Romans vs. Aztecs

[D.B. Cooper]

Here's a fun scenario: in imperial Rome a Roman merchant ship blows off course while sailing through the straits of Gibraltar, somehow surviving the passage across the Atlantic and landing in Mexico. He repairs his ship, lives off the hospitality of the natives, and becomes aware of the great wealth of the various native American tribes, namely the Aztecs at their height (who entered a timewarp for sheer convenience of this scenario).

He packs supplies, sails back to Europe and arrives in Rome to tell everyone about his adventure. Next thing you know the ruling emperor puts together an invasion force and sends them to Mexico.

Would the Romans crush the Aztecs or be defeated by the choking heat, fevers, and guerilla warfare? Logistics and all.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Romans have already dealt with all that stuff. Aztecs were still in the stone age when Cortez found them.

[manofarms89]

Romans have already dealt with all that stuff. Aztecs were still in the stone age when Cortez found them.

when the Spaniards entered the Mexica capital, Tenochtitlan, it was the biggest city they'd ever been too. hardly what i call stone age.

didn't the aztecs still use like wooden and stone weapons even when the explorers came?

they would have no chance against romans armed with iron weapons.

they used swords made from obsidian, which is plenty sharp

[bushbush]

they used swords made from obsidian, which is plenty sharp

oh i didn't know that. I just know spanards' steel weapons and armors were huge advantages...what do u think of obsidian versus iron.

[manofarms89]

oh i didn't know that. I just know spanards' steel weapons and armors were huge advantages...what do u think of obsidian versus iron.

true the Spaniards still had the advantage in arms and armor, but some accounts have the obsidian swords capable of beheading a horse in one blow.

[Trey]

oh i didn't know that. I just know spanards' steel weapons and armors were huge advantages...what do u think of obsidian versus iron.

Doesn't matter. Obsidian was sharp, sharp as steel I've heard, but would shatter easily, especially against steel weapons or armor. This is because obsidian can be filed very thin. Thus, while it would cause brutal flesh wounds, it was worthless against armor.

[Last Roman]

oh i didn't know that. I just know spanards' steel weapons and armors were huge advantages...what do u think of obsidian versus iron.

while an advantage to be sure, as it easily cut through the Aztec's cotton armor, it was not their greatest one. The Spaniards' ability to take advantage of the Aztec's subjects hostility to their rulers, as well as disease, were the most important factors. Deception also played a part.

plus romans would get sick and die

why? The Spanish didn't. What makes the Romans any more susceptible?

[SigniferOne]

plus romans would get sick and die

why? The Spanish didn't. What makes the Romans any more susceptible?

Arm-chair generalism... It's a well-known condition.

[MaximiIian]

when the Spaniards entered the Mexica capital, Tenochtitlan, it was the biggest city they'd ever been too. hardly what i call stone age.

Even though it, well, was. Their technology was largely based on stone and clay. They were very advanced for a neolithic society, yes. But still neolithic.
Oh, and the only reason that Tenochtitlan seemed like the biggest city to the Conquistadors is because most the them had never seen much beyond Spain before; and even if they had been to Rome on a pilgrimage, keep in mind that Rome was nowhere near as large as it had been during the Empire.

...what do u think of obsidian versus iron.

Obsidian is sharp, but not enough to cut iron armour, like the lorica segmentata. The Romans, hypothetically speaking, would destroy the Aztecs in battle, rape their land, defile their women, etc. etc. etc. The standard Roman conquest package, basically.

Would the environment have any effect on the eventual outcome? Does Teutoburg forest say anythng?

The Germanic tribes at Teutoburg were armed similarly to Roman soldiers: iron or rough steel weapons and probably iron mail armour. All it showed was that professional warriors armed similarly to the Romans could defeat the Romans in an ambush scenario. Hardly surprising.
The upset was the scale of their losses and the fact that their enemies were "barbarians"...barbarians who, keep in mind, were trained by Germanic men who had served in the Roman army.

[Watchman]

By Roman times the Aztecs weren't even around yet.

Anyway, tech-wise the Romans win hands down. Metal weapons and armour > volcanic glass, as the Conquistadors so amply demonstrated. Plus the macauitl sword-club wasn't really even terribly lethal as Stone Age weapons go (which suited the Aztecs, who were slightly obsessed with capturing POWs for sacrifice) - the cotton quilt body armour they used themselves protected quite well against it, and indeed many Conquistadors swapped their metal armour for the native textile cuirasses because those were entirely sufficient, much more comfortable to wear, and didn't rust in the rather high humidity.

Also this is Mexico. Not too many dense forests there. And the Romans had cavalry; which has very disproportionate effects on opponents who've no experience with it and don't know the countermeasures, as the Conquistadors again amply demonstrated.

Anyway, the main thing working in the natives' favour would be simply that the Romans couldn't realistically *get* an army there in the first place; they didn't have the kind of ships needed for reliable Atlantic crossing.

All it showed was that professional warriors armed similarly to the Romans could defeat the Romans in an ambush scenario.

Erm, they were mostly basic tribal farmer-warriors you know, and compared to the Romans rather poorly armed - normally with just shields, spears, axes and long knives/short swords, and the body armour being pretty much restricted to the nobles and their personal retainers. The poorer end of the tribal levy had to make do with spears with fire-hardened tips...

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Erm, they were mostly basic tribal farmer-warriors you know, and compared to the Romans rather poorly armed - normally with just shields, spears, axes and long knives/short swords, and the body armour being pretty much restricted to the nobles and their personal retainers. The poorer end of the tribal levy had to make do with spears with fire-hardened tips...

Arminius' force consisted of rebel Germanic auxilia armed in Roman style and the tribal warrior elite, armed as well as any Germanic warriors. And probably an unknown number of tribal levies. Even with the latter they were still armed with iron weapons (the bit in Tacitus about the fire-hardened spears isn't borne out by archaeology and needs to be handled with care). The gap between the Romans and Arminius' army was far, far smaller than the gap between the Romans and an Aztec army.

But I just realised what a silly thread this is, so I'm outta here ...

[CobraStallone]

Also this is Mexico. Not too many dense forests there. And the Romans had cavalry; which has very disproportionate effects on opponents who've no experience with it and don't know the countermeasures, as the Conquistadors again amply demonstrated.

Yeah well, there were dense jungles back then, and the conquistadores only had 16 horses or something like that. I would still go with the romans though.

[manofarms89]

Even though it, well, was. Their technology was largely based on stone and clay. They were very advanced for a neolithic society, yes. But still neolithic.

i would call their tools and weapons neolithic, but that's it. their political, economic, and transportation structure was anything but.

Oh, and the only reason that Tenochtitlan seemed like the biggest city to the Conquistadors is because most the them had never seen much beyond Spain before; and even if they had been to Rome on a pilgrimage, keep in mind that Rome was nowhere near as large as it had been during the Empire.

im not comparing the population of Tenochtitlan to that of classical Europe, Im comparing it with 16th century Europe, which means that at the time Tenochtitlan was one of the biggest cities in the world.

[Watchman]

Socioeconomic organisation =/= technology level.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Romans, Aztecs weapons were made to incapacitate and capture prisoners while roman ones were made to kill.

[bushbush]

didn't the aztecs still use like wooden and stone weapons even when the explorers came?

they would have no chance against romans armed with iron weapons.

[D.B. Cooper]

Would the environment have any effect on the eventual outcome? Does Teutoberg forest say anythng?

[Holger Danske]

Would the environment have any effect on the eventual outcome? Does Teutoberg forest say anythng?

Let's just put it this way. In an opened pitched battle the Aztecs stood no chance, at all. Romans have better disciplin, training, and equipment. However I'm sure the Aztecs would deal a lot of casualties to the Roman Legions through irregular warfare... The interesting question though is who would die of exposure to the other. Remember that a vast majority of the Inca and Aztecs weren't directly killed by the Europeans, but died of infections brought from Europe.

[Stavroforos]

I don't think a good commander would have faced any more trouble from the Aztecs than other barbarians.

[Gelgoog]

well technically speaking it would be quite difficult for the romans to even reach the new world in enough strength for it to matter. Transporting a legion across the atlantic would be a very difficult task. The fact remains that the Spaniards managed to conquer the Aztecs by allying themselves with other tribes for manpower and devastating diseases. So theoritcally, the best tactic that the romans could employ is bringing with the plenty of roman prostitutes and "gifting" them to the aztecs. Then wait 1 year and roll in with a small force to put down any resistence.

logistics aside, the romans would curb stomp the aztecs.