Pre-Colombian Iron or Steel

[NothingNow]

Wow, that's some butthurt. Seriously, you're reading so much into what I've posted that it's kinda sad.

If stone is so easy to work with and so much more lethal than the metal sword than why, pray tell, did the Old World abandon the use of stone weapons?

It's a more flexible to work, and easier to produce in large numbers, and large sizes, and you can make decent armor out of it. That's really it.

Bronze and Iron make for better, more durable tools, and often enough weapons. They won't get as sharp, or hold an edge as well as obsidian can, but good stone for toolmaking was pretty rare in the Old World, and TBH, while easy, knapping does take a while for more complex constructions.
It might take half an hour to knapp a replacement piece for a macahutil, but a couple hours for an knife blade or arrow head.

And how utterly incompetent could the Native Americans from Alaska to Patagonia be, that nation after nation toppled over despite being armed with such amazingly effective stone weapons?

Yeah, it's this new thing called disease, politics and force multipliers. Certainly you've heard of it?

Ultimately, the 'clean cut' of the sword is much more deadly than the 'rough cut' of stone, for the same reason that bullets are more lethal than metal swords despite leaving smaller external wounds.

Actually, you're wrong. It's all about the energy transmitted in an area along with what it hits. Bullets only leave a small entry wound, and create a huge cavity as it tumbles and imparts force into the tissues.

The ability to penetrate deeply into the body and puncture vital organs makes for a deadlier weapon, which is why I would much rather be slashed by one of these macahutils than stabbed by a rapier.

Yeah, the thing is, you don't slash with a Macahuitl, you hack at the target, same as you would an axe. In fact, that's a much better comparison than a rapier. They weigh about the same, although the macahuitil has a longer edge and can also be used defensively.
When you're hitting someone with something like a Machete or macahuitil, it's not just the strength of your thrust being transmitted, and allowing for penetration as in a rapier, but also the massive amount of angular momentum built up by the swing. With that it's pretty easy to shatter a collar bone, or create some other massive gaping wound. It'd be somewhat shallower than a rapier would produce, but it's also much more likely to hit an artery, blood vessel or important organ, and make said artery, blood vessel or important organ unrecognizable.

In the case of a Conquistador's curias, most were pretty light, meant to mostly protect against bullets, and deflect sword cuts. Pretty much any arrow fired with sufficient force will penetrate it, and it'll do fuck-all to dissipate the kinetic built up by a strike by something like a macahuitil, which is how you break ribs, and clavicles.

 

[twovultures]

Wow, that's some butthurt. Seriously, you're reading so much into what I've posted that it's kinda sad.

Well, that was unnecessary and more than a little rude. We're debating minutia of military history, there's no need to get huffy just because I disagree with you.

It might take half an hour to knapp a replacement piece for a macahutil, but a couple hours for an knife blade or arrow head.

And what happens when the wooden part of a macahutil breaks? Harvesting and carving that wood isn't going to be easy. Many stone tools have a wooden part that you can't just ignore, particularly as these little bits of obsidian are not really useful without their wooden frame to swing them in.

Yeah, it's this new thing called disease, politics and force multipliers. Certainly you've heard of it?

These force multipliers included metal tools, at least up until the point that Native Americans adopted metal and guns for themselves. Even then, though, their inability to mass-manufacture metal weapons, tools, and guns put them at a disadvantage. There's a reason the book was called "Guns, Germs and Steel"

Actually, you're wrong. It's all about the energy transmitted in an area along with what it hits. Bullets only leave a small entry wound, and create a huge cavity as it tumbles and imparts force into the tissues.

Good point, the bullet isn't really the best simile. However, I stand by the statement that the stabbing sword does more internal damage with less effort than the macahutil, and therefore is more lethal.

Yeah, the thing is, you don't slash with a Macahuitl, you hack at the target, same as you would an axe. In fact, that's a much better comparison than a rapier. They weigh about the same, although the macahuitil has a longer edge and can also be used defensively.
When you're hitting someone with something like a Machete or macahuitil, it's not just the strength of your thrust being transmitted, and allowing for penetration as in a rapier, but also the massive amount of angular momentum built up by the swing.

And while your hypothetical Aztec warriors are lifting up their arms to get the momentum necessary to break bones, my hypothetical conquistadors have stabbed them through the abdomen because their swords can thrust as well as slash, using much less time and energy to pierce through the human body, and giving their wielders a much higher body count on the battlefield.

It's why the axe, despite it's use as a tool, was not as ubiquitous as the sword for military use. Stabbing is very useful in a fight, and axes aren't really good for that.

 

[NothingNow]

Well, that was unnecessary and more than a little rude. We're debating minutia of military history, there's no need to get huffy just because I disagree with you.

True. I'm just in a bad mood today.

And what happens when the wooden part of a macahutil breaks? Harvesting and carving that wood isn't going to be easy. Many stone tools have a wooden part that you can't just ignore, particularly as these little bits of obsidian are not really useful without their wooden frame to swing them in.

True. So you've then got to get the lumber and cut it down and shape it, which would probably take a day or so to get everything just right.

These force multipliers included metal tools, at least up until the point that Native Americans adopted metal and guns for themselves. Even then, though, their inability to mass-manufacture metal weapons, tools, and guns put them at a disadvantage. There's a reason the book was called "Guns, Germs and Steel"

Yeah, you got me there, but on an individual level, it's not that great an advantage, . With 50+ troops, it's a serious advantage.

Good point, the bullet isn't really the best simile. However, I stand by the statement that the stabbing sword does more internal damage with less effort than the macahutil, and therefore is more lethal.

That's a really weird way of defining lethality.

And while your hypothetical Aztec warriors are lifting up their arms to get the momentum necessary to break bones, my hypothetical conquistadors have stabbed them through the abdomen because their swords can thrust as well as slash, using much less time and energy to pierce through the human body, and giving their wielders a much higher body count on the battlefield.

You're seriously underestimating the capabilities of a man with a Macahuitil, especially since he would have a sort of buckler as well, and wouldn't be standing there like an idiot.

It's why the axe, despite it's use as a tool, was not as ubiquitous as the sword for military use. Stabbing is very useful in a fight, and axes aren't really good for that.

Actually, the Axe was pretty much ubiquitous in warfare. With a large axe the trick to making it work is simply to keep it moving in a figure-8 pattern. It's tiring, but in small skirmishes it's definitely devastating.

 

[Unconsensual]

snip.

And as the Romans and all the predecessors showed stabbing weapons were more lethal and deadly in mass combat between armies. Swinging requires room and is slower and easier to predict compared to short swords. In massed or urban combat individual combat powers simply went out the window when the numbers exceeded a certain number that was easily fielded by kingdoms. It's just not useful for large scale warfare.

It's like the show Deadliest warrior: taking warriors out of context for some weird ego contest. (the latter part is more of a critique upon the show)

 

[Chris Triangle]

Actually, the Axe was pretty much ubiquitous in warfare. With a large axe the trick to making it work is simply to keep it moving in a figure-8 pattern. It's tiring, but in small skirmishes it's definitely devastating.

Ubiquitous it may have been but I seem to get the feeling that the more modern the army, the fewer axes it used.

 

[mightfly]

Look as fantastic as all this weapons knowledge is the truth is the force multiplier that gave the old world the absolute win was the Germs in Guns, Germs, and Steel. This is mainly because once the technology and knowledge arrived of steel or guns anywhere many could learn and adopt them. Germs and immunity offer no easy path to incorporation into a civilization without major impacts.

If then the conquistadors had shown up with just Guns, horses, Ships, and Steel then the natives would ave reeled from the initial damage done by the invaders but more would have learned the knowledge to replicate and utilize that technology from contact with them without dying from contracted diseases they brought passed on the knowledge, built their own versions of metal armor, swords, adopted horses, built ships, and slowly learned to make guns the americas would be far more nations mostly made of natives.

The death toll of the natives would only be 40% at most and once new food growing techniques and animals got to the new world native populations would have boomed and the genetic exchange would have seen most of the immigration from the old world absorbed.

 

[RedDogGaz]

Armour

Agree with the above that the knowledge on here is great.
I don't think I've seen any comment about armour, the discussion has been about the use of flint/obsidian/steel etc in weapons.
I understood that the Incas/Aztecs etc used flint/obsidian as it was better than steel at tearing flesh, but would indeed shatter against steel armour.
Given the armour worn by these native peoples was mainly quilted at best (iirc) then there was no need for steel weapons. I guess they hadn't made the intuitive leap to make armour out of iron / steel. Given the successes of the Aztecs / Incas why would they?
Could that be a POD though? eg An inca worker makes a flat decorative iron plate. This is worn by the Inca king and it helps him survive in a battle or assination attempt (I don't know if Inca kings went into battle or were ever assinated so bear with me). He realises the benefits of this new "armour" and gets his artisans to make more of it. Initially for him and his male heirs. Later for his bodyguard, then army etc etc. After initial successes, some bright spark makes iron weapons, and so an arms race develops.

I do agree 100% with the previous poster regarding germs and the lack of immunity of these native peoples.

Now I'm waiting to be shot down in flames by more informed people!

 

[twovultures]

Now I'm waiting to be shot down in flames by more informed people!

I think a greater POD is needed than one Incan metalsmith hammering out a plate of iron (for starters, how do the Inca know how to use iron at this point in time?), but you got it basically right. In fact, I actually used something very similar to this in my original timeline to get metallurgy more widespread, a king's ceremonial bronze hat saves his life in an assassination attempt and he realizes the value of metal armor.

It is very possible for metal armor to come before metal weapons, and to spark an 'arms race' that leads to the development of metal weapons. With both metal weapons and armor, the Natives' fighting style will more closely match that of Europe, and at least they'll know more of what to expect when the conquistadors come riding in.

 

[DValdron]

I don't really have much to offer this discussion, but just point out that swinging a ten or fifteen pound weapon is pretty exhausting. A lighter, slightly less effective weapon could well give an advantage, long term.

The other point is that supplies of flint or chert or obsidian were often localized, the quality variable, and in intensive use they could be exhausted.

Ultimately, if a culture can produce metals in substantial volume more cheaply than it produces obsidian, then metals win out.

 

[RGB]

In the case of a Conquistador's curias, most were pretty light, meant to mostly protect against bullets, and deflect sword cuts. Pretty much any arrow fired with sufficient force will penetrate it, and it'll do fuck-all to dissipate the kinetic built up by a strike by something like a macahuitil, which is how you break ribs, and clavicles.

I am very sorry but I must vocally disagree.

The world where the above statements are true does not exist in the same universe as ours and does not follow the same physics laws as ours. Munitions armour (and that could be rather bad, admittedly, because it was cheap) is still stiff so being struck with the obsidian-bladed baseball bat on it would be roughly comparable to getting struck with the same on a shield - except the torso is actually more resistant than a wrist or even a forearm.

There ARE examples of course of good-quality cuirasses being caved in and probably crushing ribs and killing the man within. Those however are not inflicted by pollaxes or anything of an equivalent energy to a macahuitil, but rather stone cannonballs.

Given how the local warriors widely used very light shields while wielding macahuitils, I would say that munitions armour with padding would not only not be defeatable by the obsidian, but also reflect the vast majority of the momentum the weapon imparted, same as a shield would, and the cotton would absorb the rest.

Of course metal armour wasn't actually all that ubiquitous among the conquistadores and you could always be taken out if someone did hit your shoulder or your neck or your face etc. but you're welcome to take a baseball bat shaped however you want and try to break something comparable to munitions plate or damage whatever is inside.

I wish you the best of luck.

Similarly, all actual tests done with realistic arrows and atlatls showed them completely powerless against (the thin and not bullet-proof) munitions plate. On a man with padding underneath, using a shield, and moving fast - I'd imagine the arrow's chances were even less impressive. You do see a lot of the longbow demos where they sink good steel arrowheads from point blank into armour that's being held stiffly in place, but you know that's not a comparable situation to the one we are discussing.

I understand that politics and germs were far more important, but steel (and powder and ships and horses, yes) is what allowed the Europeans to be able to alter the political landscape in the first place. A mere handful of Europeans were such huge force multipliers that they overturned generational trends in warfare and politics when allied with people that hitherto had been steadily losing.

It's not everything, but it's not nothing.