his/14896175.txt

-----
--- 14896175
How did Spain manage to conquer the entire Aztec empire with only a few hundred men.
--- 14896177
>>14896175 (OP)
They did it with tens of thousands of Indian allies.
--- 14896193
>>14896177
including one of the main three cities of the aztec empire and being allied to nearly everybody surrounding the lake
--- 14896279
>>14896175 (OP)
Better technology with a side of european diseases
--- 14897892
Clever people.
--- 14897966
Proto-mexcrements can't fight
--- 14897969
good strategy + Cortes ego
--- 14897972
>>14896175 (OP)
250.00 tlaxcallan warriors. M*xicas seethe to this day.
--- 14898203
>>14896175 (OP)
>How did Spain manage to conquer the entire Aztec empire with only a few hundred men.
Theres books written about the process but basically the same thing can be said about many wars.
Lenin conquered the russian empire with a dozen of his buddies
--- 14898211
>>14897972
More interesting to me is why after the aztec defeat the other indios didnt just took over the city. Why did they just allow the spaniards to boss over them?
Might have been a reign of terror type of order, where indios enforced the spaniards rule.
--- 14898221
>>14896175 (OP)
Europoids were like walking biological weapons with all the new foreign diseases they brought from the old world.
--- 14898307
>>14896175 (OP)
Aztec may have been rich but it was a small territory like Portugal small
--- 14898374
Spaniards were basically 2000 years ahead of Aztecs in military development.

It might sound un-impressive but their swords vs clubs covered with obsidian blades is a huge difference.

They also had a few guns, better armor, horses, military tactics.

All things considered every spaniard was worth at least 6 native soldiers. 150 spaniards could easily slaughter 1000 natives.
--- 14898597
>>14896175 (OP)
They merely mimicked what their Moorish rapefathers did in Iberia.
--- 14898629
>>14898211
It didn't matter. More Spaniards would have shown if Cortes failed. Once they got a base in Hispaniola, It was over for the natives
--- 14898670
>>14896177
>>14896193
That's even more based. Sun Tzu-tier shit; fighting wars with troops that aren't yours.
--- 14898685
>>14896193
Why do zoomers all believe in the whole "the spanish got allies because the aztecs were meanies" narrative when the second most important native ally of the spaniards were themselves Aztecs who were the second most powerful member of the Aztec Triple Alliance and who switched sides literally just because they were pissed at Montezuma interfering in their succession crisis a few years earlier?
--- 14898738
>>14898374
>horses, military tactics.
these two are basically what made them win
--- 14898742
>>14896175 (OP)
Racial superiority.
--- 14898749
>>14898742
ANE is superior to European farmers, so no.
--- 14899047
>>14898749
Cope, iberian bull is superior to any race/animal in the planet. Turbochads like our president 500 years ago would have breed thousands if not tens of thousands of virgin indians in question of months.
--- 14899124
>>14896177
>>14896193

False.

Spaniards had to defeat the Txacalans 3 TIMES in very cruenty battles before Txacalans decide to unite with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs. In these 3 battlets thousands of txalancans were killed by the 300 Spaniards and that is why they decided to join because they thought the Spaniards were invincible.

If the Txacalans were so decisive, how they did never try to defeat the aztecs by themselves after the centuries they had been oppresed by them?? If they were so decissive why they were never able to defeat the aztecs for centuries??

Spaniards went to the code of the Aztec Empire. The txacalans did almost nothing at first. After they saw the Spaniards kidnapping Moctezuma and making him prisoner, they went to seek revenge against the aztecs for the centuries of oppression. 

Txacalanas, despite their numbers, were the 1% of the impact in the defeat. 99% of the victory has to be credited to the 300-400 Spaniards.

And Spaniards played in a away house. In a tropical weather where powder was almost unusable because of the humid tropical weather.
--- 14899128
>>14899124
*went to the core.
--- 14899138
>>14898629
>would have
What did actually happen?
--- 14899190
And a few Spaniards also defeated the Incas and other empires without help, showing that they did it by their own bravery and smartness.

The very same people that later during the 1500s-1600s ruled the fields of Europe as the unbeated Tercios making many European powers to surrend to them in many battles. Totally undefeated for 150 years and a major power for 300 years across Europe.

The same people that did whatever they wanted in the Mediterraneo as the Almogavares. Our current king is King ot Athenas because the Almogavares defeated all the tribes there.
--- 14899321
>>14899190
Ok so explain what actually happened after the aztecs were defeated
--- 14899391
>>14899124
>If the Txacalans were so decisive, how they did never try to defeat the aztecs by themselves after the centuries they had been oppresed by them?? If they were so decissive why they were never able to defeat the aztecs for centuries??
>the aztecs for the centuries of oppression. 
The Aztecs had been an empire for less than a century by the time the spanish arrived and were fighting the Tlaxcaltecs for less than half of that time, and the Tlaxcaltecs were "losing" to the point of being "oppressed" for far less time than even that. They did in fact soundly defeat the Aztecs in battle several times before (the poor state of Tlaxcala when the spanish arrived was more because of Aztec trade embargos in a deliberate attempt to starve them out rather than military defeats) and they didn't destroy them simply because they were fighting a defensive war in their own turf rather than helping out a foreign army in getting rid of them once and for all.
--- 14899437
>>14899190
>And a few Spaniards also defeated the Incas and other empires without help
The Inca Empire wasn't conquered without help either, after Atahualpa got kidnapped, the spaniards swiftly allied with rebellious andean ethnic groups and northern Inca nobles who had previously sided with Atahualpa's rival during the preceding civil war, groups like the Chachapoya and Chancas, the latter even getting their own Coat of Arms for their role during the conquest.
And which other empires do you have in mind exactly? The spaniards had Tlaxcaltecs and other Nahua allies with them in just about every other war against other mesoamerican states and empires, they had andean allies during their wars against the Mapuches in South America as well. The modern state of Guatemala and an Salvadorean ethnic group called the Pipil both have Nahua names given to them by Tlaxcaltecs allies of the conquistadors who got there.
--- 14899494
>>14899391
For less than a century? Prove it.

Anyways the actual names of the tribes does not matter. 300 years earlier X tribe was oppressing Y tribe. The same people basically with the same ethnicity or cultural background, just different names. People that diverged 400-500 years earlier and funded different groups. So, the “aztecs” could have been oppressing the same groups with different names for 400 years.

>>14899437
“After Atahualpa got kidnapped. For that to happen, if it was so easy, nobody did it before. You had to have bravery and smartness. It seems the other tribes lacked it. 

Conclussion, the other tribes almost had no significance in the result. 98% of the merit was Spaniards.

Why the oppressed tribes did not have success for centuries? If it was just kidnapping the chief…then why they did not do it? 

Again, it was a massive merit for those few hundred Spaniards going to a totally different world, absolutely unknown, and going to the core of centuries-old empires and submitting them in a few months.

It is like aliens arriving on Earth and submitting half the world in a few days. Some retards would align with the aliens but this does not mean that these retards were decisive.
--- 14899601
>>14899494
>For less than a century? Prove it.
The Aztec Triple Alliance was founded in 1428, before that the Mexicas of Tenochtitlan existed as a minor city-state in the middle of Lake Texcoco, they were vassals of the larger Tepanec Empire, which they eventually toppled with the help of several other indigenous states, including the Tlaxcaltecs who would later become their enemies. The two other city-states of the alliance were likewise Tepanec vassals. It's simply a well-estabilished historical fact. The Flower Wars against Tlaxcala began in the 1450s, and by the 1510s they were still firmly independent despite Aztec attempts at subduing them.
>Anyways the actual names of the tribes does not matter.
Of course it does, and Tlaxcala wasn't a "tribe", it was a well-organized state whose history was recorded after the conquest, that specific period of Central Mexican history isn't some shadowy web of guesswork about the status of tribals, we have plenty of concrete information on it, written by both spaniards who met and interacted with those people and their descendants.
>After Atahualpa got kidnapped. For that to happen, if it was so easy, nobody did it before. You had to have bravery and smartness. It seems the other tribes lacked it. 
The Inca were very efficient in stamping out dissent, they went as far as banning entire ethnic groups from owning weapons and doing soviet-style ethnic group relocation. And it was a very specific set of circumstances that led to Atahualpa getting captured, doesn't really apply to the locals.
>Why the oppressed tribes did not have success for centuries? If it was just kidnapping the chief…then why they did not do it? 
>Again, it was a massive merit for those few hundred Spaniards going to a totally different world, absolutely unknown, and going to the core of centuries-old empires and submitting them in a few months.
Both of the major empires conquered by the spaniards were less than a century old though.
--- 14899840
>>14899601
Again, they are the same people in the same area with different names. 

Just like in Spain there was the celts, the iberians, the basques. Then Hispania Romana, then the Visigoths and Suevi, then the moors in the half south, then Castilla, Leon, Aragon, Navarra.

The same people with different names and different empires. I am sure the aztecs (or their previous names) were oppresing other tribes. The issue here is that the oppresed never tried to defeat the aztecs or did not have success until the Spaniards arrived there and id it in a few weeks. So, this is the decisive factor.
--- 14899902
>>14899840
Except that as i said, we know exactly what the people who would later become the Aztecs were doing before the empire the spanish conquered was a thing, that is being a mid-tier city-state that was subordinate to another, they were not fighting the Tlaxcaltecs, whose history and status at the time is also fairly well known.
--- 14901037
fddfg
--- 14901054
>>14899124
What are you doing trying to argue about the conquest of Tenochtitlan when you don't even know how to spell Tlaxcala? stupid mongoloid faggot retard
--- 14901395
>>14898374
Why was the entire America continent so inferior technologically? Is it just that their cultures were so oppressive that it was impossible for people to think in the ways necessary?
--- 14901437
Firstly, the OP pic is both extremely inaccurate and low image quality. Here's a better quality image: https://www.historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Emmanuel-Leutze-Painting-of-the-Battle-of-Tenochtitlan-MH-May-2022.jpeg though the accuracy is still dogshit: The metal armor/helmets are from decades later, most only had gambeson and the Aztec there are depicted like NA native americans instead of, you know, actual Aztec forces with armor and the right ornaments. The architecture is also a mix of different Maya architectural styles, and without any paint, rather then Aztec

Pic related is more accurate but still has incorrect Spanish armor

To actually address the question, the obvious answer is they didn't, because:

A: The entire Aztec Empire was not conquered across the events you're describing, a handful of cities in the Valley of Mexico were, including Tenochtitlan. After Tenochtitlan's fall, many Aztec subject states ceded to Spanish authority, but many also didn't

B: There was more then a few hundred men involved. Even if you're exclusively counting Europeans, there were a few thousand Conquistadors involved across the entirety of the Cortes Expedition: Cortes initially had hundreds of men with him (maybe approaching 1000), but also hundreds of auxiliaries ranging from slaves to cooks and attendants, and over the course of the expedition would get additional hundreds of Conquistadors and auxiliaries, most notably from Panfilo de Narvaez's forces. He never had more then 1000-1500 with him at most at any one time, but IIRC over the whole expedition there would have been maybe 3000~ conquistadors and more then that in auxiliaries

And of course, the elephant in the room is that there were also over 100,000, quite possibly over 200,000 soldiers and auxiliaries from local Mesoamerican states working with Cortes JUST over the course of the final invasion of the Valley of Mexico/the Siege of Tenochtitlan, and additional thousands in points before then.

1/?
--- 14901448
>>14896175 (OP)
>guns
>germs
>and steel
--- 14901509
>>14896175 (OP)
Their military doctrine / technology / tactics were far beyond what the Aztecs had ever faced
The empire and surrounding regions were weakened by the diseases the Spaniards brought with them
They managed to defeat and/or co-opt tribes who weren't exactly fond of the Aztec culture dominance (see Flower Wars)
--- 14901794
>>14897966
You will never have a stable border
--- 14901811
>>14896175 (OP)
>only a few hundred men
This is like the 10th time this myth has been regurgitated. 
Even a wikipedia article would inform you that the Spanish became allies with thousands of natives.
--- 14902363
aasdad
--- 14902652
>>14896175 (OP)
Superior weaponry I guess
--- 14902834
>>14899124
they were decisive as Spanish assets, not as conquering forces since that were the Spanish themselves
--- 14903071
>>14896175 (OP)
Because the Holy Ghost was with them
--- 14903075
>>14901811
So the 100 spaniards used divide and conquer strategies to come out on top, that still means spain only utilised a 100 men for the conquest, unless youre telling me spain paid these natives as mercenaries?
--- 14903087
>>14903075
No because Cortez actually had like a 1000 spanish guys with him by the end of the whole ordeal
--- 14903199
>>14899124
>In a tropical weather where powder was almost unusable because of the humid tropical weather.
Way to out yourself, retard. Especially after those long wall of text.
--- 14903326
>>14903087
wow totally different, now that's not impressive at all

No.
--- 14904598
AASADS
--- 14905278
ill save you mesoanon
--- 14905300
I dont believe that indios were capable of "fielding" huge ass armies. These were cavemen that went out in small bands, you can take on them one by one
--- 14905308
>>14896177
>>14896193
thats crazy, so Spain isnt to blame? also what native allies were present when the Spanish MAULED the aztecs in a 100:1 battle at the first set of meetings?
>eyyy ese dey only beat mi ancestros due to outnumbering us wif native allies
nope, they completely smoked your entire race, those allies were just as treacherous until they saw tiny indio manlets could not physically damage a Spanish BVLL.
--- 14905312
>>14905300
You are not white, Jose. Those "indios" are your people.
--- 14905437
>>14905308
>you're wrong because I hate mexicans
/pol/tranny cope
--- 14905442
>>14899124
>Spaniards had to defeat the Txacalans 3 TIMES in very cruenty battles before Txacalans decide to unite with the Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs. In these 3 battlets thousands of txalancans were killed by the 300 Spaniards and that is why they decided to join because they thought the Spaniards were invincible.

according to diaz the spanish barely survived these attacks and had to constantly bargain with prisoners in order to stay alive. He says the older warchief recognized the spanish as useful for an alliance against the aztecs after a few waves of attack and decided to ally with them

diaz attributes this to act of divine intervention from god. why are you portraying this as a glorious victory when the spanish themselves say they only survived due to tlaxcalan mercy?
--- 14905443
>>14905437
he's a faggot obsessed with latin america. it's best not to reply to him.
--- 14905509
>>14905308
>also what native allies were present when the Spanish MAULED the aztecs in a 100:1 battle at the first set of meetings?
What are you talking about exactly? The spaniards already had a couple thousand native allies from 2 different states with them when their first victory against the Aztecs happened at Otumba
--- 14905521
>>14905509
Otumba was not the first contact between the Spanish and the Aztecs that became combative.
--- 14905526
>>14905437
you're wrong because (You) are mexican
--- 14905527
>>14905521
La Noche Triste was an Aztec victory.
--- 14905566
>>14905526
>>14905437
--- 14905916
>>14905527
La Noche Triste was again not the first conflict between Aztecs and Spaniards.
Do you read just the wiki pages on these things?
--- 14905966
>>14905916
Then tell me what you think it was my guy. The spaniards arresting Aztec tax collectors? The Cholula massacre? The Toxcatl massacre? None of those were "battles" and all of them ocurred when Cortez already did in fact have native allies, so i don't get how it's relevant for our conversation here.
--- 14906004
>>14898685
Because Aztecs would brutally sacrifice prisoners of war constantly? In addition to the usual abuses of an empire
--- 14906028
>>14906004
Human sacrifice was an universal mesoamerican practice, every single one of the peoples that the Aztecs conquered did it as well and everyone in the region was raised on the mindset that being sacrificed was a good way to die, it was 100% unrelated to some native polities joining the spaniards.
>In addition to the usual abuses of an empire
They usually didn't do that, they weren't an empire in the traditional sense, with a few exceptions, they didn't actually rule any of the places they conquered, only extracted tribute in the form of material goods while letting the local government structures completely intact.
--- 14906029
>>14905308
t. @conquistador_tradcath_1988
--- 14906036
>>14906028
Yes, but Aztecs would regularly raid to keep the practice going
--- 14906049
>>14905308
You will never be white. White people are repulsed by you when you talk to them as if they're the same as you.
No matter how much you suck up to whites, they will always see you as a pice of shit.
--- 14906069
>>14906036
>but Aztecs would regularly raid to keep the practice going
They didn't do that either, you're probably talking about the flower wars, which weren't raids but more like ritualized warfare that included at least some consent from both sides, and were more of a way to keep wars going between the professional warriors during the harvest seasons when most other men were busy harvesting crops and shit. The flower wars also did not involve nations conquered by the Aztecs, the targets of the flower wars were the independent states of Tlaxcala, Cholula and Huexotzinco, all of which the Aztecs planned to eventually conquer for real one day, hence why Cholula had become an Aztec ally by the time the spaniards arrived and why Tlaxcala was suffering from an economic blockade by the Mexica. In conclusion, the flower wars were most certainly not just a religious thing.
Raids like those shown in shit like Apocalypto (which i assume is probably most people's basis for that belief) don't even make sense within the context of Aztec culture and religion. The specific ritual, religious doctrine and military system that led the Aztecs to expand their Empire relied on the sacrifice of specifically warriors captured in battle, they weren't aiming to capture any random commoner to be sacrificed, in fact by the later years of the Aztec Empire, it was said that even warriors from less prestigious states were considered undesirable.
--- 14906133
>>14898221
>muh smawlpocks
This affected their allies just as bad. More so, even.
--- 14906149
>>14901395
Geography wasn't on the New World's side. Old World had the Med and some comfy big rivers to sail up and down, which weren't hit by hurricanes and volcanoes all the time.
Without steady trade, populations tend to inbreed and then they become retarded. Trade picks up, they get less retarded... but then some big climate downturn hits and everyone goes back to the jungle and gets retarded again.

For the New World analogue, think Indonesia / New Guinea. Also a backwater, also got a good dosage of white penis - mostly Dutch in their case.
--- 14906153
>>14906133
>More so, even.
How so? tenochtitlan collapsed from the plague when it was under siege because on top of it they had no water and no source of food
--- 14906196
>>14905966
>massacres
they were massacres because the Spanish were so dominant, the Aztecs had the advantage of numbers and ambush, they still failed because swarthy manlets are terrible at fighting.
--- 14906203
>>14906153
Look, ese, either youre le powerful warrior race who had to be conquered by natives, in which case you absolve the Spanish of more or less everything because they were just 'lucky' your treacherous race devoured itself, or you can blame the spanish but you are a race of cowardly servile midgets who have legitimate grievances but you everyone will see you as an inherent slave caste.
--- 14906216
take your meds and never reply to me again
--- 14906242
>>14906196
Except both massacres consisted of spaniards slaughtering a bunch of entirely unarmed priests and civilians, the second one while they were busy with a festival, an event was immediately followed by a spanish defeat at the Noche Triste
--- 14906247
>>14906203
Anti-psychotics, take them now.
--- 14907047
>>14903075
>de Soto takes 700 hundred veteran conquistadors up into North America
>gets kicked up and down the Mississippi by stone age savages
>slinks back to Mexico with less than half his men and nothing to show for it
lel some master race, Paco
--- 14907055
>>14896177
How did they get them from India to the Americas?
--- 14907060
>>14905308
The question was how the Spanish toppled an empire, not how they killed 10,000 enemies with 100 men.
--- 14907064
>>14898685
>montezuma was a meanie who interfered with our succession crisis