Early Spanish Colonization

[Justin Lompado]

Yes, definitley check it out. It is a balanced book on European military history, because it avoids the usual bias against or for the West and analyzes the facts. It is also readable, I don't know your inclinations but some people are turned off by dry-fact books that are essentially encyclopedias (personally I like those because they're not biased and I am able to analyze much more). This book is written a little more conducive to the actual read than just stating facts. Overall it offers a point of view different from the traditional analyzation of guns and technology. I don't want to spoil it though so that's it, but if you can swallow 450+ pages of military history and cultural analysis you'll enjoy it.

[s_taillebois]

Interesting the Gaullic wars came up as an example, insofar as both Ceasar and Cortez used the very effective tactic of literally, or psychologically co-opting allies of the rival power.
Cauhtemoc, eventually was unable to call on Indian allies, even after the victories of the 'night of sorrows'. Cortez had some actually fighting for him, others he effectively psychologically negated by effective use of a 'perception of superiority'.
Ceasar, did have Gaullic allies, and was fairly effective about using other enemies of the Gauls, as his allies. Vorcengenitrix, was also as much beaten by his own side, as by Ceasar. Apparently he repeatedly tried to advise them, that their usual style of warfare was not going to work agaisnt the Roman's. Ceasar was fairly effective in goading the Gauls into stupid actions.

[Justin Lompado]

Yes, I am in total agreement. Both Caesar and Cortes had native allies who were important to their success (probably a little more so for Cortes, as he had less than 2,000 troops over his whole campaign). I don't beleive I said anything to the contrary and I certainly didn't mean to imply that, all I did was make a reply to

"Ironically, it was probably the Aztecs who had this notion that wars ought to be decided by "Decisive Battle" rather than the Spanish."

That was the purpose of my last post.

[s_taillebois]

M. Lompado,
Well it seems we we're in complete agreement, just phrasing in a different manner.
Concerning the Aztecs, in some terms they had victors disease. By Cortez, they had began to forget that they could lose. Although the Aztec culture had a strong element of fatalism, by that point they also were very, very ensured of their own superiority.
Cortez, not exactly modest either. But, he was within living memory of the long campaigns (both economic and military) it took to exclude Moslim military power from Spain. That might have pre-conditioned him (despite his cavalier tendancies) to the necessities of his approach. Consolidate allies, gain resources, and etc. He, as you note, might have preferred the 'battle glorious', but wasn't quite in the position to pull it off.
One off, or pitched battles agaisnt the Aztecs, well the Spanish didn't do that well at night of sorrows. So they didn't have all the advantages. Siege tactics (especially when Cortez came back to Tenochitlan with artillery) seemed to work better, and subverting allies.
Interesting though, that also the Nautl/Aztec had an imperial structure...they seemed not to have done as effectively what the Chinese and European's often did in that circumstance. Aztec strongpoints, seemed to have been fairly weak when compared to the European Castle, or Chinese fortifications.
And not sure where to look, but I'd be inclined to believe the Aztec never developed the equivalent of a trebuchet, or a mangonel. If they had, at least some functional response to Cortez's artillery would have been available.
But disease would have weakened them, anyway, whether they were in the field or besieged in some strongpoint.

[Justin Lompado]

Like you said we see eye to eye.

"Interesting though, that also the Nautl/Aztec had an imperial structure...they seemed not to have done as effectively what the Chinese and European's often did in that circumstance. Aztec strongpoints, seemed to have been fairly weak when compared to the European Castle, or Chinese fortifications"

--> That seems to be the case. Also keep in mind, though, that the Aztec capital was a complex city of buildings and large temples on an island in a lake, whose only access to the mainland lay either through its causeway(s) or by canoe. So, while the Aztecs definitley would hae been unable to successfully breech a strong European castle, they had a different form of defense that was suited to their situation. All they had to do was patrol the waters in canoes and take the situation from there (meaning they might fight on land later on if necessary). In fact, the structure of the city meant that the Spanish had to fight to retake it, block by block, and all the while withstand being fired upon from atop the surrounding buildings. It was, then, effective in its own way (although I don't know how it would have fared against a really powerful Spanish invasion force of, say, over 20,000 or something).

"And not sure where to look, but I'd be inclined to believe the Aztec never developed the equivalent of a trebuchet, or a mangonel. If they had, at least some functional response to Cortez's artillery would have been available."

--> I also do not beleive they had the trebuchet or any like seige weapons. Those seem to belong to the Chinese and Europeans (I could be wrong though). Its ironic actually, because the Aztecs and all of the Native Americans were occupying what was the region most abundant in natural resources in the world, because the human population was so spread out. They had all of the tools necessary to make weapons equivalent to (or at least of the Iron Age) those of the Spanish. It seems all they were missing (I say all but its a HUGE thing) was the, for lack of a better term, ability to do so. In fact, Cortes mined ore from nearby volcanoes during his campaign so that he could keep his low level of supplies up. Couple that with the abundant woodlands and forests of Mexico at the time, and the makings for a very powerful empire (the Aztecs, and all other Native Americans, were not really powerful when compared to Europeans, Chinese, etc.). And I mean powerful not in the sense that they could beat their native foes, but could have defeated Cortes and his tiny contingent.

[s_taillebois]

M. Lompando,
You've very astutely summed the entire situation up.
Perhaps the reasons the Aztecs, didn't fully utilize their technological potential, could have been religious, or a result of their tribute economy.
Religion, the split between the Huitzipochtli and Quetzoqautl adherents probably took it's pyschological toll. Cortez on the other hand, was a product of a very militant Christianity.
The Aztecs, in some regard similar to the Romans, their usage of human tribute (labor and otherwise) might have preconditioned them not to use their technology to its potential. Like the Roman's building the huge mills at barbazol...but not using the basic tech they had already developed as far as steam power. One was favorable to a slave, tribute economy...the other wasn't...
And true, Tenochitlan was a hard city to take. Mayhaps the reason for their approach, was that the male population were the Aztec armies. So they might have been reluctant to abandon their particular home in favor of a direct service to a strongpoint. In some ways, more admirable than the European system...of hoardings in the castle, but expelling the lower orders in sieges, or letting nearby towns burn out, as one waited out the siege.

[Logan Weed]

I'd say the whole situation was almost entirely decided by European geographical advantages.

Europeans have access to both horses and cattle, both powerful work animals and in the case of horses, military tools. Central Americans had...Llama's?

While Quinoa boasts a very high nutritional content I seem to remember some kind of large disadvantage compared with wheat. Probably a more work intensive cultivation requirement or something like that, I'll look it up if I remember...

Europe and Asia (and Asia Minor) all reside along roughly the same latitude and thus all share roughly the same climate. Thus a population adapted to life in such a climate should find it quite easy to migrate population across this latitude and thus ideas. What I'm trying to say is that the similar climate throughout the very horizontal Euroasia facilitates rabid cross polinization of technology, resources and culture. Central America (and the American continent in general) is just the opposite - It's extremely vertical layout makes for vastly disparate climates resulting in great migration difficulty.

The Aztec homeland is mountainous while Europe is very flat. Due to this Europeans will have a much easier time growing an abundance of food. An abundance of food means more time for the population to focus on other things, such as inventing better ways to kill each other.

Europeans have had writing since just about the beginning of time, the Aztec lack this completely, enough said.

I've always found it odd, however, that the Aztec never managed to develope metalworking to any real extent. So many disparate cultures have developed this independantly at such early points in their development that it just strikes me as odd how this never occured in the Americas.

Europeans lived in close proximity to animals. As far as I know this was not the case with the Aztecs. No animals means no abundance of diseases and thus no natural immunities to European diseases.

Geographical advantages lead to technological and cultural advantages. Europeans held so many advantages over American civilizations I just can't foresee a European defeat as even possible, germs or no germs. If Cortez had not been successful there would have been another fleet and another fleet and still more fleets until someone accomplished it.

Even in Europe, cavalry has managed to defeat vastly larger numbers of infantry consistantly even though European armies had been dealing with that cavalry for ages. The steel armed and armored European cavalry seems more or less invincible against Aztec weapons. Exhaustion is the only thing I could possibly see stopping a group of European cavalry. Just imagine how many Aztec could be killed before reaching this point! And that's assuming their army hasn't already routed in terror.

[John_Clements]

Hi Logan

Geographical determinism is not the factor here. The elements involved are not advantages of animals and plants from neolithic times, but the independent cultural ideals that grew much later. Ideals are what matters. Ideals lead to values---values that reflect what and how and why you do things with your environment. Europe had cultural values the Mexicalis simply did not. Their values are what accounts for their superior martial skills and martial technology.

Again, consult Hanson's "Carnage and Culture," and Lynn's "Battle" ---these are a firm rebutall to the guns, germs, and steel hypothesis.

JC

[Justin Lompado]

EXACTLY. I mentioned C&C earlier in this thread because it is extremley relevant.
That is a must-read book for Everyone.

And, I mentioned before, the Spanish were already using local resources to resupply themselves (such as mining ore from volcanoes). Obviously the Aztecs (and all other American civilizations) were sitting on the world's natural resource gold mine, but then we must ask why they didn't use it to the effect that Europeans and Asians did. The only answer can come from some form of cultural phenomenon or persuasion, because everything else (environment, human ability etc.) is beyond our control.

[Logan Weed]

I have Carnage and Culture on reserve, thanks!

That would be John A. Lynn?

[Stacy Clifford]

The Aztec homeland is mountainous while Europe is very flat. Due to this Europeans will have a much easier time growing an abundance of food. An abundance of food means more time for the population to focus on other things, such as inventing better ways to kill each other.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I just got back from two weeks in Spain a month ago and this part of your hypothesis doesn't hold up for them. Spain is actually the most mountainous country in Europe by area, and the central part of Spain that I visited looks a heck of a lot like west Texas, which isn't notorious for being a good place to grow things. Livestock raising is the main agricultural activity in the interior.

Also, the Spanish conquest of the Americas came hot on the heels of the Reconquista, which was basically 400 years of nearly continuous warfare against the Moors to take back Spain into Christian control. Spanish Catholicism was militant because it was shaped that way by the country's history, so it's hard to blame them for being what they were under the circumstances of the time. The last city was taken from the Moors in the 1480s, and within 25 years the Spanish explorers were encountering human sacrifice in the New World, not to mention staggering wealth. Spain was not a particularly rich country prior to the 1500s. Combine the influences of war-honed military skill and religious zeal and a chance to escape poverty, along with the burgeoning sense of adventure and discovery throughout Europe, and even if the technology gap hadn't been so great I still doubt that the Aztecs would have withstood the Spaniards for very long. I do believe that "guns, germs and steel" plays a part in the story, but there was way too much more going on to attribute European success entirely to those factors.

[Gene Tausk]

Hi Logan:

You wrote:

"Europe and Asia (and Asia Minor) all reside along roughly the same latitude and thus all share roughly the same climate. Thus a population adapted to life in such a climate should find it quite easy to migrate population across this latitude and thus ideas. What I'm trying to say is that the similar climate throughout the very horizontal Euroasia facilitates rabid cross polinization of technology, resources and culture. Central America (and the American continent in general) is just the opposite - It's extremely vertical layout makes for vastly disparate climates resulting in great migration difficulty."

I'm going to agree with John and Stacy here. You are essentially quoting from Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" which argues for, essentially, geographic determinism. This does not answer why Western civilization (starting with the Greeks) developed the way it did, which was unique in the history of the world. As has already been stated, read "Carnage and Culture" for a much more persuasive argument.

As for Europe "not being mountainous," well, all I can say is: (1) look at a map (physical, not political) and (2) my dad is Romanian by birth and spent his summers backpacking in the Transylvanian Alps. He would find your comment somewhat puzzling.


--------------->>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[JeanryChandler]

Well you know me, perpetual devils advocate...

In spite of usually arguing on the cultural side, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I actually think it's a bit of a combination of both, though more cultural than environmental, the two are linked. Maybe 80% carnage and culture and 20% guns germs and steel. Most of the near equatorial nations became more completely dominated by agricultural systems, from which there simply was no alternative food source. In Egypt, for example, you are pretty much dependent upon the annual crops from the Nile delta, compared to say Scandinavia where you might have a variety of food sources from herd animals to hunting to fishing throughout most of the year. I can't really back this up with a bunch of facts at the moment but I personally feel that these environmental factors encourage trends toward more decentralization and social independence in the Northern Hemisphere and more authoritarian forms in the southern or equatorial areas.

One of the things which convinced me of this was comparing Native American tribes in North America vs. South America with say, the Celts or Germans of Iron Age Europe with places further south like Persia, Mesopotamia and Egypt.

You also have other inicidental factors like say the role constant heat plays in wearing armor...

Just a few thoughts.... (ducking)

Jr

[Gene Tausk]

Hi Jeanry:

I agree that there are obviously environmental factors that contribute to the development of civilizations. The issue I have with Diamond's book is that not only does he place everything on the "environmental determinism" platter, he later contradicts himself and argues that there exist social and cultural factors that will determine how a civilization evolves and changes (his chapter on "Necessity's Mother"). Bad scholarship, IMHO.

However, I must disagree with you concerning your statements on decentralization and social independence in the Northern Hemisphere based on a variety of foods and climates. The Russians have a land where you could pretty much get an wide variety of food sources, but much of their tragic history involves social systems which discourage independence and are very tightly centralized (central committee, comrade?)

Hope all is well.


------------------>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[JeanryChandler]

Gene,

Good points. I have to admit, while I appreciate the authors scholarship, I was not pleased with Guns Germs and Steel, it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Like you I found some of the arguments very questionable and frankly, much of the book felt like the agenda came first and the facts were selected later to fit with it, rather than the other way around.

Problem is though I liked it a lot better, I think it's also true to some (though less) extent of Carnage and Culture, which I just read. It's unfortunate that academic study gets politicized but it seems to be inevitable particularly in todays climate.

As for Russia, you are right good point. Definately an exception to the rule, as for that matter the rest of Northenr Asia. Without sounding like I'm making excuses though, I do think Russia was much more exposed than much of the rest of Europe, the steppes opening up aceess from semi-nomadic horseman.

Also, keep in mind that before the arrival of the Mongols and their heavily centralized cultural influence, even in Russia you did have histories of European style confederative socieites, the Kieven Rus is a good example of that.... a bunch of independent fortified city states loosely organized under a grand prince who was (IIRC?) elected by the various towns. The towns themselves had some kind of power balance between the local princes and the councils of elders (Veche?) which had their own militiarily effective militias.

You could kind of compare it to Germany pre and post Prusssian takeover. The Classical scholars (Tacitus et al.) describe a lazy, hard partying, authority hating race that doesn't fit the modern stereotype of a Gemran. In Medieval / Renaissance times Germany was divided into dozens of principalities and (effectively) city states.

By the Franko-Prussian War, WW I and (especially) WW II the Germans seemed to have developed this innate sense of discipline and love of authority ... but was that always really part of their true culture?

Something to consider anyway...

Jr