[beaconstudios]

Why not both? The Conquistadors had guns and steel armour and swords, versus the Mesoamericans' copper, bronze and obsidian weapons plus bows & atlatls. Technologically, the Spanish had the advantage, and won militarily. In addition, the indigenous population was ravaged by disease brought by the colonisers.

Having better weapons is not an argument to ethnic superiority. It comes down to geography and history. The myth that needs to die is that the Mesoamerican civilisations were inferior because they didn't use wheeled transport; that's a Eurocentric idea based on the idea of the wheel as "fundamental" technology, even though they help on Europe's mostly-flat land and not Mesoamerica's mountainous and heavily forested territory.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

That's interesting what you say about the wheel because the narrative I've heard is instead about gunpowder: the Conquistadores had gunpowder weapons that frightened the Aztecs and dispersed their armies without a fight, even though they had numbers on their side. I've also heard the same thing about horses: the Aztecs were afraid of horses and so broke and run at the sight of the Spaniards on horses.

These are not very well supported by first-hand accounts, for example in my favourite history book of all times, The Conquest of Mexico, by Bernal Diaz del Castillo (one of Hernan Cortes' men), there are many descriptions of battles between the Conquistadores and the Aztecs and the Aztecs don't run away - the gunpowder and the horses make a great impression on them but they stay their ground and fight. Except, in Bernal Diaz's telling anyway, they are used to fighting ritualistic battles, where the point was to capture some of the enemy's men, to later offer up as sacrifices to their gods. So the Aztecs are playing for points, in a sense, whereas the Spaniards are fighting dirty and going for the throat. Obviously, the Spaniards have the tactical advatage and it's not because of their weapons and armour, or their steeds.

Another detail almost always overlooked is that the Spaniards were allied to local Mexicans that were enemy to the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan, particularly the people of Tlascalla. So in many of the battles with the Aztecs, the few hundred Conquistadores Cortes has with him are joined by thousands of Tlascallan warriors. This information is almost always left out of the narrative of the overwhelming technological superiority of the Conquistadores that allowed them to win despite being fewer in number. In truth, the forces of the Conquistadores joined by the Tlascallans and other enemies of the Aztecs were comparable in size with those of the Aztecs.

Finally, when the Aztecs decide enough is enough and start fighting for real, the Conquistadores run for their lives. This is the tale of La Noche Triste, The Sad Night, when the Conquistadores try to escape Tenochtitlan under cover of darkness with all the gold they've looted from Moctezuma's vaults, after he was killed (by his own subjects, according to Bernal Diaz, but, well... he would say so, wouldn't he?). They are chased through the streets of the city by the Aztecs who are in open revolt and catch and kill them one-by-one. Most drown in the waters around the city, many weighed down by the loot they cling to, stubbornly. Just a few barely escape with their skins and some of the gold. It's a sad night indeed- and it really puts the kibosh on the Conquistadores' crushing superiority, technological or other.

[beaconstudios]

I think La Noche Triste speaks to the superiority of infantry with melee weapons to cavalry with muskets in close quarters urban fighting. Tenochtitlan was an absolute maze, and the Aztec defenders knew it well because it was their home.

I do agree that the alliance with Tlaxcala is underplayed in the pop culture understanding of the conquest.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I don't remember this very well and my copy of Bernal Diaz's memoir is half a continent away, but I think that most of Cortes men were not "cavalry" as such. Some had horses but most were on foot. Also, I seem to remember the Aztecs that attacked them in Tenochtitlan were basically a mob at that point, armed with makeshift weapons. It goes without saying that they had the advantage of knowing their own city better than the enemy, but the general point is that they didn't fear the guns and horses of the Spaniards as much as is commonly believed.

[beaconstudios]

Yeah that's fair, and I can believe its a lot less likely to damage morale if you have the Spaniards on the run, on home turf.

[Jetrel]

Yeah, this hews pretty close to what I've heard; that the conquistadores acted mostly as a "catalyst to rebellion" for an enormous native population that hated the Aztecs, but felt powerless to overthrow them.

When these strange foreigners showed up and offered an alliance, their mysterious/inscrutable prowess (technology, foreign backing of unknown power, clear ability to ship in men and arms) helped give the rebels the confidence to give it a go.

[gota]

But if the huge population of 'primitives' does not die out massively from disease, soon they are adopting the techniques and material of the 'advanced', no? Even if they can't readily adapt to mining, metalworking and smithing, they sure can steal and plunder weapons and horses and gradually become more and more competitive

Not to mention that guerilla warfare is effective like few other things

[beaconstudios]

Primitives isn't the right word for the Mesoamericans. They were a socially advanced society; their circumstances just didn't lead them to develop the large scale military hardware and techniques that Europe did.

I would assume they did loot guns and horses from their defeated adversaries, yes. The only scenario in which that makes you more and more competitive is when you acquire comparable numbers of said resources, and can use them as effectively as an army that has been trained in their use. I don't think either is the case, but this is just me hypothesising because I only know the high level details of the conquest.

[nxmnxm99]

They had better tech and horses. Certainly not "outnumbering" them. That + their immune systems is why they won.

[beaconstudios]

I think you replied to the wrong person, I said the same thing as you.

[PicassoCTs]

Heavily forested is a culture attribute. If you have iron weapons, your land is not heavily forested.