Aztecs & Ancient Romans

Hard to say. It would also depend on a number of factors such as awareness of each other, terrain, and political situation. The Aztecs were hardly a rabble, and if you assume they are aware of the Romans' advantages, they would be able to fight them the way that would minimise them and maximise theirs: ambushes, skirmishing, engagements on broken ground etc. It would be an achievement to convince them, given the intense dedication to honour that characterised Aztec military culture, but they did appreciate smarts. In that case, maybe 3:1 could be enough. If they are able to go guerilla (which, Aztecs being Aztecs, is unlikely), even less.
Uh, what? A lot of stereotyping here, I see. The Aztecs were quite fond of ambushes and general trickery. Nothing dishonorable about that. We're not talking feudal European knights here. They saw nothing wrong with digging holes in the ground to hide their best warriors, then faking a retreat across that ground so that said warriors could spring out behind the enemy army following them. And then there's general deception and other things besides. They even once dressed a bunch of kids up as warriors enough to look convincing from a distance so that the enemy would be distracted by them while the real army surprised them.
 
Uh, what? A lot of stereotyping here, I see. The Aztecs were quite fond of ambushes and general trickery. Nothing dishonorable about that. We're not talking feudal European knights here. They saw nothing wrong with digging holes in the ground to hide their best warriors, then faking a retreat across that ground so that said warriors could spring out behind the enemy army following them. And then there's general deception and other things besides. They even once dressed a bunch of kids up as warriors enough to look convincing from a distance so that the enemy would be distracted by them while the real army surprised them.

But that's not really different from the standard stuff Frontinus writes about. I am thinking of doing things like giving up territory, not defending cities etc. Granted, I haven't read too much about Aztec warfare, but everything I've read suggests that the prestige of the Empire mattered a lot in holding it together. Outright guerilla warfare strikes me as an unlikely option under such circumstances, cunctator-style evasion more plausible.
 
There was this one night, where the Spaniards almost "went down for the count." And they had crossbows and guns. Not so hot on numbers.

500-1000 Spaniards and 20.000 allies trying to flee from Tenochtitlan attacked by 50.000 aztecs... two weeks later in open field 200 Spaniards plus 1000 allies defeat and rout a force of several tens of thousands aztecs.
 
But that's not really different from the standard stuff Frontinus writes about. I am thinking of doing things like giving up territory, not defending cities etc. Granted, I haven't read too much about Aztec warfare, but everything I've read suggests that the prestige of the Empire mattered a lot in holding it together. Outright guerilla warfare strikes me as an unlikely option under such circumstances, cunctator-style evasion more plausible.
I was correcting the whole thing about them thinking even skirmishes and ambushes were beneath them.
they would be able to fight them the way that would minimise them and maximise theirs: ambushes, skirmishing, engagements on broken ground etc. It would be an achievement to convince them, given the intense dedication to honour that characterised Aztec military culture, but they did appreciate smarts.
 
The Aztecs were at their peak over a thousand years after the Romans.
Nevertheless I think if a large Aztec army from its peak "went at it"
with a Roman army from its peak of the same number the Romans would win hands down. What do you think?

this is ASB, put it in that section. Or better yet, leave it for spacebattles.net or similar fora.
 
If the Aztecs meet a Roman army unprepared, almost no plausible level of numerical superiority will save them. The shock value of cavalrty and armoured formation fighting is too high.

In addition to which, there comes a point at which extra numbers are meaningless because they can't be brought forward. There's a limit to how many men can be brought to bear at a given point; the rest just stand in line in the rear, adding nothing to the battle. In a set piece battle, given the technological differences and assuming good Roman leadership, the Aztecs wouldn't seem to have a prayer.
 
If we are talking late period then the Aztecs could bribe the Germanics.

If we are talking about that level of mutual awareness, the Aztecs would surely buy metal weaponry and horses, study Roman tactics and meet them on equal footing, actually. The disparity only exists if the two sides are dropped onto each other by some alien space bat level of coincidence.
 
Top