Discussion:
Richard, Pay attention, Today lesson is the Aztec's.
(too old to reply)
Jim Dauven
2003-10-22 20:06:57 UTC
Permalink
The early history of the Aztec nation is more conjecture based upon
their myths and linguistics. First of all the Aztec language is
closer to the Shoshoni of Idaho and Montana than Central American
Indian languages. One of the myths of the Aztec nations tells of living
on the shores of a great lake with many trees. It was this myth
that was one of the reasons the Aztecs settled on the Lake that
surrounded their capital in Mexico.

One theory ( I said theory as know one knows) is that the Aztec's
collaced around the great lakes in what is now the United States.

We know that the Aztecs migrated south west (as there myths that tell
of travel through the desert, being opposed by many enemies, over high
mountains etc. (Kind of sounds like Moses and the tribes of Israel)

We know that some of the Culture of the Aztec's and the Anesazi
of the south west United States bear remarkable parallelism. Since
the Anesazi culture lasted from 1 AD to 1300 AD it is reasonable
to believe that the Aztec's may have migrated through the Anesazi
some time between 1000 AD to 1200 AD. WE do know that the Aztec
entered the valley were Mexico City now stands around 1310 to 1350.

1325 Is generally accepted as the start date of the Aztec empire.

The area around Mexico city was relatively un-populated because of the
chaos resulting from the Fall of the Toltec's about 1100. The fall
of the Toltecs may be for the same reason for the fall of the Mayan's
in that extensive agriculture depleted the land and brought about
massive starvation and disease. There is also indications of a
change in weather patterns as the Mayans, Toltecs and the Anesazi
civilizations, all ended at the same time.

Any way the Aztecs consolidated there power in the relative
un-populated central valley of Mexico where they were the largest
tribe.

The Aztecs spent a lot of capital resources to build artificial
islands with piers and mud and to fortify the Islands on the lake.
They also built gardens and some agriculture operations on their
islands which were protected by the lake from other peoples in the
central valley of Mexico. The natural defensive location of the
lake prettied the Aztecs from predation by other indian tribes
yet allowed them to raid there neighbors with out fear of reprisal
by any other tribes (and there weren't any). By 1400 the Aztecs
started there expansion basically south and east and subjugated
the tribes in these areas. (Notice they established an economic
base to support their military in the field before they started
aggressive phase of their culture.) They continued the
aggression until the came into conflict with the Tascalas that
lived on the coast of Mexico around what is now Vera Cruz.

There is considerable evidence that the Tascalas were probably
a greater Military power than the Aztecs, (This is probable in
that the Tascalas engaged in agriculture, fishing and trade and
had larger forces (because they had an economic base to sustain
it) than the Aztecs.

In 1515 Manual de Cordova landed on the coast of Mexico to explore
the land. Cordova forces were defeated and Cordova himself was
kill in military operations against the Tascalas. In 1517
Hernando Cortez set sail for Mexico with 617 men and sailors.
Upon reaching the Coast of Mexico Cortez burned the ships so
his forces could not mutiny and return to Cuba.

Cortez fought several bloody battles with the Tascalas and
finally subjugated them in 1517. However his forces at the
end of the battles with the Tascalas was around 375. So the
Tascalas inflicted about 40 percent casualties upon the forces
of Cortez.

Cortez then traveled over the mountains to the capital of the
Aztecs with the Tascalas as allies. Cortez arrived at what is
now Mexico City with a force of 371 and the Tascala allies probably
numbering between 1000 and 3000. The Aztecs allowed Cortez to
enter the City unopposed, (They were so afraid of the Tascalas
that they forbid them to even approach the causeways across the
lake. (If they Aztecs were such a great military power how come
the let 371 men enter their capital city.???)

In any event the Spanish under Cortez took Montezuma prisoner
and held him for ransom. While the Aztecs were gathering the
ransom, a force from the Governor of Cuba, landed at what is
now vera Cruz with orders to arrest Cortez and take him back to
Cuba. Cortez left a force of roughly 180 in Mexico City and
traveled back to cost with the remainder of his force were he
and his Tascala allies engaged the forces of the royal Governor
of Cuba and defeated them. Cortez then returned Mexico City with
the forces of the Governor of Cuba in Irons (prisoners) where he
collected the Ransom for Montazuma and attempted to leave the
city with the treasure and Montazuma.

Cortez fought his way out of the city suffering heavy losses. It
is reported that Cortez encamped that night with only 180 of his
original force of 500 plus, including the governors prisoners.
It is reported that he sat at the entrance of the Causeway that night
and cried.. (The Mexican celebrate it as "The Night Of Tears.")
With the remaining force of about 180 and the Tascala allies Cortez
began his march (with the treasure) back to the coast. While marching
back to the coast Cortes had to fight all the way and eventually
defeating the Aztecs by destroying the command and control center of
the Aztec military (he attacked and killed the war chiefs).
His forces when he reached the coast were only 80 or so out of a
starting force including the governors force, of about 800.

Now what were the reasons for his success. First of all the Aztecs
did not have sufficient military power to over come a force of 371 men
armed with principally melee weapons which were the same as the Aztecs.
(Well the Spanish did have edge weapons (Swords, daggers, pikes etc)
while the Aztecs had crushing weapons (war clubs) and bows and arrows.)
I place the Aztec military force probably around 1000 to 2000. The
Aztec military was augmented with auxiliaries of approximately
4000 to 5000 from other subjugated tribes. If doubt that the auxiliary
forces would have been much larger than this as there was every likely
hood the auxiliary forces would have turned on the Aztec military.

Remember, The zulu chief Getswayo destroyed an English Regiment (1500
men at Ipsalwanda). The Zulu were armed with edge weapons and the
British
were armed with .455 Martini Henry breech loading rifles. Of course
the British were out numbered abut 15 to one. Using that as a gauge
and the fact that Cortez was successful then:

In the resulting battles between Cortez and the Aztecs, Cortez Succeeded
because, the Aztecs didn't have sufficient forces to defeat Cortez.
This was possible because Cortez's army with his Tascala allies was
probably around 2000 while the Aztec forces were around around 6000
which outnumbered Cortez forces about 3 to 1. With the losses of
Cortez
in the Military operations against the Aztecs this 3 to 1 force
strength is probably right.

Now what does this mean.

The Aztecs could only field a army of 2000. Why?? They did not
have the economy to support an army any larger than 2000.

The Tascalas had a army of probably 5000 to 7000. Why?? Well the
Tascalas fought two wars with the Spanish and still had forces to
join the Spanish for an attack on the Aztecs. I suspect that
the forces of Cordova (because of the ships (5) and remember they were
supported by cannon on the ships) was about 200 to 300. They were
defeated so I suspect that the Tascala forces involved were about 1500
to 2000. If this is true then the Tascala forces facing Cordova was
about the same size as the total Aztec Army.

Again when the Tascala fought the Spanish forces of Cortez in 1517,
where Cortez had a force of 617 men and the Tascala were defeated.
The Tascala inflicted losses on Cortez forces of 250 men which probably
caused the Tascala the loss of 1250 to 1500 dead which was probably
30 percent of the Tascal force engaged

This puts the Tascala forces opposing Cortez at about 5000 which
was two to three times the size of the entire Aztec military forces.


Using the results of all the combat operations between Cortez, the
Tascala and the Aztecs the total forces involved in the conflicts
were

Tascala 5000-6000
Aztec 2000-2500
Cortez 800

So again my thesis that You need a economic base to support military
forces is accurate. The Tascala had an economy (and population)
three times the size of the Aztecs.

The Aztec economy was insufficient to support a military force much
larger than 2000 as their entire civilization was destroyed by a force
of 800.

That ends today lesson about the Aztecs. You may go outside and play
Master Lewis.

The Independent
RyPhil
2003-10-23 23:16:14 UTC
Permalink
"Jim Dauven" <***@web-ster.com> wrote a lot of stuff, then I wrote...


I missed that day in school, but now I wan't to know more. So, whens the
next lesson
Sue
2003-10-24 00:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by RyPhil
I missed that day in school, but now I wan't to know more. So, whens the
next lesson
I'd suggest an English class for you. ;o)
Sue
Jim Dauven
2003-10-22 23:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Sue
That's what happens when your train of thought runs faster than your
fingers. Dyslexia doesn't help either.

The Independent
Post by Sue
Post by RyPhil
I missed that day in school, but now I wan't to know more. So, whens the
next lesson
I'd suggest an English class for you. ;o)
Sue
Richard Lewis
2003-10-24 21:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Dauven
Sue
That's what happens when your train of thought runs faster than your
fingers. Dyslexia doesn't help either.
The Independent
Now Rambo is dyslexic, too?

Tell us the story about how you earned the MOH with a wooden leg,
idiot?

ral
Richard Lewis
2003-10-24 01:31:24 UTC
Permalink
So you now claim the Aztecs were Shoshonis, they walked all over the
US without ever having to fight (they had no economy while moving
their society remember, idiot), and that one of the most powerful
tribes/societies in the ancient western world only had 2,000 men?

What cereal box did you read that load of bullshit off of, idiot?

Next you're gonna tell us they really were aliens, right?

ral
Jim Dauven
2003-10-23 12:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Master Lewis The information about the Shoshonies and the Aztecs
was presented in a class taught by Professor Sven S. Liljeblad
(Professor Emeritus Idaho State University and permanent member of the
Nobel prize selection committee. Also classes taught by
Dr. Michael Charney who did the basic work on Cycle Cell Anemia as
protection against Malaria.


Master Lewis you have flunked!!!

Mr. Lewis how did you get so STUPID!!! You must have worked very
hard the get that way because no Homo Sapien could have been born
that way.

Quite frankly I am getting dammed tired of going through my
written class notes and other documentation to refute the FUCKING
STUPID ASININE statements that you pull out of your ass with
not a whit of scholarly thought

You Mr. Richard A. Lewis
are a stupid, idiot, moron and not capable of any cohernet thought
and it is obvious to any one who has followed this thread that

1. You have probably never been in the military, and if your were
never reached above the rank of E-3.

2. You have never studied history.

3. You have niether the training or the intellect to engage in
a scholarly debate with a first grader.


3. You are a stupid military wanna-be who doesn't know an lensatic
compass from a trip flare.

The Independent
Post by Richard Lewis
So you now claim the Aztecs were Shoshonis, they walked all over the
US without ever having to fight (they had no economy while moving
their society remember, idiot), and that one of the most powerful
tribes/societies in the ancient western world only had 2,000 men?
What cereal box did you read that load of bullshit off of, idiot?
Next you're gonna tell us they really were aliens, right?
ral
Richard Lewis
2003-10-24 21:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Beyond being an idiot and now bordering on plain old stupidity!
Halcitron
2003-10-24 01:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:06:57 -0700
The early history of the Aztec nation is more conjecture based upon
their myths and linguistics.
<snip>

Interesting history lesson, which with refinement would improve.


caveat lector

Halcitron misc.survivalism
Check your six and know when to duck.
NRA Member since 2002
The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.

Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.
strabo
2003-10-24 13:06:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:06:57 -0700, Jim Dauven
Post by Jim Dauven
The early history of the Aztec nation is more conjecture based upon
their myths and linguistics. First of all the Aztec language is
closer to the Shoshoni of Idaho and Montana than Central American
Indian languages. One of the myths of the Aztec nations tells of living
on the shores of a great lake with many trees. It was this myth
that was one of the reasons the Aztecs settled on the Lake that
surrounded their capital in Mexico.
One theory ( I said theory as know one knows) is that the Aztec's
collaced around the great lakes in what is now the United States.
We know that the Aztecs migrated south west (as there myths that tell
of travel through the desert, being opposed by many enemies, over high
mountains etc. (Kind of sounds like Moses and the tribes of Israel)
We know that some of the Culture of the Aztec's and the Anesazi
of the south west United States bear remarkable parallelism. Since
the Anesazi culture lasted from 1 AD to 1300 AD it is reasonable
to believe that the Aztec's may have migrated through the Anesazi
some time between 1000 AD to 1200 AD. WE do know that the Aztec
entered the valley were Mexico City now stands around 1310 to 1350.
1325 Is generally accepted as the start date of the Aztec empire.
The area around Mexico city was relatively un-populated because of the
chaos resulting from the Fall of the Toltec's about 1100. The fall
of the Toltecs may be for the same reason for the fall of the Mayan's
in that extensive agriculture depleted the land and brought about
massive starvation and disease. There is also indications of a
change in weather patterns as the Mayans, Toltecs and the Anesazi
civilizations, all ended at the same time.
Any way the Aztecs consolidated there power in the relative
un-populated central valley of Mexico where they were the largest
tribe.
The Aztecs spent a lot of capital resources to build artificial
islands with piers and mud and to fortify the Islands on the lake.
They also built gardens and some agriculture operations on their
islands which were protected by the lake from other peoples in the
central valley of Mexico. The natural defensive location of the
lake prettied the Aztecs from predation by other indian tribes
yet allowed them to raid there neighbors with out fear of reprisal
by any other tribes (and there weren't any). By 1400 the Aztecs
started there expansion basically south and east and subjugated
the tribes in these areas. (Notice they established an economic
base to support their military in the field before they started
aggressive phase of their culture.) They continued the
aggression until the came into conflict with the Tascalas that
lived on the coast of Mexico around what is now Vera Cruz.
There is considerable evidence that the Tascalas were probably
a greater Military power than the Aztecs, (This is probable in
that the Tascalas engaged in agriculture, fishing and trade and
had larger forces (because they had an economic base to sustain
it) than the Aztecs.
In 1515 Manual de Cordova landed on the coast of Mexico to explore
the land. Cordova forces were defeated and Cordova himself was
kill in military operations against the Tascalas. In 1517
Hernando Cortez set sail for Mexico with 617 men and sailors.
Upon reaching the Coast of Mexico Cortez burned the ships so
his forces could not mutiny and return to Cuba.
Cortez fought several bloody battles with the Tascalas and
finally subjugated them in 1517. However his forces at the
end of the battles with the Tascalas was around 375. So the
Tascalas inflicted about 40 percent casualties upon the forces
of Cortez.
Cortez then traveled over the mountains to the capital of the
Aztecs with the Tascalas as allies. Cortez arrived at what is
now Mexico City with a force of 371 and the Tascala allies probably
numbering between 1000 and 3000. The Aztecs allowed Cortez to
enter the City unopposed, (They were so afraid of the Tascalas
that they forbid them to even approach the causeways across the
lake. (If they Aztecs were such a great military power how come
the let 371 men enter their capital city.???)
In any event the Spanish under Cortez took Montezuma prisoner
and held him for ransom. While the Aztecs were gathering the
ransom, a force from the Governor of Cuba, landed at what is
now vera Cruz with orders to arrest Cortez and take him back to
Cuba. Cortez left a force of roughly 180 in Mexico City and
traveled back to cost with the remainder of his force were he
and his Tascala allies engaged the forces of the royal Governor
of Cuba and defeated them. Cortez then returned Mexico City with
the forces of the Governor of Cuba in Irons (prisoners) where he
collected the Ransom for Montazuma and attempted to leave the
city with the treasure and Montazuma.
Cortez fought his way out of the city suffering heavy losses. It
is reported that Cortez encamped that night with only 180 of his
original force of 500 plus, including the governors prisoners.
It is reported that he sat at the entrance of the Causeway that night
and cried.. (The Mexican celebrate it as "The Night Of Tears.")
With the remaining force of about 180 and the Tascala allies Cortez
began his march (with the treasure) back to the coast. While marching
back to the coast Cortes had to fight all the way and eventually
defeating the Aztecs by destroying the command and control center of
the Aztec military (he attacked and killed the war chiefs).
His forces when he reached the coast were only 80 or so out of a
starting force including the governors force, of about 800.
Now what were the reasons for his success. First of all the Aztecs
did not have sufficient military power to over come a force of 371 men
armed with principally melee weapons which were the same as the Aztecs.
(Well the Spanish did have edge weapons (Swords, daggers, pikes etc)
while the Aztecs had crushing weapons (war clubs) and bows and arrows.)
I place the Aztec military force probably around 1000 to 2000. The
Aztec military was augmented with auxiliaries of approximately
4000 to 5000 from other subjugated tribes. If doubt that the auxiliary
forces would have been much larger than this as there was every likely
hood the auxiliary forces would have turned on the Aztec military.
Remember, The zulu chief Getswayo destroyed an English Regiment (1500
men at Ipsalwanda). The Zulu were armed with edge weapons and the
British
were armed with .455 Martini Henry breech loading rifles. Of course
the British were out numbered abut 15 to one. Using that as a gauge
In the resulting battles between Cortez and the Aztecs, Cortez Succeeded
because, the Aztecs didn't have sufficient forces to defeat Cortez.
This was possible because Cortez's army with his Tascala allies was
probably around 2000 while the Aztec forces were around around 6000
which outnumbered Cortez forces about 3 to 1. With the losses of
Cortez
in the Military operations against the Aztecs this 3 to 1 force
strength is probably right.
Now what does this mean.
The Aztecs could only field a army of 2000. Why?? They did not
have the economy to support an army any larger than 2000.
The Tascalas had a army of probably 5000 to 7000. Why?? Well the
Tascalas fought two wars with the Spanish and still had forces to
join the Spanish for an attack on the Aztecs. I suspect that
the forces of Cordova (because of the ships (5) and remember they were
supported by cannon on the ships) was about 200 to 300. They were
defeated so I suspect that the Tascala forces involved were about 1500
to 2000. If this is true then the Tascala forces facing Cordova was
about the same size as the total Aztec Army.
Again when the Tascala fought the Spanish forces of Cortez in 1517,
where Cortez had a force of 617 men and the Tascala were defeated.
The Tascala inflicted losses on Cortez forces of 250 men which probably
caused the Tascala the loss of 1250 to 1500 dead which was probably
30 percent of the Tascal force engaged
This puts the Tascala forces opposing Cortez at about 5000 which
was two to three times the size of the entire Aztec military forces.
Using the results of all the combat operations between Cortez, the
Tascala and the Aztecs the total forces involved in the conflicts
were
Tascala 5000-6000
Aztec 2000-2500
Cortez 800
So again my thesis that You need a economic base to support military
forces is accurate. The Tascala had an economy (and population)
three times the size of the Aztecs.
The Aztec economy was insufficient to support a military force much
larger than 2000 as their entire civilization was destroyed by a force
of 800.
That ends today lesson about the Aztecs. You may go outside and play
Master Lewis.
Your paper gets an F.

An Aztec culture in rapid decline replete with societal conflicts
and surrounded by mortal enemies, met Cortés as he approached the
Aztec Empire.

The Aztecs were the most despised people in meso America, and
for good reason. They had become a culture of death. Every group
that Cortés encountered aided in the Aztec destruction.

The Aztecs were also beset with:

1. internal squabbles;
2. a failing military;
3. "end-of-time" omens.

And you fail to mention the the different ways in which Indian
societies resolved conflict and how this became an advantage
for the Europeans.

Once you understand the circumstances you will begin to
know why the Spaniards managed to kill so many Aztecs and
Tlaxcalans.

For an interesting and more accurate overview of the subject
read here:

http://www.geocities.com/thalaric1/history/conquistadors/cortes.html
Post by Jim Dauven
The Independent
Jim Dauven
2003-10-23 21:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Strabo

All you said is very true but as the whole thread of the
argument with R.A.L. is over economy vs Military power, I didn't
want to spend hours discussing the culture and history of the
Aztecs, and the other indians of pre-Columbian Central America as it
didn't lend much to the argument based upon R.A.L. assertion that you
don't need an economy to support a military force and all you do is
go over and enslave your neighbors to build a powerful Civilization.

I maintain that a nation must have a functioning economy and some civil
structure superior to your adversary in order to be successful
or your civilization regardless of military prowess is going
to fall as you do not have sufficient economic power to to support
a military capable of being successful in a war against a superior
civil/economic power.

Also what I wanted to do, is show the by the number of men that
Cortez had, and how many of his men met their death at the hands of
the Tlaxcaltecs, what the relative combat efficiencies of the Tlaxcals
and the Aztecs. (I have seen the name spelled Tlascala, Tlaxcal,
Tlaxcala, and Tlaxcaltecs so I guess they are the same). The
Tlaxcaltecs
had a republican form of government where different clans of the tribes
were represented in the governing council by representatives
appointed by each clan, by the way). The selection of the Tlaxcal
government and military commander were remarkably similar to that
of the Roman Republic in the Punic wars. There is a good
write up on the Tlaxcaltecs by Diaz del Castillo.

I was also placing the Aztecs outside of the culture of the other
indian tribes in pre-Columbian central Mexico. The members of the
Uto-Aztecian language group which numbers 65 languages spoken in
Mexico and the western United States. The Uto-Aztechan has two
major branches the Shoshonie and the Sornoran.

There are 36 Indian tribes that are in the Uto-Aztecan language
group In the United States. The major member of this group are:

Tohono O'odham Of Arizona
Hopi of Arizona
Yagui of Northern Mexico and Arizona
Ute of Utah
Shoshoni of Southern Idaho Idaho and Montana
Paiute, Northern (Paviotso) of Navada, Utah and Colorado
Paiute, Southern of Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona
Comanche of Texas
and a whole bunch of other small north American tribes that no one
has heard of.

Of all the Tribal Languages in Central Mexico, It appears that
Aztec of which there are 28 sub groups loosely identified as Nahuatl,
were the only ones of the Uto-Aztec language group which means that
the Aztecs were recent arrivals into Central Mexico.

What this shows that the Aztecs were more closely related to the
Indian Tribes of the central western United States (Northern Arizona,
northern New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Southern Idaho) than other
indian Tribes. The Aztec lanuguage was not related to Navajo, Pima,
Zuni, Apache, etc. Also there have been some findings that the Aztecs
and
the Anesazi indians shared some cultural traits so I was placing them
in time also. (Most likely the Aztecs migrated through the Anesazi
sometime between 900-1100 on their way to Central Mexico)

The Aztecs arrived in south central Mexico abut 1325 and for the first
100
years they were economically and militarily insignificant. They only
became economically and militarily significant by subjugating the
tribes north and south of their capital. The Aztecs began the
aggressive phase of their history around 1425 which means the Aztec
empire lasted only 90 years.

I suspect that given the status of Aztec history and Culture that the
first 100 years of their existence in central highlands of Mexico
that the Aztecs were developing there homelands with the building
or Islands, temples, palaces, roads, causeways etc. As for their
neighbors only the tribes to the north and south of Mexico city
were subjugated yet even then they had considerable political autonomy.

"The political and social organization was based on three
castes—nobility, priesthood, and military and merchants. The priesthood
was a powerful political as well as religious force. Aztec government
was relatively centralized, although many conquered chiefs retained
political autonomy; they paid tribute and kept commerce open to the
Aztec."
(Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth edition. Columbia University press 2003)

The Tlaxcaltecs that lived on the plains and foot hills to the east were
never completely subjugated, and even when the Aztecs attempted to
subjugate the Tlaxcaltescs they could only achieve intermittent
partial control. At the time of he Spanish Invasion, Cortez was met
by a force of over 10,000 Tlaxcaltec warriors which puts the Tlaxcaltec
populations at probably 100,000 or so.

The Indian Tribe that lived on the western plains and foot hills were
the
Tarascan. They severely defeated the Aztec and were never invaded.
The
Terascan numbered only 25,000 to 35,000 and appeared to be non
aggressive
yet could not be defeated by a nation that was 10 times there size.
There is little know about the Tarascans other than they were never
subjugated by the Aztecs. By the absence any reference to them in
written documents from the times of the Spanish Invasion I suspect that
the Tarascans were much like the Siminole's of Florida. They were very
capable warriors when fighting a defensive war.

By the way the Tarascan are unique as there language is not related
to any other indian tribe in the northern hemisphere. Their
Architecture was also not consistent with other cultures that derived
their architecture from the Toltec/Olmec cultures.

The Aztecs were much like the Romans in that they absorbed the culture
of the tribes around them. "They attained a high degree of
development in engineering, architecture, art, mathematics, and
astronomy. The Aztec calendar utilized a 260-day year and a 52-year,
time cycle." (Same as the Toltec). Aztec skill in engineering was
evident in the building and fortifying of islands and capital.
This took time to accomplish so the building and fortification of the
islands predate the aggressive phase of their history. "The Aztec
further developed sculpture, weaving, metalwork, ornamentation,
music, and picture writing for historical records. Agriculture was
well advanced and trade flourished."
(Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth edition. Columbia University press 2003)

The Tlaxcaltecs were a highly civilized people that lived in the
mountain
ranges east of Aztec Capital and were only intermittently under control
of the Aztecs. The Tlazcala were much like the Aztec with really no
Identifiable culture of their own but with heavy influences from the
Olmec and the Toltec cultures. The Tlaxcala language was of an
different language group than which palaces them in Mexico earlier than
the Aztecs's

Using the data of the Spanish death by the Tlaxscalas I can use this
data to establish a base line of the relative Military power of the
Tlascala and the Aztecs. There for even written sources put the Aztec
population at 300,000 and deriving the population of the Tlaxcals at
100,000 and using Diaz del Castillio's figures of the Tlaxcal forces
at 10,000 and By using the relative Spanish deaths by the Tlascala and
the
Aztec's, ( the original 617 men of Cortez reduced to 375- 450 by the
Tlaxcals) and down to 80 by the Aztecs.

Cortez entered the Aztec capital with 400 troops. While Cortez
was in the Aztec Capital a force of 200 troops was sent by
Governor Velesquez in Cuba to arrest Cortez and take command of
Cotez's forces. Cortz left 200 men in the Aztec Capital and
returned to the coast where the two Spanish forces fought an
engagement and Cortez took Velesquez'a troops into his force

Cortez then returned to the Aztec capital with a force of 400 ment
to join the 200 men that were left there.

When Cortez had to fight his way out of the capital City he had about
600 men and when he reached the edge of the causeway where his indian
allies were encamped with some 6000 warriors he had 178 Spanish troops
remaining.

Cortez fought his way back to the coast with his indian allies
and when he reached the coast he had about 80 personnel left out
of a force of 817.

So 250 Spanish dead / by 100,000 population = .0025 Spanish death per
Tlaxcaltec.
So 427 Spanish dead / by 300,000 population = .000142 Spanish deaths
per Aztec.

So you can see that the either the Tlaxcala had a much more efficient
military or the Military power of the Aztecs was such that their
military was a much smaller percentage of its population than the
Tlaxcaltecs

I think that given the technology of the times and the brutal nature
of the civilizations involved the Smaller percentage is more likely
reason for the difference in deaths.

If the Aztec force were smaller percentage of the population which
I think is probable then we can surmise that the Aztecs didn't have
the economic assets necessary to support and military force as of
1/10 of there population. (In world war II the United State had
12 million men under arm and had a population of about 132 million
so 1/10 is a good base line number.

If they Tlaxcala had a force of 10,000 and inflicted 250 dead on the
Spanish and given the technologies involved that places the Aztec
military force at around 17,000. This seems likely as the Aztecs could
not subdue the Tarascan with a population of 25,000 to 35,000. Since
the Aztecs would not have attacked the Tarascans with their entire
army (needed forces to keep the other indian tribes under control) and
they would have needed a 3 to 1 advantage to be successful in an
assualt that places he Aztec military force against the Tarascan
at 7500 to 9500 warriors. Which would have been half their military
force structure which is probably right.

At this time the Aztecs were supposed to have a population of 300,000
yet they could not mount a military force of sufficient strength to
destroy Cortez and his 6000 indian allies.

Now the facts that you have listed are the reasons for not being able
to mount the military forces, but the fact is the Aztecs while being
numerous probably did not have the economy to support a large
military effort.


I know this is really long.
The Independent
Post by strabo
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:06:57 -0700, Jim Dauven
Post by Jim Dauven
The early history of the Aztec nation is more conjecture based upon
their myths and linguistics. First of all the Aztec language is
closer to the Shoshoni of Idaho and Montana than Central American
Indian languages. One of the myths of the Aztec nations tells of living
on the shores of a great lake with many trees. It was this myth
that was one of the reasons the Aztecs settled on the Lake that
surrounded their capital in Mexico.
One theory ( I said theory as know one knows) is that the Aztec's
collaced around the great lakes in what is now the United States.
We know that the Aztecs migrated south west (as there myths that tell
of travel through the desert, being opposed by many enemies, over high
mountains etc. (Kind of sounds like Moses and the tribes of Israel)
We know that some of the Culture of the Aztec's and the Anesazi
of the south west United States bear remarkable parallelism. Since
the Anesazi culture lasted from 1 AD to 1300 AD it is reasonable
to believe that the Aztec's may have migrated through the Anesazi
some time between 1000 AD to 1200 AD. WE do know that the Aztec
entered the valley were Mexico City now stands around 1310 to 1350.
1325 Is generally accepted as the start date of the Aztec empire.
The area around Mexico city was relatively un-populated because of the
chaos resulting from the Fall of the Toltec's about 1100. The fall
of the Toltecs may be for the same reason for the fall of the Mayan's
in that extensive agriculture depleted the land and brought about
massive starvation and disease. There is also indications of a
change in weather patterns as the Mayans, Toltecs and the Anesazi
civilizations, all ended at the same time.
Any way the Aztecs consolidated there power in the relative
un-populated central valley of Mexico where they were the largest
tribe.
The Aztecs spent a lot of capital resources to build artificial
islands with piers and mud and to fortify the Islands on the lake.
They also built gardens and some agriculture operations on their
islands which were protected by the lake from other peoples in the
central valley of Mexico. The natural defensive location of the
lake prettied the Aztecs from predation by other indian tribes
yet allowed them to raid there neighbors with out fear of reprisal
by any other tribes (and there weren't any). By 1400 the Aztecs
started there expansion basically south and east and subjugated
the tribes in these areas. (Notice they established an economic
base to support their military in the field before they started
aggressive phase of their culture.) They continued the
aggression until the came into conflict with the Tascalas that
lived on the coast of Mexico around what is now Vera Cruz.
There is considerable evidence that the Tascalas were probably
a greater Military power than the Aztecs, (This is probable in
that the Tascalas engaged in agriculture, fishing and trade and
had larger forces (because they had an economic base to sustain
it) than the Aztecs.
In 1515 Manual de Cordova landed on the coast of Mexico to explore
the land. Cordova forces were defeated and Cordova himself was
kill in military operations against the Tascalas. In 1517
Hernando Cortez set sail for Mexico with 617 men and sailors.
Upon reaching the Coast of Mexico Cortez burned the ships so
his forces could not mutiny and return to Cuba.
Cortez fought several bloody battles with the Tascalas and
finally subjugated them in 1517. However his forces at the
end of the battles with the Tascalas was around 375. So the
Tascalas inflicted about 40 percent casualties upon the forces
of Cortez.
Cortez then traveled over the mountains to the capital of the
Aztecs with the Tascalas as allies. Cortez arrived at what is
now Mexico City with a force of 371 and the Tascala allies probably
numbering between 1000 and 3000. The Aztecs allowed Cortez to
enter the City unopposed, (They were so afraid of the Tascalas
that they forbid them to even approach the causeways across the
lake. (If they Aztecs were such a great military power how come
the let 371 men enter their capital city.???)
In any event the Spanish under Cortez took Montezuma prisoner
and held him for ransom. While the Aztecs were gathering the
ransom, a force from the Governor of Cuba, landed at what is
now vera Cruz with orders to arrest Cortez and take him back to
Cuba. Cortez left a force of roughly 180 in Mexico City and
traveled back to cost with the remainder of his force were he
and his Tascala allies engaged the forces of the royal Governor
of Cuba and defeated them. Cortez then returned Mexico City with
the forces of the Governor of Cuba in Irons (prisoners) where he
collected the Ransom for Montazuma and attempted to leave the
city with the treasure and Montazuma.
Cortez fought his way out of the city suffering heavy losses. It
is reported that Cortez encamped that night with only 180 of his
original force of 500 plus, including the governors prisoners.
It is reported that he sat at the entrance of the Causeway that night
and cried.. (The Mexican celebrate it as "The Night Of Tears.")
With the remaining force of about 180 and the Tascala allies Cortez
began his march (with the treasure) back to the coast. While marching
back to the coast Cortes had to fight all the way and eventually
defeating the Aztecs by destroying the command and control center of
the Aztec military (he attacked and killed the war chiefs).
His forces when he reached the coast were only 80 or so out of a
starting force including the governors force, of about 800.
Now what were the reasons for his success. First of all the Aztecs
did not have sufficient military power to over come a force of 371 men
armed with principally melee weapons which were the same as the Aztecs.
(Well the Spanish did have edge weapons (Swords, daggers, pikes etc)
while the Aztecs had crushing weapons (war clubs) and bows and arrows.)
I place the Aztec military force probably around 1000 to 2000. The
Aztec military was augmented with auxiliaries of approximately
4000 to 5000 from other subjugated tribes. If doubt that the auxiliary
forces would have been much larger than this as there was every likely
hood the auxiliary forces would have turned on the Aztec military.
Remember, The zulu chief Getswayo destroyed an English Regiment (1500
men at Ipsalwanda). The Zulu were armed with edge weapons and the
British
were armed with .455 Martini Henry breech loading rifles. Of course
the British were out numbered abut 15 to one. Using that as a gauge
In the resulting battles between Cortez and the Aztecs, Cortez Succeeded
because, the Aztecs didn't have sufficient forces to defeat Cortez.
This was possible because Cortez's army with his Tascala allies was
probably around 2000 while the Aztec forces were around around 6000
which outnumbered Cortez forces about 3 to 1. With the losses of
Cortez
in the Military operations against the Aztecs this 3 to 1 force
strength is probably right.
Now what does this mean.
The Aztecs could only field a army of 2000. Why?? They did not
have the economy to support an army any larger than 2000.
The Tascalas had a army of probably 5000 to 7000. Why?? Well the
Tascalas fought two wars with the Spanish and still had forces to
join the Spanish for an attack on the Aztecs. I suspect that
the forces of Cordova (because of the ships (5) and remember they were
supported by cannon on the ships) was about 200 to 300. They were
defeated so I suspect that the Tascala forces involved were about 1500
to 2000. If this is true then the Tascala forces facing Cordova was
about the same size as the total Aztec Army.
Again when the Tascala fought the Spanish forces of Cortez in 1517,
where Cortez had a force of 617 men and the Tascala were defeated.
The Tascala inflicted losses on Cortez forces of 250 men which probably
caused the Tascala the loss of 1250 to 1500 dead which was probably
30 percent of the Tascal force engaged
This puts the Tascala forces opposing Cortez at about 5000 which
was two to three times the size of the entire Aztec military forces.
Using the results of all the combat operations between Cortez, the
Tascala and the Aztecs the total forces involved in the conflicts
were
Tascala 5000-6000
Aztec 2000-2500
Cortez 800
So again my thesis that You need a economic base to support military
forces is accurate. The Tascala had an economy (and population)
three times the size of the Aztecs.
The Aztec economy was insufficient to support a military force much
larger than 2000 as their entire civilization was destroyed by a force
of 800.
That ends today lesson about the Aztecs. You may go outside and play
Master Lewis.
Your paper gets an F.
An Aztec culture in rapid decline replete with societal conflicts
and surrounded by mortal enemies, met Cortés as he approached the
Aztec Empire.
The Aztecs were the most despised people in meso America, and
for good reason. They had become a culture of death. Every group
that Cortés encountered aided in the Aztec destruction.
1. internal squabbles;
2. a failing military;
3. "end-of-time" omens.
And you fail to mention the the different ways in which Indian
societies resolved conflict and how this became an advantage
for the Europeans.
Once you understand the circumstances you will begin to
know why the Spaniards managed to kill so many Aztecs and
Tlaxcalans.
For an interesting and more accurate overview of the subject
http://www.geocities.com/thalaric1/history/conquistadors/cortes.html
Post by Jim Dauven
The Independent
Richard Lewis
2003-10-25 20:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Dauven
Strabo
All you said is very true but as the whole thread of the
argument with R.A.L. is over economy vs Military power, I didn't
want to spend hours discussing the culture and history of the
Aztecs, and the other indians of pre-Columbian Central America as it
didn't lend much to the argument
In other words, the idiot gave up arguing the original topic (while
accusing me of going off topic lol) and went off on a tangent to argue
pointless bullshit with himself....and any info that might be
presented by anyone that doesn't agree with him is simply ignored.

Go back to your trailorpark, trashboy

ral
Jim Dauven
2003-10-24 17:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear R.A.L.

How does it feel to have only two neurons making contact in your
cranium.

The argument was if I recall correctly, which comes first the
military, (trained disciplined combat soldiers) or a bunch of
bums running around with swords taking what the want from
who ever they can. My position was that you cannot have a
military without a economic resource base that can provide
the housing, rations, weapons, armor, horses, and the ability
to train full time so you have the physical stamina, skill and
weaponry to chase down the bunch of thugs with swords.

Once a group of people who have the resources to raise live
stock, put grain in the granary, build fortified towns
and can pay for a group of men to spend there entire time
training for combat.

And to have an offensive capability you need bigger military
force, (Offensive forces in absence of combat multiplication,
i.e., same weapons, armor, tactics, must have a 3 to 1 numerical
advantage over defenders) and that takes resource base to support
a larger population, (1 soldier to every 10 population). So
to have a successful defense the resouce/economic base of the
defenders only has to be 1/3 as large as the offensive force.

So to break it down for the Stupid, to put 30 soldiers in the
field you must have a population of 300. And for a force
of 30 to be successful in taking what they want, they better
not go against any town larger than 100 or they going to get
their asses kicked. That means the defenders only have to have
a resource and population base 1/3 the size of the attacker
in order to defeat them.

And a failed assault against the defender actually improves the
economics of the defender as they now have a larger store of
weapons and equipment for building their military. That is
why the Civilizations such as the Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, and
yes the United States were able to grow to become world powers
as they fight nothing but defensive wars which do not need the
resouce/economic base of an offensive war.

Of course now with ICBM and Nuclear warhead who need a Military
to blow your enemy to hell.

Now it doesn't always work this way but then "The fight does not
always go to the strong, or the race to the most fleet of foot,
but that's the way the smart money bets"

Blessed are the stupid as they shall soon depart from us.



The Independent.
Post by Richard Lewis
Post by Jim Dauven
Strabo
All you said is very true but as the whole thread of the
argument with R.A.L. is over economy vs Military power, I didn't
want to spend hours discussing the culture and history of the
Aztecs, and the other indians of pre-Columbian Central America as it
didn't lend much to the argument
In other words, the idiot gave up arguing the original topic (while
accusing me of going off topic lol) and went off on a tangent to argue
pointless bullshit with himself....and any info that might be
presented by anyone that doesn't agree with him is simply ignored.
Go back to your trailorpark, trashboy
ral
North
2003-10-25 22:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Dauven
Dear R.A.L.
Once a group of people who have the resources to raise live
stock, put grain in the granary, build fortified towns
and can pay for a group of men to spend there entire time
training for combat.
And to have an offensive capability you need bigger military
force, (Offensive forces in absence of combat multiplication,
i.e., same weapons, armor, tactics, must have a 3 to 1 numerical
advantage over defenders) and that takes resource base to support
a larger population, (1 soldier to every 10 population). So
to have a successful defense the resouce/economic base of the
defenders only has to be 1/3 as large as the offensive force.
So to break it down for the Stupid, to put 30 soldiers in the
field you must have a population of 300. And for a force
of 30 to be successful in taking what they want, they better
not go against any town larger than 100 or they going to get
their asses kicked. That means the defenders only have to have
a resource and population base 1/3 the size of the attacker
in order to defeat them.
The above proves RAL's point to a tee !
His point being that you are an idiot.
Jim Dauven
2003-10-24 19:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Your post is so inane, it isn't worth consideration.

Blessed are the Stupid as they shall soon not be with us.

The Independent
The Independent
Post by North
Post by Jim Dauven
Dear R.A.L.
Once a group of people who have the resources to raise live
stock, put grain in the granary, build fortified towns
and can pay for a group of men to spend there entire time
training for combat.
And to have an offensive capability you need bigger military
force, (Offensive forces in absence of combat multiplication,
i.e., same weapons, armor, tactics, must have a 3 to 1 numerical
advantage over defenders) and that takes resource base to support
a larger population, (1 soldier to every 10 population). So
to have a successful defense the resouce/economic base of the
defenders only has to be 1/3 as large as the offensive force.
So to break it down for the Stupid, to put 30 soldiers in the
field you must have a population of 300. And for a force
of 30 to be successful in taking what they want, they better
not go against any town larger than 100 or they going to get
their asses kicked. That means the defenders only have to have
a resource and population base 1/3 the size of the attacker
in order to defeat them.
The above proves RAL's point to a tee !
His point being that you are an idiot.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...