Between Aztecs, Mayas and Incans, which one of them would dominate the rest?

Between Aztecs, Mayas and Incans, which one of them would dominate the rest?

Incas had the largest Empire, better organized, with regimented armies, an excellent road network and not as much problems of internecine warfare as the Aztecs or Mayans.

Conquered peoples were integrated into the Inca nobility, whereas the Aztecs forced their subjects to pay tribute in sacrifice victims and were generally despised throughout Mesoamerica.

Also, Aztec warfare was highly ritualized and built around the concept of capturing new sacrifice victims, which meant many of their weapons were intended to main or cripple rather than kill. This was a weakness that cost them dearly when the Spanish showed up IMHO.

What about the Maya then?

>Also, Aztec warfare was highly ritualized and built around the concept of capturing new sacrifice victims, which meant many of their weapons were intended to main or cripple rather than kill.
Ah yes.

The obsidian studded club/sword. Meant to maim!
The obsidian spear. Nonlethal!
The bow and arrow. To injure opponents from afar.
The atl-atl. Meant to incapacitate people by impaling them with a spear.

Meme history is fun.

Then who would destroy the rest?

The Mayans were never an empire, idiot. They were a cultural group who lived in city states.

I never said they were?

Fact is, Aztecs would try to leave as many alive on the battlefield as possible. A warrior's prestige in the Aztec Empire was based on who could capture the most victims.

are you the fag that was going on and on about how superior Incas were compared to europeans in the jared diamond thread?

And the fact is, the Nahuatl-speaking peoples were pretty warlike and the Aztecs carved out an empire among them.

In addition the Nahuatl thought Aztec religion was pretty fucking bloody even for the norms of the region and fought them tooth and nail. These people didn't go down like bitches. And Aztecs had to deal with that.

No.

Mississippi mound builders would become the greece to aztecs mesopotamia

Incas were superior to Europeans, so them.

>Aztec
>posts a flying chickano
never understood why aztec larpers use that many feathers
Aztecs only allowed militars to use special garments and not even the generals (pic related) were that exaggerated

>Aztec warfare was highly ritualized and built around the concept of capturing new sacrifice victims, which meant many of their weapons were intended to main or cripple rather than kill

Is this true? Surely they fought other wars besides flower wars, or at least retained the ability to do so. To abandon ordinary (i.e. effective) tactics and weapons entirely would be very imprudent.

tenochtitlan

Fact is, most ancient battles resulted in a relatively small amount of deaths followed by a rout that would kill more than the battle.

Aztec just focused on capture at this point. That's it. You retards make it sound like they were larping.

This user knows what's up

they are largely uneducated on the Mexica and think the romantic interpretation of them is all they know.

honestly if they dressed up corectly theyd look a lot cooler

Incas did have a problem with the whole incest blood shit. Atahualpa's parents were half siblings IIRC. That kind of breeding is unsustainable in the long term.

why there's a nigger on the top right?

Atahualpa's mother was a cañari noblewoman, IIRC

?
Atahualpa's mother was a mongrel between divine Incas and ecuadorian savages. The real heir prince died due to european diseases. It's impossible they were siblings.

Hey, this is a blue board. Can you use the term "roody poo" next time please thanks

I fucked up guys. His dad Huayna Capac married his sisters but also had a bunch of concubines, with him being the issue of one of them.

If I remember correctly I remember records affirming Huayna Capac having more than 150+ sons.

It’s a painted priest.

>whereas the Aztecs forced their subjects to pay tribute in sacrifice victims
this argument again, it's basic logic people ffs

No one would have gave them tribute, but fight until death. The Aztecs only fought and capture rebels for sacrifice (except in flower wars, but those were mutually arranged).

The Maya were disconnected city states and were never a centralized empire.

Aztecs = Romans
Mayas = Greeks
Incans = Chinese

>aztec
>roman
>around for less than 200 years
tenochtitlan was rome
Aztecs was the HRE

Uh, you do know Tenochtitlan was the Aztec capital, right?

>charlesII.jpg

Do you realize that tenochitilan was also its own civilization named mexica before the aztecs happened?
It was literally the mesoamerican rome

That's wrong though? The Mexica were the tribe we refer to commonly as the Aztec. They came to the Valley from the north, and built Tenochtitlan in the swamps of Lake Texcoco.

The Mexica were the people who built the Aztec Empire, dumbass.

The Aztec Empire is formally known to its inhabitans as the Triple Alliance, made out of 3 Mexican City-states: Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. Tenochtitlan became the most powerful of the three.

wow just do a simple google search moron.

you're thinking of Teotihuacan which was about a thousand years before the Aztecs.

Tenochtitlan was a island city built over lake Texcoco(modern day mexico city) and it was built by the aztecs!

inca empire by far!

the aztecs and mayans where stone age civilisations while the inca had metuergy.

also the Inca had a similar complex set up to ancient Rome i'm pretty sure militarywise
whereas the Aztecs and Mayans had a primitive warrior culture.

Tenochtitlan

>populations will never be small enough ever again to have this awesome city planning with wide spaces

That's only the central place.

Jesus god damn christ I wish people would keep repeating this crap about the Aztecs.

Aztec warfare was not ritualized or focused on capturing slaves. They tried to kill each other like any other culture at war. At the end of a battle, especially if there was a rout, it was common for less experienced soldiers to go in and mop up. This is when they would try to capture people.

There were supposedly "flower wars", but these weren't actually battles. The goal of these was to capture people. Both sides agreed to participate and it was more of a sparring match or pissing contest between cities than a real fight. However, we don't even know if these really happened.

Aztec weapons were not designed to main or cripple. Not only were most deadly, but they were essentially the same sort of weapons being used in the old world.

Lastly, the Aztecs were not considered bloodthirsty conquerors by their neighbors. The politics of mesoamerica were based around city states trying to dominate each other long before the Aztecs showed up. The only thing different about them was that they were very successful, which meant their rivals were desperate. Hence the ease with which the Spanish found allies.

Sacrifice!!!

Are those the captured spanish?

to be honest the spanish were more bloodthirsty and did more damage to the native cities than the aztes ever could.

Yes, their skulls were found in the tzonpantli.

And their dogs...

are you guys confusing Tenochtitlan with Teotihuacan?
because if there was a "Rome" in the new world it was Teotihuacan.
it predates Tenochtitlan by 1200 years and was still a major city until 800AD

The Aztecs were new comers around the block anyway, right? So they'd be a poor fit for a Rome.

Incans would win but Aztecs would give them a run for their money. Mayans would be BTFO.

yeah, I myself being a native mexican am very interested in meso-america, and all the misconceptions kinda piss me off.

like im sure you've heard people say "the ancient Aztecs" well the city of Tenochtitlan was founded in 1325, so that would make the Mexica about as ancient as the Ottoman Empire.

also something unrelated, but still a pet peeve of mine is people who say Aztecs or Mayans or Mixtecs or Zapotecs
the reason why that bothers me is because their is not need for the s at the end, for example the correct way to say "Mayans" is just the Maya.

recommend books on these civilizations

Ah, never knew that it was just Aztec. I knew about the Maya, though Mayan still slips out from me from time to time. Old habits die hard I guess.

it's funny you mention the Aztec because actually the Aztecs called themselves the "Mexica"
it's a bad habit of my own too. iir an Aztec god told them not to call themselves "Aztec" but to instead refer to themselves as "Mexica"

but not everybody knows that or the s thing so it's perfectly fine calling them the Aztecs.

Native American naming conventions are all fucked to hell. Some tribes are simply called what the Europeans or other tribes called them like the Apache.

Honestly, if there was one time and place I could see with my own eyes, it would be Tenochtitlan at its height, in all its pre-Columbian splendour.

Imagine being a trader from a small Nahuatl village, leaving home from the first time, making the well-trodden path to the capital of your overlords, and finally seeing it - a massive city that seems to rise from the water itself, lined with hundreds of shops and temples, populated by hundreds of thousands of the the highest and lowest, all topped off with the majestic dual pyramids of the Temple Mayor.

Sigh..