How did the Spanish beat the Aztec with weak guns?

[dearnis.com]

I concede the theoretical point, especially since we are on the same page!!
I do not believe that the Aztecs used projectiles apart from spears (possibly with spear throwers/atl-atls...)
I would look it the book I recommended above, but of course I loaned my copy to a friend.....

 

[KenpoTex]

On the bow issue, it really comes down to the physics of the armor. While an arrow may have the ability to punch through steel there is a lot to consider. The type of steel, the thickness of the steel, the strength of the bow, the arrowhead material, the angle of impact, ect. The prey of the common Aztec before the coming of the Spanish, be it man or beast, wasn't wearing steel. So it is easy to assume that their arrows were not up efficient enough to puncture steel, much less the refined and angled steel the Spanish were wearing.

This is a good point, unlike the English, Japanese, and basically everyone else from Europe or the middle/far east who fought people who used armor, the Aztecs didn't have to contend with that type of technology. English archers were renouned for their abilty to make accurate shots in excess of 200 yards, the bows they used were usually about 6' in length (hence the term "long-bow"). The Recurve bow (common in the Orient) is also a design capable of a lot of power. I don't know this for a fact, but since the Aztecs weren't faced with armor why would their bows and arrows be designed to counter it?

 

[dearnis.com]

Again, I believe the Aztecs did not in fact use bows.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Metal is not required to peirce metal, although it would help an awful lot. Just about any material if in the right design and at the right pressures could puncture metal. Look at pieces of straw that puncture telephone poles in tornado winds. You're right in that I don't think the Aztecs actually had any means of applying sufficient force to puncture steel of the grade the Spaniards used with flint or wood, the most common and hardest materials of the native weapons.

Thank You for clarifying what I meant to say.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Again, I believe the Aztecs did not in fact use bows.

Chad,

I agree, yet I allow for the possibility, then I argue that they would not be advanced or powerful and would be lofted to fall upon the opponent. Very similiar to the the Native Americans. If there was technical advantage in the bow it woudl have moved to other cultures including the Spanish, and other NAtive tribes.

So, I would agree with you, because the evidence does not support a technilogical advanced bow.

Rich
:asian:

 

[Cobra]

This has nothing to do with the Aztec's and Spanierds war, but let's change the scenerio. 100 bowmen vs. 100 1500's gunmen. Who would win? Now in this case, there are no disease or no fear on either side. Just a straight down to the middle war between these 200 people.

So with that scenario put, the bowmen would win, right? Bowman are probably much faster in reloading and more accurate.

 

[Touch Of Death]

This has nothing to do with the Aztec's and Spanierds war, but let's change the scenerio. 100 bowmen vs. 100 1500's gunmen. Who would win? Now in this case, there are no disease or no fear on either side. Just a straight down to the middle war between these 200 people.

So with that scenario put, the bowmen would win, right? Bowman are probably much faster in reloading and more accurate.

Who's got the high ground, is it raining, is the wind blowing, is anyone drunk, what range we talkin', what the terrain, has everyone eaten lately, are they tired, who's intiating the first attack???????????

 

[dearnis.com]

The guns would win. It happened in Japan.

 

[grimfang]

I don't mean to divert from the specific topic here too much, but reading thru this discussion I was reminded of an interesting point...
In regards to the arrow vs. steel armor debate: When the Mongols made their push into Europe, they typically wore silk under thier leather armor (a few mongols had metal armor, but it is beleived the majority did not.) When an arrow made it through the armor, the silk del would wrap itself around the arrowhead instead of tearing. So instead of cutting into the skin, the arrowhead punctured the skin. The Mongol would then pull on the silk del, pulling out the arrowhead without causing serious damage.
Thus, what is worn UNDER the armor can be just as crucial as the armor itself.

 

[Gary5000]

I think: As Touch'O'Death Said
which advantage did either teams have?

 

[MMA Combatives]

Howdy folks, after reading this thread I just have to jump in.

Mounted solders...cavalry...deadliest and most scarry weapon on the battlefield.

Rifles...smokepoles...blackpowder...rip through a soldier and kill the one behind him.

Metal quality...Spanish steel versus Aztec...hmmm....not sure but imagine the Spanish blade cutting through any block or parry.

Armor...can't kill them quick if you can't penetrate.

Trained soldiers with firearms albeit outnumbered....not the first time in history that few stood against the many and won.

 

[OULobo]

Again concurring with TOD, weather has a great effect. Bow stings are useless when wet and so is gun powder. Depending on the bow type, the strings can be taken off and stored dry, but so can the gun power. Wind has a very drastic effect on arrows, but a much lesser effect on bullets or even early musket balls. Also firearms have a greater range and better accuracy at long range, while bows have gernally better short range accuracy that drastically deteriorates with distance. This allows musketeers to sit out of bow range and fire at will into a crowd. Besides better short range accuracy, the only real advantages of the bow are cost and rate of fire.

There are good reasons why the bow phased out when faced with the semi-primitive firearm.

Good summary MMA COMBATIVES.

 

[Cobra]

Who's got the high ground, is it raining, is the wind blowing, is anyone drunk, what range we talkin', what the terrain, has everyone eaten lately, are they tired, who's intiating the first attack???????????

If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.

And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?

 

[Touch Of Death]

If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.

And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?

The gunmen, because the loaded multiple shot with to much gun powder and the bullets went through bowmen and into the bowman behind them. The gunmen also were smart enough to fight with the sun behind them; so, the bowmen had a hard time seeing.
As for your first point I'm going to once again reject your premis. Martial artists are not assured a win when they are at a diadvantage. Sheesh!!!(or is that hashish talkin')
Sean

 

[loki09789]

If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.

And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?

Since this wasn't the case in terms of the Aztecs vs. the Conquestadors, what is the point? Also, if one is truly better than the other, it isn't nit picky to discuss how the better one took advantage of the terrain and other tactical elements.... doing so is what demonstrates their superiority.

Are you of the opinion that the Conquestadors should have lost and didn't?

 

[lonecoyote]

psychology of the spanish was a factor too, in my opinion. No one, not the governor in Cuba, not the king, nobody sanctioned Cortez trip. He must have been more than a little desperate, adventurous, or just plain crazy, and his crew too, because they weren't exactly spanish regular military either. If they had failed, those who survived would probably swing. It was only the success of their expedition that saved their lives and made them rich men. So it was either literally victory or death. come in and win, or die.

 

[someguy]

If one side is truly better, not every nit pick disadvantage would apply. It is like like a martial artist going against a person with nofighting experiance. Even if the person on steroids, the martial would usally win cause he is better. If you nit pick, there will never be a winner. Let us ifyou really want to nit pick, they are on a blank grass terrain, no slopes, no one is drunk, and everyone has eaten the same amont.

And the bows, let us give them British Longbows. So, Longbowmen vs. 1500's Gunmen, who would win?

Who ever started the fight is a fool as they are taking no advantages. They will lose as their tactics are worse.

Now as to the Aztecs having bows I dunno if they did but I raised a point that Primative arrows could peice steel. Some native american tribes had the bows to do it with. That was my intent. As to the Aztecs I know nothing exept Aztec isn't the proper name. I think it was something like Mexica pronounced Meshica. From this came Mexico.

 

[lonecoyote]

I went back and looked through some notes for latin american history and it seems that some folks might have been a little off base, including me. The weapons and tactics were important but what was really important was other native americans. Turns out they didn't like being sacrificed, taxed, and terrorized. Chief among the allies of the spanish were a people called the texcoco, they and others swelled the ranks of the invaders to hundreds of thousands. Also they knew the landscape and many really hated the Aztecs, or Mexia. Also, the Aztecs had obsidian edge weapons which, while broken easily are apparently very sharp. They came up with a horse cutter type weapon I think but it could only be used once.

 

[someguy]

Now Gun's must have had some great qualities to have them survive and replace bows. One reason that occurs to me is that the don't require stregnth like the bows would. To fire a long bow I have heard that you need to practice alot to mantain the stregnth required to fire one well. This would mean that you ould have trouble carrying long bow men on long ship voyages and have them be that great at fighting afterwards. That would be based on what I have heard and I don't know much about that though.
A gun would also stilll probably be better than a bow for the most part. These may have been sort of primative but they survived the ages and improved. So I'd guess these weapons were better than european bows in multiple ways.
I guess some one should go make the type of gun's for this time and test them out then test out the bows of this time. See which one is better that way.

 

[TKDman]

Guns + Armor + Horses + 1000s of Angry Allies vs. A bunch of semi-clothed indians with sticks?

No contest.

Plus I heard that the Aztecs fought to capture their enemies, not kill them.