Arms and Armor of the Aztecs

Yes,  very informative,  thanks.

 

  Hello Gorkhali !

  Looking forward to work with you on the India, Americas forum, Pal.

  Regards

Well, even deception and plain dirty tricks still rank as fair play in war, compared to outright genocide and the use of concentration camps. Even the last two ae legitimate devices in war although they're universally frowned upon by the world's civilian majority.

 

How did the Spanish defeat the Aztecs?

The Spanish had the horse.  They had steel weapons, and correspondingly efficient methods for using them.  They had gunpowder.  They had Tlaxcalan allies who hated the Aztecs.  And, they had smallpox.

Now, that combo of fatal Old World diseases, numerous Indian allies, and superior mobility and striking power via the horse were all extremely important factors, but the HTH issue is still compelling.

Bernal Diaz's account of the Conquest is particularly revealing on this subject.  Diaz was a rodelero (sword-and-target man)* in Cortez's army, so he was involved tooth-and-nail in the HTH combat with the Indians.  Diaz speaks repeatedly about "miracles of sword-play", about how the Indians "felt the sharp edge of our swords"--something he meant literally.  Diaz was a soldier who had been taught a military form of swordplay (esgrima), which focused on espada y rodela--sword and shield.  At the time of Cortez, the Spanish possessed a truly formidable reputation as being among the finest swordsmen in Europe.  They had helped to oust the Moors from the Spanish peninsula, they had bested the pike-armed Swiss and Germans, and they were hailed by Macchiavelli as the new exponents of the "Roman System".  These guys were no joke.

That some of their most dangerous soldiers were swordsmen should come as no surprise, since the Spanish related so much to HTH combat with edged weapons--swords, polearms, etc.  It remained a potent part of their martial culture, even after the introduction of effective firearms.  They used these methods on sea as well as on land. 

 When the Spanish faced formidable native tribes in the Philippines, who were skilled with spears and steel-bladed swords like the kampilan, the common gossip amongst the Spanish troops was that the Filipinos fought "like Moors", and defended themselves "like Turks", which was very high praise.  The Spanish immediately recognized (and commented on) the combative attributes in the Cebuanos, Pampangans, and other tribes, that they themselves possessed, cultivated, and admired. 

However, things were somewhat different in the Americas.  Diaz's writings suggest that the use of the thrust by Spanish swordsmen was a very real problem for the Aztecs.  The maquahuitl sword-club was a devastating cutting weapon (Diaz actually described it as a "dreadful broadsword"), but it could not be used for thrusting.  The Spanish sword (espada), on the other hand, was lethal with both its point and edge, and this was a significant advantage. 

The Spanish appear to have had a greater fear of the Aztec sling, as well at their short javelin--the atlatl.

Peace,

David Black Mastro 

*Rodelero means "shield-bearer", a term which corresponds with the Italian rotulario, the Dutch rondhartschier, and the English "rondelier" and "targetier".  Such troops were also referred to as "swordsmen" (espadachins)--Diaz uses both terms.

Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner

Originally posted by hugoestr How many men, horses, and firearms did the Spaniards have?

In 1521, Cortez had 86 cavalrymen, 118 "small shot" (arquebusiers and crossbowmen), and 700 sword-and-target men.  So, the swordsmen made up the vast majority of Spanish troops. 

Where did the battles took place so that the horse was actually an effective weapon?

Anywhere there was open ground.

The important thing was for the horsemen to keep together, for mutual support. 

What was the range of the firearms of the time, and how did the Spaniards use it in battle?

The maximum range of the matchlock arquebus was a full 300 yards, and the effective range was around 200-240 yards.  However, these were inaccurate smoothbore weapons, and so they were typically used at much shorter ranges.  At the Battle of Huarina in 1547 (between rival conquistadore factions), the arquebus was used successfully at 100 yards--the rebels brought down some 150 royalists with a single volley.  Still, it was far more typical for arquebusiers to hold their fire until they were only 50 yards away from the enemy, which is similar to ranges in which later battles with smoothbore muskets were fought (like the American Revolution).  A single volley might be given off at long range, in an attempt to coerce the enemy into firing regularly too early, but the real damage was done at close range. 

Against the Indians, firearms did not see as much use.  Cortez's force bore a closer resemblance to late 15th century Spanish armies, with the majority of footsoldiers being swordsmen.  Contemporary European armies had totally different proportions of troop types--the typical colunela was made up of 5 banderas (companies) with a paper strength of 250 men each, with 2 of arquebusiers, 2 of pikemen, and 1 of swordsmen.  The swordsmen were the majority in Spanish armies in Mexico, but they were the minority in Europe after Gonzalo de Cordoba's reforms.

Peace,

David

Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner