Aztecs Weapons

A good book to check out is:

Jeremy Black. Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: Renaissance to Revolution 1492-1792. London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

There is a good deal of discussion on the early Spanish explorers in Mexico and South America, mainly Cortez.  Of course the technological advantage of the Spanish in the form of firearms and horses is mentioned, but other good points are made in reference to their success against the Aztecs and the Mayans.

What I got so far:

All of the Spanish weapons were made of metel.

Flaws:?

The fact that they had been around more and done more fighting allowed them to find out what makes a good weapon. 

A: Wood, Stone, and various metals

Aztec weapons were made of wood, with obsidian or flint blades. They also used fishbones for arrowheads, but no metal.

Q: How would of different weapons helped you to beat the Spanish?

A: The Spanish had firearms. No wood or stone weapon could beat these.

Spanish were primarily swordsmen, muskets were lagely ineffective. Steel swords and spears would be the best weapons to face the Spanish with.

Q: Why did you not have more advance weapons?

A: Because the Aztecs did not have the resources that the Spanish had?

The Aztecs hadn't discovered iron.

Q: Would Spanish influence in the Aztecs territory allow better weapons, therefore a greater chance of increasing your territory?

A: Yes with the knowledge about firearms the Aztecs could have done better. But when if came down to the point it was the skill in hand to hand combat that allowed the Spanish to win.

The big limitation on the Aztec empire was not weapons, they were conquering fine. It was logistics and the lack of beasts of burdon.

Q: Could the Aztecs continued to expand and protect their empire despite the primitive weapons?

A: No, the Spanish had great hand-to-hand combat and would have stopped the Aztecs even if the weapons were equally matched.

Aztecs were every bit as good as the Spanish in combat, it was weaponary that made the Spanish superior. given equal weapons and no disease the Aztecs could have defended their empire.

Q: In what ways were the Aztecs weapons better than the Spanish weapons?A:The Aztecs had some better weapons such as longer lances.

They could be maintained and repaired locally. They were cheap to manufacture and huge armies could easily be equipped with them.

Hey guys below is a thing we had to type up could you look over and tell me anything I might of messed up on? Thanks!

 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

What Kind of weapons, uniforms, warfare did the Aztecs use.

The Aztec army was highly organized and well trained. They tried not to force their opponents to retreat, but to capture them. The Spanish had steel armor but traded it for double layered leather or the padded cotton armor that the Aztecs used.

Q: What were there weapons made of?

A: Wood, Stone, and various metals

Q: How would of different weapons helped you to beat the Spanish?

A: The Spanish had firearms. No wood or stone weapon could beat these.

Q: Why did you not have more advance weapons?

A: Because the Aztecs did not have the resources that the Spanish had?

Q: Would Spanish influence in the Aztecs territory allow better weapons, therefore a greater chance of increasing your territory?

A: Yes with the knowledge about firearms the Aztecs could have done better. But when if came down to the point it was the skill in hand to hand combat that allowed the Spanish to win.

Q: Could the Aztecs continued to expand and protect their empire despite the primitive weapons?

A: No, the Spanish had great hand-to-hand combat and would have stopped the Aztecs even if the weapons were equally matched.

Q: In what ways were the Aztecs weapons better than the Spanish weapons?

The Aztecs had some better weapons such as longer lances, (what else guys?)

Spanish had a few Cavalry, Musketeers, Crossbowmen, cannons and a lot of Rodeleros.

The musketeers were few and would have used matchlocks. In the climate it was difficult to keep the powder dry and they weren't particularly effective.

Crossbows again there weren't many but they proved better than the muskets. The Spanish were able to get supplies of bolts from the Tlaxcallans who could manufacture them but were unable to get parts to repair them if anything went wrong, so they were of limited effect.

Cavalry were devastating but few in number. Though one horse was famously beheaded by a macuahuitl.

Cannons also were quite effective though the Aztecs reportedly learnt to hit the dirt when they saw they were about to be fired.

Rodeleros made up 90% of the army and carried broadswords and buckler shields. They fought in tight formation supporting one another which gave them the advantage over the loose formation individual fighting of the Aztecs. A bit like Romans vs Gauls.

One more weapon deserves a mention, the most effective spanish weapon of all, their indian allies. At the siege of Tenochtitlan the Spanish probably made up no more than 3-4% of the army.

Aztecs used a great mix of weapons, many lost to us now.

Heavy troops carried Atl Atl dart throwers which gave greater power when throwing (60%) increasing range and effect. They also carried shields and Macuahuitl.

Lighter troops carried bows or slings. Aztecs regarded bows as beneath them and recruited mostly allied archers. The Spanish hated the slingers the most.

Aztec allies carried other weapons, the Two Handed Macuahuitl being most notable.

The most effective indian weapon was the bow. But it required large quantities of arrows so was for home games only. Large quantities of arrows being to difficult to carry on campaign. Tlaxcallans who fought defensively were mainly archers and gave the bow a high status, their bows were much more powerful than Aztecs ones.

Aztecs who fought away games prefered heavy troops with Macuahuitl because it was easy to carry on campaign.