The greatest empire in history

MEXICANS WAZ KANGZ ND SHIET

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Otumba
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u8bSKfWL244&ved=0ahUKEwiS_PXy9MHOAhVGGB4KHT8dCs0QtwIIGzAA&usg=AFQjCNHn_E78vdB-lLyBa65Ow6ZOqO3jRg&sig2=t6-OwMcc6HoqBKG5tVLQIw
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martín_Cortés_(son_of_doña_Marina)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

no, spanish destroyed this shit very easy.

It's impressive they built a city that basically floated, but that seems like an excessive amount of effort to build a city. Besides the natural moat I don't really understand the advantage.

>people live in a city
>greatest civilization
Who ever said they didn't have groups?

Azteca let that shit happen ez

Tenochtitlan is probably cleaner than a modern day Brazillian city.

Literally 500 spanish conquered the whole thing.

africans didn't have cities, neither did abbos. You do realise you also need infrastructure to maintain a city do you?
Black africa still lives in the stone age.

pic related is just insane

this was in the year 1,500, their city was restricted to probably temples and temples for the king/nobles.

Spaniards finished conquering Moors from over 700 years of war.

the Aztecs made a lot of mistakes. They thought they were the biggest dog around so they ruled exclusively through fear and intimidation, making it easy for the spaniards to find allies.

Tenochitilan was an impressive feat, it had by some estimates more than a million people living in it

It's really too bad that it became the shithole it is today, Mexico D.F. is a dirty-ass city

Like 300: a society with an even distribution of martial prowess meeting a severely imbalanced society where skill is highly concentrated.

Why would it be less dirty with even less infrastructure and technology?

While it's true that the Aztecs were a very formidable force in region, they weren't prepared for the Spanish and their formidable technology. Most Aztecs used tlaximaltepoztli, a wood handled axe with obsidian shards, or a Macuahuitl, wooden swords with obsidian shards.. While they were quite effective against flesh, they weren't against armor in the slightest. The Atlatl was also very primitive and couldn't pierce the armor because, again, the arrowheads were made of obsidian or rock and they couldn't get enough force to pierce the armor. I'm honestly surprised the Spanish had even 73 deaths.

Pretty much this. The Aztec empire was hilariously mismanaged plus the entire region was Balkanized to shit. Cortez's strategy was to meet one small group of natives and be like "heard the guys a few villages over were talkin shit" win a battle, betray their old allies, repeat as necessary only upping their game when it was time to take down Tenochtitlan.

Also the fall of the Aztecs is similar in many ways to the fall of the Incas in that if the leaders would have AT ANY POINT near the beginning of the conquest just been like "alright fuck it, this stops right the fuck now" and just thrown bodies and resources at the conquistador party they would have wiped them out easy.

But that's why the empires (both of them) were mismanaged, because even though plenty of people in the empire clearly saw the eventual conquest coming, nobody felt like they could speak up and recommend a course of action.

Cause it was cool mane.

If the Aztecs had made no mistakes they still would have lost (a lot of these after-action discussions are insubstantive, a good system can survive and correct many mistakes). Europe was effectively hyper-meritocratic because of its constant fighting. The only fighting the Aztecs had known for generations was either completely one-sided bullying or ritual.

> 500 vs 200 000
For all i know the aztecs could be barehanded naked and they still shouldve won.

My bad, the tlaximaltepoztli was actually a bronze axe, but since the head was fitted onto a piece of wood it usually just splintered.

Aztecs fought back way too late, plus they got absolutely rekt by diseases.

They were fucked either way, someone else would have eventually colonized them. Unless they westernized or some shit.

Agriculture and defence.

Central American empires rose and fell based on weather patterns. When crops dried up or rainy seasons changed, the entire region would turn into a zany bloodbath and civilization would fall back 500 years.

Building a capital city inside a lake was a mostly rational response to their history (even if they never wrote it down they surely had oral traditions) plus it made the city super easy to defend. Just pull up the bridges and wait.

Not that it mattered vs. Spain.

>oral traditions
no.

Actually the thing they feared the most were the dogs. Pic related: "who is a good indian-eating doggy? you are a good indian eating doggy"

Guns can shoot yeah, but a lot of the conquistadors had changed their steel cuirasses for native cloth armors anyway so that wasn't a vital factor. And it was more than "hundred" native allies. We literally won the PR campaign against the aztecs.
Not trying to minimize what they did.

Aztecs were little more than a city state.

Aztecs were suffering from a terrible drought that had been lasting for years and years.
Most of their water sources were dried out (huge underwater caves that shouldn't have dried out unless a drought lasted for decades)

and their empire was already falling apart by the time the Spanish got there
Not that it would matter considering the Spanish had
>guns
>military tactics
>steel
>horses
>galleons
and every battle between them was a sound victory for the Spanish despite being drastically outnumbered.

But it's not like the Aztecs could have prevented their downfall.
It's no wonder they thought the gods were angry at them and wanted more sacrifices

We have one too, floating cities are very biutiful, desu sempai.

(can I say WE, or Venetians are not modern Italians?)

>conquered by 500 men and horses.
>literally believed Cortez and the spanish were fucking gods.
>have so many neighbouring tribes absolutely hate you so much they offer to help the Spanish to destroy you.

LITERALLY GR8

That's because the Moors contaminated their blankets with cholera and left them to the spaniards

Aztec oral tradition was that they came from "the north" in a dry place (we assume Sonora) and that their people were looking for water and a magic lake.

As with all Native oral traditions the legends mean something. The water based iconography strongly suggests that drought played a part in their history which matches up well with the historical record.

I can only envy the one in a fucking millennium wholesale asskicking those 500 men got to take part in. I can't even imagine killing 200k people, and leveling a fucking empire's major city in the span of a few days. I will always be jealous.

Its potential that they were the former hopi-anasazi people of central Arizona the likely left the phoenix area due to a perennial drought but there is no way to be certain.

This is a myth desu

>In fact, by his own estimate, Cortés had over 100,000 soldiers in his army during the final battle. Since the Aztec capital was in the midst of a horrific smallpox outbreak at the time (~50% of the population died in the first few years alone), it's entirely possible that Cortés's army outnumbered the Aztec one in the end. At the very least, they were comparable in size.

Really the aztecs were in the midst of a smallpox outbreak only a few days after encountering Europeans.

Im calling horseshit.

thats the final siege. was very real 500 vs hundreds of thousands.

you sound like a butthurt aztec

I agree.

Right, the Hopi and Aztec languages show linguistic similarities meaning that it's likely they came from the same general region. We know there were droughts in the Arizona and Sonora deserts around when the Aztecs began migrating. Without a written record there's no way to know for sure why they left but matching history, language and legend up, it's more certain than not that's what happened.

>few days
Cortes's campaign began in Feb 1519 and ended in mid 1521.

I'm not talking about that battle retard. Its a myth they took Tenochtitlan with a few hundred men.

greatest empire in history was rome this is a stupid thread

he had to rally all the tribes with his 500 spaniards
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Otumba

every thread there is a retard trying to undermine Cortes legacy

This.

The only thing that makes me more angry is when people claim Han China was more powerful.

no decent historian would actually claim that,

At this point in his life, Cortés was described by Gómara as restless, haughty and mischievous.[4] This was probably a fair description of a 16-year-old boy who had returned home only to find himself frustrated by life in his small provincial town. By this time, news of the exciting discoveries of Christopher Columbus in the New World was streaming back to Spain.
>tfw you will always be cucked by marxism and general filthy Jew bullshit.
>tfw you will never be bored and conquer half the world

They had help from other tribes who hated the Aztecs, but they ignore that to make whites seem worse

implying that it matters
I notice that the conversation tends to be
>if Aztecs weren't starving and dying of disease they definitely would have stopped the racist, sexist, white men

when in reality the Spanish an insurmountable technological advantage and won battles with only 20 men and the enemy had several hundred
Guns and steel armor and weapons is not a small advantage

No one is undermining Cortes you retard. I said its a myth they did it all themselves with 500 men. And I'm right.

no youre wrong look up battle of otumba you aztec dick-sucking faggot

They could have survived Cortes, but then the Spanish would have probably sent more men or an army to conquer it. Tldr they were screwed
No one is arguing that mane.

>Rome
Ugh do you even know anything about history or do you just have shit taste?

Lmao says the Belgium cuck. you're country is irrelevant. Fuck off

they started their adventure with a thousand men and conquered the whole continent with the tribes they defeated you piece of shit

>500 battle-hardened heavy-plated armed Spaniards against 200 000 thirsty spearchucking homo habilis
They shouldn't have lost anybody

> Says the burger who can't spell in his own and only language

Lmao, literally Belgium.

Ikr basically a single man with a rifle back then wouldve been able to conquer the whole continent.

So, youre basically admitting you indigénos are total subhumans?

no clearly you think you know about history bunt dont.

Let me guess you like persia

>beat 1,000 people
>recruit them to the battle
>beat 2,000 people
>recruit them to the battle
etc..

i really really doubt they could have survived cortes

If their empire was at full strength they could have maybe HELD OFF cortes for a year or so.

Greatest empire in history was the UK

> riddled by diseases and violence
> clean
Hell, it literally took a sneeze to decimate them.

>Argentina
>not white

Another retard, I said they didn't conquer it with just 500 men and you just proved me right. They had over 100k men during the final seige.

>1866
>General von Moltke could barely even feed and move 160k Prussian Soldiers on a 20km long front without the roads being clogged up with wagons and troops, despite a large logistical network and Railroads being a thing

>some "muh Epic battles nigguh" retards actually think some American Indiands could scrape up more than 10k people at any given time at any given place

fucking imbeciles.

>Han Dynasty is homogenized, one language, religion, etc. military organized in the same way modern militaries are.
>Rome is composed of various tribes that hate each other

We're also talking about ~1,160,000 train ex-servicemen on reserve with a combined 365,000 active soldiers, and 362,500 trainees vs Rome's 380,000 soldiers.

Gee, I wonder why people would think that.

>Let me guess you like something better than rome
and what if I do?

Sure, but 00 spics didn't do it by themselves. nigger.

They liberated those tribes you fucking moron.

For what I remember from history class, Aztek did not kill people at war, they wanted live prisoners for the human sacrifices, while Cortez fought for kill, not for prisoners.
This different view of what is war, may have advantaged Cortez, just a little.

My indígenas? What are you talking about? I'm 100% pure Germanic breed

It was possible, but he would have just come back with a larger army. They were screwed. I agree

>Ikr basically a single man with a rifle back then wouldve been able to conquer the whole continent.
what ?

no
he would have killed some people but he would have failed, im not surprised at your reply, germanics are very stupid

You are just fucking wrong.

a\h! found the revisionist loser. Rome could have wiped the floor with Han China

>I'm honestly surprised the Spanish had even 73 deaths.

Armor isn't going to cover everywhere, though 73 out 500 is an almost 15% casualty rate , 15% KIA is actually pretty bad, at least under normal circumstances.

my point being that technological advantage alone was huge

not trying to argue senpai

Not hard to field an army composed of spear chucking Indios.

Are you going to argue with facts or just insult my character because you're a guinea wop bitch?

you're right senpai, we have to correct the retards spreading misinformation itt

what would supply them?
how?
how much was food production? water transportation?

supplying 100,000 weapons?

Dunno wut u talking about willys my whole family tree is european descent with no race mixing.
Mainly Germanic, Italian and Austrian.

Its not fact Rome was a superior force. and had more of an important impact on world history.

Literally shitty wooden axes and spears.
Tenochtitlan had a million people mane. 100k is nothing

The thing is you do not see random Mexicans going around telling people that they used to be kings.

>Rome was a superior force

I just explained to you why they weren't, impact on history does not equate with military prowess. Back your claims with evidence.

who would build them?

Hannibal moved like 90,000 men over the fucking Alps over 1000 years before the Aztecs even existed, it's not implausible to believe the Indians could have mobilized 100,000 men onto an open field

they were though you are full of it.

what ever numbers they had they were at bare sustenance levels.

Aztecs were black mane.
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u8bSKfWL244&ved=0ahUKEwiS_PXy9MHOAhVGGB4KHT8dCs0QtwIIGzAA&usg=AFQjCNHn_E78vdB-lLyBa65Ow6ZOqO3jRg&sig2=t6-OwMcc6HoqBKG5tVLQIw

you pure indio juan?

yes it is, it's completely impossible.

Hannibal had supply routes and ships.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martín_Cortés_(son_of_doña_Marina)

>cortez's mestizo son married a white woman and was treated like royalty

How does it feel that romans were black?

Supply routes and ships through the Alps? Are you stoned?

Your irony made me kek out loud guys

or were you being serious?

>t. Nahuel Amaru Quispe Mamani

yes there were black Romans.

This isnt a secret.