# How did the Spanish beat the Aztec with weak guns?



## Cobra

As everyone knows, the Spanish defeated the Aztec. The Spanish had about 100 men during the battle too. The Aztec much more. Why did Spanish win? Almost everyone there where many factors like disease, rivals helped Spanish, and so forth but what was the biggest contributer was guns. But what doesn't make any sense was how was those weak one shot take a long time to reload guns beat dead accuarate Aztec spears and bows.

Guns back then where bad. They could only be used as a one shot gun and it took a long time to reload them. Sure, they were leathal whan fired, but with the amount of time it takes to reload, it would seem it would be useless especially when they towards victory time with very few men.

Now you look at the weapons of the Aztec weaponry, they had bows and spears. but the diference was archers can be much more accurate with bow back then and with spears than to fire those slow gun of that time. One shot =equals out of the battle wether dead or not. And they didn't have to be reloaded with gun powder an all that bullets which would take a long time to reload like I said. So how did the Spanish win with fewer men?

Now that I look at it, guns may have nothing to do with the victory. Maybe the Aztec had bad tatics which was a theory or anything else but it would only seem guns would weaken the Spanish due to there speed.
So what do you guys think?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cobra said:
			
		

> Now that I look at it, guns may have nothing to do with the victory. Maybe the Aztec had bad tatics which was a theory or anything else but it would only seem guns would weaken the Spanish due to there speed.
> So what do you guys think?


Your right guns had very little to do with the victory. The Spaniards had somehow fit the profile for a "religious prophecy" long fortold by the Aztec preists. Barly a shot was fired before the whole Aztec Kingdom was handed over to the Spanish. And the raping and pillaging commenced!
Sean


----------



## RCastillo

If I'm correct, they had horses as well. Make s adifference, don't ya think? :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons

Cobra said:
			
		

> As everyone knows, the Spanish defeated the Aztec. The Spanish had about 100 men during the battle too. The Aztec much more. Why did Spanish win? Almost everyone there where many factors like disease, rivals helped Spanish, and so forth but what was the biggest contributer was guns. But what doesn't make any sense was how was those weak one shot take a long time to reload guns beat dead accuarate Aztec spears and bows.
> 
> Guns back then where bad. They could only be used as a one shot gun and it took a long time to reload them. Sure, they were leathal whan fired, but with the amount of time it takes to reload, it would seem it would be useless especially when they towards victory time with very few men.
> 
> Now you look at the weapons of the Aztec weaponry, they had bows and spears. but the diference was archers can be much more accurate with bow back then and with spears than to fire those slow gun of that time. One shot =equals out of the battle wether dead or not. And they didn't have to be reloaded with gun powder an all that bullets which would take a long time to reload like I said. So how did the Spanish win with fewer men?
> 
> Now that I look at it, guns may have nothing to do with the victory. Maybe the Aztec had bad tatics which was a theory or anything else but it would only seem guns would weaken the Spanish due to there speed.
> So what do you guys think?



Cobra, not everyone knows everything you know. Nor do I expect you to know everything I know. I just thought you should think about that as well.


As to the subject, the Spanish could have used lines where they always had a team ready to fire. It would only take a single rush to realize that  this is not prudent. The issue of Horses also makes a difference as well as you said the locals fighting each other, and the local prophecy was an issue as well. There was also as mentioned that the Spanish brought with them sicknesses that killed people like measles and chicken pox. They also used tactics and armor that was not seen before. A thrown spear that bounced off os metal chest plate would be scary if you never seen that before.

Many things contibuted.


----------



## Cobra

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Cobra, not everyone knows everything you know. Nor do I expect you to know everything I know. I just thought you should think about that as well.
> 
> 
> As to the subject, the Spanish could have used lines where they always had a team ready to fire. It would only take a single rush to realize that this is not prudent. The issue of Horses also makes a difference as well as you said the locals fighting each other, and the local prophecy was an issue as well. There was also as mentioned that the Spanish brought with them sicknesses that killed people like measles and chicken pox. They also used tactics and armor that was not seen before. A thrown spear that bounced off os metal chest plate would be scary if you never seen that before.
> 
> Many things contibuted.


I agree. But guns I was the least factor. It was the disease and tatics along with help from Aztec rivalies (Spanish was much more few in numbers).

Spears bouncing of chest plates though? That is damn strong! Those are the same spears that took mamoths down few thousand years ago. Are you sure those chest plated were that strong, or were you overexagerating. If their armour was that strong enough, I can see why the Aztec were failing in battle.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Cobra said:
			
		

> I agree. But guns I was the least factor. It was the disease and tatics along with help from Aztec rivalies (Spanish was much more few in numbers).
> 
> Spears bouncing of chest plates though? That is damn strong! Those are the same spears that took mamoths down few thousand years ago. Are you sure those chest plated were that strong, or were you overexagerating. If their armour was that strong enough, I can see why the Aztec were failing in battle.



Cobra, Cobra, Cobra,

Mamoths? and thousands of years ago? All the same?

Many of the tribes had ritualized battle in South America and also in Africa. As for the Aztechs, I am not sure, and do not wish to mis-type if they were or not ritualized. Yet the spears were not those used like pikes, nor were they bill hooks, nor were the long blade used by Shaka Zulu which changed war fair on the Africa Continent as well. If the spear or javalin was small and light to fly and was used in numbers to take down large animals.

Also imagine this, you have never seen a gun.

You do not know it's fire rate nor range.

You just know these thunder sticks knock your warriors down with no effort and from range and one hit, no matter what shield you use. This is a tactic of fear and the unknown to your opponent.


----------



## loki09789

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Cobra, Cobra, Cobra,
> 
> Mamoths? and thousands of years ago? All the same?
> 
> Many of the tribes had ritualized battle in South America and also in Africa. As for the Aztechs, I am not sure, and do not wish to mis-type if they were or not ritualized. Yet the spears were not those used like pikes, nor were they bill hooks, nor were the long blade used by Shaka Zulu which changed war fair on the Africa Continent as well. If the spear or javalin was small and light to fly and was used in numbers to take down large animals.
> 
> Also imagine this, you have never seen a gun.
> 
> You do not know it's fire rate nor range.
> 
> You just know these thunder sticks knock your warriors down with no effort and from range and one hit, no matter what shield you use. This is a tactic of fear and the unknown to your opponent.



Good points RIch, also consider that there were certain rituals and decorums within tribal warfare that the Conquestadors would not have bothered with.  Being mounted on horses also left the impression of monster or god in the eyes of the natives.

Volley fire was the tactic of the time, combined with supporting units of CQB fighters and charging cavalry.  Sort of an early version of 'combined arms' that is employed today with artillery, air strikes, machine gun/small arms.... all working in a coordinated effort.

Don't underplay the armor issue, Cobra.  Try playing football (american) without 'armor' against someone who is, or stick sparring someone with WEKAF armore while you are 'naked'.  Add to that, the firearms, the technologically superior steel that didn't chip or knock as easily as softer steel and wooden clubs studded with animal teeth....

Think about the psychological impact of tanks on infantry troops - who know about such technology - on the battlefield.  Really sucks.

Fire superiority is as much psychological as it is physical.  Anything that stuns the enemy, makes them doubt, loose their agressive will.... including bizaar, shocking behaviors and 'unbelievable' survival of a sure fire attack that has killed you enemies in the past can have a 'fire superiority' impact on the Aztecs


----------



## someguy

The Aztecs had long bows correct?  Long bow even with a stone arrow head goes through metal armor usually.  Yes I'm making generalizations so sue me.  Wait you might win.

Now back several thousand years
As to taking mamoths down I'm pretty sure it wasn't just run up throw a couple spears into the mamoth and bam dead mamoth.  Often times cliff drives as well as traping mamoths in stuff worked to there advantages.


----------



## loki09789

someguy said:
			
		

> The Aztecs had long bows correct?  Long bow even with a stone arrow head goes through metal armor usually.  Yes I'm making generalizations so sue me.  Wait you might win.
> 
> Now back several thousand years
> As to taking mamoths down I'm pretty sure it wasn't just run up throw a couple spears into the mamoth and bam dead mamoth.  Often times cliff drives as well as traping mamoths in stuff worked to there advantages.



Oh no, not tactics/tools/technique arguments again


----------



## someguy

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Oh no, not tactics/tools/technique arguments again


Bwahahahaha you can never escape the tactic/tools/techniques argument.


----------



## loki09789

someguy said:
			
		

> Bwahahahaha you can never escape the tactic/tools/techniques argument.



No one can escape the Spanish Inquisition.......


----------



## Touch Of Death

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No one can escape the Spanish Inquisition.......


Yes, this thread does seem a bit like a Monty Python skit.
Sean (www.iemat.com)


----------



## dearnis.com

See the discussion in Victior Davis Hanson's Culture and Carnage for a decent discussion of this campaign.  
Also note that the Spanish had steel cutting weapons, armor, and a ruthlessness that the Aztecs lacked.


----------



## Rich Parsons

someguy said:
			
		

> The Aztecs had long bows correct?  Long bow even with a stone arrow head goes through metal armor usually.  Yes I'm making generalizations so sue me.  Wait you might win.
> 
> Now back several thousand years
> As to taking mamoths down I'm pretty sure it wasn't just run up throw a couple spears into the mamoth and bam dead mamoth.  Often times cliff drives as well as traping mamoths in stuff worked to there advantages.




As pointed out tactics and techniques were used. 

What would be your first target if you had a gun and they had a bow in some hands and spears in others? I would go for the bowman. Yet, I would have to see the bow in questions before I would say it had the same range and capability as a Japanese long bow and Western European Long Bow. Just my thought that they were not recurve bows. 

I would be interested.


----------



## Touch Of Death

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> See the discussion in Victior Davis Hanson's Culture and Carnage for a decent discussion of this campaign.
> Also note that the Spanish had steel cutting weapons, armor, and a ruthlessness that the Aztecs lacked.


I wouldn't say the Spanish were more ruthless than the Aztecs. The Aztecs had no problem sacraficing tens of thousands of people a year to their gods. The Spanish just had better weapons and a way of thinking that the Aztecs were not acustomed to. The Aztecs were not bent on conquering foreign lands, just harvesting local tribes for sacrificial victims. It was a kinder, gentler ruthlessness.
sean


----------



## dearnis.com

Hanson's thesis, which I found credible, was that the Aztecs were accustomed to a stylized warfare and a culture where surrounding tribes would accept a certain amount of predatory explotation.  The Spanish were willing to practice total war in a manner foreign to the Aztecs.


----------



## someguy

I don't know much about the Aztecs but I do know that some NAtive American tribes in the SW had bows that could puncture steel armor.  To counter this at some point or another (when the colonies were already step up) the spaniards started wearing layered leather apparently.  As to the source it comes from a lecture from a professor that visited my college.  I can't think of his name.
My question is how does layred leather stop something that steel can't stop?  I belive the guy I just don't understand it.


----------



## OULobo

On the bow issue, it really comes down to the physics of the armor. While an arrow may have the ability to punch through steel there is a lot to consider. The type of steel, the thickness of the steel, the strength of the bow, the arrowhead material, the angle of impact, ect. The prey of the common Aztec before the coming of the Spanish, be it man or beast, wasn't wearing steel. So it is easy to assume that their arrows were not up efficient enough to puncture steel, much less the refined and angled steel the Spanish were wearing. 

I believe the layered leather was due to the conditions that they were working in. The heat and humidity of the tropics made steel armor hard to wear and maintain. 

I think one of the most effective ways the Spaniards were able to conquer in the Americas was already mentioned. Horses. Cavalry is intimidating, fast and powerful.


----------



## dearnis.com

Keep in mind that for an arrow to pierce armor it needs a metal tip; The only metal the Aztecs were working at the time of the Spanish conquest was gold.


----------



## OULobo

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that for an arrow to pierce armor it needs a metal tip; The only metal the Aztecs were working at the time of the Spanish conquest was gold.



Metal is not required to peirce metal, although it would help an awful lot. Just about any material if in the right design and at the right pressures could puncture metal. Look at pieces of straw that puncture telephone poles in tornado winds. You're right in that I don't think the Aztecs actually had any means of applying sufficient force to puncture steel of the grade the Spaniards used with flint or wood, the most common and hardest materials of the native weapons.


----------



## dearnis.com

I concede the theoretical point, especially since we are on the same page!!
I do not believe that the Aztecs used projectiles apart from spears (possibly with spear throwers/atl-atls...)
I would look it the book I recommended above, but of course I loaned my copy to a friend.....


----------



## KenpoTex

OULobo said:
			
		

> On the bow issue, it really comes down to the physics of the armor. While an arrow may have the ability to punch through steel there is a lot to consider. The type of steel, the thickness of the steel, the strength of the bow, the arrowhead material, the angle of impact, ect. The prey of the common Aztec before the coming of the Spanish, be it man or beast, wasn't wearing steel. So it is easy to assume that their arrows were not up efficient enough to puncture steel, much less the refined and angled steel the Spanish were wearing.


  This is a good point, unlike the English, Japanese, and basically everyone else from Europe or the middle/far east who fought people who used armor, the Aztecs didn't have to contend with that type of technology.  English archers were renouned for their abilty to make accurate shots in excess of 200 yards, the bows they used were usually about 6' in length (hence the term "long-bow").  The Recurve bow (common in the Orient) is also a design capable of a lot of power.  I don't know this for a fact, but since the Aztecs weren't faced with armor why would their bows and arrows be designed to counter it?


----------



## dearnis.com

Again, I believe the Aztecs did not in fact use bows.


----------



## Rich Parsons

OULobo said:
			
		

> Metal is not required to peirce metal, although it would help an awful lot. Just about any material if in the right design and at the right pressures could puncture metal. Look at pieces of straw that puncture telephone poles in tornado winds. You're right in that I don't think the Aztecs actually had any means of applying sufficient force to puncture steel of the grade the Spaniards used with flint or wood, the most common and hardest materials of the native weapons.




Thank You for clarifying what I meant to say.
 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Again, I believe the Aztecs did not in fact use bows.




Chad,

I agree, yet I allow for the possibility, then I argue that they would not be advanced or powerful and would be lofted to fall upon the opponent. Very similiar to the the Native Americans. If there was technical advantage in the bow it woudl have moved to other cultures including the Spanish, and other NAtive tribes. 

So, I would agree with you, because the evidence does not support a technilogical advanced bow.

Rich
 :asian:


----------



## Cobra

This has nothing to do with the Aztec's and Spanierds war, but let's change the scenerio. 100 bowmen vs. 100 1500's gunmen. Who would win? Now in this case, there are no disease or no fear on either side. Just a straight down to the middle war between these 200 people.

So with that scenario put, the bowmen would win, right? Bowman are probably much faster in reloading and more accurate.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cobra said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with the Aztec's and Spanierds war, but let's change the scenerio. 100 bowmen vs. 100 1500's gunmen. Who would win? Now in this case, there are no disease or no fear on either side. Just a straight down to the middle war between these 200 people.
> 
> So with that scenario put, the bowmen would win, right? Bowman are probably much faster in reloading and more accurate.


Who's got the high ground, is it raining, is the wind blowing, is anyone drunk, what range we talkin', what the terrain, has everyone eaten lately, are they tired, who's intiating the first attack???????????


----------



## dearnis.com

The guns would win.  It happened in Japan.


----------



## grimfang

I don't mean to divert from the specific topic here too much, but reading thru this discussion I was reminded of an interesting point...
In regards to the arrow vs. steel armor debate: When the Mongols made their push into Europe, they typically wore silk under thier leather armor (a few mongols had metal armor, but it is beleived the majority did not.) When an arrow made it through the armor, the silk del would wrap itself around the arrowhead instead of tearing. So instead of cutting into the skin, the arrowhead punctured the skin. The Mongol would then pull on the silk del, pulling out the arrowhead without causing serious damage. 
Thus, what is worn UNDER the armor can be just as crucial as the armor itself.


----------



## Gary5000

I think: As Touch'O'Death Said 
which advantage did either teams have?


----------



## MMA Combatives

Howdy folks, after reading this thread I just have to jump in.

Mounted solders...cavalry...deadliest and most scarry weapon on the battlefield.

Rifles...smokepoles...blackpowder...rip through a soldier and kill the one behind him.

Metal quality...Spanish steel versus Aztec...hmmm....not sure but imagine the Spanish blade cutting through any block or parry.

Armor...can't kill them quick if you can't penetrate.

Trained soldiers with firearms albeit outnumbered....not the first time in history that few stood against the many and won.


----------



## OULobo

Again concurring with TOD, weather has a great effect. Bow stings are useless when wet and so is gun powder. Depending on the bow type, the strings can be taken off and stored dry, but so can the gun power. Wind has a very drastic effect on arrows, but a much lesser effect on bullets or even early musket balls. Also firearms have a greater range and better accuracy at long range, while bows have gernally better short range accuracy that drastically deteriorates with distance. This allows musketeers to sit out of bow range and fire at will into a crowd. Besides better short range accuracy, the only real advantages of the bow are cost and rate of fire. 

There are good reasons why the bow phased out when faced with the semi-primitive firearm. 

Good summary MMA COMBATIVES.


----------



## Cobra

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Who's got the high ground, is it raining, is the wind blowing, is anyone drunk, what range we talkin', what the terrain, has everyone eaten lately, are they tired, who's intiating the first attack???????????



If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.

And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Cobra said:
			
		

> If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.
> 
> And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?


The gunmen, because the loaded multiple shot with to much gun powder and the bullets went through bowmen and into the bowman behind them. The gunmen also were smart enough to fight with the sun behind them; so, the bowmen had a hard time seeing.
As for your first point I'm going to once again reject your premis. Martial artists are not assured a win when they are at a diadvantage. Sheesh!!!(or is that hashish talkin')
Sean


----------



## loki09789

Cobra said:
			
		

> If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.
> 
> And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?



Since this wasn't the case in terms of the Aztecs vs. the Conquestadors, what is the point?  Also, if one is truly better than the other, it isn't nit picky to discuss how the better one took advantage of the terrain and other tactical elements.... doing so is what demonstrates their superiority.

Are you of the opinion that the Conquestadors should have lost and didn't?


----------



## lonecoyote

psychology of the spanish was a factor too, in my opinion. No one, not the governor in Cuba, not the king, nobody sanctioned Cortez trip. He must have been more than a little desperate, adventurous, or just plain crazy, and his crew too, because they weren't exactly spanish regular military either. If they had failed, those who survived would probably swing. It was only the success of their expedition that saved their lives and made them rich men. So it was either literally victory or death. come in and win, or die.


----------



## someguy

Cobra said:
			
		

> If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.
> 
> And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?


Who ever started the fight is a fool as they are taking no advantages.  They will lose as their tactics are worse.

Now as to the Aztecs having bows I dunno if they did but I raised a point that Primative arrows could peice steel.  Some native american tribes had the bows to do it with.  That was my intent.  As to the Aztecs I know nothing exept Aztec isn't the proper name.  I think it was something like Mexica pronounced Meshica.  From this came Mexico.


----------



## lonecoyote

I went back and looked through some notes for latin american history and it seems that some folks  might have been a little off base, including me. The weapons and tactics were important but what was really important was other native americans. Turns out they didn't like being sacrificed, taxed, and terrorized. Chief among the allies of the spanish were a people called the texcoco, they and others swelled the ranks of the invaders to hundreds of thousands. Also they knew the landscape and many really hated the Aztecs, or Mexia. Also, the Aztecs had obsidian edge weapons which, while broken easily are apparently very sharp. They came up with a horse cutter type weapon I think but it could only be used once.


----------



## someguy

Now Gun's must have had some great qualities to have them survive and replace bows.   One reason that occurs to me is that the don't require stregnth like the bows would.  To fire a long bow I have heard that you need to practice alot to mantain the stregnth required to fire one well.  This would mean that you ould have trouble carrying long bow men on long ship voyages and have them be that great at fighting afterwards.  That would be based on what I have heard and I don't know much about that though.
A gun would also stilll probably be better than a bow for the most part.  These may have been sort of primative but they survived the ages and improved.  So I'd guess these weapons were better than european bows in multiple ways.
I guess some one should go make the type of gun's for this time and test them out then test out the bows of this time.  See which one is better that way.


----------



## TKDman

Guns + Armor + Horses + 1000s of Angry Allies vs. A bunch of semi-clothed indians with sticks?

No contest.

Plus I heard that the Aztecs fought to capture their enemies, not kill them.


----------



## GZepeda

Hello, newbie here, but I would like to chime in with my 2 odd cents.
Lone coyote's right, the Aztecs had many enemies. 
The Spanish adopted a genius strategy in the New World as far as conquering the natives went.  The used "divide and conquer".  They played upon political conflicts, and used this to their advantage.  There is also the religious connotations that were mentioned earlier, Cortez's arrival coincided with the date of Quetzalcoatl's return from exile by way of another elder god many years earlier.  Quetzalcoatl had blue eyes and blonde hair, so indeed, Cortes somewhat resembled him.
Cortes tricked the leader of the Aztecs, Montec(a)zuma into sublimating his kingdom.  As soon as he did that, Cortes had him killed.
Also, there was mention of the disease that had decimated the population.  This was very true, and used by Cortes to imply an "omen", hence, more credit to his "godliness".
As far as Cotes being crazy, he was.  His men weren't so much so, although Pedro de Alvarado was by far the most intense of the conquistadores.
When Cortes landed his ships of the coast of Mexico, he had his most loyal troops scuttle his fleet.  He never intended on returning!  His troops had no other choice but to follow him at this point.
One important war factor that hasn't been noted yet was the Aztec and New World indigenous fear of the Wardog.  They were terrified of the Spanish warhounds.  The only domesticated dogs they had were of course, the familiar Chihuahua, and these were used for food.
gzepeda


----------



## Feisty Mouse

For an **excellent** look at the whole picture of this scenario, and other conquests in human history, I highly recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond. He starts out asking the question of why the Spanish invaded and conquered the Aztecs, and not the other way around, and works from there.  Really fascinating look at human history!


----------

