Fall of the Aztecs

Three theories Veeky Forums:

Was Hernan Cortes BTFOing the Aztecs because of

(a) the bicameral mind and the Aztecs believing that the arrival of Cortes and the Spanish was the second coming of Queztzalcoatl, which granted a foreign army entry into Tenochticlan

(b) The Aztecs warring with (and sacrificing) neighboring tribes allowing Cortes to build a strong coalition of angry tribes against the Aztecs

(c) a lack of stable food sources in beasts of burden and hearty crops to sustain a massive city and expanding empire

discuss.

Both a and b, and c makes no sense since the Aztec capital had crops literally on the lake; however, disease ultimately killed the most natives eventually.

All of the above, and more. It's never going to be just one answer.

They knew very quickly the Spanish weren't Gods, but some of them realized very quickly it was much easier to get the Spanish to kill their rivals then it was to get fucked by both their rivals and the Spanish. All the while, deforestation lead to serious political crisis, as well as social fragmentation, famine, over population, disease, and war, which put the emperors in panic mode, forcing them to make unwise, unadvised decisions. Also, guns and horses will fug you up.

A) is greatly debated 50/50 by academia. B) is a fact. C) aztecs had good crops though and maximized use of their land. Their diet was pretty healthy and good.

(d) Steel, gunpowder, and horses

/thread

Spaniards having balls of steel, Cortes being a great strategist and diplomatic and having allied tribes in their side.

The decisive battle was done by spaniards almost alone, so the native allies weren't as important as some people think.

this basically

>Diseases.
C) is out of question as Aztec have stable food source and much better diet than Spaniards.
Thing they lack was no food but resistance for Europeans and African diseases
Diseases that wipe out not only massive chunk of population but also cause perpetual loss of qualified personnel and dynasty crisis. It often broke current chain of command and leave people under with no capable leadership or no leadership at all.

Steel and horses yes. Gunpowder was in limited supply and Spaniards were infamously bad shooters at the time so it made little difference with the Aztecs. Aztecs also figured out how to counter guns.

Native women betraying native men. It is really that simple. It just took Cortes 3 dickings of a random bitch to destroy the Aztec empire

>Spaniards were infamously bad shooters at the time
Simply false. They just beat the French with pike and shoot tactics and the Spanish Arquebusiers won Pavia by themselves

They were it's why many of their gunners were from Italy among the Conquistadors.

Don´t you know that Spaniards are the worst about everything?

>They were
>Spanish archabusiers win the Italian worse by themselves
>They sucked
>many of their gunners
Ok now I know that you are a pleb
>were from Italy among the Conquistadors.
No they weren't.

>Gunpowder was in limited supply
They got sulfur from volcanos and charcoal and potassium nitrate are anywhere, they could have lacked ammunition but the Indians would provide them with bronze balls.

>Aztecs also figured out how to counter guns.
Cannons were the only thing they couldn't counter. Barely one battle after Otumba, i.e. the first time they faced cavalry, the Aztecs already had close formations of pikemen, which, albeit efective to stop cavalry charges, were an easy target for the cannons.
>"If our cavalry attempted to pursue the enemy into the water, the latter had provided against this by palisades, behind which they retired, and stretched out against them their long lances, to which they had fastened the swords we unfortunately lost on our retreat from Mexico."
(...)
>"We noted their tenacity in fighting, but I declare that I do not know how to describe it, for neither cannon nor muskets nor crossbows availed, nor hand-to-hand fighting, nor killing thirty or forty of them every time we charged, for they still fought on in as close ranks and with more energy than in the beginning."
(...)
>"In the midst of this second conflict, Alvarado Tapia and Oli, with the main body of the cavalry, made their appearance, who had been attacking the enemy at other points. The blood was trickling down Oli's face, nor had any one of them escaped without a wound. They said they had been attacked by terrific bodies of the enemy, in the open fields, and had not been able to drive them back."
- True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Chapters CL, CXXVI, CXLV

Not only they lacked horses and cannons to counter the Spanish, but they only had wooden weapons to defeat pic related.

>Cannons were the only thing they couldn't counter.

>"When we had reached our encampment, a brisk charge of our cavalry upon the enemy made somewhat open space for us; but we were mostly indebted to our two brass cannon mounted in front of our camp, which were continually fired among the dense crowds of the enemy on the causeway, each shot mowing numbers of them down. But the Mexicans, confident of victory, kept continually advancing to the attack, and poured showers of stones and lances into our very quarters. No one rendered more effectual service on this day than a cavalier named Pedro Moreno, who is still living in Puebla: for, at this moment of imminent danger, he himself served our cannon, as our artillerymen were all either killed or unable to serve from their wounds. This Pedro Moreno had indeed, on all occasions, proved himself an excellent warrior, yet it was particularly on this day that we were so much indebted to his assistance"
- True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Chapter CLII

>Not only they lacked horses and cannons to counter the Spanish, but they only had wooden weapons to defeat pic related
I mean, you can end up with a decisive defeat even counting with the same equipment.

>(a) the bicameral mind and the Aztecs believing that the arrival of Cortes and the Spanish was the second coming of Queztzalcoatl, which granted a foreign army entry into Tenochticlan
Aztecs were confident that they would win even if the Spanish counted with steel armors and weapons.
As pic related shows, they were right. The Spaniards couldn't use nor cavalry nor their cannons while fleeing through one of the causeways of Tenochtitlan.
But as Otumba or Gembloux shows , cavalry was in no way an advantage easy to counter. An advantage evern more devastating if backed by artillery .

...

Do you know that gunners reffers to artillery men right?

Yes, which is why gunpowder was not a big factor in the defeat of the Aztecs as OP states.

>Artillery is the only form of gunpowder weapons.
You are wrong. Archabusiers were indeed very important

The Aztecs figured out all you had to do was duck and attack when they had to reload. Besides not all conquistadors carried guns. They were not a professional army people brought with them what they could afford to. Steel swords were way more important.

Is that a scottish sword ?

>The Aztecs figured out all you had to do was duck and attack when they had to reload.
Archabusiers were trained to shoot when the enemy was close. And only the sound and powder scared the Aztecs to death. Your supposed counter is fucking retarded. You don't use archebuses like you would use a bow

Or an Italian schiavona; or really just any kind of 16th century sword with a complex handguard.

The diseases the Spanish inadvertently brought with them would topple Aztec civilization no matter what either side did, and thus eclipses all other factors.

I guess the fact that so many of the Aztec's neighbors hated them is pretty important too.

It only scared them initially. And like cavalry the novelty wore off and figured out how to counter them.

They never countered either. At Otumba it was pretty much clear that the Aztecs had no fucking clue about how to beat the Spaniards. Their only chance wpuld have been an ambush while the Spaniards were crossing a river. I think you really don't have a clue how archabusier and cavalry tactics worked at the time.
Waiting for the archabusiers to reload to charge is just retarded as archabusiers only shot a volley when the enemy was charging to begin with.
Otumba was simply won by cavalry charges. The Aztecs weren't even close to countering them.
Overall the Aztecs were totally outmatched tactically

Otumba was the first battle the Aztecs faced cavalry, the Spanish couldn't repeat a victory as efective afterwards.

>Overall the Aztecs were totally outmatched tactically
What they should have done in Otumba then?
legit interested

>Aztec pikes
Explain

Ok but the real question is how do we bring back the Aztec Empire?

Maybe referring to when Aztecs fastened steel swords onto poles.

We don't, the Aztecs alliance was a mistake. The Mayas and other civs would be interesting, but not the aztecs.

>The Mayas and other civs would be interesting, but not the aztecs.
y tho

>Otumba was the first battle the Aztecs faced cavalry,
And basically the last one. They never bother to fight in open battle ever again

>>"In the midst of this second conflict, Alvarado Tapia and Oli, with the main body of the cavalry, made their appearance, who had been attacking the enemy at other points. The blood was trickling down Oli's face, nor had any one of them escaped without a wound. They said they had been attacked by terrific bodies of the enemy, in the open fields, and had not been able to drive them back."
>- True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Chapters CL, CXXVI, CXLV

i seriously wonder why do i even keep posting if people won't read a thing

>and paniards were infamously bad shooters at the time
Citation needed

This proves nothing. Specially without context,that you have cut out for obvious reasons. It was most likely an ambush,not even a battle

Was that vs Aztecs or another polis? I remember ones (Zapotecs?) than used long, broad headed pikes and had a heavy resistence to the conques.

>This proves nothing. Specially without context,that you have cut out for obvious reasons. It was most likely an ambush,not even a battle
solid argument pal

>The next morning very early we marched towards Xochimilco, and arrived in front of that town about eight in the morning. Here an immense body of the enemy stood ready to oppose us, part of whom were stationed in the open fields, and the rest in front of a bridge which had been destroyed, and near which large entrenchments had been thrown up. At the end of their pikes they had fastened the swords we had lost on our unfortunate retreat from Mexico, and many of the chiefs were armed with our own broadswords, which had been beautifully polished. The whole of the Mexicans appeared to be well-armed, and the entire plain was filled with warriors.

The conflict for the possession of the bridges lasted about half an hour, yet, with all our firing and hard fighting, we were not able to force them. Our situation became truly perilous, for large bodies now fell upon our rear, so that the only choice we had left was to cross the water at all hazards. In this we fortunately succeeded, partly swimming, and partly wading through. Several of our men, while thus crossing over, drank so much water that their stomachs swelled out to an enormous size. In crossing this water, we lost two men, and had several wounded; nevertheless, we succeeded, by dint of our swords, to drive the enemy before us along a causeway which led to the main land. Cortes, who was advancing with the cavalry from another quarter, fell in with a body of more than 10,000 Mexicans, who were coming to the assistance of the town. The Mexicans, on this occasion, received the charge of the cavalry with fixed lances, and wounded four of our horses.

>Cortes himself had got into the midst of the enemy, and rode a dark brown horse, which we commonly termed the flatnose. Whether this animal, which was otherwise an excellent horse, had become too fat, or was over-fatigued, I cannot say; but, to be short, it fell down with its rider, and numbers of Mexicans instantly laid hold of our general, tore him away from the saddle, and were already carrying him off. When some of the Tlascallans and the brave Christobal de Olea saw this, they immediately flew to his assistance, and, by dint of heavy blows and good thrusts, they cut their way through to our general, and assisted him into his saddle again. Cortes fortunately escaped with only a wound on the head, but Olea had received three very severe wounds.

>Those of us who stood nearest now also hastened to the assistance of Cortes; for, as every street was crowded with the enemy, we were obliged to attack them in separate bodies and from different points, so that, for some time, we had totally lost sight of him; but we concluded, from the terrific yells of the Mexicans, that there must be a severe struggle between them and the cavalry. We therefore cut our way through the enemy, at the risk of our lives, to the spot where Cortes, surrounded by only ten of the cavalry, was bravely repelling the desperate attacks of the enemy. The Mexicans had taken up a position behind a deep canal, which had been strengthened by a palisade; they thus had the advantage ground: but we soon put them to flight.

>As Olea, who had saved our general's life, was severely wounded, and had lost much blood, and the streets were still crowded by the enemy, we advised Cortes to march back to some entrenchments, under cover of which his own and Olea's wounds could be dressed. This retrograde movement was not accomplished without considerable difficulty and danger; for the Mexicans now imagined we were going to retreat altogether, and fell upon us with redoubled fury.

So you post a battle that wasn't against the Aztecs and that involved a river (something that I alredy mentioned). Do you realise how dumb are you sounding right now?

>In the midst of this second conflict, Alvarado Tapia and Oli, with the main body of the cavalry, made their appearance, who had been attacking the enemy at other points. The blood was trickling down Oli's face, nor had any one of them escaped without a wound. They said they had been attacked by terrific bodies of the enemy, in the open fields, and had not been able to drive them back. The reason of their having been separated from the rest of the cavalry was, because Cortes, after he had passed across the water, ordered the horse to divide into two bodies, and attack the enemy at different points.

>While we were busily engaged dressing the wounds of our men, all at once there arose from out of the streets and adjoining fields terrific yells, with the wild war music of the enemy; the courtyard in which we had stationed ourselves was suddenly filled with Mexicans, and, in a very few moments, many more of our men were wounded. But the enemy drew very little advantage from this bold enterprise; for we set upon them so vigorously in return, that great numbers of them soon lay stretched on the ground. Our cavalry also galloped in among them, and slew a great many more. On our side, we had only one man killed and two horses wounded.

>We drove the enemy completely out of the open square, and took possession of another more spacious, in which stood several large temples, where we could rest ourselves in greater safety. Several of our men mounted to the top of these temples, from whence they could see the great city of Mexico and the extensive lake which it commanded; but at the same time they espied more than 2000 canoes, all filled with warriors, making straightway to us as fast as their paddles could bring them.

>So you post a battle that wasn't against the Aztecs
Are you literally assuming that they didn't fight the Aztecs just because it happened in Xochimilco?
jesus christ

>involved a river (something that I alredy mentioned).
>In the midst of this second conflict, Alvarado Tapia and Oli, with the main body of the cavalry, made their appearance, who had been attacking the enemy at other points. The blood was trickling down Oli's face, nor had any one of them escaped without a wound. They said they had been attacked by terrific bodies of the enemy, in the open fields, and had not been able to drive them back. The reason of their having been separated from the rest of the cavalry was, because Cortes, after he had passed across the water, ordered the horse to divide into two bodies, and attack the enemy at different points.
Cortes remained with the infantry and croissed the river, he told the cavalry to attack in the open fields as in Otumba. They couldn't defeat them so they rejoined Cortes.
I could keep posting the whole chapter but the point is clear.

>Do you realise how dumb are you sounding right now?
legit have nothing to say if you will keep making that kind of assumptions or say that i'm manipulating accounts out of context

>Are you literally assuming that they didn't fight the Aztecs just because it happened in Xochimilco?
for reference

>(a) the bicameral mind

Aside from human sacrifice what was so bad about them?

I mentioned that horses were important, but gunpowder was an overrated factor. You seem to be downplaying the role of the steel sword which was more readily available and made a greater difference than gunpowder.