Idk, from what I've read the fighting was pretty hardcore for the Spaniards. They also initially had to fight the tribe who became their allies without any local help.

By the end it was very much an all hands on deck thing, and the only reason their native allies stuck with them is because the war had gone so bad that if they lost they knew they'd be wiped out in revenge by the tribes on the other side. It was a win or die situation on a cultural level.

@Eiregoat @caekislove @matrix The Spanish frog stopped them because they worked together in a cohesive fighting unit. The Spanish tercio formation was the mainstay at the time and required everyone work together and especially protect one another. Their pikemen defended the musketeers who covered the roundshiers who protected the pikemen. The aztecs had no knowledge of war or discipline with nothing more than running forward and spear chucking.

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure that's false on all counts.

The aztecs were very familiar with working as a unit towards a goal. Their style of warfare was focussed on taking captives to take back home as slaves, which was the primary means of social climbing for anyone who wasn't born noble. This required close cooperation of units of men working together with various weapons to take their opponents down alive.

The spanish regulars absolutely did fight in disciplined infantry units, but Cortez' expedition was not made up of regular soldiers, or even experienced mercenaries. They were mostly ordinary colonists hoping to get rich quick.

They also absolutely did not "frog stomp" the aztecs. It was an extremely costly war of attrition with heavy losses on both sides. Many spaniards were captured and sacrificed in the aztec style.

@Eiregoat @SchizoCynic @matrix @caekislove The myth of technological superiority of Europeans against the natives is a joke. Took years for western expansion The Americas were conquered fair and square.

Well in this particular case it was no joke. A small number of inexperienced spaniards were able to completely tip the scales of power against a huge (by american standards) empire.

It didn't help that their emperor was spineless, but it was an impressive feat nonetheless.

It's probably equivalent to a few hundred american farmers hopping on a boat to Zimbabwe and making it Rhodesia again.

@UnityOstara @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove The tech wasn't the issue it was just being less civilized and unable to work together properly. Same reason Hannibal never took Rome, not because he couldn't but because he couldn't depend on Carthage to reinforce him in time

@SchizoCynic @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove Mediterranean people are pretty much White, ask a jew.

> it was just being less civilized and unable to work together properly.

Riddle me this, if they were just disorganised savages who couldn't work together, why did they have an empire the size of Spain? How did they build such a huge city?

Aliens. It was aliens.

@cowanon @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic I wish Moon Nazis was a thing. Meteorblitzkreig! Alas I live in the real world.

@cowanon @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Iron Sky had its moments, race mixing ruined it!

@Eiregoat @SchizoCynic @matrix @caekislove Spanish Empire? It was a bunch of land grabs looking for gold. The Catholics did their thing. The majority of that gold ended up in Soviet hands after the fall of the Spanish Republican Government

@Eiregoat @SchizoCynic @matrix @caekislove People who sacrificed kids and used beans for currency trying to tell me what to do is ignorant. Totally not Judeo-Christian.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Because it's not difficult to conquer primitives who are sparsly populated. With no knowledge of shield or line formations. The scythians ruled most of the stepp without even knowledge of roads or farming. The buildings architecture is clearly Mesopotamian-like so they built buildings like that as it was the basic first step style. As for empires without knowledge of drill you can look a everyone before Greece and Rome as they invented drill formations and line combat. That's how thermopylae happened. Spartans worked together in disciplined lines and the Persians did not. The romans used line formations and the celts didn't (Crassus doesn't count because he was retarded and Spartacus was gigachad) the only time line formations and disciplined troops lost was rare and due to incompetence higher up. Like Carrhae and teutoburg forest.

I've already covered that. The Aztecs were well capable of operating in formation. And if conquering them should have been an easy job then the conquistadores were rank amateurs given that they were besieged and almost starved out more than once.

I'm not sure how comparing them to the mesopotamians makes them unorganised. And their buildings were largely comparable to those found in Spain at the time.

> you can look a everyone before Greece and Rome as they invented drill formations and line combat

No lol, no they did not.

> That's how thermopylae happened. Spartans worked together in disciplined lines and the Persians did not.

False on several counts:

1. The persians did work together in disciplined units

2. They weren't just fighting the persians, they were also fighting several other persian subjects who also fought together in disciplined units.

3. No... thermopylae happened because the spartans were aware of a choke point and guarded it. The persians had no choice but to fight their way through it until they found an alternate route, outflanked the spartans and easily dealt with them.

> The romans used line formations and the celts didn't

Again... no. Many celtic tribes used disciplined infantry formations. The romans adopted most of their armour and tactics from contact with celtic warbands. They also lost several major battles to them.

> the only time line formations and disciplined troops lost was rare and due to incompetence higher up.

I'm sorry but this just is not true. A very good example is caesar in Britain. Unlike the continental gauls the britons mostly fought with hit and run chariot tactics. So Caesar was worn down until he was forced to declare "victory" and run the fuck home.

Heavy infantry are a very effective method of warfare, but they have major weaknesses which is why ancient armies also had cavalry, artillery and light infantry.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Now you're just lying

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara The celts only tactic was a false retreat to break up formations so they could fight individually as they didn't use formations at all and didn't even advance with their shield in front of them hence why the Anglo-Saxon were successful against the picts. Persians didn't use drill formations they just used immortals as an inadtry anchor while the cavalry flanked.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Since you're being vauge i know your lying because you can't give specific examples. What formation preceeded the phanlax formation? I can say it was Phillip of Macedon who formed the first well drilled formations with the Macedonia style phalanxes employing sarissas instead of dories and a strap shield instead of a hoplon. So who invented the first formation? What was it called?

Nice namedropping. But in reality you're the one being vague. You're just making up false (and easily disproven) statments after another, getting your ass kicked, then pretending nothing happened.

Where on earth do you get this stuff? 🤣

1. No, the celts had many tactics. They were also well capable of beating the "invincible" heavy infantry you're talking about: Look up Brennus and come back to me.

2. The romano-british who faced off against the saxons were using *Roman* tactics. They had been romanised for several centuries by that point.

3. Every ancient army tried to flank around their infantry with cavalry, including the romans and the greeks/macedonians. Not to mention that a good portion of the persians' armies were... greek.

@Eiregoat @SchizoCynic @matrix @caekislove Define "heavy infantry" of that era

Heavy infantry are infantry formations where they drill and operate as a group. As opposed to light infantry which are more opportunistic and each soldier looks for individual opportunities.

Both heavy and light infantry have been employed by every major power in history about as far back as we have history. Heavy infantry absolutely were not a greek invention, and certainly not a roman one.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic But is there a difference on weapons? Armor? I'm not well versed on that era of warfare.

It's a very broad term, it relates more to the density of the formation than any particular equipment. Heavy infantry fought in huge blocks whereas light infantry tended to be more spread out.

It's not even specific to the bronze or iron age either: Heavy infantry tactics lasted up until the early 19th century. It was only when automatic weapons happened that it became suicidal to march at the enemy in a big group.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Like Gettysburg?

Yep. The US civil war, the crimean war and the franco prussian war were the tail end of that kind of warfare.

The last wars with really huge heavy infantry formations were the napoleonic wars. Part of the reason they did it was to help defend against cavalry, but by the end of the 19th century cavalry was becoming too vulnerable to automatic fire to be a serious threat to well formed infantry.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic I've been to Gettysburg. Not the best venue for an invader. Learned alot those days. One of those things was respect for all that die for country.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Crimean War was pointless. I never understood why Britain and France would give a damn about the Black Sea.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic @UnityOstara amongst the celts and germans there would be a central group of professional warriors with good equipment who would be the core, and much larger militia with much lighter equipment and training forming the bulk. The professionals would do most of the killing in the shield wall while the militia provided the bulk.

Which incidentally was also true of the greeks and romans. The romans had plenty of velites and other units who couldn't afford proper armour and had relatively little training, supporting hardened professionals with full armour.

The greeks also had "naked" slingers/archers etc. harassing around the flanks while the wealthy hoplites did the real work in the center.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic @UnityOstara its a common way to fight.

Athough the roman republic would place their least experienced troops in the front, and hold the most experienced in the back.

@UnityOstara @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove Yes. Greek bronze was cold forged which made it very effective and superior to most bronze weapons. The Greeks were forced to invent heavy infantry tactics due to the mountainous terrain of Greece where you didn't have many maneuvering options (except Thessaly if I remember correctly who created the wedge formation for cavalry). So unlike everyone else the Greeks started using heavy infantry and spear formations because of the passes. Meanwhile everyone else used chariots and light infantry as support yet completely unaware of rank and file fighting side by side with each other. It was mostly two mobs fighting while the charioteers fired pot shots or used the chariot as an uber to and from the battle . Heavy infantry wasn't really viable due to the extreme heat so Egypt and Persian didn't utilize them until after the Macedonian conquest. Most armies consisted of light infantry with shields and chariots or cavalry as support. Most Persians didn't have any form of armor save for wicker shields and cuirasses, the immortals being the exception because they had tin scale armor. Zthe greeks used bronze greaves, the Corinthian helm, a large hoplon shield and glued linen armor that had broze and iron scales or plates inside.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @SchizoCynic Sounds Macedonian. Alexander the Great era?

Yes, but also before him.

His father in particular developed a formation called the phalanx to it's greatest height. They fought with enormous 18ft spears and relatively light shields and armour compared to earlier formations.

In later conflicts though it proved too vulnerable to smaller units which could be individually ordered around to take advantage of terrain (the romans were excellent at this), so it was abandoned as a formation.

@UnityOstara @Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove Heavy infantry for the time was typically defined as a spearmen with armor, shield, and a helmet.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Picts are not romano british! The are from north of hadrians wall

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara You're intentionally not looking at dates like this is age of empires. The cavalry flank was invented by Persians and imported west

> The cavalry flank was invented by Persians and imported west

That is a bold claim with a capitol B. That's like saying the persians invented swords or shields. Flanking with cavalry has been around as long as there has been cavalry. Longer actually since chariots are a thing.

No lol. Go read a history book. If you think the greeks and romans invented heavy infantry then you really need to do a lot of basic reading. Not to mention that the didn't even exist by the time the greeks started using heavy infantry, so it'd be pretty hard for them to co-invent it.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Lino thorax lamalar armor.

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove @UnityOstara Greeks only used heavy infantry in the form of hoplits

@Eiregoat @matrix @caekislove No they just bludgeoned enemies into submission with flint clubs. They had absolutely no idea on how to utilize drilled formations let alone use proper teamwork that isn't just jumping someone. Even if the Spaniards were just colonists (they weren't ) they had enough time and leadership to become a cohesive fighting unit just by deck drills. By the time they hit the shore they were much more effective due to the vast differences of the actual warfare experience that wasn't glorified slave raids. The only thing the aztecs had was special infantry like skull, jaguar, and eagle orders. In terms of losses the scales are tipped hilariously one sided with 2k aztecs lost to every 100 Spaniards. Then there's the cavalry benefit. South Americans actually had better success in repelling the Spaniards yet it only took a couple more ships to solve that issue

I'm sorry, but that's not true. How much have you red on the subject?

They had men with clubs (more like swords), they also had men with nets, men with hooks, men with tridents etc. It took a lot of cooperation to bring even one man down and keep him in good enough condition to sell.

The spaniards were mostly colonists, they had a few mercs, but not many. Cortez himself was a lawyer. There's only so much "deck drilling" can do to turn such men into a cohesive unit. Much less a unit as cohesive as the career soldiers they were up against.

> The only thing the aztecs had was special infantry like skull, jaguar, and eagle orders.

Yes. And how did one join those orders? By working together as a unit to bring home slaves.

> In terms of losses the scales are tipped hilariously one sided with 2k aztecs lost to every 100 Spaniards.

Losses were asymmetric yes, but it still was hardly a "frogstomp" as you claimed. The spaniards came very close to losing several times.

> Then there's the cavalry benefit.

They had very little cavalry and it was of almost no use where the fighting was fiercest in the capital city.

@Eiregoat @SchizoCynic @matrix Sorry, I didn't mean to start an argument 😢

@caekislove @matrix @Eiregoat @SchizoCynic Fight! Fight! Fight!

@thatguyoverthere @caekislove @matrix @Eiregoat Knoxville were we come