AHC: Mississippi River valley supports China-sized civilisation

Deleted member 67076

Iori said:
The Bering Land Bridge ceased to be thousands of years before Horses were domesticated and most likely before any draft or herd animals were used.
Click to expand...

And yet you still had migrations through the straits later on.
 

RGB

John7755 يوحنا said:
While that is true and I agree the Spanish would not have won if not for the Tlaxcala. But still the Aztecs outnumbered the Spanish and Tlaxcala and still lost, mainly due to the Spanish charge in combination with the large amounts of infantry they gained from the Tlaxcala. Also what great pitched battle did the Aztec win? I do not know of a single battle in which the Spanish and the Tlaxcala (and other allies) were beaten by the Aztecs.
Click to expand...

Probably La Noche Triste, or something, or the Mayan successes against the very early Spanish expeditions. But I think it's silly to argue that a Eurasian army, with its millenia of metallurgy and innovation and tactical advances, would be seriously challenged by something like the Aztecs in the field. Nowhere in the entire history of expansion and colonisation in the early modern era was that true as a long-term trend.

However, it's also a bit misleading to focus on that too much. European and Muslim armies were generally close to unbeatable also in Africa and parts of Asia and so on, but they didn't always win wars due to logistical bottlenecks, diseases, demographic imbalances, decentralization of local resources, difficulties of maintaining control, and other reasons. Wars aren't only about the battlefields.
 

John7755 يوحنا

RGB said:
Probably La Noche Triste, or something, or the Mayan successes against the very early Spanish expeditions. But I think it's silly to argue that a Eurasian army, with its millenia of metallurgy and innovation and tactical advances, would be seriously challenged by something like the Aztecs in the field. Nowhere in the entire history of expansion and colonisation in the early modern era was that true as a long-term trend.

However, it's also a bit misleading to focus on that too much. European and Muslim armies were generally close to unbeatable also in Africa and parts of Asia and so on, but they didn't always win wars due to logistical bottlenecks, diseases, demographic imbalances, decentralization of local resources, difficulties of maintaining control, and other reasons. Wars aren't only about the battlefields.
Click to expand...

I understand that, it is true that at this same time period the Spanish would loose in a war against the Songhai or Mali due to logistical problems, enemies with better tactics and an enemy willing to ambush and fight asymmetrical. The Aztecs might have survived had they fought with ambushes and initiate a long war that Cortes might not have been able to afford (disease hinders this). I have already said it was the Maya's willingness to fight asymmetrically that kept them alive opposed to the Aztecs, who wanted a decisive battle.
 

RGB

John7755 يوحنا said:
I understand that, it is true that at this same time period the Spanish would loose in a war against the Songhai or Mali due to logistical problems, enemies with better tactics and an enemy willing to ambush and fight asymmetrical. The Aztecs might have survived had they fought with ambushes and initiate a long war that Cortes might not have been able to afford (disease hinders this). I have already said it was the Maya's willingness to fight asymmetrically that kept them alive opposed to the Aztecs, who wanted a decisive battle.
Click to expand...

The Aztec dominance in the region was built entirely around winning decisive battles. That was their claim to empire and dominion. I don't think, psychologically, they had much of a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top