Early Spanish Colonization

[JeanryChandler]

All very true, and interesting.

But lets not forget, the effects of smallpox, the thousands of Indian allies who took their side, the political instability of the Aztec empire, the handful of Cortez' cannons, crossbows and muskets, the score or so of heavy cavalry, even the boats he later built, none of this change one important, stunning fact.

Five hundred men landed in a huge, foreign land with an alien climate and filled with unknown dangers. Before they acquired their Tlaxcal and other alies, they had to prove themselves. These 500 men fought, for the most part hand to hand, against in some cases ten to one odds, sometimes for hours, and they held their ranks and perservered.

When it boils down to it, there were thousands of guys with macuhuitils and spears and bows and javelins and rocks, fighting a few hundred guys with swords and small shields, halberds and helmets, and padded coats. This is pretty amazing.

They also, initially, had NO supplies, NO logistics, and often starved for lack of it, especially for lack of meat which remained a major problem throughout the campaign.

Faced with a hostile land of unknown expanse, with the certainty of thousands of enemies to be defeated, they burned their ships and dedicated themselves to total victory.

And again, if memory serves (I too want to re-read Bernal Diaz) when the now reinforced Spanish force of 2,000 or so (?)were fighting their way out of Mexico city, filling in the bridges between causeways block by block for days, while their compatriots were sacrificied within their view upon the pyramids and the gongs of Tlaloc rang, most of their allies were actually outside of the city.

The crazier yet part, I remember reading how Cortez initially told his troops they could keep any gold they could carry out, and many were so heavily laden down they drowned crossing the canals... but when they finally did fight their way out of the town (weeks?) later, he changed the rule and reposessed most of the gold and jewels, except from those among his entourage

Lets also not forget the rather incredible way Cortez acquired his Spanish reinforcements themselves..

All in all, a fascinating story. Would make a terrific movie if someone could do it right (unbiased and realistic) in spite of the political sensitivity of the issue...

It's also, whether you think they were good, bad or ugly, a stunning lesson in the lethal effectiveness of Western military technique in this era. It is no accident that the Spanish were (arguably) at the pinnacle of miltiary power in Europe at this point in history. These conquistadors were stone killers, some really bad boys, literally the most deadly folks in the world at this time. People you wouldn't want to play around with...

Jeanry

[Ernest Brant]

Francisco Pizarro's conquest of the Incas is also interesting and fairly well parallels that of the Aztecs. Pizarro landed in Peru with a large number of soldiers ( I do not recall how many) and was at first thought to be a god the Incas had been expecting for some time. Apparently the fact he was riding a horse contributed to this belief since the god they expected was to be riding a beast of some type. Pizarro's goal was conquest, wealth, and spreading Catholicism, all for the glory of Spain, and Pizarro. Like Cortez, Pizarro arrived in Peru at the right time. The former Inca king divided his empire between his two sons when he died, never a recipe for peace and tranquility. There was considerable conflict between the brothers and Pizarro was able to enlist elements of the northern portion of the empire against the central government in Cusco, Peru. Without the assistance of considerable numbers of northern empire warriors, it is unlikely Pizarro would have been able to defeat the Incan army. After defeating the Inca army, Pizarro and his troops entered Cusco, where over time he had his men, assisted by his allies, tear down all the Inca buildings to their foundations and built European/Spanish style buildings on those foundations.

Pizarro and his men, like Cortez, were a tough, hard bunch who cared little for the fairly advanced civilization they found there. Their primary motivation was the considerable quantity of gold possessed by the Incas. Pizarro was a vicious, greedy, brutal person and many, if not most, of his followers and friends eventually turned against him. He was eventually killed in the streets of Lima one night by a former friend. Few mourned his lose. Of course Peru became the political and administrative center of the Spanish conquests in Central and South America. None of the above is judgemental, just reality.

I was posted to the US Embassy in Lima for three years and learned about Peru's history, which is interesting. I also had the opportunity to travel to many historical sites, even though there were two very active terrorist organizations in the country side at the time, 1985-1988. Visiting Cusco, it is obvious that the current building there were built on the beautifly dressed Incan foundation stones.

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

They also, initially, had NO supplies, NO logistics, and often starved for lack of it, especially for lack of meat which remained a major problem throughout the campaign.

Yeah. Most people don't realize that Cortez was not the first person to lead troops into the Yucatan and the mainland of the Americas. There were about four more expeditions that came before him. All four basically failed because of a lack of provisions. There were also many more expeditions that came after Cortez and Pizarro and those failed too, largely because of provisions (Cabeza de Vaca is a famous example and Cortez himself led a failed expedition to California-- which he named). Likewise, in trying to conquer my country, the Philippines, the Spaniards expended five expeditions, three of which failed because of logistical concerns. It's boring, but provisions and logistics can count more than fighting ability or any other consideration, and in that regard the Europeans weren't always that much better than their opponents.

On the other hand, the Europeans were well-nigh unbeatable on the battlefield. They did not fight just as mounted shock troops, the rodeleros were at the very front, used to pin down the enemy soldiers while the cavalry would find the schwerpunkt and hit it with shock action. It is interesting to note, however, that this fighting style was 'outdated' in Europe, where the Spanish had already moved to the pike-and-arquebus armed tercios formed by Gonzalvo de Cordoba. Only one other civilization in the world had a combination of firearms and long spears: the Japanese under Oda Nobunaga, who even invented the countermarch when firing guns.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Amiel

It's boring, but provisions and logistics can count more than fighting ability or any other consideration, and in that regard the Europeans weren't always that much better than their opponents.

That is one reason that i think this is relevant to HEMA, because if you look at most battle's the side who win's usualy has the best logistic's, even if both side's are bad with regard to logistic's, it can mean winning or losing, that is partly why most battle's in Europe are in the late summer or early fall when far from home, crop's are ripe for your provisioning and foraging and if you deny your enemy food for the winter then there will be less of them to fight next year.

Jeff

[Robert Rolph]

All very true, and interesting.

But lets not forget, the effects of smallpox, the thousands of Indian allies who took their side, the political instability of the Aztec empire, the handful of Cortez' cannons, crossbows and muskets, the score or so of heavy cavalry, even the boats he later built, none of this change one important, stunning fact.

Five hundred men landed in a huge, foreign land with an alien climate and filled with unknown dangers. Before they acquired their Tlaxcal and other alies, they had to prove themselves. These 500 men fought, for the most part hand to hand, against in some cases ten to one odds, sometimes for hours, and they held their ranks and perservered.

When it boils down to it, there were thousands of guys with macuhuitils and spears and bows and javelins and rocks, fighting a few hundred guys with swords and small shields, halberds and helmets, and padded coats. This is pretty amazing.

They also, initially, had NO supplies, NO logistics, and often starved for lack of it, especially for lack of meat which remained a major problem throughout the campaign.

Faced with a hostile land of unknown expanse, with the certainty of thousands of enemies to be defeated, they burned their ships and dedicated themselves to total victory.

And again, if memory serves (I too want to re-read Bernal Diaz) when the now reinforced Spanish force of 2,000 or so (?)were fighting their way out of Mexico city, filling in the bridges between causeways block by block for days, while their compatriots were sacrificied within their view upon the pyramids and the gongs of Tlaloc rang, most of their allies were actually outside of the city.

The crazier yet part, I remember reading how Cortez initially told his troops they could keep any gold they could carry out, and many were so heavily laden down they drowned crossing the canals... but when they finally did fight their way out of the town (weeks?) later, he changed the rule and reposessed most of the gold and jewels, except from those among his entourage

Lets also not forget the rather incredible way Cortez acquired his Spanish reinforcements themselves..

All in all, a fascinating story. Would make a terrific movie if someone could do it right (unbiased and realistic) in spite of the political sensitivity of the issue...

It's also, whether you think they were good, bad or ugly, a stunning lesson in the lethal effectiveness of Western military technique in this era. It is no accident that the Spanish were (arguably) at the pinnacle of miltiary power in Europe at this point in history. These conquistadors were stone killers, some really bad boys, literally the most deadly folks in the world at this time. People you wouldn't want to play around with...

Jeanry

Note, that...Guaius Julius Caeser was outnumbered by the united Gauls, I think...5 to 1...or 10 to 1, but were able to defeat them. And they were much better armed than the Aztecs...or the Incas! If you watched the begining of the HBO series: "Rome", you see Julius Caeser defeating the Gallic king that united the Gauls by their hatred of Rome against Caeser. His troops strip the Galic king, forced him to kneel down, and kiss the Rome golden eagle, and swore an oath to Rome.

[JeanryChandler]

Note, that...Guaius Julius Caeser was outnumbered by the united Gauls, I think...5 to 1...or 10 to 1, but were able to defeat them. And they were much better armed than the Aztecs...or the Incas! If you watched the begining of the HBO series: "Rome", you see Julius Caeser defeating the Gallic king that united the Gauls by their hatred of Rome against Caeser. His troops strip the Galic king, forced him to kneel down, and kiss the Rome golden eagle, and swore an oath to Rome.

Vercingetorix, who was only to be strangled like 5 years after his public humiliation IIRC


Yes, there were a rather enormous amount of similarities between the conquest of Gaul and the conquest of the Aztecs, the only major difference in some ways is that Cortez was essentially making up his plans on the fly while Julius Ceasar had the benefit of 350 years of near constant warfare with the Celts to base his strategy upon.

One of the similarities between the Aztecs and the Gauls, which were exploited by their relative antagonists (Caesar and Cortez) was their attittude toward intelligence.

Like Caesar, Cortez had a near total command over military intelligence, due to his own modern, ruthless appreciation of it, and the seemingly naive honor-system of his enemy. I remember this is one of the things which struck me so forcefully when reading Bernal Diaz.

Cortez scouts would capture some enemy nobles. He would treat them well, and ask them what they were up to. "Well" they would brag, "our forces have prepared an ambush for you up the road. You don't stand a chance."

Cortez would of course change plans accordingly. It went almost exactly the same with Caesar, the Celtic warrior class had this cultural prohibition against lying, it really didn't occur to them to lie to control information for warfare.

Rand corporation actually did a fascinating essay on this in the late 90's, discussing the use and control of Tasctical and Strategic intelligence (information) by the Mongols (with their arrow riders), the Romans, and the Conquistadors among others. I think it was called "Netwar and Cyberwar".

Intelligence is definately another one of those hidden key factors.

Jeanry

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

That is one reason that i think this is relevant to HEMA, because if you look at most battle's the side who win's usualy has the best logistic's, even if both side's are bad with regard to logistic's, it can mean winning or losing, that is partly why most battle's in Europe are in the late summer or early fall when far from home, crop's are ripe for your provisioning and foraging and if you deny your enemy food for the winter then there will be less of them to fight next year.

Yeah, and the Aztecs did not really develop this notion of economic warfare. I don't recall them attacking enemy crops or supply lines, unlike Cortez. Ironically, it was probably the Aztecs who had this notion that wars ought to be decided by "Decisive Battle" rather than the Spanish. During the Renaissance, decisive battles were very rare, after all.

[John_Clements]

Hi
Just a quick note, I've made Conquistador tactics and arms a special focus of my research for several years now and have a substantial article in the works for future posting. There's no doubt at all it was their superior martial skills, tactics, and strategy that produced their success. Every other factor would have been insufficient if they were not able to have fought so effectively as they did hand to hand. Period.

Gotta run.

JC

[s_taillebois]

True, generally the Aztecs did not pursue an scorched earth policy in regards to resources, since they were effectively a tribute state it would have been harder for them to concieve of such a tactic.
And as noted, one of the marked limitations to Aztec power was poor intelligence...there had been other Spanish incursions...of which the Maya certainly could have attested.
Arrogance to some degree was an Aztec problem...they felt they didn't need to deal with events outside of their empire.
And the 'victory' effect...since they had generally been quite successful in the tribute wars leading to their empire...they underestimated the Spanish, arrogance again. And when the fighting started, it shook them psychologically.
The Mexican writer Carlo Fuentes once stated, "But the Aztecs didn't know the world which existed outside of the boundaries of the Aztec empire. But when the Spanish arrived, they died of fright. There was another world they had never thought of, and they were paralyzed to death". *
* Bill Moyers "A world of ideas"

[JeanryChandler]

You and I are in complete agreement for a change.

Jeanry

[Justin Lompado]

Jeanry,

Have you read "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Davis Hanson? If not, you should, because it seems that you included a lot of points that parallel his regarding Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs, as well as your statement: "It's also, whether you think they were good, bad or ugly, a stunning lesson in the lethal effectiveness of Western military technique in this era". For everyone else, I would recommend reading C&C. It would be very helpful for this discussion and many others of it's type that may come up in the future.

[Justin Lompado]

J. Amiel,

I have to disagree here. Decisive battle and shock collision of infantry on an open battlefield are part of the essence of the Western martial tradition. The Aztecs, with their flower wars and sacraficial obsession, cannot compare on any level.

[R.J. Stringer]

You can win a fight with poor logistics, but you'll never win a campaign that way. Martial prowess AND logistical skills...now theres a mighty scary combination, as history will tell anyone listening.

[JeanryChandler]

Note, that...Guaius Julius Caeser was outnumbered by the united Gauls, I think...5 to 1...or 10 to 1, but were able to defeat them. And they were much better armed than the Aztecs...or the Incas! If you watched the begining of the HBO series: "Rome", you see Julius Caeser defeating the Gallic king that united the Gauls by their hatred of Rome against Caeser. His troops strip the Galic king, forced him to kneel down, and kiss the Rome golden eagle, and swore an oath to Rome.

Another really, really important factor of this I forgot to point out, is that nearly all of the Legionaires wore heavy body armor, including usually at least a helmet and a mail corslet, plus sometimes greaves... while the Celts lacked armor for the most part, except for a few of their chieftains. If you have ever sparred you can imagine that this makes a huge difference. Factoring in missile weapons which both sides relied upon heavily (javelins) makes it even more significant. If you read Caesars "Gallic Wars" you'll notice he describes many battles as being extremely close until the strain finally started to tell on the Gauls which he describes as them "giving out", implying their courage or their committment faltered. The reality is more likely that they were suffering a much higher rate of attrittion and finally reached a high enough casualty rate that they could not continue...


Kind of comparable to attrition warfare between the air arm of the Imperial Japanese Navy and that of the US Navy in WW II. The Armor and Self Sealing Fuel tanks on the US side meant that while they actually got somewhat of the worst of it in the actual air to air fighting, they lost far fewer pilots and ultimately this made all the difference.

Jr

[JeanryChandler]

Thanks Justin I'll look for that book.

JR