WI Inca & Aztec fought in formation.

[Riain]

WI pre Columbian civilisations fought their battles in similar formations to Europeans? Would their weapons change, within the limits of their stone, wood, bronze technology, eg would they develop heavy shields and long spears/pikes/sarrisas? How would the Spanish go when confronted by several thousand men in a shield wall?

 

[robertp6165]

WI pre Columbian civilisations fought their battles in similar formations to Europeans? Would their weapons change, within the limits of their stone, wood, bronze technology, eg would they develop heavy shields and long spears/pikes/sarrisas? How would the Spanish go when confronted by several thousand men in a shield wall?

Given that the Aztecs fought to obtain captives to sacrifice rather than to kill, that is extremely unlikely in their case without changes to their culture which would make them virtually unrecognizable as Aztecs.

The Inca, however, might well have done it, had bronze not been such a recent discovery (only about 150-200 years before the arrival of the Spanish). Inca armies fought to kill, and for reasons of statecraft rather than for religious reasons, just like Europeans did. But their pre-bronze weapons...primarily stone maces...were not really suitable for close-order fighting, and they didn't really have time to properly learn to use their bronze armaments before they were conquered. Have bronze be discovered in the Andes in say, 1,000 AD instead of 1250-1300, and you might very well see something of the kind develop by 1432...

As to what effect it would have, that's hard to say. They developed a really nasty bronze halberd-like weapon that would have been quite effective if used in a mass phalanx-like formation, especially in stopping the charges of Spanish cavalry. That is provided, of course, that the extra security provided by being in such a formation allows the men within it to remain in formation despite their fear of the horses themselves. Or the Spanish guns.

Assuming they are able to remain in formation, the Spanish have a real problem. Contrary to popular belief, most Conquistadors did not wear metal armor, other than, perhaps, a helmet. Most would have worn leather jerkins, quilted armor, or other light-weight armor. Only the wealthiest Conquistadors had metal armor. So the bronze Inca halberd would be quite effective against them. And even the men in metal armor have vulnerable points, since there is no evidence that ANY Conquistador wore full plate armor.

In the end, the Inca still will fall. Disease will do most of the dirty work, and Spain will eventually send across a large enough army armed with guns and pike tercios to handle the Incan phalanxes. But they will survive quite a bit longer and the conquest will be a much more bloody process for the Spaniards.

 

[Riain]

I assume that if shield-wall style formation fighting was in vogue in the Americas then everyone would do it, those that didn't would be defeated, so Cortez would first face the Talaxa in their shield-wall. I don't imagine that their stone weapons would be highly effective, but with less than 1000 men how many could he lose in each engagement before having to abandon it? If the Aztecs arose in an environment they would have to find some other belief which didn't involve quite so much human sacrifice. Perhaps raiding for small numbers of captives rather than going to state-state war for bulk captives.
Would these peoples develop fortifications to withstand these powerful formations, and heavy projectile weapons like ballista etc to break them up?

 

[robertp6165]

I assume that if shield-wall style formation fighting was in vogue in the Americas then everyone would do it, those that didn't would be defeated, so Cortez would first face the Talaxa in their shield-wall.

Not necessarily. There is no evidence that the civilizations of Mexico and those of the Andes had any contact to speak of, or that military innovations traveled between civilizations. If they had, for example, it is likely that the Incas would have developed some equivalent to the Aztec sword-club, which could have been a highly effective weapon in the type of warfare the Inca waged. It is likely that atlatl-thrown javelins would have made their way to the Incas as well, but they don't seem to have done so (the Incas used slingers in the missile role). Likewise, bronze never got north into Mexico. So it is entirely logical that the shield wall would arise in one area but not the the other. And, as I said earlier, the Inca are a far better candidate.

If the Aztecs arose in an environment they would have to find some other belief which didn't involve quite so much human sacrifice. Perhaps raiding for small numbers of captives rather than going to state-state war for bulk captives.

Simply changing the number of captives sacrificed is not going to make a difference. You have to change the very reason they make war. They have to make war for reasons of statecraft, not for as a means to gain captives for sacrifice. Make such a profound change to their culture and they won't be Aztecs anymore. The ripple effects from such a change would end up making the cultures of Mexico unrecognizable to us.

Would these peoples develop fortifications to withstand these powerful formations, and heavy projectile weapons like ballista etc to break them up?

Heavy projectile weapons weren't really used on the battlefield in ancient times. Being relatively immobile, they couldn't keep up with the ebb and flow of a battle and were subject to being overrun. These weapons were used in siege warfare. The use of shield-walls is not going to make cities any more vulnerable than they already are, and so the fortifications which the siege engines are intended to counter won't develop.

 

[Riain]

I would imagine the the Inca and Aztec would inherit an already developed tradition of formation fighting formed over the previous millenia, rather than inventing it on the spot. This would mean that the Talaxa and the Chimu fought in this fashion when defeated by the upcoming Aztec and Inca. If the Aztec want to survive and prosper they would have to steer their relgion to face the realities of their environment. They won't be the bloodthirsty Aztecs we know, but they will be more powerful adversaries when the Spanish arrive.The Romans certainly, and I also think the Macedonians, used field artillery catapulta to fire into enemy formations prior to the actual contact of formations. Field fortifications and obstacles could also be used to break up the all important cohesion of infantry formations, and add the two together and you push siegecraft to a higher level.