The Maoris were able to push back and hard against British overtake of New Zealand (hell, they pretty much invented trench warfare) and they had a quite patchy, low population of fighters. Could this mean that if the mesoamericans were armed with guns as well that they could of even defeated the colonialists?
Could the Aztecs win with guns?
Isaac Johnson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Nicholas Jones
The Aztecs lost because their empire was built on savagery and oppression, the Totonac were already planning an uprising against the triple alliance before Cortes arrived. He merely helped speed up the time table.
There were many Mayan tribes that tenaciously fought back against the Spanish for over a century after the fall of the Aztecs. More than the technological advantage though, the mesoamericans were absolutely devastated by the introduction of european disease. Even if the Europeans had come merely looking for new trade routes and alliances nothing would have prevented the tens of millions of deaths.
James Bennett
>Aztecs
No, because everybody hated them.
Landon White
There were a lot of factors aside from a technological edge that brought them down. Aside from disease wiping them out, they'd just use the guns to kill more of each other than the colonists. Hell, in the 18th century the natives were armed and still didn't stand a chance against the Europeans. It would be rad to see Mesoamerica undergo a similar path as the Japanese where there was more trade than conquest. Imagine a modern Aztec Empire with meagre Spanish influence undergoing a Meiji Restoration.
Caleb Adams
No. Every single tribe hated those cunts and with good reason.
Jacob Bailey
No, but they could've won if 1 million other natives didn't hate their guts
Carter Jackson
Forget guns, they would've only won with vaccines.
Robert Walker
>could of
Are you retarded?
Joseph Brooks
Amerindians are genetically inferior to Europeans
Oliver Green
These 2 situations aren't even comparable
Colton Ross
Aztecs had internal conflict amidst Aztecs tribes, therefore Separatists were internal enemy, but of course modern weapons would increase chance of Aztecs for survive.
Jace Lee
North American Natives seem pretty smart.
Ryan Moore
fpbp
Adam Johnson
This, especially Incans.
Joseph Jackson
If Aztecs had guns, Tlaxcalans would also have guns.
Bentley Sanchez
If Aztecs would have had guns, they wouldnt have had their flower war kind of system either
Eli Hill
This is something people fail to understand. There's simply no way 300 people could destroy an empire of thousand. The conquest of Mexico was carried out by the own spanish-allied natives, such as the Tlaxcaltecas, sworn enemies of the Mexica.
For a better understanding, Regions as today's Yucatan Peninsula (Maya) weren't pacified until mid XIX century.
Chase Collins
Are you for real?
Indians armed with machetes defeated the french army.
The armed aztecs would have overun the spanish.
Matthew Ross
No.
Jeremiah Bailey
then explain how Pizarro did it with less
Ethan Howard
I was taught Maori history at school and I can tell you that this is certainly not the case. Maori were defeated and C O L O N I S E D properly. The 'invented trench warfare' is just a we wuz meme. What Maori did do was eat their dead enemies.
Carter Bailey
what really brought the aztecs down was the revolt by native subjects (as others have already pointed out) and even more importantly the diseases that were brought in by the europeans. if the epidemics hadn't happened they might have won even without guns, after all they managed to defeat the spaniards and tlaxcalans and made them flee tenochtitlan.