Early Spanish Colonization

[Robert Rolph]

I hope I don't get any angry responses about what I'm about to say! So, please! Let's try to discuss this politely as possible! I will appreciate that a lot!

Now, I want to talk about the earlier Spaniards and Portuguese conquests around the globe. I hear some people are convinced of the Conquisterdors' military-tatics-weapons-and-fighting-superiority! They had great swords and armors and such! But I wonder how much of that is true. From what I have heard, in addition to the swords, armors and spears, that they had used, they also used biological warfare...I'm talking about spreading smallpox! They deliberately spread the disease to kill as many natives as possible, devasting the population...and, sometimes, killing the whole tribes...and if they were survivors left, many of them were weak, unable to offer much of a resistance...and not a lot of good warrior were left.

And some people say that the early firearms weren't affective at long distance...but what about standing in a defensive formation and firing at the target at a closed range; then had someone hand over another loaded ones while the others are being reloaded...could that be a very affective way use them?

[JeffGentry]

Hey Robert

From what I have heard, in addition to the swords, armors and spears, that they had used, they also used biological warfare...I'm talking about spreading smallpox

It is my understanding that biological warfare has been around since before the Spanish conquest, it was used in much of Europe for siege warfare from what i understand.

So why not use it on native's who you wish to subdue, i don't realy agree with bio war, i am not a Medieval/Renissance Spaniard though, so in there social context it may have not been a big deal.

We need to remember that most thing's in history are not right or wrong, good or bad they are to be look at with there social context in mind not our modern belief's.



Jeff

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

The Spanish did not use their firearms in the New World like that and they had so few of them they were not particularly decisive. Against the Aztecs, cavalry was far more decisive than gunpowder.

[david welch]

From what I have heard, in addition to the swords, armors and spears, that they had used, they also used biological warfare...I'm talking about spreading smallpox

You hear this kind of talk a lot, and I have heard reference to it about the Amerinds also... but it seems to me to mostly have a kind of political, PC motivation to show how evil we westerners are compared to the kind and gentle savage.

Take this into consideration:

Research on Infectious Diseases Afflicting Man and Animal

In 1865, Pasteur began to study the silkworm diseases that were crippling the silk industry in France. He discovered the infectious agents and revealed the manner in which these agents are transmitted--by contagion and hereditary principle -- and how to prevent them. Elaborating on his study of fermentation, he could now confirm that each disease is caused by a specific microbe and that these microbes are foreign elements. With this knowledge, Pasteur was able to establish the basic rules of sterilization or asepsis. Preventing contagion and infection, his method of sterilization revolutionized surgery and obstetrics.

From 1877 to 1887, Pasteur employed these fundamentals of microbiology in the battle against infectious diseases. He went on to discover three bacteria responsible for human illnesses : staphylococcus, streptococcus and pneumococcus.

So basically, these people are saying we caused diseases intentionally for genocide hundreds of years before we knew how diseases spread. That would have been a good trick, if you ask me.

[s_taillebois]

Several reasons the Spanish managed to destroy the Aztec empire beyond disease, although the intentional/accidental spread of such was obviously a big factor.
First, the Aztecs were involved in a type of religious dogmatic struggle, essentially their religion was changing, The Huitzopochli factions were being socially challenged by the Quetzoquatl adherents. One of the reasons that other indians were willing to allie with Cortez, was because of the human toll, required of them by the Huitzipochtli dogma. So at the time the Aztecs were having a religious schism, which weakened their resolve, and strenghthened that of their disaffected subject peoples. If they had resolved that issue, the empire may have survived.
Another factor was that the Aztec empire tended to levy tributes that were very high as a method of suppressing potential revolts. So people who'd been asked to fill baskets full of useless things like centipedes and spiders, and more useful tributes like rubber, quetzal feathers, maize and etc...were willing to abandon loyalties, even for a maniac like Cortez.
Another factor was the Aztec cultural style of fighting. The Jaguar, Eagle, Hummingbird warriors, were taught to disable/cripple an opponent, via strikes to the legs and ankles, so they could be dragged off for ritual use (and the acclaim of the warrior). The Spanish on the other hand, had just finished a multi-century fratricidal war in Spain (with the various Islamic regimes, and sometimes their own side)...so to them, a form of extreme lethality in warfare was the norm.
And need to keep in mind that despite all these factors, the Aztecs almost won. On the 'night of sorrows' the Spanish contingent in Tenochitalan was almost wiped out, and after Monteczuma was assasinated, Caultemoc and others held out for several years (Incidentally the Aztecs had two emperors, the 'first speaker' (Monteczuma) who dealt with interior affairs, and a war/expansion emperor who dealt with the outside. Another factor was that Monteczuma, although a great builder, was indecisive. He never really believed all the Cortez as Quetzoqautl stuff (and the Aztecs knew immediately who Cortez was when he rejected the gift of Quetzal feathers). But Monteczuma was just indecisive, for example the coming of the Spanish was no suprise, as Maya trading/ocean going canoes already knew the Spanish were out in the Carribean.
As for weaponry, as noted Spanish calvary and arbalests caused trouble for the Aztecs. But Aztec archers, and the unpredictable tactics of the jaguar/eagle and hummingbird contingent gave the Spanish fits. Also, the Spanish found that their plate armour was actually a liability agaisnt the obsidian arrow. If there was a decisive weapon, it was the cannon that Cortez eventually brought up to besiege Tenochitlan.
Long post, but oh well, worth trying to clarify some things...

[JeffGentry]

Hey Steve

The unpredictability factor's seem's to give the west fit's in the 1300-1700 period, when conquest was the norm.

Jeff

[Robert Rolph]

Well...they may be technologically less advance than the Europeans, but they were not savages like how the TV and movies portrayed them! They only did what they thought was right, according to their believes and traditions. Many people think these people were infact...savages! Remember, Cortez used religeon as an excuse to conquer the Aztec, so they could take their gold. According to the historians, the Spaniards were the evil ones. Eventhough, the Aztecs practiced ritual sacrafice, they only did what they thought was right.

[s_taillebois]

M. Gentry-Quite true, and when exposed by invasion/conquest to groups which had a military/moral tradition very different from the one they had established...it was quite a problem to adapt.
For example, the conquisadors could deal with the macana, arrows and such...but conceptually having one of their comrades dragged off, not for ransom or capture...but for religious ritual...really horrified the Spanish. In some ways, that was the Aztecs most effective weapon against the Spanish. (although it was also a liability internally).
Excepting cannons/guns/armored calvary (all of which were in comparatively small number), really there wasn't a marked inferiority between Aztec and Spanish weaponry and tactics.
It seems during the expansion period, the conflicts were asmuch tied to religion/social perceptions as weapons. Islam, for example, had enough cultural commonality to understand and accordingly compensate for European military and cultural norms. Even though these were distinct religious canons.
So in some ways, the NA during the early period, could have been considered to being subjected to the lingering attitudes of the Crusades...and unlike Islam, had no experience in compensating for it all.
In some weird ways, the weapons/fight styles we study, were so closely linked to religion/social morals, that the sword and the book, were often one and the same.

[s_taillebois]

M. Rolph, quite true about the Spanish using religion as a tool for conquest. But the Aztecs did so also, flower wars were essentially thier equivalent.
And although the sacrifice aspect has been emphasized, and it was a effective tactic... The Aztecs valued (and considered) a good speech or poem as equal to a chulul (blood) sacrifice. In some ways, their type of chivalry was quite admirable. Although very different from European traditions...their chivalry tended to be a bit fatalistic...very close to-say the samurai attitudes.
As noted in other posts, the Aztecs had their equivalent to fight schools and such...even more so insofar as all free Nautl males were allowed to serve as warriors.
Attitudes, make as much of a weapon as Toledo steel. Probably the Spanish, could be said to be the last European power to retain the military mindset attendant to the Crusades.

[david welch]

Well...they may be technologically less advance than the Europeans, but they were not savages like how the TV and movies portrayed them! They only did what they thought was right, according to their believes and traditions. Many people think these people were infact...savages! Remember, Cortez used religeon as an excuse to conquer the Aztec, so they could take their gold. According to the historians, the Spaniards were the evil ones. Eventhough, the Aztecs practiced ritual sacrafice, they only did what they thought was right.

Western Civ collides with cannibals, cannibals lose and we take their stuff, and Western Civ is the evil one.

I guess I just don't care what kind of opinion of these so-called "historians" have.

[JeanryChandler]

It was a very complex situation.

Smallpox definately played a major role, though the Spanish were not aware of that initially.

What is certain is that the toughness and fighting ability of the Spanish soldiers was phenomenal. At the time of the early conquests Spain had arguably the best land army in Europe and the toughest troops, veterans of vicious wars all over the known world.

As for their superior equipment, consider this. The original group of 500 which landed with Coretez only had 13 muskets, 12 crossbows, a handful of small cannon, and (IIRC) 20 horses. The officers had steel armor, but the common troops were armed with swords, halberds and the like, and were only protected by padded coats, open helmets, boots and in some cases bucklers.

This group fought off thousands of Indigenous tribesmen on numerous occasions, and suffered comparatively few casualties. Their chief technolocial advantage seems to be thast of iron vs stone weapons. Plus some extras like the firearms and small cannon, horses, and not the least dogs (grayhounds primarily) all of which they used to maximum advantage.

Another key factor of course was the Aztec religion and its prediction of Cortez' arrival and the subsequent downfall of Moctezumas reign.

There are two contemporary accounts of the experiences of Cortez and his Conquistadors, of which for my money you cannot beat the one written by Bernal Diaz, who was an ordinary foot soldier in his employ. He tells this incredible story in a very honest and simple manner, pulling no punches.

The brutality on all sides is breathtaking. For example, according to Diaz, the Spanish, allegedly accustomed to dressing their wounds with fat and salt, lacking any sources of animal fat cut some from the bodies of Indians they killed and used that. The incredible greed of Cortez, even toward his own troops, is also well detailed, as were the exteremely sophisticated tactics used on both sides.

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

Western Civ collides with cannibals, cannibals lose and we take their stuff, and Western Civ is the evil one.

I guess I just don't care what kind of opinion of these so-called "historians" have.

Trying to assign blame or a good guy status in the case of the Aztecs vs the Spanish, or even more generally of the Indians vs the Europeans, is really such an oversimplification as to be meaningless.

But as to cannibalism, very few of the Native Americans certainly in North America practiced any kind of cannibalism.

On the other hand, it was also certainly not unheard of in Europe. You might want to read some first hand accounts of the 1st Crusade. I dont mean Arab accounts either, or revisionist historian analysis, first hand accounts by the European Lords who led the expedition.

For that matter earlier ancestors in Europe were headhunters (like the Celts) into human sacrifice, or bloodsport (Romans)

just for a sense of balance here..

Jeanry

[s_taillebois]

Oh well, historical moral relativism. The core reality is that we are not them, and any assessment we might make of being right or wrong is via our time.
For example, both the conquistadores and the Eagle/Jaguar/Hummingbird warriors had admirable traits...but much of what they did was appalling.
In the same regard, I can study German/English fencing, and gain some appreciation of its attributes. And read of what they did...but to assume its completely understandable is a chimera.
And so is to assign blame for people long dead, onto thier remote descendants. For example, my ancestors (with their very real usage of weapons of the period this forum studies) despoiled France, murdered a young girl, and continued a pointless war despite plague, famine, and atrocities. And they thought what they were doing was right, and by their standards it was... Unless of course it was your French village that was burning...
But, do I, or any on this forum really have to atone for the actions of remote ancestors? And if so, no individual on earth, will be exempt from the some implied extended guilt.
Swords, macanas, and etc...were intended to be used for purposes which were independent of modern morality. At least most of us will never have to make the decisions with them, that the long dead did. In otherwords, let the dead rest...they've found their heavens or hells.
Onto a theme more specific to this forum. Given the macana was essentially a edged club, and was used often agaisnt the lower limbs. It would have seemed to be a difficult thing for a spanish fencer to ward with either a rapier or a longsword. With the longsword, any warding would be with the weak of the blade...and the reach and momentum of a macana seemed to be fairly substantial. So a strong impact might hit the sword at the point least well to take it-and if it failed the force of the blow from the macana would likely break the lower leg or ankle. And really don't see how, excepting by relying totally on the offensive, how a rapier fencer could compensate for a macana... Running through to grapple, would seem to be disadvantagous, because the obsidian insets on a Macana could them come into effective play.

[Robert Rolph]

What you are saying is true? I guess the boys on both sides did duties as warriors.! But many people today still are convinced that the white man had moral superiority over the natives they conquered! You can see from movies and TV portraying the Indians and other natives as brutal savages! In many cases, I hear that cannabalism was practice as part of the funerals, eating their fellow tribesmen's bodies was supposedly a blessing and brought good luck! The people in New Guinea did this in the past.

[david welch]

Oh well, historical moral relativism. The core reality is that we are not them, and any assessment we might make of being right or wrong is via our time.

Exactly. That is why I have such disgust with "According to the historians, the Spaniards were the evil ones." It is currently in vogue for so called "intellectuals" to declare any time in history Western Civilization collided with another culture, the West was evil. The Crusades, Columbus, Cortez, and nuking Japan in W.W.II. Every thing in history is blamed on the West by people that are only able to do so because they live under the protection of Western Civilization. These people make me sick.

Onto a theme more specific to this forum. Given the macana was essentially a edged club, and was used often agaisnt the lower limbs. It would have seemed to be a difficult thing for a spanish fencer to ward with either a rapier or a longsword. With the longsword, any warding would be with the weak of the blade...and the reach and momentum of a macana seemed to be fairly substantial. So a strong impact might hit the sword at the point least well to take it-and if it failed the force of the blow from the macana would likely break the lower leg or ankle. And really don't see how, excepting by relying totally on the offensive, how a rapier fencer could compensate for a macana... Running through to grapple, would seem to be disadvantagous, because the obsidian insets on a Macana could them come into effective play.

First, the Spaniards were a military force and would have been using probably something like a cut and thrust, not a civilian weapon like a rapier. Second, just as in longsword, if someone attacks your legs... hit them in the head. They can't displace you with their sword down, and if they are swinging at your legs you have reach on them if you attack high. The Aztecs going for the legs so they could take live prisoners to sacrifice would have helped lead them to their slaughter against the Spanish.