at some point the Romans would face a supply or reinforcement issue. .

A jew?