The Spanish respected the power of the maquahuitl, and Diaz describes how a certain soldier in Cortez's army, Pedro de Moron, had his horse decapitated by a blow from this weapon!  Diaz refers to the maquahuitl as a "two-handed cutting sword" and as a "dreadful broadsword".

However, the Spanish also had a distinct advantage with their steel swords (espadas), since they were more manuverable and versatile, and could kill with both cuts AND thrusts.  Diaz mentions "miracles of sword-play" more than once. 

"They have swords of this kind,--of wood made like a two-handed sword, but with the hilt not so long; about three fingers in breadth. The edges are grooved, and in the grooves they insert stone knives, that cut like a Toledo knife. I saw one day an Indian fighting with a mounted man, and the Indian gave the horse of his antagonist such a blow in the breast that he opened it to the entrails, and it fell dead on the spot. And the same day I saw another Indian give another horse a blow in the neck, that stretched it dead at his feet."

The Unknown Conquistador.

I think with swordplay we have to defer to the views of people in the past. We nolonger use swords anymore and anything we may think is conjecture. The people in the past who are reporting it, are witnessing it, have a knowledge of their subject greater than anybody nowadays, even anything science could ever achieve.

I read an example once about wwii, when a Japanese sword instructor to the army used his sword for the first time in combat after teaching it to soldiers for 20 years. He reports he faithfully reproduced several of thecutting techniques he'd learnt from his teacher and he had been teaching to his students and found they didn't work very well. He cut his opponent several times, all with cuts that were supposed to cut his opponent practically in two, but they did little more than cause flesh wounds.

Since the heyday of the Samurai increasingly Samurai had less and less experience in sword fighting till about 1800 onwards when they had virtually none. This hadn't stopped the head of Samurai schools from constantly tinkering with and adjusting cutting techniques, till by wwii Japanese sword styles had become seriously polluted by modern intrusion, based more on hypothesis than experience.

Personally I can't wok out how a macuhuitl could cut off a head. It's certainly sharp enough. Even one of my flint macuahuitls is sharper than my katana. Flint blades are officially sharper even than scalpels I believe. But when a blade has to pass through many centimetres of an object it starts to meet resistance. For example,

A completely flat blade would meet the least resistance, the whole blade passing through the incision made by the point. However with a wedged shaped blade the wider rear of the blade would have to force the incision wider and wider as it entered, thus decreasing the momentum of the blow the further it enters the target. An oval blade bulging in the centre such as a katana only widens the cut up till about 1/2 of it's width, then the back of the blade narrrows again reducing resistance.

With a macuahuitl I being intrisically wedge shaped, having more and wider bulk to penetrate through the body of the cut, following the flint, I fail t see how it could gain the pentration to successfully decapitated something. After the flint had penetrated the wooden part would need to widen the wound and the resistance enourmous.

However I have never attempted to decapitate something with a macuahuitl, and all his is scientific conjecture. Diaz and the Unknown Conquistador were there and witnessed it. As with my little Japanese anicdote, all the best conjecture in the world doesn't replace real knowledge. So my opinion is we have to go along with the view they can decapitate til proven otherwise.

FWIW, I don't think that Diaz specified that the incident involving Moron's horse was the result of a single blow, but it still sounds impressive.

There's always the possibility for exaggeration, but I would have to concur with Paul (excellent post, btw) in that we must seriously consider what the primary sources like Diaz and the Unknown Conquistador say.  They were the frontline troops in the conflict with the Aztecs, so they should know.

Obsidian is actually sharper than steel, for at least the first couple of cuts, but it loses its edge quickly.  However, we know what steel swords can do--whether you are talking about a Japanese katana, a German zweihander, or a British 1796 light cavalry saber, you are talking about a weapon which can sever heads and limbs.  I think it is significant that the various Conquistador sources constantly describe the maquahuitl as a "two-handed sword"--it suggests that this weapon was indeed capable of inflicting truly fearful injuries. 

It depends on the design--I assume you mean a wooden maquahuitl with iron or steel edges?

I suppose that it would have had a comparable performance to the ordinary maquahuitl, with the exception that it could simply be sharpened when necessary, as opposed to requiring the obsidian inserts to be changed.

In any case, it still would have had the same limitations as an ordinary maquahuitl--i.e., it couldn't be used for thrusting.  This lack of versatility was a very real problem for the Aztecs, when facing their rodelero opponents.  One late 16th century Spanish writer even commented that the Aztecs "had no style of fencing".  This contrasts considerably with the Spanish experience in the Philippines, where the various local tribes were described as being able to "fight like Moors and defend themselves like Turks".

The Aztecs had copper and bronze to a certain extent. They made copper axes in abundence so could presumably have put copper blades in instead of obsidian. Why they chose not to do this is unknown but we would have to presume it was for a good reason.

Resource wise macuahuitls were easy to produce, unlike the sword in the rest of the world till mass prodution came along, it was not an elite object. Both obsidian and wood were cheap and plentiful, so everyone could have one. Though it's possible the Aztecs recieved more macuhuitl as tribute than they made themselves.

Presumably making one of copper would be much more expensive, so perhaps they didn't do it because of resources and cost. though this would not explain why the nobles didn't have them.

Effectiveness could be a reason, perhaps obsidian was better than metal. Primarily the macuhuitl was developed specifically to cut through cloth armour. Cloth armour had been developed to stop impact based weapons such as clubs and slings and become widespread throughout the country. The weapon makers responded by producing swords, Mixtec sabres, Toltec shortswords and mauahuitls to defeat this.

I've not seen a set of Aztec armour, but I have tested hitting targets with both katanas and macuhuitl which I've placed a cotton t-shirts on. I find a katana generally out cuts a macuahuitl when hitting a beachmat, but when you put a t-shirt on it the katana cutting reduces greately, and with denin it has real trouble penetrating. Aztec cotton armour was 2" thick, I really don't know how a katana would handle it. The macuahuitl having a serarated blade eats t-shirts for breakfast and I detect no reduction in cutting effect.

Hears a summery of my comparison tests and my estimated effects of the blow I delivered on a person. The beach mat representing the person. I used the Omori ryu cutting technique for the katana, which has real trouble with denin not the powerful Batto Ho battlefield style method. I used the draw cutting technique for the macuahuitl maximising the effects of the serrated edge and delivering it with identical Omori ryu power and 2 finger left hand techique.

                                                    Katana                           Macuahuitl

Beach mat                     Cut mat in half - kill         &n bsp;       3 to 4" deep serrated  

                                                                                    gash in beach mat - severe

                                                                                       wound.

Beach mat + t-shirt    Deep penetration, sizable          ; as above

                                             gash in t-shirtc                    t-shirt no effect

                                             - mortal wound

Beach mat + denim      smaller gash in denim       medium size gash in denim

                                         2" of damage                         2" cut in beach mat.

                                        damage to beach mat         &nb sp;   Nasty wound.

                                        under denim - wound

These experiments are in there infantcy. Overall I find a macuhuitl to be inferior to a katana. But the depreciation of effectiveness curve when faced with cloth armour in a katana is much greater. I really do wonder which will cut a 2" of Aztec cloth armour better.

Paul

Hi Guys, I'm new to the forum and I simply love it.  I'll be making my own maquahuitl's this summer for an arts and crafts festival in the fall, people are nuts for native american & mexica culture objects.  I'll test one on a hog carcass from a farmer I know when he slaughters in the fall, I'll document the results.  As for a metal maquahuitl a company called Bud-K on the net sell them under the name of Mayan War Club, I collect swords and weapons,I get some through them.  They are major suppliers and they'll do anyone right.  I haven't purchased any of the 'Mayan War Club' ( yes I know, it's not right) but they look pretty stout.  I've obtained an 8 lb block of obsidian and thanks to this forum some samples and info on their construction! I'll try to get as close to authentic as possible.

Everyone is saying that the big drawback to the maquahuitl is the difficulty in sharpening. I don't know if its more reliable, but the article on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl ) says that they are self sharpening. Anybody care to elaborate?