If you put the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires (circa early 7th century AD) against the Mesoamerican polities like the...

If you put the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires (circa early 7th century AD) against the Mesoamerican polities like the Incan Empire, Mayan Empire, Aztec Empire, could they defeat them?

Sassanids and Byzantines are white, Incas and Azkeks were not. So yeah, it's not even a contest.

I mean sure? But I was thinking on the difference in technology, wouldn't that make the essential difference vs the numbers stacked against them? The Indo-Europeans have superior metallurgy, chain mail, and horses but the Mesoamericans have sheer numbers.

Inca weren't mesoamerican, the Mayan Empire isn't a thing, and the aztecs were more of a federation.

Anyway my point is you're retarded and should read a book before posting.

Horses would destroy any Mesoamercan force.

How would they get there when they couldn't even sail to Sardinia?

The magic of a hypothetical scenario.

>Inca weren't mesoamerican
Same shit.

Persians in 500 BC were more technologically advanced than Aztecs were in 1400 AD.

Achaemenid Persians are more advanced then the Aztecs?

Are you saying they're not? Aztecs were so primitive they didn't even have wheel or metallic weapons and the only thing they excelled in was building useless ceremonial stone structures.

I'm not saying they are or aren't. I just wanted to hear more reasons why you are saying the Achaemenids are more advanced then them. Did any of these cultures at least have scaled armor?

this

You are aware Iranians invented the whole concept of armoured cavalry, right?

>and the aztecs were more of a federation.
Not by the time of motecuhzoma xocoyotzin

Not unless they pull a Chichimec on them.

No it isn't. That's like saying Rome was the same as China.

>have horses
>vs
>no horses

?

I wasn't aware Romans were in the Far East unlike those Natives who literally were skipping distance from each other in Central and Southern America.

Incas were superior to europeans though.

>skipping distance
How much of a clueless retard do you have to be to make this statement?

>Sassanids and Byzantines are white

WE

One group had horses, steel weapons and armor, seaworthy ships, and centuries of experience with mass warfare. The other fought primarily with stone and jade, having just barely begun to figure out metallurgy. The answer here is pretty obvious.

The Persians had cataphracts and the Byzantines had Calvary. Both had superior technology to the sumerian tier civilizations in Andes and mesoamerica.

But they literally were majority white. Byzantine Empire was dominated by Greeks and Persians back then were almost entirely white.

>white means blonde
Why are you niggers so stupid?

>Why are you niggers so stupid?
And then it hit him...

Neither the Persians nor the Byzantines invented iron nor cavalry, they got it by cultural exchange. Had the Aztecs been in the same area of exchange they would have put more than a good fight.

on the field yes, but if they had to invade the inca empire that might be a problem.

Inb4 they got legendary defeated the first time they faced cavalry ever
The Spanish never repeated a victory like Otumba during the whole conquest. Pretty sure anons here have heard of the Mongols, the Polish Hussars, Jalid ibn al-Walid, etc, and know how cavalry can be decisive even when it's not the first time is faced and even when you have equal technology to pierce through the armor of the enemy.

Yes. The reason the South American empires are fascinating is because they achieved a high level of civilization despite being technologically backwards and undeveloped.

That is why they are interesting, not because they were actually better organized or advanced, they weren't, the Byzantines and Sassanids had as much infrastructure as they did, sure they didn't build big pyramids, but mature civilizations have more money being spent on real causes, young civilizations can afford to blow all their cash on thousands of slaves to build a giant tomb.

Byzantine-Sassanids would shit all over them.

>Posts a picture of Egyptians
dum fuk

Wrong. Amerindian civilizations started the race of development 15000 years after europeans settled on europe. They were literally late-calcolithic/early bronze-age tier.

Of course the Byzantine would destroy them with superior technology and warfare tactics.

How am i wrong, you just agreed with everything i said

The conclusion is similar, the premises' premises are wrong.
>technologically backwards
Not compared to their counterparts of early bronze age europe.

If they were ahead then they are not counterparts.

>not because they were actually better organized
Well..

>(About Tlatelolco) After we had sufficiently gazed upon this magnificent picture, we again turned our eyes toward the great market, and beheld the vast numbers of buyers and sellers who thronged there. The bustle and noise occasioned by this multitude of human beings was so great that it could be heard at a distance of more than four miles. Some of our men, who had been at Constantinople and Rome, and travelled through the whole of Italy, said that they never had seen a market-place of such large dimensions, or which was so well regulated, or so crowded with people as this one at Mexico.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter XCII

>It is one of the finest things in the world to see them in war in their squadrons, because they move with perfect order, and are splendidly attired, and make such a fine appearance that nothing could be better.
Chronicle of the Anonymous Conquistador, Chapter IV

Byzantines and sassanids couldnt even defeat a bunch of sandniggers bandit why would you think they would fare against mesoamerica?

>back then were almost entirely white
[citation needed]

Arguing whether or not Ancient Greeks, or even modern day Greeks, are white is basically just a game of semantics.

Arguing that Persians used to be white is just fucking WUZing. Their own depictions of themselves show that they were a dark skinned people!

Did his point go over your head, Carlos?

>Persians used to be white
Persians are still white though.
>Their own depictions
Protip: of course Persians in Southwestern Iran are going to be more tanned and dark skinned then those in more temperate areas of the country. You can find the same thing with Greeks in Greece where the southern and eastern facing areas are a lot more humid and hot, same with Italians and Spaniards for that matter. You also have Xenophon's own testimonials on Persians being "pale of complexion and ruddy" or other Greek artwork that outside of armor and clothing shows Persians and Greeks basically being of the same race unlike either civilization's depiction of Nubians, Egyptians, etc...

Byzantine Empire was dominated by Anatolians. They looked like modern Turks

Yes, because Indians couldn't ride a horse.

>~100.000-200.000
Your post is fine but things like these always rustle my jimmies.

>people with metal weapons, metal armor, and horses
>Against furries who wear pajamas, furs, feathers and wield sticks with obsidian

really activates my almonds

Fuck off Varg. Persians aren't white and we've never been white

You mean the Anatolians who were assimilated by Greeks for thousands of years by the time the Eastern Roman Empire was set up?

Situation with Persians is no different then with Greeks or Italians though. Also using relief and inscriptions as a testimonial to Persians "not" being "white" is silly. The Persians were borrowers, just like the Romans. The art styles, fashions even trends with mustaches, hair styles, and facial hair were copied from other Mesopotamian and Near Eastern civilizations that influenced them; their kin the Medes, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, etc...Features like ringlet curled hairs for example is common in Semitic people but the Persians artificially replicated this because it was the vogue. Using the freezes at Susa is silly, its just artistic license by them.

Also the statement "used to be x" is stupid because the Persians among other Indo-Iranian peoples, have not changed genetically at all and are more or less the same as their ancestors from the Iron Age.

>we
Also not a retard Nordicist, stop false-flagging dude.

>Varg
????

>Americas were magically untraversable in pre-Columbian times

muh north-south is so much harder to travel than east-west
muh impenetrable jungles

Yes, Persia and you are not white because white means a person with European ancestry.

Greeks cluster with Europeans, Anatolians cluster with West Asians

>furries
Didn't know that skeletons, butterflies and skinned men holding blue suns counted as furries.
Still
Furry aesthetic > steel aesthetic

Ancient Greeks describe and depicts them as the having the same skin tone as them

>haplogroup meming

Did they really fight with jade, I thought obsidian?