Strength Comparison of Meso-America

I'm aware that on this site some areas of history get more love than other (byzantophiles come to mind) while others are left as a footnote in the larger scheme of how to make the Romans rule the world. As such, I'm not expecting too much from this thread, just a general idea of how the Mesoamerican polities compare to the old age ones.

An example of what I mean is:

  • How long would the Aztecs last against the Romans.
    Would the difference be abysmal or am I overestimating the war capacity of the technologically stunted Americans?
    How much of this is because of a lack of advancement or lack of need for implementation (think Chinese when it comes to anything)?

I find this a good question to ask because in OTL, all the more advanced empires were royally screwed over. Taken by surprise, exploitation of politics to bring about undue peace, disease, not to mention unstable relations with subject peoples and recent civil war.
My goal is to know just how much they could take from Europe in a less lopsided fight.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No guns, but germs and steel are tough opponents;

I'm aware that on this site some areas of history get more love than other (byzantophiles come to mind) while others are left as a footnote in the larger scheme of how to make the Romans rule the world. As such, I'm not expecting too much from this thread, just a general idea of how the Mesoamerican polities compare to the old age ones.


An example of what I mean is:

  • How long would the Aztecs last against the Romans.
    Would the difference be abysmal or am I overestimating the war capacity of the technologically stunted Americans?
    How much of this is because of a lack of advancement or lack of need for implementation (think Chinese when it comes to anything)?
I find this a good question to ask because in OTL, all the more advanced empires were royally screwed over. Taken by surprise, exploitation of politics to bring about undue peace, disease, not to mention unstable relations with subject peoples and recent civil war.
My goal is to know just how much they could take from Europe in a less lopsided fight.

Of course, so is the Atlantic Ocean, especially for anyone we'd call Romans...;)

The Church is a different thing, however...

The Meso-Americans were defended by that big blue thing off to the east pretty well for several centuries. Tough to get around that for any pre-gunpowder Eastern Hemisphere civilization, certainly not in enough numbers to make a difference.

A shipload of Norse sailors vs. a troop of Mexica raiders, maybe? No horses evens things out a little, but even there, the Norse have (at least) iron, etc.

Best,
 
You'd have to clarify your conjecture. Are the Romans invading? If so, at what period of time? The Roman period was over by AD 500. If you're talking about the time frame of 200-300 AD, then this would coincide with the rise of the classic Mayan empire (roughly). The Aztecs and Incans didn't reach their peaks until late 1400s - so no Romans around then.

The reality is that the ocean was a huge obstacle for any force at that time. If we assume that the Aztecs at the height of their power (1500) decided to invade Portugal, and they were aware of the trade winds that would allow them to cross the Atlantic to Portugal. They'd have a serious problem with making the trip in their largest dugouts - even the 100 person ones were no match for a serious Atlantic storm. They'd likely be massacred by cavalry and guns on arrival or soon thereafter.

The Romans had the ships, so IF they were aware of the route CC sailed, they could have done the invading. I think if they encountered the Mayans, they'd likely beat them easily. Cavalry would be a significant weapon as horses were unknown in the new world. The iron weapons of the Romans significantly better than the stone weapons of the Mayans.
 
In an ASB-setup deathmatch, without having to allow for distance or germs, the Romans stomp.

Iron weapons, armor, horses, some really lethal war machines and a much more lethal doctrine of war. As far as I am aware, Aztec warfare had a lot to do with taking captives. The Romans were about winning.
 
Top