Chimera0205
Banned
So how would the Aztec and Inca compare to the states of the mid classical period such as the Romans, the Carthagians, the Egyptians, and the Greek city states technologically, culturally, etc etc?
How would the Inca and Aztec do in mid classical europe
- Thread starter Chimera0205
- Start date
Very well, given the Aztecs reclaimed most of their lake while building one of the largest cities in the world, easily comparable to anything in Antiquity. All in a major earthquake zone and without the wheel, any domesticated animals bigger than a dog, or complex metalworking. They also had complex philosophy, shared with the Maya to their south, which built on many centuries of previous Mesoamerican philosophy. And they built a sizable empire in mountainous terrain once again with little metalworking or domesticated animals. They weren't the first either, since Teotihuacan before them also built a nice empire under the same conditions and also created the largest structure in the New World for many centuries, you know, that famous pyramid of theirs.
Inca I'd give a lot of credit to as well. I'm not as familiar with their cultural developments, but they also inherited a lot from previous states there, and built a massive empire in the highest mountain range in the New World, with no animals aside dogs and llamas and once with little metalworking and without the wheel. Their road network was very impressive considering this.
It's hard to give a direct comparison to any particular Old World civ, but I would definitely not compare them to Old Kingdom Egypt or Sumer like I've seen here.
Inca I'd give a lot of credit to as well. I'm not as familiar with their cultural developments, but they also inherited a lot from previous states there, and built a massive empire in the highest mountain range in the New World, with no animals aside dogs and llamas and once with little metalworking and without the wheel. Their road network was very impressive considering this.
It's hard to give a direct comparison to any particular Old World civ, but I would definitely not compare them to Old Kingdom Egypt or Sumer like I've seen here.
joshuaskyblue
Banned
There’s also their remarkable talents in the fields of waterworking and civil hygiene and the fact that they even did such crazy stuff as operate a public school system and public hospitals.
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/5446429/#5466013
Yeah.
Comparing the Aztec to Egypt is practically an insult to just how much excellence the Mesoamericans pulled off despite their position. It’s an outright tradgedy that Aztec is mostly a word that summons up thoughts of screaming blood cultists of all things when there was so much more going on with them.
Last edited:
I reviewed the OTL economy of Postclassic Mesoamerica in a long post in my TL here. To conclude, the economy of Postclassic Mesoamerica as of 1519 aligns most closely to the "Standard Marketing" stage of Gilbert Rozman's schema for pre-industrial urbanization. This compares favorably to the economy of Roman Italy in Classical Antiquity, and indeed to many Eurasian societies of the Middle Ages, from ninth-century China to eleventh-century England to fifteenth-century Russia.
Why not?
The Aztecs were a Neolithic society at a roughly bronze age level of advancement, minus the bronze. Comparison with ancient Egypt, which also was at a similar level and built similar pyramids, seems entirely logical. Sumer also built ziggurats and existed at a roughly similar level.
All the summaries I've read of the fight between the Spanish and Inca say that the major technological advantage that the Europeans had wasn't gunpowder, it was horses and plate armor that the Inca war clubs were almost completely ineffective against. Spanish knights were basically tanks against guys with clubs.
That said, many of those European advantages would exist in the mid-classical period as well. Roman lorica or Greek shields would likely be nearly as effective in countering clubs as Spanish plate and classical cavalry, while probably not as heavily armored as the Spanish would certainly be devastating to Inca formations. The Inca also had a general lack of archers which gives Classical armies somewhat of a range advantage too.
On the field I think a mid-Classical army would fairly easily rout a pre-Columbian one. Classical armies have both armor and mobility on their side.
That said, many of those European advantages would exist in the mid-classical period as well. Roman lorica or Greek shields would likely be nearly as effective in countering clubs as Spanish plate and classical cavalry, while probably not as heavily armored as the Spanish would certainly be devastating to Inca formations. The Inca also had a general lack of archers which gives Classical armies somewhat of a range advantage too.
On the field I think a mid-Classical army would fairly easily rout a pre-Columbian one. Classical armies have both armor and mobility on their side.
I'd like to point out that Tenochtitlan alone was larger than pretty much any city in Europe at the time of the conquest, with only Paris, Venice and Constantinople being similar sizes. And I'd say that the Aztecs actually compared favorably to both Sumer and Egypt in terms of their astronomical, medical and architectural knowledge. The Inca too were no pushovers. Their infrastructure was massive and well-maintained, which is something that only Rome and Persia did in classical Europe.
Of course, all of this supposes that whatever ASB event is pitting the cultures against each other also removes the disease factor, otherwise the Europeans are probably pushed ahead.
Of course, all of this supposes that whatever ASB event is pitting the cultures against each other also removes the disease factor, otherwise the Europeans are probably pushed ahead.
Do you mean only in the field of irrigation and water management? Or as a whole? If you mean as a whole, I would have to disagree with you completely.
This is a major point. If we assume the Aztecs go to battle with only its ensemble of what in the old world we would call the light infantry, all that is needed to rout an Aztec or Mesoamerican army would be determined heavy cavalry charges. Even when light and medium infantry ensemble armies faced determined heavy cavalry in the Islamic world, the heavy cavalry when used correctly could easily decimate such an army with serious numerical disadvantages even when the light infantry possessed weapons of steel.
I also do not know how an Aztec force would fare against horse archery. Likely they would be sorely outmatched by the speed and mobility of nearly all old world armies, aside from those of sub Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia, where horses were used less extensively.
If we are speaking of political philosophy and aquatic management, these are obviously spheres the Aztec excelled in as did other Mesoamerican states preceding them. The Aztec use of merchants as almost a wing of the military is almost reminiscent of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, using these as justifications for war or how the Mongol Hordes used merchants or envoys to justify war.
Yes, the Aztecs and Inca had impressive accomplishments. So did the Greeks/Romans/Persians/etc.
Just having metallurgy, domestic animals beyond llamas, dogs and guinea pigs, and a full-fledged writing system (as opposed to Inca qipu and Aztec pictograms; only the Maya had full-fledged writing, but you aren't asking about them) would give them an enormous advantage.
It's not taking anything away from the enormous achievements of the New World civilizations (including many that you don't mention) to note that technology was more advanced elsewhere.
Culture is obviously not really comparable (how would you even argue that e.g. the Popul Vuh is better or worse than the Aeneid?) outside of some sort of videogame ("you've unlocked Philosophy! +1 free tech!"). But in terms of material and military science, the classical civilizations have a clear edge.
Just having metallurgy, domestic animals beyond llamas, dogs and guinea pigs, and a full-fledged writing system (as opposed to Inca qipu and Aztec pictograms; only the Maya had full-fledged writing, but you aren't asking about them) would give them an enormous advantage.
It's not taking anything away from the enormous achievements of the New World civilizations (including many that you don't mention) to note that technology was more advanced elsewhere.
Culture is obviously not really comparable (how would you even argue that e.g. the Popul Vuh is better or worse than the Aeneid?) outside of some sort of videogame ("you've unlocked Philosophy! +1 free tech!"). But in terms of material and military science, the classical civilizations have a clear edge.
Optical_Illusion
Banned
Tentatively I think some of the comparisons with Egypt and Sumer underweight the complexity of Egypt and Sumer. They never solved the same geoengineering problems as Mesoamerican or Andean societies because they didn't face mountains and lakes in their regions (flatlands with rivers and marshes for the most part), not because this indicates a lack of engineering ability in Egypt/Sumer. And in general, you would probably find more things that Egypt, Sumer, Mesoamerican, Andean have which are shared between them and are surprisingly advanced, than you would unique things of Mesoamerica and Andes, e.g. if we think that Egypt and Sumer are less advanced in medical / architectural / astronomical principles, I suspect that's more because of underweighting Egypt and Sumer relative to later cultures than overweighting American civilizations. Although talking of Egypt is quite difficult for instance, as it's such a long lived culture that changed technologically.
But either way I don't think this actually matters too much for the question; in this phase of the classical world it seems like where you have Persia, the Macedonian Greeks and then Rome conquering huge swathes of it (and others potentially doing so), and there's not really a technological imbalance on the side of engineering or civilization that makes it happen. So it's more about how they'd do in wars in that very competitive theatre (as distinct from being compared against that sphere in their overall sophistication) really depends on how their armies could / could not deal with the technologies in play; the kind of ships, metal weapons, uses of horses and a lot of experience and knowledge about how to use these, whether they'd fracture along new lines or hold together, etc. (Really much like John and Escape Zeppelin's comments).
Even assuming no disease effects (at least for the sake of arguments), it's seems like a tough break to understand all that and then be competitive in that environment. And they don't just have to be competitive against states but against non-state societies that use the horse relatively heavily and/or are quite highly mobile. No pre-determined outcome, but it seems like a tough situation.
But either way I don't think this actually matters too much for the question; in this phase of the classical world it seems like where you have Persia, the Macedonian Greeks and then Rome conquering huge swathes of it (and others potentially doing so), and there's not really a technological imbalance on the side of engineering or civilization that makes it happen. So it's more about how they'd do in wars in that very competitive theatre (as distinct from being compared against that sphere in their overall sophistication) really depends on how their armies could / could not deal with the technologies in play; the kind of ships, metal weapons, uses of horses and a lot of experience and knowledge about how to use these, whether they'd fracture along new lines or hold together, etc. (Really much like John and Escape Zeppelin's comments).
Even assuming no disease effects (at least for the sake of arguments), it's seems like a tough break to understand all that and then be competitive in that environment. And they don't just have to be competitive against states but against non-state societies that use the horse relatively heavily and/or are quite highly mobile. No pre-determined outcome, but it seems like a tough situation.
You are making the assumption that the Aztecs and the Inca would not adopt new crops and technologies?
Both of them are already using metals, so it will not be a big step to using iron for weapons. The Inca seem to have had expermental farms. And I've yet to see any farmer who not at leas interested in new crops, even if he decides not to grow them.
Both of them are already using metals, so it will not be a big step to using iron for weapons. The Inca seem to have had expermental farms. And I've yet to see any farmer who not at leas interested in new crops, even if he decides not to grow them.
I'm interested in Aztec philosophy and how it compares to Classical Greek philosophy--does anyone have a good synopsis?
While in a general agreement, I'd like to notice that both in the case of Cortes and Pissaro most of the Spanish troops were not a cavalry and most probably that a big part of their infantry did not have cuirasses. But, at least in the case of Cortes, a skillful tactical usage of few cavalrymen (IIRC, acting against flanks and a rear) combined with an aggressively attacking infantry (Bernal Diaz repeatedly stressed this) was enough to rout the native armies. It also seems that these armies tended to flee as soon as their leader was killed and an idea of capturing prisoners instead of killing the opponents also proved to be counter-productive. Their bows were seemingly not very effective even against a minimal protection: Diaz was mentioning wounds from the arrows but very little deaths (if any, simply don't remember).
Of course, some of the Spanish advantages had been minimized in an urban fighting but this is probably neither here nor there.
Well, ask understood, the Aztecs would be faced with armies of the old world in full. Thus, they would be facing armies exceeding 10,000 at least from at least some region of the world. Hence why the prospects of Aztec victories in single pitched battles with a full fledged Abbasid period army of the 9th century would be a nigh impossibility and this hypothetical battle encounter between Aztec and say a Saljuq, Byzantine, Ghaznavid, etc army would be similarly destined for defeat.
However, as we know, this is a silly question; yet it is worth noting that in general the Aztec armies would be utterly no match for a real army of Europe, China, Japan, Korea, Byzantium, Islamic World, India or the Steppe Hordes.
In terms of pitched battles, the Aztec would do best against armies that lacked mobility that characterized the more difficult forces mentioned and also would be outnumbered. So an Aztec army could pose serious threats in pitched battles against some of the southeast Asian islands and the lack of heavy armor would be a norm in the region. Aztec armies would face perhaps victories against some of the tribes and forces in the interior of Africa, but even that is difficult to determine and likely the Aztec would be very outmatched by tribes and states of the Sahel and wider Sahel.
One issue to point out, the Aztec could pose threats in a sort of hill country insurgency format where they hold certain fortifications or strategic spots. We do not necessarily see this mentality from the Aztec in history, as the Aztec had no reason to engage in an alternative method of war against the Spanish conquistadors, as they were aware only that they were a victorious empire and they woefully outnumbered their foe. They were totally unaware we may assume of the relative inbalance between the two armies at Otumba and this combined with great skill and decisive action by the Spaniard band, led to one of the most monumental pitched battle victories in history.
We may expect or predict possible, that if faced with a great chance of losing a war or pitched battle in preliminary stages, that the Aztec logically avoid such an engagement. Fleeing into defensive positions of some kind and attempting to nullify the enemy numbers. The issue is, most old world armies of the more powerful category, especially the steppe hordes, would not need many soldiers to fairly easily dismantle the Aztec in a pitched battle, thus it is likely that the Aztec would still underestimate their enemy, like at Otumba and be routed and taken captive generally.
Last edited: