im puzzled by the desruction of 2 huge indian armies ie.the incas and the aztecs ,by a few platoons of spaniards..was it iron and gunpowder? it seems impossible given the numbers of spanish troops.i would like to hear your thoughts on this....
The defeat of the Central American empires during the 16th century was due to a combination of factors, but one of which was the European technological advantage. After all, the Aztecs and Incas did have weapons capable of piercing armour (slings), most Spanish soldiers were not armed with gunpowder weapons, and Amerindian numbers were truly vast; mere equipment does not explain the Spanish victory. One important factor was what a certain historian has called the Combined Arms Revolution that occured in Europe in the early 16th century. It consisted of the closer cooperation of the various troop types in any given army: shock (pikes), shot (guns) and cover (cavalry). This cooperation meant that all different troop types supported each other in battle instead of operating independently and more or less randomly with a more or less common goal. The result was that European armies, but particularly Spanish ones since they took the lead in this development, were much more capable of achieving their objectives even when vastly outnumbered. Another matter of great importance was the fact that, in the case of the Aztec empire, many neighbouring states and tribes had wanted to rid themselves of Aztec oppression for a long time; the Spanish easily found allies with massive armies of their own. It was these allied armies that bore the brunt of many battles the Spanish fought agains the Aztecs, and it negated the advantage of numbers the Aztecs enjoyed. Indigenous warfare was also mostly aimed at taking prisoners for sacrifice to the gods, instead of killing the enemy - which is exactly what the Spanish did.
Another major factor was disease - the Spaniards brought with them various diseases that the Americas had never known, like Smallpox, which devestated the native populations. I would ask how a sling can penetrate armour that a longbow could not.
there are numerous factors. Horses, the south and central americans had never seen them and thought of them as demonic. Metal armour and weapons and fighting tactics. The central and south amercians often fought battles where the object was to subdue and capture your enemy in honorable one on one combat. The sacrifice of captured soldiers was as important as the battlefield victory. The spainards did not hold such values and concentrated on killing with blades as quickly as possible. The central and south amercian weapons would therefore also have problems with the metal helmit and armour the spainards wore. There were also numerous other factors, the initial diesease that the eurpeans brought which killed and weakend the local population, the Mayans were also at the end of a civil war, their king was dead and the two contenders had just fought with the victor weakend and immeadiatly captured by the spainards) and the loser dead. The aztecs thought the europeans looked like their god and so were friendly to them until it was to late. FNG
the Inca society was at it's peak in size and complexity when the spanish arrived. It hadn't been around long but each society was generally built on the ruins of a past one. FNG
Mayans had already disappeared by then. In both cases, politics (pitting tribes against each other) and religion played a very important role.
Not necessarily. The Incan empire was in the mist of a civil war when Pizarro arrived. Disease had killed the Incan emperor and his successors, so when Atahuallpa(sp?) took power he wasn't seen as the legitimate king by much of the population. Disease definently played a big part in the Spanish conquest of the New World. Up to 95% of the population in some areas were killed off before they had ever even seen a Spaniard. I'd say the root source of the Spanish victory lay in the vast experience European peoples had in warfare. With so many large and powerful countries located in a relatively small area, one must learn fast to survive. The Incas and the Aztecs, however, did not face this dilemma. Empires in South America were few and far between, therefore they never really got a chance to experience and learn from real, constant warfare. It's rather ridiculous how a peaceful (relatively speaking, of course) empire is punished for not being brutal and expansionistic (is that even a word?).
The south and central american civilisations were no where near peaceful. They were brutal and brought up with constant conflict. It was their style of war that was different. Like the Samarai and Mongol hordes. The Europeans fought an unforgiving total war where the aim was to destroy your opponent on the field by what ever means. The amercian civilisations fought battles where the aim was often for an individual soldier to capture an equal foe in one on one combat to be brought back alive for sacrifice. But I agree that the society was in chaos due to the dieseases and rumours that swept in front of the spanish. The empire was still technically at it's biggest though. They were also naive of the spaniards, whose lust for gold they could not understand along with their cruilty to local populations who were just defensless. FNG
A big factor for the spanish victory was the spanish themselves they were the most feared soldiers of their times , Cortes was leadership made flesh .
the spanish were at that time prolly the best soldiers in europe from fighting the moors out of spain for the last hundred years or so..not unlike the viet peasant fighter encountered by the u.s. military in 67.fought the chinese then french then japanese then french...u.s.a. ?bring em on....
Most of their military prowess had in fact been gained fighting the French and their Italian allies during the Italian Wars of 1494-1529.
Nope, sorry, the Dutch Revolt broke out in 1568 and the Thirty Years War another fifty years later. This was all long after the conquest of the Americas.
