MesoAmericans weapons and warfare

They were the first people to use deliberate chemical warfare, using their near-lethal flatulence to stun enemies before moving in for the kill.

Mesoamericans used poison, some places of Africa had poisoned arrows and swords(Ida) as well, do you consider this "chemical warfare"?

Mayan poison bottle.

Interesting, bravo.

...

Would it break into piece when clashing with a Spanish sword ?

...

didnt a couple hundred europeans destroy their entire civilization

I assume one of the blades would chip and the sword would have a dent in it.

the inca had halberds? wow wtf

interesting

Here's accurate macuahuiitl recreations, with the second one down being modeled after the last remaining one we had before the museum it was in burned down.

That being said, I HAVE seen limited reference to a variation of the macuahuitl with more arrowhead shaped blades, but I'm not clear on how legit that is. I'l be going into detail on Aztec warfare and weapons eventually in this thread when i switch gears from my mesoamerica history overview posts to comparing their society to european civ's. (though I might need to make a follow up thread since it's getting close to the bump limit)

Worth noting the Aztecs preffered the atlatl to the bow and arrow: The bow and arrow was seen as a more primitive weapon and was used more by nomadic chichimec groups, though the Tlaxcalans, another nahua culture (a confederacy of city states that operated like a republic with a senate, at that) unlike the Aztecs, didn't reject their chichimeca heritage and still used it a lot

No, the Spanish were reliant on the armies and supplies of other states in the region: notably tlaxcala, which I mentioned before. The vast majority of troops on the Spanish side were native soldiers, the spanish were less then 1% of them, and basically only had joint charge of the forces alongside the tlaxcala, and acted as shock troops thanks to their firearms and Calvary, which allowed them to break lines in the enemy's formations and allowed all the native soldiers to exploit the ensuing chaos.

Even with that, they really only were able to topple the Aztecs thanks to smallpox hitting the aztecs before the siege and other aztec cities switching sides, and the Spanish continued to be reliant on native armies over the next few decades (since the Aztecs were the start, not the end) as they conquered the rest of the region, and dieases continued to devastate native populations, preventing their allies and people ever were able to turn on them.

Got more info on this?

It's thick, heavy wood. A blade might break, but even if all of them did (which wouldn't be THAT easy) you still have a giant ass club you can smash bones with.

The Aztec's main polearm, the Tepoztopilli, was also really more of a halbred then spear: it was used for slashing as much as it was for thrusts, pic related (which is a sketch of the last remaining one in the same mueusm as I say in ); though judgiing by native manuscripts and art this one had an unusually long head, the heads were usually more spade shaped

They had other polearms as well: there was a weapon whose name I can't remember at the moment which was basically a Macuahuitl glaive, with a macuahuitl club at the end of a long pole, sort of like an oar.

Historically accurate Cortes biopic when

looks beautiful, good find user!

Apparently it is sharp enough to delimb enemies in combat

Hopefully soon. It'd be an amazing war flick to watch the Spaniards unify the many oppressed tribes against the evil Nahuatl

No. Chemical warfare implies use of poisonous gases, not poisons applied other ways.

Why niggas were much rather into clubbing than stabbing?
Just spear the fucker with the club. Why not?

>throwing spear

That's a tepoztopilli, same shit as in , it's a melee weapon

*i.e. spear the fucker who wants to club you because you have longer range

I reckon that must cause quite the anger amongst La Raza Aztecs in the USA.

My understanding is Tepoztopilli spears WERE the most common melee weapon in the Aztec army: The macuahuitl was a weapon mostly used by elite warriors in a specific role, and they had plenty of other weapons as well: Axes, maces, other polearms as I mention in , knives, etc.

They were an army, fought in formation, and had uses for differentt weapons. These weren't just small bands of warriors fighting in indivual combat.

>the many oppressed tribes
They were actual political states based around cities for the most part, not tribes.

*blocks your path*

How come Pipils are the only Mesoamericans to have used stone throwers?

Actually there's a very real reason for that. In mesoamerican combat the idea wasn't necessarily to kill your enemies, but maim or otherwise render noncombative so as to take them as sacrifices

>evil Nahuatl
The Tlaxcaltecs spoke Nahuatl too dumbass. They were Nahuas just as the Aztecs.

That's a meme. They were practical and killed when they needed to. The flowery wars were not the primary type of wars the Aztecs and other engaged in.

bronze Tlingit short sword, it's not mesoamerican but it's pretty damn cool regardless.

While I agree with your general point that the Aztecs still predominately fought wars for real, and that flower wars were a minority, it's not as if getting captives wasn't at all an element of their normal wars too: Captives was how you advanced through the military, and if there was a chance for a soldier to incapacitate and capture the enemy rather then killing them, say, after the enemy lines broke and they were mopping up, they would; it's just that they wouldn't go out of their way to capture enemies to the detriment of winning the battle.

Honestly I posted that hoping someone would point this out. I suspected it was a myth but when I looked I couldn't find much suggesting one way or another. Is there any actual material on this, or is it more that there's no material suggesting they ever intentionally tried to keep enemies alive?

This is the Only surviving real Mexica (aztec) weapon, A beautiful atlalt, enjoy:
Perhaps the most prestigious was the spear thrower known by its Nahuatl name atlatl and used to hurl lethal darts. This fine example still preserves traces of paper-thin hammered gold foil that was applied over both the front and back, and the beautifully worked supine body of a warrior carved along its length. It was probably intended for display and may have been part of a suite of ceremonial regalia proclaiming the role and status of the 'warrior king'. The warrior thrusts a spear with a pointed tip in front of him; just above the spear head, the head and two-forked tongue of a rattlesnake can be seen. The snake imagery refers to the ability of the owner to strike at a distance and was likened to the deadly lunge of the rattlesnake.

Atlatl or spear-thrower made of wood, shell, thread (cotton).
Length: 30.6 centimetres

see
It's less a myth and more a misunderstanding.

The Aztecs (and other nahua cultures) DID place an emphasis on the capture of war prisoners: it was how they advanced through the ranks, and war prisoners were part of the spoils of war, and, if the opportunity presented itself, would have tried to capture rather then kill when it was feasible. They also DID practice special, pre-arranged wars that weren't about actually battling for territory or resources and were religious/diplomatic events where they collected captives (though, these were also used to give troops training, and the Aztecs in particular also occasionally used them sort of like sieges to apply pressure states they wanted to conquer but would be costly to take directly and to wear them down).

Where the myth/misunderstanding part comes in is when people assume that the Aztecs didn't fight to kill at all, or collecting that was their primary goal in all wars.

Think of it like this: If the enemy lines scattered, and enemy soldiers ran all over the place to escape, wheras in europe, where they'd just be chased down and killed, the Aztecs, if a given fled enemy was unarmed and could be easily dispatched, would injure their legs or knock them out to capture them instead. That's the sort of situation they'd capture enemies in. So it happened "intentionally" rather then killing, but it's not like they did that universally: A person capturing even a single soldier waa still a big deal, which should tell you that while it was important and they valued it, that it was still somewhat uncommon.

This pastebin should have a lot of posts that go into this, among other stuff
pastebin.com/raw/EKKCpgT3

Be sure to read all the posts in each topic, as often the good info isn't just in the top post and is buried further down into comment chains or isn't the most upvoted post even if it is at the start of a chain

>This is the Only surviving real Mexica (aztec) weapon
how do you know?

I feel compelled to point out that "Aztec" and "Mexica" aren't actually synonymous.

The Mexica were the specific subgroup of Nahua (a mesoameerican ethnic-cultural-linguistic group) people who founded Tenochtitlan and it's sister city of Tlatelolco. Tenochtitlan, and the cities of Texcoco and Tlacopan (which were primarily Acolhua and Tepanec, respectively, which were also Nahua subgroups) formed an alliance to overthrow the city of Azcapotzalco (which was also ethnically Tepanec), which was at the time in complete control of the valley of mexico.

That triple alliance, and the vassal city-states they would conquer or otherwise get influence/rule over, is what the '"Aztec empire" was. When most people say "Aztec" in reference to society or cultural practices, they are usually talking about the Mexica, though (or nahua cultures in general, since they shared a lot of cultural stuff, and using the mexica as the primary example).

Aztec weapons were wood, stone, and feathers, generally. That's not stuff that lasts for hundreds of years unless it's being intentionally preserved, generally. I HAVE heard that maybe there's another macuahuitl in another mueusum ,maybe that just lost it, but I'mnot sure how truthful that is and even if it is, it's lost right now.

We do have a variety of surviving Aztec shields, though, pic related was was the personal shield of the 8th king of Tenochtitlan (or the 5th Emperor of the empire as a whole, since Tenochtitlan was the de-facto captiial/ruling member of the triple alliance. There's actually some evidence it may not have really been a triple alliance with the 3 ruling collecttively so much as Tenochtitlan ruling and the other two just being important cities, as this post explains: reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/63n1az/the_triple_alliance_never_existed_meet_the/dfz0mr0/)

Nordic genes and therefore a higher iq

>tfw you will never be a conquistador leading a mixed force of native allies and spanish soldiers into tenochitlan to burn it to the ground
why even live

The Arabic culture-destroying genes of the sp*nimoor at play, everyone.

Why would you even want to do that. Tenochtitlan was superior to most cities of it's time. What the Spaniards replaced it with was ugly Mexico City.

t. Itztli Itzpapalotl Itzcoatl
Don't you have some tortillas to go eat for the thirtieth time this month?

Ay Dios mío, el árabe, el gachupín...

Agreed

>he seriously thinks Tenochtitlan wasn't superior to all but a few cities at the time

When we had a huge-ass thread asking what 5 things from history people wished they could see in person, Tenochtitlan was in the top 5 most common responses alongside stuff like rome at it's height

But user, if you were with the conquistadors, you would get to see it. Right before you burnt it to the ground.

Is Venice the equivalent city to Tenochtitlan?

>The bow and arrow was seen as a more primitive weapon and was used more by nomadic chichimec groups
Ironic since IIRC the bow and arrow was a relatively new invention to appear in the Americas by the time of European colonization.

you're not supposed to parry with the edge anyway you use the backsword if it has one or the width of the blade. Parrying with the edge really badly fucks up any sword, the edges are tempered and/or compressed steel. It's one of the reasons swords are not actually at all easy to just pick up and use.

all sources indicate this composite star mace is copper
>Cast copper mace head in star-pattern with single axe blade on one end, and blunted point on opposite.

Yeah but Peruvian scholars and Peruvian laymen incessantly push that they're bronze because it makes the Inca seem grander. It's an issue of nationalism.

>wheras in europe, where they'd just be chased down and killed, the Aztecs, if a given fled enemy was unarmed and could be easily dispatched, would injure their legs or knock them out to capture them instead.
Actually, capturing, especially during post rout and subsequent chases, are a big part of medieval warfare, and even onto the early renaissance warfare. Most soldiers didn't get paid much, if at all, and capturing someone, especially a noble someone, and holding them for ransom was a good way to make money out of a campaign.

This is akin to seeing masterpieces in a museum then saying fuck it and burning it all down and replace it with a collection of abstract and minimalist art.

The aztecs were a bit autistic when it came to the atlatl. They struggled with the bow and arrow but were stubborn and preferred using the Toltec weapon, that is the atlatl vs the Chichimec bow and arrow. That said the Aztecs did use the bow and arrow in their armies but preferred the atlatl cause it was a more noble weapon. The Aztecs tried hard to prove themselves the inheriters of Toltec civilization. Ultimately though, they saw themselves as the perfect fusion of the ferocity of the savage Chichimec warrior and the highly cultured urban Toltec.

Both were similar in that they were heavily designed around canals and interconnected islands (though in Tenochtitlan's case, most of the islands were artificial built around the original one, see gif and how it expanded over time), but Tenocttitlan was 3x-4x the size of Venice at the time, with a population of around 200k to 250k people.

On that note, the gif is misleading: It says 200k, but it seems like it's saying it's 200k for every town and settlement in it; The 200k-250k figure is ONLY for Tenochtitlan's island proper, it dooesn't include the populations of thee other towns and cities shown.

Got more info on this?

>that spanish tenochtitlan
They really fucked it up, didn't they?

...

2 can play at that game!

That looks Egyptian

that's a copper axe though

this is an inca bronze axe
though it has low tin content I believe

another inca axe very similar to the one you posted but made from bronze
possibly low tin content bronze

Good Lord. They were able to make artificial islands back then?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinampa

I built one of these when i was younger
That shit can fly

It has the same tin content as 3000-2500aC weapons (10% at least).

source? That's technically a mace btw.

what's the point of having those fake fiber bands if the axe is entirely made out of bronze?

When I'm get home, I'll give you some links.

For now google "tin content incan"

Also pre mesopotamians made bronze with the same tin content too. Scholars don't "lie" about bronze weapons. The consensus say thay it becomes bronze once the tin content is +3%.

That one was ceremonial.

I get*

Found this on Veeky Forums, incan weapons apparently
some user knows how accurate it is?
I think most of it is real, but I'm pretty sure those aren't arrows but ceremonial staffs from some pre-inca burial

Humans were as smart in the past as they are now, of course with enough effort they could come with a way to create artificial islands.

Sorry, but the mesoamericans have low-IQs. It took them an extra 3000 years to get to where Europe was in 1500 BC. Stop dreaming.

>It took them an extra 3000 years to get to where Europe was in 1500 BC. Stop dreaming.

And that couldn't possibly be because eurasia had thousands of years of a head start by virtue of humans only getting to the Americas 15k years ago vs the 60-40k in eurasia, right?

Mesoamerica actually developed agriculture and civilization much sooner after arriving in the region then europeans or Mesopotamians or asians did; and advanced at the same rate as those did once that happened: As you note, Mesoamericans were 1500 BC tier overall, which I would agree with; and Mesoamerica had civilization for 3000 years by that point: That adds up perfectly, since the first cities in Mesopotamia popped up in 4500 BC, also 3000 years before 1500.

that weapon originated first in new zealand buddy

>itt people miss the fact the OP species mesoamerica, not all of the pre-contact americas

Anyways, Dumping Nahua (Aztec's and their closely related cultures) weapons. Worth noting i've never seen/heard of the garrote de caballero pesado other then here, so I don't know if that's real. The rest, are, though, but with some caveats: mācuāhuitzōctli would be the actual nahuatl name for the shorter macuahuitl (macuahuitl corto), according to wikipedia. Wikipediia also notes the stone mace (garrote de plebeyo) was called Quauholōlli, which is clearly an alternate translation for what the next image shows as Cuauholōlli, so i'm not sure what the deal is with that.

I also don't know or how what iit shows as a Cuauholōlli differed in utility from the Tepozotpilli, or how the Huitzahqui and Cuahuitl in the next image differed from macuahuitls in usage

...

...

check this out bitches

Worth notiing the weapons at least iin those one aren't to scale: The Cuauhololli (if that's what it's actually called) is a polearm, though not an exceptionally long one (pic related), wheras the Tecpatl is a knife, and the Cuahuitl is a baton (or I guess a large wooden knife, i'm not clear if the edges were sharp); and the Huitzauhqui is a club, and is club sized)

Are there any examples of Atzecs using firearms brought by the Spanish Conquistadors?

That guy's a doofus, but I feel like it should be noted that although prevailing evidence puts migration into the America's at around 15k, it's understood that this is a"best guess" figure and it could very well have been much, much earlier. The really important thing though is that comparing two isolated civilizations out of context is a pretty poor way of judging "smartness"

No (at least that I know for before the aztecs fell; After they did, the Spanish and their allies has aztec soldiers aiding them from that point on, and soome of them probably use firearms eventually over the next few decades, but even 30 years later many were still using native arms), but they used scavenged swords

The land bridge that people crossed over only came into existence 30k years ago or so, so no matter what europe still had around a 10k year start

Huh, it's kinda weird that they don't adopt firearms despite knowing its destructive power against the Aztecs

Well I'm not an expert by any stretch but wouldn't the LGM have had a profound impact on the European population of humans and a much smaller one on the America's? Basically all of Europe's population ended up in the Pyrenees

Well, firstly, early firearms had disadvantages: they weren't very accurate and took a long time to reload/had horrendlously slow rattes of fire. Also, given the region couldn't really produce them, they'd need to be brought over from europe, and would be expensive. Plus, there were no horses other then tthe ones the Spanish had, so they'd need to carry ammo, cleaning supplies, etc all by hand.

I don't think it's suprising you still see troops using native weapons well into the decades of the conquest period.

Firearms really diidn't make that huge a diifference against the aztecs ether: It was a factor, to be sure, but dieases crippling them and the spanish being able tto close the number gap by getting allies against the Aztecs/flipping their own cities agaiinst them were astronomically bigger deals and they wouldn't have come even close to winning without either of those

I'd bet the humid and damp climate didn't help either. Storing and using early firearms and gunpowder took specialized armories to ensure they were kept dry. But you're probably right in that the desire to use firearms wasn't really there to begin with, so it's sort of a moot point

I saved some photos from the last one of these threads a few months ago. I don't remember much of the info except about this wooden spear, apparently the other end was sharpened like an oar and could draw blood with a hard strike.

...

...

...

...

...

...