Aztecs Overrated

[Vanderdecken]

I think the fighting abilities of the so called "Aztec" armies has been greatly exaggerated over the years. Especially in this game. Granted, maybe it is based in fact, but I believe it has been blown a bit out of proportion to reality.

Consider first, that the Aztec army was composed mostly of peasants wishing to climb the social ladder. Not really your run of the mill soldier. More like a levy of sorts. It was only the nobility, the Jaguars, the Otomies, etc. who had any military training. This in itself doesn't account for it all, but I think lends us a valuable insight.

Namely, were the Aztecs all that brave? Given that narcotics can make a person do anything, (though I'm not sure if they would have a snub right before battle) with the fact established that their armies were composed of mostly commoners, doesn't it make sense that these people would be less than "disciplined" than your nobleman in the ranks? Confronted with the sight of a Spanish Conquistador on horseback barreling down at you at 30 miles an hour, might be a little disheartening. They were humans after all. Just like everyone else.

This might explain why in the real Battle of Otumba the Spaniards only lost some 72 men compared to the Aztecs, 12,00 -13,00.

So, I am thinking about the Aztec strengths in the game, the one listed is "Brave, Zealous, and Vast in Number." Why they might have been vast in number, it seems that only the noblemen, the Jaguars and Otomies seemed to have the Brave and Zealous part. And even then, they were still not that terribly armed or armored either. If swords can't get through armor, what chance does Obsidian? Especially mounted on a wooden stick that could be torn asunder?

I hate to be a downer, but it seems to me like the Aztec fighting ability is far too high for this game. And the fact that not even the common spear-men route that easily and this “blood-lust” we attribute to Aztec warriors seems to work on that ethos. After all those tales of “daring” men, as Cortes put it, in his tale of the Aztec destruction, why still extraordinary, tended to make the Aztec warriors more formidable than they really were? Could it be that this is how we "perceive" they were, rather than actual fact?
Suggestions, comments, corrections, please.

[Aeratus]

Exaggerated from what standpoint? In games such as Age of Empires III, where top Aztec units can easily wipe out just about any European unit in melee combat, they are exaggerated.

However, in M2TW, all of their units are less powerful than Spanish units. Also, it's pretty easy to beat AI armies of 2000 Aztecs using cavalry charges while losing minimal amounts of men. So it seems about right to me.

Keep in mind that they had pyschological problems against the Spanish. It's as if the moment you saw the AI has cavalry, you press ESC and click "quit battle."

[Vanderdecken]

Exaggerated from what standpoint? In games such as Age of Empires III, where top Aztec units can easily wipe out just about any European unit in melee combat, they are exaggerated.

However, in M2TW, all of their units are less powerful than Spanish units. Also, it's pretty easy to beat AI armies of 2000 Aztecs using cavalry charges while losing minimal amounts of men. So it seems about right to me.

Keep in mind that they had pyschological problems against the Spanish. It's as if the moment you saw the AI has cavalry, you press ESC and click "quit battle."

There are accounts from Bernal Diaz of Aztec Warriors standing their ground and cutting off the heads of horses. I agree that there may have been skilled and brave (the nobles), just that there fighting ability against armoured opponents seems a bit high. Taking out half a unit a of Dismounted Conquistadores, seems pretty high.

[Aeratus]

The faction descriptions such as "Brave, Zealous, and Vast in Number" aren't meant to be taken seriously. For example, it states that Danes have poor cavalry, but in reality, they have some of the best cavalry, especially in the Teutonic campaign.

You don't need to pierce armor to incapacitate the opponent. Try wearing a motorcycle helmet and have someone wack you in the head with a wooden club.

[Double A]

Morning star.



It doesn't pierce armor, it breaks the goddamn bones under it. A chunk of obsidian would have the same effect, but in a less awesome manner.

[Gazz]

Morning star.



It doesn't pierce armor, it breaks the goddamn bones under it. A chunk of obsidian would have the same effect, but in a less awesome manner.

This.

Not this.

And the win goes for Aztecs.

[Double A]

Morning star.



It doesn't pierce armor, it breaks the goddamn bones under it. A chunk of obsidian would have the same effect, but in a less awesome manner.

[Silverheart]

Aztecs grew up with gruesome death and horrors around them, it´s no surprise they were so brave.
They fought viciously in defiance against the Spanish invaders (after they realized that the invaders were enemies) and for the sake of their home and empire.
Just consider the infamous Mezoamerican ball game, a game which often resulted in bones breaking and joints dislocating, and which also involved sacrificing the losers (evidence suggests that early on, it was the winning team that was sacrificed), and you can see why they didn´t get scared by anything - at least not for long.

In the game, though, I agree that the Aztecs are greatly overrated - mostly because they don´t produce new troops.
They just send whatever they got at you, and if you prevail, their lands are suddenly utterly undefended.
Their infantry is, still, pretty good thanks to their numbers and ferocioussness (Spelling?), and it takes heavy cavalry and horse archers to beat them in the field - even elite grade infantry often gets overwhelmed.

[skofuz]

Aztecs grew up with gruesome death and horrors around them, it´s no surprise they were so brave.
They fought viciously in defiance against the Spanish invaders (after they realized that the invaders were enemies) and for the sake of their home and empire.
Just consider the infamous Mezoamerican ball game, a game which often resulted in bones breaking and joints dislocating, and which also involved sacrificing the losers (evidence suggests that early on, it was the winning team that was sacrificed), and you can see why they didn´t get scared by anything - at least not for long.

In the game, though, I agree that the Aztecs are greatly overrated - mostly because they don´t produce new troops.
They just send whatever they got at you, and if you prevail, their lands are suddenly utterly undefended.
Their infantry is, still, pretty good thanks to their numbers and ferocioussness (Spelling?), and it takes heavy cavalry and horse archers to beat them in the field - even elite grade infantry often gets overwhelmed.

I don't doubt that the Aztecs were a tough people. I just feel I need to point out to you that the spaniards just got out of an 800 year long struggle against the moorish invaders. Just think about it for a second. After 800 years of strife the culture of war would have been ingrained to their souls. As a result you have A TON of very skilled and capable mercenaries that were in addition to those things very brutal and could kill without hesitation.

[Double A]

Ferociousness, according to spell check.

Has anyone tried fighting the Aztecs in Tercio formation? Maybe with some Dragoons along for the ride? That would be interesting.

[Aeratus]

Ferociousness, according to spell check.

Has anyone tried fighting the Aztecs in Tercio formation? Maybe with some Dragoons along for the ride? That would be interesting.

I think Firearms are poor against the Aztecs in the game because of their low rate of fire and low troop count (and low ammo for the dragoons). When it comes to fighting unarmored units, you're better off using native archer mercenaries than musketeers or dragoons.

And indeed the Aztecs are historically overpowered (like the Teutonic Knights) in almost every RTS game.

Exactly. In AOE2, Jaguar warriors wipe the floor against any infantry (except Teutonic Knights), including Huskarls, two-handed swordsmen, samurai, and Berserkers. That's why I think the balance in Kingdoms is pretty good.

[Prince of Darkness]

A thing worth to note is that the Aztecs don't have access to Iron. Which means that they still live in stone age.
Even on 1 on 1 melee against the Spanish the Aztecs are still likely to lose. And indeed the Aztecs are historically overpowered (like the Teutonic Knights) in almost every RTS game.

[Double A]

Yeah, it's kinda stupid. Sure, obsidian would do fine on a cuirass due to the armor's lesser protection, but iron or steel against leather (at the most) would make the battle hilariously one-sided.

I also just remembered that the Aztec obsidian blades were really ing sharp. Not a good blunt weapon unless the blade broke, which would be pretty common if it slashed against metal. All in all, not an awful choice (regular stone swords would be), but far from the best (napalm).

[Remedius]

A very good discussion!

If I might suggest that not enough emphasis is put upon the word 'Zelous'.

The Aztecs were a very religiously motivated people and when death featured so prominently and heavily in important aspects of life then you could be sure fanaticism and zeal were readily present too. A warriors failure on the battlefield would mean torture and imprisonment and perhaps slavery if you were lucky enough not to be killed and the Aztecs would expect this as the treatment of their foes was exactly the same or worse when your consider that many of the stronger enemy warrior captives would be ritually sacrificed.

The Aztec warrior was a fierce fighter specialising in close quarter combat as practiced against the rival tribes around them but it is perhaps their strong sense of self as an empire fuelled by by their bloodthirsty beliefs that really brought them to the fore. Their quick - near silent advance and sudden impact at close quarters - and not to forget fighting with home advantage.

The cyclical existenceof the Aztecs as laid down in their calendars also dictated a coming 'end of day's' when the world would end. The Conquistadores coming was prophesied and so when the warriors went to war it was not just to defeat an enemy - it was to stop the end of everything.

[Silverheart]

A very good discussion!

If I might suggest that not enough emphasis is put upon the word 'Zelous'.

The Aztecs were a very religiously motivated people and when death featured so prominently and heavily in important aspects of life then you could be sure fanaticism and zeal were readily present too. A warriors failure on the battlefield would mean torture and imprisonment and perhaps slavery if you were lucky enough not to be killed and the Aztecs would expect this as the treatment of their foes was exactly the same or worse when your consider that many of the stronger enemy warrior captives would be ritually sacrificed.

The Aztec warrior was a fierce fighter specialising in close quarter combat as practiced against the rival tribes around them but it is perhaps their strong sense of self as an empire fuelled by by their bloodthirsty beliefs that really brought them to the fore. Their quick - near silent advance and sudden impact at close quarters - and not to forget fighting with home advantage.

The cyclical existenceof the Aztecs as laid down in their calendars also dictated a coming 'end of day's' when the world would end. The Conquistadores coming was prophesied and so when the warriors went to war it was not just to defeat an enemy - it was to stop the end of everything.

Please tell me you don´t believe that.
You made pretty good argument about the rest, but the whole "2012-end of the world" scare is completely a internet myth - anyone who has proper knowledge about this calendar knows that it has nothing to do with predicting the end of the world, and putting this information here ruins your credibility.
Seek out reliable info about the MAYAN calendar and the Prophecy of the spanish arrival, and you´ll see the wrongs, too.
Also, please don´t take my harsh-sounding criticism personally.

[Double A]

Please tell me you don´t believe that.
You made pretty good argument about the rest, but the whole "2012-end of the world" scare is completely a internet myth - anyone who has proper knowledge about this calendar knows that it has nothing to do with predicting the end of the world, and putting this information here ruins your credibility.
Seek out reliable info about the MAYAN calendar and the Prophecy of the spanish arrival, and you´ll see the wrongs, too.
Also, please don´t take my harsh-sounding criticism personally.

I don't know if I should facepalm, or facepalm and walk away quietly.

[Vanderdecken]

Please tell me you don´t believe that.
You made pretty good argument about the rest, but the whole "2012-end of the world" scare is completely a internet myth - anyone who has proper knowledge about this calendar knows that it has nothing to do with predicting the end of the world, and putting this information here ruins your credibility.
Seek out reliable info about the MAYAN calendar and the Prophecy of the spanish arrival, and you´ll see the wrongs, too.
Also, please don´t take my harsh-sounding criticism personally.

He's not talking about the 2012 prophecy. The Aztec calender said that about the time the conquistadores showed up, that there would be a apocalypse. Which is why they were so keen on making sacrifices to the Sun God: Quetzalcoatl. So that the end of the world wouldn't happen. They feared if he was not given enough blood, it would cause the world to be consumed in darkness. So, when they saw these strangers wearing shiny armor and gleaming like the sun, you could say there was a "Oh! Gods!" type reaction. But after a while, they realized that these were simply invaders. Not Gods. Which is what he saying brought about some of their early defeats.

The whole 2012 Prophecy is based off the Mayan calender.

[Remedius]

He's not talking about the 2012 prophecy. The Aztec calender said that about the time the conquistadores showed up, that there would be a apocalypse. Which is why they were so keen on making sacrifices to the Sun God: Quetzalcoatl. So that the end of the world wouldn't happen. They feared if he was not given enough blood, it would cause the world to be consumed in darkness. So, when they saw these strangers wearing shiny armor and gleaming like the sun, you could say there was a "Oh! Gods!" type reaction. But after a while, they realized that these were simply invaders. Not Gods. Which is what he saying brought about some of their early defeats.

The whole 2012 Prophecy is based off the Mayan calender.

Yes - this ^ - exactly

Anyway - not to go on but faith and belief and religion are very important factors and I just wanted to emphasise that.

[_Elysium_]

He's not talking about the 2012 prophecy. The Aztec calender said that about the time the conquistadores showed up, that there would be a apocalypse. Which is why they were so keen on making sacrifices to the Sun God: Quetzalcoatl. So that the end of the world wouldn't happen. They feared if he was not given enough blood, it would cause the world to be consumed in darkness. So, when they saw these strangers wearing shiny armor and gleaming like the sun, you could say there was a "Oh! Gods!" type reaction. But after a while, they realized that these were simply invaders. Not Gods. Which is what he saying brought about some of their early defeats.

The whole 2012 Prophecy is based off the Mayan calender.

I'm sure I've read or seen something that suggested the "apocalypse" prophecies were initially mistranslated or misinterpreted, and that they actually signified a huge change, be it for better or worse. I think theres something similar in Hinduism.

Also, didn't the arrival of the Spanish coincide with the end of a drought? I know it was in Apocalypto, but I thought that part was considered fact.

If it turns out I got all this off Youtube, or Wikipedia, you can ignore this post.

[Silverheart]

He's not talking about the 2012 prophecy. The Aztec calender said that about the time the conquistadores showed up, that there would be a apocalypse. Which is why they were so keen on making sacrifices to the Sun God: Quetzalcoatl. So that the end of the world wouldn't happen. They feared if he was not given enough blood, it would cause the world to be consumed in darkness. So, when they saw these strangers wearing shiny armor and gleaming like the sun, you could say there was a "Oh! Gods!" type reaction. But after a while, they realized that these were simply invaders. Not Gods. Which is what he saying brought about some of their early defeats.

The whole 2012 Prophecy is based off the Mayan calender.

But the Aztec calendar is based off of the Mayan calendar - you know, those weird space-travelling jungle people who predates the Aztec by a couple of thousand years...
And that calendar wasn´t for predicting anything other than eclipses and other astronomical events - it was a tool of science, not astrology.
But since it only lasts for a certain amount of time (several millenia) due to how it´s designed, that obviously means that there is a point where it ends, at which point the cycle is meant to start over again.
But there are plenty of nutjobs who have interpretated this as that the end of the calendar is a prophecy about the end of the world. And those same nutjobs have no qualms about going to great lengths to try and find something that has happened at every astronomical event the calendar has predicted to try and "prove" the calendar right.


Also, the Aztec prophecy is specifically about the Feathered Serpent god Quetzalquatls´ return from his exile in the land to the east of the sea (which, to the Aztecs, was basically Eden or Asgard)
That´s why they greeted the Spanish as gods - because they came in giant canoes, with shining clothes and godly weapons, from the land to the east of the sea. They thought it was the king of the gods returning.
Ask yourself this: If the Aztecs had believed the arrival of Quetzalqoatl meant the end of the world, and they even had a set date for its´ happening, then why didn´t they stand ready to fight to the last man to defend the world on the beaches on day one?
And, just for the record, the Aztec sun god, the one they sacrificed humans to, was Huitzilopochtli - who also happened to be the god of war, which made him twice as important to a society of equal parts warriors and farmers.
And the legend of HIM mentions an apocalypse - specifically, that the sun wouldn´t rise if he didn´t get enough blood to strengthen himself with.


I admit that maybe I reacted too strongly there at first, but something about ignorant idiots just ticks me off something fierce, sometimes even when unjustified