Early Spanish Colonization

[Benjamin Abbott]

As far as technical advantages, Spanish cavalry was absolutely key. At times Cortes called them the mainstay of the fighting. "Next to God, we owe our victory to our horses," as he supposedly said. They were basically able to ride through Amerindian formations with impunity. Combined with guns and crossbows, the Spanish could break up Amerindian formations, while Amerindian weapons generally could not break up the Spanish infantry.

Amerindian allies were another key part of Cortes's success. Without allies he would not have been able to take Tenochtitlan, though Spanish fighting prowess certainly helped him get allies in the first place.

[s_taillebois]

True, something coming out of tag or crown would work. Vex is, another area the Aztecs were taught to disable would be the elbows, so too much time blocking low...trouble...too much high warding...trouble. And yes, the primary method of the time was the thrust, but they were up against a fighting style for which there was no European analog. And withdrawing the leg, might not have worked, because it appears the Aztec had developed a sort of lowered stance, from which they'd attack...in several 'salvos'. .
And the Spanish were usually outnumbered, or fighting with auxilaries who fully understood Aztec martial skills..whilst they didn't .
Rapiers, quite aware it was a civilian weapon...but it took a long time for the situation in Mexico to get somewhat stable...so its possible some grandee with a rapier had to deal with the aformentioned weapons.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Folk's


They say history is wrtten by the victor, and i believe this to be true to a large extent, as to whether one group, race, tribe were savage's is basicly irrelevant, combat by virtue of what it is, is savage.

The biggest problem with bio warfare is you can't realy control who is killed, at least not in the time period of the Conquistador's, now we can vacanate against alot of thing's, one thing to consider also was bio warfare didn't have to be intentional because there were quit a number of European illness's that native's of the America's had not been exposed too.

I don't see the technology or tactic's playing a big role it did play a role though, in any type warfare logisitic's is the major fact to winning or losing if you can't supply or resupply your force's then you will lose, tactic's can be modified and learned you can aalso pickup the opponent's weapon's when they are killed, when people are starving or out of weapon's, water, or horse are hurt and dying with no way to replace them 9 out of 10 time's you will lose.

I do not remember off hand which European King actualy marched his force's down the coastline during the crusade's and had the ship's sailing right along with him, if i remember correctly it was so he could resupply when needed.

Now when a primitive force is forced to hunt while under siege or doing battle they are at a distinct disadvantage, for food and water are important in combat of any kind, or when they are unable to replace damaged or broken weapon's they lose the ability to fight effectively.

There is a saying in the military "amature's talk tactic's, Professional's talk logistic's" because logistic's is vitale to success, so what effect did this have on Spanish conquest as far as resupplying the cavalry and taking care of injured horse's goes I think this is probably what made the cavavlry so effective.

IMHO

Jeff

[Robert Rolph]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

What the about the unbeatable Apaches? Nobody has ever defeated the Apaches...even the Spaniards! Which would make them quite possibly the greatest ancient warriors that had ever lived! They would often raid the Spaniards for supplies and horses! They were terrified of the invincible Apaches! Hence, the name of the U.S. attack helicopter, the Apache. How can more civilized and more technologically advanced Spaniards lost to some stone age people? In the end, only the U.S. troops with other Apaches' help, giving away their secrets, were able to defeat them! So, in the end, only other Apaches were able to defeat the last of Apaches uprising! It took the U.S. government 30 years to figure out how to defeated the Apaches!

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

People also tend to forget that the Aztec empire had a lot of internal weaknesses. The Aztecs had entered and established themselves in Lake Texcoco only recently (the 14th or 15th century) and its empire was basically founded-- like all empires-- on coercion and repression of subject peoples. It would have been bad enough if this coercion was only for the purposes of wealth and resource tribute but the Aztecs also extracted human sacrifices from their subject peoples. And most of these sacrificial victims went to rituals that even the other Mexica thought to be pointless and violent.

Cortez basically exploited this weakness in Aztec power structure and got himself thousands of local Amerindian allies. I'm sure the Amerindian warriors were important, but was likely just as or more important for Cortez's conquest of Tenochtitlan was the supplies and logistical support these new Amerindian allies provided. Without these supplies, Cortez would never have been able to besiege Lake Texcoco and Tenochtitlan or build those brigantines. The Aztecs and native Mexica had no concept of 'siege' so what Cortez did proved to be a shock for the Amerindians. The Aztecs fought back tenaciously, though, but once their supply lines across Lake Texcoco were closed, the battle was as good as won.

I don't know whether it was a particularly "Western" trait that allowed Cortez to see the weaknesses of the Aztec empire, but IMHO, it ranks Cortez right up there with Alexander the Great (who destroyed the Persian empire through a similar manipulation of the weaknesses of an empire system).

[s_taillebois]

M Gentry, Quite true that logistics were the limiting or deciding factor. Ironically, the success of the Aztecs in their agriculture, and in tribute exacting...also enabled the Spanish to remain in Mexico during the conquest. The Indian allies who switched sides provided more than just fighters....as M. Angeles has clearly noted.
As for European martial arts and logistics. Quite a drain on the lower orders. But mayhaps access to weapons, horses and such, for the nobility was not as extensive as is implied in modern media. Seems it wasn't uncommon for lower ranking knights to share a horse. One showing Renaud de Montauban (15thC) shows 4 knights on the same horse, probably an allusion to that tradition. Since the Spanish (until the loot starting coming in from Mexico) were much less affluent than say France...I'd wonder how many of the men at arms traveling with the conquistadors operated under like logistics. (I've) Got a copy of Daiz around maybe time to read it again. >>>see my post below, poor writing shifted the meaning of that sentence in manner not intended>>>
Also on logistics, perhaps situations like that alluded to above, may have played a factor in the British tendancy to dismount and fight on foot...
Apaches, peripheral to a discussion premised on Renn/Gothic martial arts...the Spanish were raising trouble in Mexico, and in the SW Pueblo's in much of the period herein discussed.
As a side note, when was down in the south, saw a demonstration by a Folklorio group on Aztec martial skills.
Don't know how authentic it was, but impressive...especially in the crouching attacks and in the overall mobility.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Steve

Got a copy of Daiz around maybe time to read it again.

Actualy i don't i have never read it, guess i should i don't know alot about the Conquistador, or the Conquest of SA.

The Indian allies who switched sides provided more than just fighters....as M. Angeles has clearly noted.

Oh yea the Indian allie's of the Spanish were a huge part of them being able to create a siege of the Aztec's and resupply themselve's while cutting the supply line's of the Aztec's, and the fighter's who knew what was going on as far as the Aztec weapon's and tactic's didn't hurt either.

Jeff

[s_taillebois]

Yeah, my typical problem is finding wherever I left the fool book. Hazard of my trade it seems...got it, can take a few days to find it.
So the 'getting the book phrase', is alas, an obtuse acknowledgement of my miswended tendancy to misplace them. And the miswended personal problem of forgetting to write pronouns. No insult intended, just poor writing on my part.
Aztec martial tactics, interesting topic, but very hard to find out much that's exacting. And since most of their books were burnt...no Silver, Ringeck or the like can speak through the dusts...

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

I believe that one has no right to judje the past, for ethics and rights are always on the move. There comes world war 3, and it will be 'legitime' to kill the folk XY. Sad but true.
But one can learn and use the knowledge. As for me, I read and heard a Lot about the Aztecs. I heard beautiful stories about their Knightly orders, their heroism, their wisdom and culture. And, I heard terrible stories about the Aztecs, slaughtering 60.000 Men and Women on a SINGLE DAY! on their temples. Then again, the same can be said about the spanish, no?
There is only 3 things I know.

- I feel sorry for the Aztecs, for they are lost. It would be a terrible world, if everyone would be a-like. And every culture we slaughter gets us nearer to a globalized supermass, where there are no colors, no cultures, no nuthin' but a giant media nation and a few fast food companies.

- I certainly would not want to be a prisoner in the Aztec empire..... <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

- i certainly would not want to be a prisoner in the Spanish inquisition.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Sorry for being too emotional <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

But, to stay on-topic, I somehow cannot bring knighthood, armour, longsword and the conquest of America together! I somehow thought that cortez lived LATER. I know, I know, there are the numbers, should have known. But imagine. Just think about it. When Colombus hit the shores, Mathias Corvinus just died 2 Jears ago. Joachim Meyer was not even born. Jacob Sutorius was not even a thought. Rapier was a rather new thing. When Cortez fought the Aztecs, Albrecht Dürer has just finished his work, and Antoio Manciolino shurely must already have had the idea of a Fechtbuch in his mind... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />


Byez,

Szabolcs

[JeffGentry]

Hey Szabolcs

I somehow cannot bring knighthood, armour, longsword and the conquest of America together! I somehow thought that cortez lived LATER. I know, I know, there are the numbers, should have known. But imagine. Just think about it. When Colombus hit the shores, Mathias Corvinus just died 2 Jears ago. Joachim Meyer was not even born. Jacob Sutorius was not even a thought. Rapier was a rather new thing. When Cortez fought the Aztecs, Albrecht Dürer has just finished his work, and Antoio Manciolino shurely must already have had the idea of a Fechtbuch in his mind...

I totaly agree, and i think most historian's have seperated these fact's and it is a shock to most to think they are the same exact time period on two diffrent continent's, That is why i think culture is more relavent than to say these people are bad these people are good, they are savage's we are not, because if we compare the brutality of the inqusition to the brutality of Aztec "human sacrifice" it is pretty much what the church was doing at the exact same time as the Aztec's were killing people on there alter's how do you assign good/bad to either it was what it was in the culture it was from.

Jeff

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

Actually, linking knighthood and concepts of chivalry from the conquistadors is not that hard at all-- if you quantify what you mean by 'chivalry'. I agree with Mr. Gentry that culture is everything and the Spanish conquistadors brought the culture of the Reconquista with them. So some brief points:

1) The Reconquest had geared Spanish (Castilian) society for war (700 years of fighting, after all) and all levels of society were rather thoroughly imbued with the ideals of the hidalguia, or the hidalgo class of Spain. This meant that combat and fighting became the honoured occupation, amassing booty in war (like a chevauchee) was considered perfectly legitimate and farming was looked down on. The conquistadors were trying to become hidalgos by fighting and subjugating the Amerindians.

2) The Spanish considered the fight against pagan or heathen Amerindians as an extension of the Reconquest, so still part of the chivalric mission to protect the Church.

3) The conquistadors felt they were the heirs of chivalric glory, and that they had to outdo their predecessors in great deeds. The most popular book in Spain then was a chivalric tale "Amadis of Gaul". Cortez mentions this book and friars accompanying the conquistadors would get the chivalric books of the men and replace them with Bibles. That didn't please the conquistadors, though.

4) As for swords, well during the conquest of the Americas, the most common panoply of the Spanish conquistadors was sword-and-shield, or the rodelos y espada (the Spanish master Francisco Roman taught this). I know they brought adargas too. So here is one of the few verifiable cases of West vs Non-West martial arts-- and with the West winning.


Sad but true, but the conquistadors imagined they were hidalgos, or knights. Cortez imagined himself a gentleman and, given the constraints of the culture, he really was. I know it's not kosher, but I happen to admire the guy because, well come on, he was an amazing conqueror.

[Rod-Thornton]

So how does this tie into individual study of Renaissance Martial Arts? For that matter, it would be kind'a interesting if the Aztecs had left written combat manuals on their temples, tombs, or in artwork of the period...but after reading through this thread at least twice I am uncertain if all we're discussing is the immorality/amorality/force majores'/and impunity of a Renaissance culture's meeting with a stone-aged one.

I do wonder tho', about the source and a better description in the posting of how (hardened) plate armor might have been a liability against obsidian (volcanic glass) arrows, as all the obsidian (and flint) I've worked with over the years can be brittle. Speculation is fine, but what conclusive source opinions are being promulgated here?

[s_taillebois]

M. Thornton,
The fact that obsidian was so brittle was amongst the
reasons it gave the Spanish problems. The Aztec arrows wouldn't penetrate plate armor, obviously, but upon impact the obsidian point would fragment, and shards would impact into areas not covered by the armor (such as the eyes). And by the nature of obsidian, the shards would be fairly capable of cutting in and of themselves. So it was a problem to the Spanish. Accordingly, some began to prefer Gambesons (or even mentioned Aztec fiber armor) as an alternative. That and the pragmatic problems of wearing plate armour in a place like the lowlands of Mexico.
Diaz mentions this in his journals, as do several others who fought the Aztec/Mixtec and Maya.

[s_taillebois]

M Angeles,
Quite correct about the influence of the chivalric code of the reconquista. And it had a lingering influence for an incredible span of time. For example in the diocese of Pueblo Colorado, there were still ecclesiastical reconquista/crusada 'taxes' being paid...up to the mid 1950's.
And that...is getting about as far as this thread can be stretched, while trying to stay on track...

[Brendan Murphy]

Would the abundance of watery terrain and the heat also be an explanation?

Near as I can tell, once Cortez had aquired Tlaxcalan allies, the Spanish were relegated to the role shock troops and battlefield assassins. Mesoamerican cultures had not developed proper formation fighting as opposed to groups fighting as individulals, and combined with the Spanish advantages in technology and training, not to mention the experience and discipline of the conquistadors, lead to their defeat.

The Spanish infantry would spearhead the assault, and while they wouldn't win by themselves, they would open up the Aztec ranks for the Tlaxcalans to exploit. The Tlaxcalan warriors numbered in the tens of thousands, and had a fiercer reputation than the Aztecs, to the extent that the Aztecs had given up trying to conquer them. Instead, they had invested the Tlaxcalan nation in Aztec territory.

While this was going on, Cortez lead his knights and officers into the Aztec formations on horseback. They would attack and kill the Aztec commanders and their bodyguards, who they could indentify thanks to their very conspicuous constumes.

So in summary, The Spanish would attack the integrity of the army formations and the chain of command, while the Tlaxcalans would provide the mass to destroy these formations and match the weight of Aztec numbers.

Against the Incas, fully armored conquistadors slaughtered them in cartload lots through skill at arms, disicpline, and the Inca's reliance on numbers. The Incas were a much harder prospect thanks to their knowledge of bronze and their willingness to press home attacks regardless of loss or lack of effect on the enemy.