Aztecs

Then it was simply a powerful city state before that?

Every spring 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 fought with an obsidian edged weapon and his movement wasn't limited by being attached to the sacrificial stone. The combat was over when the Aztec warrior was unconcious or when he managed to makes his foe bleed enough.
Usually the first combatant for the captured warrior would be his captor and if the captured warrioir was victorious he would face several other contenders. According to Bernardino de Sahagún, the number of Aztec warriors increased with each victory and there was up to four at the same time. A famous Tlaxcaltec 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 (and also because he coulnd't return since he was captured in the first place).

Flower wars differed from typical wars in a number of important aspects. While engaging in a flower war, competing armies would meet on a "preset date at a preselected place.”[5] These places became sacred sites and were called cuauhtlalli or yaotlalli.[2] Combatants signaled the start of war by burning a large "pyre of paper and incense" between the armies.[2] Actual battle tactics also differed from typical warfare.[6] In typical warfare, the Aztecs used atlatl darts, stones, and other ranged weapons to weaken enemy forces from afar.[6] However, in flower wars, the Aztecs neglected to use ranged weapons and instead used weapons such as the macuahuitl[7] that required skill and close proximity to the enemy.[6] The use of these kinds of weapons allowed the Aztecs to display their individual combat ability, which was an important part of the flower war.[6]

Flower wars involved fewer soldiers than typical Aztec wars did.[2] A larger proportion of the soldiers would be drawn from nobility than during a typical war.[8] These characteristics allowed the Aztecs to engage in flower wars during any time of the year.[8] In contrast, the Aztecs could fight larger wars of conquest only from late autumn to early spring, because Aztec citizens were needed for farming purposes during the rest of the year.[8] Additionally, flower wars differed from typical wars in that there were equal numbers of soldiers on each side of the battle; this was also related to the Aztecs wanting to show off their military prowess.[9]

What about eurangatuan or eurangatang?

Eurangutan is not aesthetic.

cool mate thanks for dropping your knowledge. the gladiatiorial combats sound badass.

who normally fought flower wars? aztec vs mayans? or different aztec tribes?

I have no knowledge but I have a sweet folder with mayan images ima drop here

also a question about the giant stone heads and spheres, what was their use?

also I read a lot about the Quipu used by the incas, did aztecs have something similar?

...

also is it true that they had a functioning canal system?

also what about inventing the number 0, the mayans are said to have done this, did this affect the aztecs in any way?

At birth, an Aztec boy would receive two symbols of being a warrior. A shield would be placed in his left hand, and an arrow would be placed in his right. After a short ceremony the newly born boy's umbilical cord, shield, and arrow would be taken to a battlefield to be buried by a renowned warrior.

>or different aztec tribes?
basically

>I read a lot about the Quipu used by the incas, did aztecs have something similar?
they used codices for tributary records

...

Olmecs invented 0

Because they got obliterated and the Spanish raped the brown out of their women.

I don't think so. eurangutan "history" will still be taught after they get wiped out of the earth's surface.

...

t. Chief Lives on Listerine

Post more savage princesses you fucks.

SIX

HAND

SPANS

IN LENGTH

Is that the Ideal Booty?

Aztecs are what the ancient Chinese would be if they were plopped in America and didn't develop metallurgy.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

No, not be a long shot. The Aztecs, if anything, would be the equivalent of the Yuan Chinese dinasty, descendents of nomads like the chichimecs than with martial powress rised while intermarried with more advanced locals, in they case the Toltecs.

I know some fuckhead who lurks on Veeky Forums is gonna come here and say that Aztecs developed faster than Europeans and the only reason Europeans were so technologically advanced when they "deiscovered" the aztec is because american natives travelled for 15000 years. If it wasnt for them doing jack shit for 15000 years they could have developed laser beams and cut the white man down.

They didn't have the wheel or good systems of agriculture. They did manage to develop psychadelic enemas tho...so there is something to be proud of.

Lel, why do you care what some butthurt Llama-molester says.

>jackshit for 15000
Aztecs didn't exist back then, buddy. You got it wrong.
Yeah, poor guy.

>They did manage to develop psychadelic enemas
please be joking

Is it just me who looks at Amerindian societies and sees so many striking parallels, albeit with strange differences, to European and Asian societies?

Makes you wonder about life in Eurasia 20,000 years ago

>tfw there's probably a proto-EuroAsiAmerindian civilisation somewhere in Mongolia

You feel proud pointing that out? I said American Natives travelled 15000 referencing the migration that their ancestors made from central asia over the bering strait down to what is now latin america.

Not joking, google it. It was early mesoamericans, I cannot in good faith say that it was specifically the aztecs.

It's called siberia. Look about the Yukaghirs, Chuckchi or Yakuts, and some other Turkic or Ugric speakers.
The Yukaghirs are pretty interesting, some of they epics specially.

>ancestors
The point is simple. Amerindians existed since 25000BC more or less. Europeans existed since 40000BC more or less. Is it that hard to get?

>They didn't have the wheel or good systems of agriculture.
literally the most productive agriculture in the world

>These raised, well-watered beds had very high crop yields with up to 7 harvests a year. Chinampas were commonly used in pre-colonial Mexico and Central America. There is evidence that the Nahua settlement of Culhuacan, on the south side of the Ixtapalapa peninsula that divided Lake Texcoco from Lake Xochimilco, constructed the first chinampas in C.E. 1100.[10]

>If it wasnt for them doing jack shit for 15000 years they could have developed laser beams
euros got horses from the central asians, bronze working and iron working from the middle easterners, gunpowder from the chinese and mathematics from the indians/arabians, and a long etc.
Natives had to develop writting systems, mathematics, astronomy, bronze working, philosophy, engineering, etc, by themselves.

> Amerindians existed since 25000BC more or less. Europeans existed since 40000BC more or less
The point is simple. All people are on the same time line with common ancestors. At some point the ancestors of Europeans and Amerindians split. The Europeans became successful and the Amerindians did fuck all for thousands of years, but its ok because you selectively only start judging them 15000 years after you start judging Europeans.

>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]

>It has also been suggested that the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica influenced the history of the botanical garden[14] as gardens in Tenochtitlan established by king Nezahualcoyotl,[18] also gardens in Chalco (altépetl) and elsewhere, greatly impressed the Spanish invaders, not only with their appearance, but also because the indigenous Aztecs employed many more medicinal plants than did the classical world of Europe.[19][20] Hernando Cortés reportedly told the Spanish monarch that the Aztec physicians were superior to those in Spain, so superior, in fact, that the king need not bother sending Spanish physicians to the New World. Statement later confirmed in a early letter by the personal physian of the Spanish monarch who spent 7 years studying the Aztec medicine in a research trip that was expected to last 6 months: ‘"I marveled, in this and in innumerable other herbs, which are nameless among us, how in the Indies, where people are so uncultured and barbaric, there are so many herbs, some with known uses and some without, but there is almost none, which is not known to them and given a particular name".

>Mayan estimate of the length of the synodic month being more accurate than Ptolemy's,[2] and their calculation as to the length of the tropical solar year was more accurate than that of the Spanish when the latter first arrived

>The Aztec Triple Alliance, which ruled from 1428 to 1521 in what is now central Mexico, is considered to be the first state to implement a system of universal compulsory education.[4][5]

> this bitch thinks that one people invented engineering, math, and horses
You do realize that, aside from horses and gunpowder, every culture has developed their own writting system, math, astronomy, philosophy, etc. If they appropriated another better version from someone else it was through trade or by force. So I dont see that as a negative. But there is no need to defend the Europeans because their culture and technology still dominates most of the world.

1. They were and are moors
2. They made them browner

>european became successful
Wrong. They were nomads for 30000 years more or less. Amerindians were nomads foe 9000 years.
Both had the same environment. Yet Amerindians had a higher development rate.
>after you start judging europeans
Because they settled in europe and had the life of cyclical trading tribes which allows development. When europeans where populating europe and migrating to unknown zones the remnants show no technological nor cultural spread/advancement, meanwhile when they settle and start having stable cyclical duties, they show the opposite. The same with asians when they were migrating to siberia. Amerindians are pretty much different from siberians. They started as nomads with 30000BC european "technology", yet they didn't populate the land until 14000BC.

It's pretty simple. The higher development rate demonstrates their superiority.

>every culture has developed their own writting system, math,
>But there is no need to defend the Europeans because their culture and technology still dominates most of the world.

>The classical Latin alphabet, also known as the Roman alphabet, is a writing system originally used by the ancient Romans to write the Latin language. The Latin alphabet evolved from the visually similar Cumaean Greek version of the Greek alphabet, which was itself descended from the Phoenician abjad, which in turn was derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics.

>The Hindu–Arabic numeral system[1] (also called the Arabic numeral system or Hindu numeral system)[2] a positional decimal numeral system, is the most common system for the symbolic representation of numbers in the world. It was invented between the 1st and 4th centuries by Indian mathematicians. The system was adopted in Arabic mathematics by the 9th century. Influential were the books of Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī[3] (On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, c.825) and Al-Kindi (On the Use of the Hindu Numerals, c.830). The system later spread to medieval Europe by the High Middle Ages.

Yeah but the wheel tho

Also source on the compulsary education. I find that very difficult to believe with such a large population. What do they qualify as education? Because there have been many governments around before 1428, it wouldbe truely impressive if none of them had compulsory education. Surely the Jews had compulsary education, its part of their religion.

The wheel is useless without beasts of burden tho.

>Surely the Jews had compulsary education
females were not allowed, so not universal

Its pretty simple that you start judging one group way later than the other.

But you just proved my point. Before the appropriated those they had other numbers and languages. Like before the arabic numerals spread to europe they had roman numerals. The post I was responding to made it seem like they had to steal the concepts of philosphy and math from other societies, which is retarded. Im not denying that other societies developed better versions of things that were later appropriated but to say that math was invented by indians is a preposterous claim. Its like claiming that italians invented blue.

People can be beasts of burden. They didn't think to use them tho.
Also what are:
> wheelbarrows
> unicycles
> bicycles
> roller blades
> carts

>later than the other
Aren't we judging ethnic groups?
Migration reduces de concentrations of populations, and the new zones populated, if they are isolated, change over time compared to their ancestors before the migration. Amerindians started existing in 25000BC. Europeans started existing in 40000BC. That's all.

>people carrying wheels on irregular terrain
That's literally the reason why the wheels is almost inexistent before the beasts of burden start being used pulling vehicles.
>all those devices existed after the beasts of burden
Proving my point.

I judge the desicions of a group from the very begining. "started existing" is a terrible choice of words. Should be more like "finally fucking made it to the americas and decided to stay put." But the fact that they "started existing" so much later puts them at a negative in my book. They could have been existng much earlier but decided not to.

>Im not denying that other societies developed better versions of things that were later appropriated
Exactly. My point is that the technology that allowed euros to get a hold in the americas was not developed only by europeans.
Had the Americas shared those develoments they would have come up with something even better.

I mean, they actually did, even if they did not receive those developments.

>It has been speculated that the Maya solved this urban transportation problem by constructing a 100-meter long suspension bridge across the wild river in the late 7th century. The bridge which featured three spans extended from a platform on the grand plaza of Yaxchilan crossing the river to the northern shore. The 63 meter center span remained the longest in the world until the construction of the Italian Trezzo sull'Adda Bridge in 1377

>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 (16.8-18m) 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

> Its not that difficult to clear terrain.
> They still had people that could operate wheeled machinery
Proving my point that they didnt utilize the wheel.

>"Moctezuma possessed out of the city as well as within, numerous villas, each of which had its peculiar sources of amusement, and all were constructed in the best possible manner for the use of a great prince and lord. Within the city his palaces were so wonderful that it is hardly possible to describe their beauty and extent ; I can only say that in Spain there is nothing equal to them."

>"On their route they passed through three provinces, that, according to the report of the Spaniards, contained very fine land, many villages and cities, with much scattered population, and buildings equal to any in Spain. They mentioned particularly a house and castle, the latter larger, of greater strength, and better built than the castle of Burgos (the castle of the kings of Spain); and the people of one of these provinces, called Tamazulapa, were better clothed than those of any other we had seen, as it justly appeared to them."

>According to the Guinness Book of Records, Cholula is in fact the largest pyramid as well as the largest monument ever constructed anywhere in the world, with a total volume estimated at over 4.45 million cubic metres, even larger than that of the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, which is about 2.5 million cubic metres.

That's literally the question you can do to europeans. Wheels are almost inexistant, and the places where they "existed" were plainlands. The amount of wheels used by them becomes relevant when beasts of burden start pulling vehicles.

So you aren't judging ethnic groups?

Yea pretty much

youtube.com/watch?v=WaLRMq8sgYM
youtube.com/watch?v=mE6Fy1s0pfU

>(About Tlatelolco) 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 and with such order, 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

Spanish soldiers and colonists estimated that about 60 000 people thronged the market regularly prior to the introduction of epidemic diseases, a number equivalent to the population of contemporary's Rome, Renaissance's Florence and the Lisbon of the Age of Discovery.

>"Our astonishment was indeed raised to the highest pitch, and we could not help remarking to each other, that all these buildings resembled the fairy castles we read of in Amadis de Gaul; so high, majestic, and splendid did the temples, towers, and houses of the town, all built of massive stone and lime, rise up out of the midst of the lake. Indeed, many of our men asked if what they saw was a mere dream. And the reader must not feel surprised at the manner in which I have expressed myself, for it is impossible to speak coolly of things which we had never seen nor heard of, nor even could have dreamt of, beforehand."
Bernal díaz del Castillo, True History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter LXXXVII

I judge the desicions of a group from the very begining. "started existing" is a terrible choice of words. Should be more like "finally fucking made it to the americas and decided to stay put." But the fact that they "started existing" so much later puts them at a negative in my book. They could have been existng much earlier but decided not to.

>Had the Americas shared those develoments they would have come up with something even better.
Now you are holding the different continents to different standards. Just like europeans traded with each other and neighboring people. Various Amerindian tribes could trade with each other.

> Within the city his palaces were so wonderful that it is hardly possible to describe their beauty and extent ; I can only say that in Spain there is nothing equal to them.
That was clearly sarcasm

The people you mention don't exist. There is no human that traveled from the ME to America from 40000BC to 25000BC.
So you aren't judging ethnic groups. Amerindians didn't travel from ME to America. Amerindians started existing in 25000BC.

>traded with each other
The circumstances had a disadvantage of 15000 of offset.

You keep saying started existing. Just how the fuck do you think these people got there.
Let me guess. They were Regurgitatted by some serpent god? The Amerindians got to where they were by crossing the bering strait.

Thats their own fault

These people were born there. In other words, started existing over there.
Nope, because Amerindians started existing in 25000BC.

>That was clearly sarcasm
and you are clearly butthurt

>The city of Iztapalapa contains twelve or fifteen thousand houses; it is situated on the shore of a large salt lake, one-half of it being built upon the water, and one half on terra firma. The governor or chief of the city has several new houses, which, although they are not yet finished, are equal to the better class of houses in Spain –being large and well constructed, in the stone work, the carpentry, the floors, and the various appendages necessary to render a house complete, excepting the reliefs and other rich work usual in Spanish houses. There are also many upper and lower rooms–cool gardens, abounding in trees and odoriferous flowers; also pools of fresh water, well constructed, with stairs leading to the bottom."

>"These people live almost like those in Spain, and in as much harmony and order as there, and considering that they are barbarous and so far from the knowledge of God and cut off from all civilized nations, it is truly remarkable to see what they have achieved in all things."
- Hernan Cortes, Second Letter of Relation to Charles V

>"When we approached near to Iztapalapan, two other caziques came out in great pomp to receive us: one was the prince of Cuitlahuac, and the other of Cojohuacan; both were near relatives of Motecusuma. We now entered the town of Iztapalapan, where we were indeed quartered in palaces, of large dimensions, surrounded by spacious courts, and built of hewn stone, cedar and other sweet-scented wood.

>"After we had seen all this, we paid a visit to the gardens adjoining these palaces, which were really astonishing, and I could not gratify my desire too much by walking about in them and contemplating the numbers of trees which spread around the most delicious odours; the rose bushes, the different flower beds, and the fruit trees which stood along the paths. There was likewise a basin of sweet water, which was connected with the lake by means of a small canal. It was constructed of stone of various colours, and decorated with numerous figures, and was wide enough to hold their largest canoes."
Bernal díaz del Castillo, True History of the Conquest of New Spain Chapter LXXXVII

either way last (You) i give

And where did the vagina that they were born from come from?

Mesoamericans had metallurgy

Thanks, I live off (you)s

From someone who wasn't in the Amerindian continent. In other words, not an amerindian.

You mean like an ancestor who crossed the bering strait to get there. You fucking idiot.

Well to be honest user, Europe was more developed because it was conected by the mediterranean sea with the middle east where civilization spread. Horses, Iron, gunpowder, all of these were not invented in western europe but learned from other people, if you like history you should already know this. So it was really a disadventage to be isolated from the other continents.

Nope. The first amerindian was born there. The mother wasn't born there.

Actually that's a minor disadvantage compared to

Dude this was already covered. I never argued that they didnt. I am arguing the other anons specific reason of "amerindians existing 15000y later." I dont blame you for not reading the entire thread tho.

Thats my point. dont backtrack. The ancestor of the amerindian was someone from the Eurasian continent that crossed the bering strait.

>bering strat
Who wasn't an Amerindian. Aren't you judging Amerindians?

Not by your definition of Amerindians. I am judging the group of people who eventually became amerindians at the time that they split from the group that would become Europeans. I have said this multiple times, but you refuse o listen because it puts your whole "15000" plan in the shitter.

The people who became amerindians are a part of asians, and they aren' amerindians. Contradicting yourself again. Amerindians had zero from the beginning, they developed faster than europeans and they achieved even some superior characteristica compared to middle ages europe. Why do you keep changinf the focus to the people who weren't Amerindians?

forgive my ignorance on math, but what's the real significance of 0 in layman's terms

Look at you playing stupid. You have been ignoring my main point from the very begining. I am not contradicting myself. I have told you what parameters I am using to jusge these people and you are using a different set of perameters. I judge from one point in time, you judge from whenever is convenient to your arguement. You have for some reason taken a geographical approach to a subject that has not geographical influence.

Muh 150000 years!

Something brainlet races didn't conceptualize with materials and had to take it from other cultures.

The geographical isolation is what defined the amerindian ethnic group. Amerindians are a group that started existing 15000 years after europeans. Yet they developed faster.

Your point is simple. You pick a human ethnically different than amerindians. Completely contradicting yourself.

Try again.

How can something be nothing? and why is this so important to culture mathematically then as a stand alone

I never claimed to be judging these people on an arbitrarily defined ethnic basis. If anything I am judging them purely on a genetic basis. IE the group you call amerindians and their ancestors from the point that they split off the europeans. But i've said that like 5 times already and you have ignored it every time.
Try again :)

>purely genetic basis
The asians from the ancient ME didn't share their genes. Another contradiction.

Doing an analysis with a genetic basis will have the same result. Having Amerindians as an ethnic group.

And Amerindians have showed their higher development rate compared to europeans. Why do you keep trying to change the focus to people who aren't Amerindians?

>2k17
>comparing "levels of development" between cultures
>falling for the evolutionist meme

you're both stupid but is clearly the stupidest in this thread

You do realize that they had a common ancestor right? Or do you not realize how biology works

Completely irrelevant. Ducks and europeans have the same ancestor yet their genetic differences are evident.

Amerindians are a great ethnic group who developed faster than europeans. They were superior.

If there is an ethnic group superior to other, then Amerindians were superior to europeans.

They either never figured out the wheel or like the japanese didn't see the use and just stopped using it.

Tenochtitlan was sacked by a combination of Cortes' conquistadors and the surrounding native Mexican tribes. The Aztecs' neighbors all hated them because of the "war season," where for about half the year any nearby settlements were raided for human sacrifices. Tenochtitlan's economy was also propped up by the tributes of these subjugated peoples. Though Tenochtitlan was certainly an engineering marvel with its aqueduct and canals and such, it was built on the backs of slaves and its grand pyramids were designed for the sole purpose of human sacrifice. The Aztecs didn't even have metal tools, so they had to cut the hearts out using jagged flint knives. They were also cannibalistic and wore the skins of their sacrificed victims like robes.

Cortes was most certainly an asshole, but the Aztecs had it coming. Cortes the Killer is still a great song, though, even if the lyrics border on romanticist bullshit.
youtu.be/m-b76yiqO1E

Also smallpox.

Ask a mexican and they are their literal ancestors as opposed to the dozens of other tribes across the area that they are probably actually descendant from. Pretty much the only ancestry people from central America are willing to claim.

t.live so close to the border I can spit on Mexican citizens from my porch.

A good source on the Aztecs is the book "Aztecs: An Interpretation" by Inga Clendinnen.
amazon.com/Aztecs-Interpretation-Classics-Inga-Clendinnen/dp/110769356X/

It's where I got most of the information in this post

>Bullies smaller tribes
>Spanish arrive
>Gets bullied

Really if they had been cool with all the tribes before Cortes arrived, they could have allied and it would have been impossible for him to win without Spain sending a shit ton of troops.

Except they clearly weren't as evidenced by the modern world. Survival of the fittest right?

Theoretically speaking, How would this have played out? Spain actually deploying navy and armies? leaving it alone as an ally for trade in the Americas like the French and the Iroquois Confederacy?