Egyptian vs Aztec empire. Who would win?

Aztecs, the Jaguar warriors were very strong and intimidating. also Mesoamericans had a more advanced arsenal compared to the primitive Egyptians.

>>2754434
The west. Pyramids, while impressive to look at, did not contribute to the survival of their cultures. Dumb people built impressive structures. Smart people built nations.

Aztecs ate people

Egyptians had a cool, rich culture

In a fight? Aztecs would probably win

File: URIAH_HEEP_FALLEN+ANGEL-136388.jpg (45KB, 468x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 468x500px

>pyramids
>2500 BC
Try again.
Those are older. Giants built them.
The nephilim.

>>2754434
Egyptians ruled for a long time, which period of time are we talking about?

I'd vote for Egyptians either way because they are more populous and they have more experience in war.

>>2754437
Aztecs actually had a pretty cool culture too

Thinking about it now , and DESU they're eerily similar
They had their own little pantheon of gods too

Shiiiet
At least the Jews didn't cuck the Aztecs

>>2754439
>have more experience in war

The Aztecs based their society around sacrifice and the waging of war.

ITT mestizos defending their shit indian ancestors

>>2754437
They weren't organized enough.
They had stone vs bronze age Egyptians with chariots.

Their entire greography shaped their war tactics.

Egyptians fought like most typical ancient armies in the thousands all at once on a battle field.

The Aztec raided with squads of two hundred at most through the jungles like flash lightining. Every tribe power were quick raiding scrimiges. They rarely formed standing armies until Cortez organized their enemies against them.

File: 1024px-Magliabchanopage_73r.jpg (197KB, 1024x738px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x738px

>>2754440

Is no one gonna point out that Aztecs never made it out of the stone age?

>>2754436
>Dumb people built impressive structures. Smart people built nations
stupidest claim I've seen in a while.

African tribes neither have impressive structures nor nations while mesapotamian people were the first to build powerful nations as well as impressive structures like the tower of Babel.

If you look at Europe, which became the hearth of civilization after Renaissance, you'll see that it's filled with magnificent structures.

Same with places that were under the rule of nations like the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient greeks etc.

>>2754434
Depends on where they fight. If in shitty mesoamerican swamplands aztecs would win no doubt but on a wide open North African plain Egyptians with their calvalry would definitely have the advantage.

>>2754441
>>2754443
Aztecs didn't have metal weapons.

Where they fight changes a lot though. Egyptians probably couldn't do much in Aztec forests while Aztecs couldn't do much in a desert.

Egyptians were bronze age and had domesticated horses and other livestock. The Aztecs were still stone age and could only move on foot. The Egyptians would win.

>>2754449
only if you ignore the geographical factor
i could claim the mongols could wipe a roman legion in the steppes, but i could not claim the same in a place like rome, where you have to fight an infantry close combat

>>2754434
Egyptians had horses, Aztec's did not. If aztec's had horses maybe South America would be a much different place, but they didn't so Egypt stomps em

>>2754434
What era? Later era is basically just an appendage of Greece.

But in the earlier case, Egyptians would win. They had warships, chariots, military tactics, etc.

Aztecs never even invented metalworking. They were just barbarians who hit things with clubs.

>>2754434
>>2754434
Egyptians easy. Better tech. Aztecs didn't even have machines as simple as the wheel. Egyptians had chariots. Also, being isolated, people of the new world were vulnerable to the diseases of the old world. Bunch of Aztec people died after their first contact with the Europeans.

>>2754451
>>2754450

Aztec would kick their ass.

File: katyperry-retard.jpg (76KB, 636x421px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 636x421px

The Pyramids were cool and all; great on them.

But imagine if they used those resources and man hours to build an actual city of megalithic proportions that actually benefited the whole of society instead of stupid ass pyramids.

File: 1492977218671.gif (828KB, 200x189px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 200x189px

>>2754456
shit i never thought about it that way. They were just oversized tombs after all.

>>2754454
So what, it's not like the Aztec land was all jungle, there's plenty of area where the Egyptians could use their horses to their advantage.

>Aztecs are extinct,
>Former jew slaves rules the world
I think its apparent who won

File: You+gotta+try+harder+than+that+to+bait+_937416fa184de0e4a83e0aca2911c91a.jpg (11KB, 260x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 260x200px

>>2754459
>Egyptians
>Jewish

File: Classic-Shaolin-Big-Battle-pose.jpg (143KB, 1106x500px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1106x500px

>>2754435
What about the eagle warrior?

File: 1472636128974.jpg (122KB, 1059x789px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1059x789px

>>2754456
>imagine if they used those resources and man hours to build an actual city of megalithic proportions
implying they haven't?
what are all those other temples, ruins and them?
do you even sacred geometry bro?

>>2754460
there's a theory that the pharoes were jews who larped as natives

>>2754434
aztec

>>2754448
>Aztecs didn't have metal weapons.
They had obsidian tho, which is sharp AS FUCK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCX-YHzPb3w

>>2754434
>Aztecs line up for battle with their stone axes and wooden shields
>Egyptians just steamroll them with chariots, horses, and metal weapons
Aztecs would get smashed. Seriously, Cortez defeated their entire nation with 200 guys.

>>2754464
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-surgeons-use-obsidian-scalpels

>>2754465
>Cortez

Not ancient fuckhead

File: 1466285296792-2.jpg (421KB, 1614x1080px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1614x1080px

>>2754434
>>2754453
This, Egyptians for sure. They literally had bronze, hydraulic ballistas, but they could never get the seal on the piston made right. If they would have had access to rubber they could have started the industrial revolution, no joke.

>>2754465
Too be fair the Aztec's were getting wrecked by every disease that tore through Europe

>>2754434

Egyptians. Aztecs were despised by all of their client peoples to the point where a couple hundred cumskins could flip them and march on Tenochtitlan.

>>2754435
I would hope they be more advanced. The aztecs were defeated by the Spanish what 4000 years after the Egyptians peaked or something.

>>2754434
Egypt. They knew metalworking and possessed swords, armor, spears, chariots, etc.

>>2754434
Egyptians

Native Indians are retarded

Didn't Egyptians have horses? It's no contest if they did

>>2754435
No they didn't, you dumb ass. They couldn't even work metal and used obsidian/wooden blades, spears, and clubs.

>>2754434
Aztecs only had one city, and no beasts of burden. Not to mention their weapons were just clubs with little bits of sharp obsidian glass stuck in the sides.

Meanwhile, the Egyptians had an entire Kingdom, including horses and chariots. They had bronze swords and armor, not to mention amazing bowmen who were lethally effective shooting on the move from their chariot platforms.

It's not even close. The AEgyptians 6000 years ago could have beating the Ameriniggers 600 years ago.

>>2754434
Bronze age vs stone age.
Bronze age wins.

>>2754474
Have you never seen the bible movies, they did have horses

However horses in Mexico are useless as a weapon

>>2754456

It was called Thebes anon

>>2754434
but how would they cross the ocean to fight each other?

>>2754468
The scale of the population of pre-plague eras is hard to comprehend. There are ancient Egyptian buildings designed to halve half a million people in them. These guys had tons of brainpower to work with. The past is filled with so much untapped human energy it's tragic.

Egyptians had camels and horses.
Oh, and bronze.

>>123999999

>>2754481
*have

>>2754482
Forgot to mention THE FUCKING WHEEL

Jesus Christ people. Blood drinking jungle savages would get stomped.

>>2754453
The only reason why they died so much from disease is that the europeans were super fucking filthy and had no hygiene, meanwhile the aztecs were a very clean people

>>124888888

File: hernan4.jpg (782KB, 1319x1600px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 1319x1600px

>>2754440
>At least the Jews didn't cuck the Aztecs

They did

>>2754465

Cotez also allied with the other mexican tribes that had beef with the Aztecs.

>>2754489
citation needed

>>2754448
>Aztecs couldn't do much in a desert.
Aztecs are known for running from former Tenochtitlan to Quiahuiztlán (Now named Veracruz), which is around 300 km in a day, they were pretty athletic, also most Mexico is diverse in geographic areas, and while deserts are northmost part of the country (Places that Aztecs never went to), there are a few desertic spots around Mexico City (El desierto de los leones). Also keep in mind Mexico city is one of the highest cities in the world compared to sea level, foreigners coming to Mexico city suffer and have troubles breathing when practicing sports.

However I think it could be a tie, Aztec warriors were trained as warriors since kids, but Egyptians had superior long range weapons (Bows, spears, chariots), and Aztecs had very few warriors (For the same reason that warriors were chosen as kids), they were great in hand to hand combat but they had no organization compared to Egyptians.

>>2754490
read a book fag

>>2754491
Egyptians had whole slave armies to throw at them. They couldn't have competed with a wheeled wagon logistics line.

>>2754434
The ones whos empire discovered wheel, invented the chariot, and had metal weapons

>>2754490
Read basically any book of history.

Chichimecas, Totonacas and other smaller tribes were under the Aztec empire and they were forced to pay tributes (Either food, tools or humans). so many smaller tribes hated Aztecs and quickly allied Spaniards.

>>2754486
HAHAHAHAHA, you idiot. If they were clean people, then the diseases wouldn't have spread so quickly.

Europeans are a very clean people due to having lived in cities for millenia. People who lived in cities basically invented the concept of hygiene. People without much exposure to disease never needed to.

>>2754434
Serbia. Bigger than all of them

Aztecs had no horses so that is enough to lose

Egyptians.

>bronze weapons
>horse
>chariots
>advanced economy(relatively, compared to the aztecs)
>archers

>>2754490
Belligerents
Spain Spain
TlaxcalaGlyph.jpg Tlaxcala Aztec Empire Triple Alliance
Commanders and leaders
Hernán Cortés
Gonzalo de Sandoval
Pedro de Alvarado
Cristóbal de Olid
Xicotencatl I
Xicotencatl II Executed Cuauhtémoc (POW)
Strength
16 guns[1]
13 brigantines
80,000–200,000 native allies
90–100 cavalry
900–1,300 infantry[1] 80,000-300,000 warriors[2](including war acallis)
Casualties and losses
450–860 Spanish[1]
20,000 Tlaxcallan 100,000 warriors
100,000 civilians

File: picture5cz.png (2MB, 1012x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1012x768px

>>2754494
Chariots are terrible and nearly useless in war outside of transportation. The Mexica would also probably be able to raise a larger army.

>>2754490
>>2754516
>80,000–200,000 native allies
>native
>allies

>>2754434
>Egyptian vs Aztec empire.

Neither had the ability to cross an ocean, so what scenario are we talking about here?

>>2754519
>Mexica=/=Aztecs

>>2754448
They had obsidian though.

>>2754525
in space

>>2754434
Anyone who thinks the aztecs would win is retarded. Their weaponry is inferior even to the copper the egyptians would be using. They were also extremely likely to flee as soon as their unit commander was killed. Additionally, they were far more preoccupied with taking captives in combat, instead of actually killing their enemies. The aztecs were great in a lot of different areas (mathematics, education, social planning, etc), but not in the area of warfare.

File: picture4va.png (2MB, 1009x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1009x768px

>>2754509
>horse
The type of horses they had were small and not the giant steads that Spain had access to.

>archers
The Mexica fielded large numbers of archers and slingers.

>>2754509
>>2754493
I think it really depends were the battle is settled. Egypt? Egyptians win, Mexico? Aztecs win hands down, because the single factor of high altitude, I know of profesional sportsmen that even have trouble running 15 minutes in Mexico city, just because altitude (Mexico is one of the highest above sea level cities)

>>2754496
Aztecs had public baths and swimming pools, they also carried clean water from lakes and had a primitive sewers.

However some diseases like smallpox are quite contagious despite hygiene.

>>2754522

What are you trying to say with this memetexting?

>>2754535
Obsidian is a shit weapon when you consider their swords became almost unusable after the first hit.

>>2754551
that unlike amerifat here thinks hernan cortez beat the aztecs singlehandedly with his dick tied behind his back

>>2754549
Mexico is also a smog choked hell pit.

File: picture8nh.png (2MB, 1003x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1003x768px

>>2754546
They knew how to wage full scale war. Garland wars achieved the same goal over a longer period of time without the cost of supplying huge armies and large casualties. They also had some success against the Tarascan kingdom despite them having access to copper weapons and shields.

File: 3670.jpg (39KB, 600x526px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x526px

>>2754494
aztecs had wheels dumbass

>>2754558
>In 1521 Hernán Cortés, along with a large number of Nahuatl speaking indigenous allies, conquered Tenochtitlan and defeated the Aztec Triple Alliance under the leadership of Hueyi Tlatoani Moctezuma II.

>>2754546
>The aztecs were great in a lot of different areas (mathematics, education, social planning, etc), but not in the area of warfare.

Then how did they conquer a huge empire?

>>2754434
Egyptian warrior vs Aztec jaguar warrior.
>Eqyptians runs the Aztec down on his horse
>The end

Egyptian warrior without horse vs Aztec jaguar warrior.
>Aztec warrior smashes his obsidian mace against the Egyptians bronze shield.
>Mace breaks
>The end

Ranged Egyptian warrior without horse vs Aztec warrior with their obsidian throwing darts.
>Egyptian hits the Aztec before he's even in range
>The end

>>2754571
because their neighbors were unorganized stone age savages.

File: Salute_2009531.jpg (104KB, 670x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 670x768px

>>2754567
It was so bad at the end that two of the members of the Triple Alliance were besieging their former ally.

>>2754563
True dat, but even clean places like Lima or Himalayans are a nightmare to live in.

>>2754567
that's what i meant i was being sarcasticabout his asking for a source on herna cortes having native allies

File: bd465417d5085446ee9752eb50aca9fe.jpg (17KB, 236x314px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x314px

>>2754571
a little terror can be more effective than armies

>>2754565
Flower wars also resulted in far fewer casualties, due to the aforementioned preoccupation on capturing their enemies rather than eliminating them. Aztec success against the tarascans was also extremely limited. This is especially damning when you consider that axayacatl got absolutely trashed by a nation much smaller than the aztecs.
>>2754571
because they were fighting other nations with access to more or less the same technology.

>>2754434
Forget that, what about Aztecs vs Assyrians? Both were known for terrorizing their neighbors and instilling horrific torture on their enemies and practiced mass sacrifice.

>>2754597
>axayacatl got absolutely trashed by a nation much smaller than the aztecs

Only because he severely underestimated the size of their kingdom and invaded with a smaller force.

File: tonalpohualli-calendar.jpg (573KB, 1184x1096px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1184x1096px

>>2754494
>wheel
So Aztecs then?

File: 332796bf720f.jpg (81KB, 586x640px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 586x640px

Egyptians were known for being terrible warriors due to living an easy life. They were also held in low esteem and seen as occupying one of the lowest class of society. Compare that with a society built on military expansion and where military exploits are the only path to social mobility.

>>2754634
Aztecs picked warriors since they were kids, and they were formidable warriors, however, due to this elitism, very few warriors existed back then.

File: 106602-004-8280C828.jpg (179KB, 524x583px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 524x583px

>>2754634
>Egyptians were known for being terrible warriors
Then how did they did this?

>>2754546
this basically

>>2754580
Only one, Texcoco, and not unilaterally. Some Texcocans supported the Mexica and others the Spanish, quite surprisingly the leader of the latter faction established an alliance with the Spanish even before the Tlaxcalans did.

>>2754543
with space choloescuincles and camels

>>2754647
They learned superior military technologies from their Hyksos overlords. They also could field larger armies than their much smaller and less organized neighbors due to the bounty of the Nile. They were large enough to bully the smaller principalities of the Levant but not organized enemies like the Hittites. They were also punching bags for the Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, and Persians.

File: 1484231386283.jpg (392KB, 804x604px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 804x604px

>>2754434
>>2754601
Assuming favorable terrain In both cases it's chariots gg. The second the Aztecs see the men in front of them having their limbs torn to pieces by sharpened bronze wheels they'd realise they'd fucked up.
Also Assyrian/Hittite war axes are scary.

Stone Age civilization (Aztecs) on foot
versus
Bronze and Iron Age civilization with horses and chariots (Egypt)
I mean how is this even a question?

File: 1363515330970.jpg (169KB, 640x450px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 640x450px

>>2754685
Egyptians didn't field heavy chariots. They used their chariots as a light mobile platform for firing arrows.

>>2754634
>that KKK uniform in the top right corner

Make Tenochtitlan Great Again

>>2754626
and yet the aztecs didn't try and fuck with the tarascans after that, besides sending their allies against them (all of which were rather easily repulsed).

>>2754728
They still used heavy bronze wheels which could cut off limbs for their chariots. They also have the advantage of being able drive them in close formation and even to quickly flip a downed chariot and return it to action, something a heavy chariot team couldn't.

File: 8-hitt10.jpg (244KB, 1410x1000px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1410x1000px

>>2754726
Maybe because the horses they had access to were too small to support armored riders. They also didn't have all that many either and reserved them for their elite. Also chariots are a joke and are only useful for transporting men to the battlefield.

>>2754726
You smoke penis.

File: 1362243121193.jpg (165KB, 1244x1746px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1244x1746px

>>2754752
good luck driving flimsy chariots into a mass of spearmen supported by archers. Didn't seem to work for Darius III.

>Egyptians find it extremely difficult to push into Aztec lands because chariots don't work there
>Aztecs find it extremely difficult to push into Egyptian lands because chariots do work there

Also, I'm like 90% sure Egypt could bring more warriors to bear.

File: Aztec-chinampas.jpg (139KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x768px

>>2754772
Egypt may have been a fertile breadbasket but even with the Nile the Egyptians couldn't produce seven crops a year.

>>2754771
You mean extremely poorly armed and armored spearmen with little discipline or training, and most likely incapeable of forming a proper spear wall, or even knowing that a spear wall would be the best way to counter enemy cavalry in the first place?

>implying Egyptians could fuck with the gods of the ancient twilight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IblzkN5UoK0

>>2754678
Whom they drove out successfully and even improved the chariot design. They were also the only people to successfully repel the sea people invasions.

File: c473add127069021244df3cb10c9845c.jpg (406KB, 1024x784px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1024x784px

>>2754786
You're assuming an awful bunch, especially when Egyptians didn't field chariots capable of smashing into infantry lines. Somehow I doubt the driver or horse would want to ride straight into a larger mob with long sharp sticks.

>>2754859
All right, I'll give you that I guess. The fact remains that the aztecs were less disciplined than their egyptian counterparts, which is what matters most here.

File: img513j.jpg (237KB, 942x768px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 942x768px

>>2754880
> the aztecs were less disciplined than their egyptian counterparts

You're basing that off of what exactly?

>>2754434
I like the Aztecs better but let's be honest, chariots would win.
>Equiptin Mexihcah quimmictizqueh

File: azt3.jpg (189KB, 678x515px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 678x515px

>>2754933
this desu

>>2754924
The fact that A: promotion was based off of number of captives taken, and not ones actual effectiveness as a soldier, B: the aztec focus on personal combat rather than fighting as a unit, and C: the overwhelming tendency of aztecs to flee as soon as their commanding officer's were slain

>>2754933
Chariots are meme tier shit

Its powerless against organized infantry

>>2754966
>the aztecs were organized infantry

>>2754959
You realize that as far as bronze age Egypt's unit tactics and specifics regarding training, morale and disipline go we know next to nothing, right?

>>2754967
According to the spanish, yes.

>>2754959
> the overwhelming tendency of aztecs to flee as soon as their commanding officer's were slain

Pretty common reaction throughout history. Are you suggesting that if the Pharaoh were killed in battle, his subjects wouldn't flee?

The others only apply to small scale Garland Wars. The Aztecs were capable of waging full scale war. They took Coixtlahuaca with an army of 300,000 men.

>>2754444
Pretty badass

>>2754978
>>2754982
Even IF the aztecs were as disciplined as their egyptian counterparts, they still would have gotten destroyed by bronze weapons.

>>2754434
It'd be interesting to see the Aztecs use their chemical weapons on Bronze age Egypt.

>>2754982
>>2754978
>Then came a bloody hand-to-hand combat, where the obsidian-bladed spears and clubs slashed the enemy creating fearsome wounds. Here all order was lost and battle became a series of independent duels where warriors tried to capture their opponent alive. Indeed, assistants with ropes followed the fighting in order to immediately truss up the vanquished for later sacrifice.
Doesn't seem very disciplined to me.

>>2755013
imagine being a spanish hero slashing down tiki-babble-shrieking furries until they dogpile you, cut off your feet with a rock, and toss you into popoca-volcano or whatever

>>2755043
That's why you stayed in formation and used your superior discipline to keep niggas from getting nabbed

File: Cortes third letter to Charles V.jpg (169KB, 490x572px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 490x572px

>>2754959
>A: promotion was based off of number of captives taken, and not ones actual effectiveness as a soldier
>C: the overwhelming tendency of aztecs to flee as soon as their commanding officer's were slain
It depended on the army policy of the time. For example, the warriors of some nations were more worthy than others, like the Huexotzinca during Tizoc or the Huaxtec, which also had a rank with the same name in the Aztec army.
It also was based on the commanders taken. As you pointed, once the commander fell his soldiers routed, for they thought that the battle was a defeat once the banner of their god was taken. The only captives that counted for ranks like the Jaguars/Eagles or Cuauhchiqueh were probably only commanders.
Cortes was lucky to not only count with superior armor and weaponry, but also Tlaxcalan guards.

File: Accounts of the conquistadors.png (75KB, 935x553px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 935x553px

>>2754959
>B: the aztec focus on personal combat rather than fighting as a unit
Duels and pursuits didn't mean there was no discipline or unit coordination.

>The wheel of fortune now suddenly turned against Cortes, and the joyous feelings of victory were changed into bitter mourning; for while he was eager in pursuit of the enemy, with every appearance of victory, it so happened that his officers never thought to fill up the large opening which they had crossed. The Mexicans had taken care to lessen the width of the causeway, which in some places was covered with water, and at others with a great depth of mud and mire. When the Mexicans saw that Cortes had passed the fatal opening without filling it up, their object was gained. An immense body of troops, with numbers of canoes, which lay concealed for this purpose in places where the brigantines could not get at them, now suddenly rushed forth from their hiding places, and fell upon this ill-fated division with incredible fierceness, accompanied by the most fearful yells. It was impossible for the men to make any stand against this overwhelming power, and nothing now remained for our men but to close their ranks firmly, and commence a retreat. But the enemy kept rushing on in such crowds, that our men, just as they had retreated as far back as the dangerous opening, gave up all further resistance, and fled precipitately. Now the awful consequences of the neglect to fill up the opening in the causeway began to show themselves. In front of the narrow path, which the canoes had now broken down, the Mexicans wounded Cortes in the leg, took sixty Spaniards prisoners, and killed six horses.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CLII

>>2754434
Depends on where the fight takes place. Egyptians have the distinct advantage of chariots.

>>2755013
How the fuck is that pertinent to my point that we don't know anything about Egyptian infantry doctrine?

You're still saying infantry A is better than infantry B based on jack shit.

File: archers.jpg (267KB, 1731x894px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1731x894px

>>2755049
Makes you an easy target for slingers and archers. The Aztecs would use clay pellets embedded with obsidian flakes.

>>2754436
Egypt built a nation that has been culturally and ethnically homogeneous for 5000 years, economically important to the whole world until recently and had a succession of long-lasting dynasties and states. There isn't a single European nation that can say the same

>>2755013
You know, that this isn't too far off from what some have postulated bronze age warfare was like.

>>2754447
only rigth answer

>>2755079
>culturally and ethnically homogeneous for 5000 years

No it fucking has not you double lying double pants on fire faggot.

Fuck you

Fuck you and your blatant lies.

>>2755085
Wonderful argument.

Wait, this thread was moved from /pol/?

>>2755066
>duels and pursuits did not mean there was no discipline or unit coordination
It does, actually, once combat was joined all pretenses of tactics were abandoned.

Additionally, your description makes it clear that, even after springing a clever ambush, they just charged forward in a disorganized mass. No unit cohesion, no discipline.
>>2755080

Egyptian Battle Tactics

The army pressed forward in close order, in columns of 4 with the officers taking the rear. Chariots were positioned either on the wings or in the intervals between the infantry divisions. Skirmishers issued forth in front to clear the line of advance and were followed by the main army and the baggage train made up of 4-wheeled carts pulled by oxen.

When it came to battle, the infantry were always in the center with the chariots on the wings. The light units - mostly archers and slingers, - lined up in front of the heavy troops, and when ordered to attack by the trumpeters, these archers and slingers discharged a volley, and the heavy units of spearmen, khepesh-wielding swordsmen or macemen pressed forward in close order in an impregnable phalanx.
>>2755072
We actually know a lot about how the egyptian army fought on the battlefield.
>>2755074
Just keep your shield up. The pellets weren't even that lethal anyways(like the majority of aztec weapons)

>>2755104
>the pellets weren't even that lethal anyways(like the majority of aztec weapons)

Tell that to Bernal Diaz. There's a reason the conquistadors had a 50+% casualty rate

"When they began to charge the stones sped like hail from their slings, and their barbed and fire-hardened darts fell like corn on the threshing-floor, each one capable of piercing any armour or penetrating the unprotected vitals."

Mongol Empire Vs Wallmapu

>>2755138
The conquistador's casualty rate was mostly due either to niggas getting seperated from the formation and swarmed or due to infection. It wasn't uncommon for a conquistador to suffer a dozen or so extremely minor wounds over the course of a battle. Also, its been shown that their sling bullets were incapeable of penetrating steel, only the mexican cloth armor that the conquistadors started wearing as the war went on.

>>2754685
>>2754996
It's unlikely that bronze age weapons would have made much of a difference. If you ever read the Spanish accounts, the Aztecs put up a fair fight. Their projectiles were capable of piercing Spanish armor and their obsidian weapons may not have been as durable as steel, but were just as deadly.

Horses are likely to be a more important advantage to the Egyptians. Although the Aztecs did manage to adapt to the Spaniards' charge tactics, it did take time that they really didn't have. A lot of this probably depends on whether the two sides are aware of each other before the conflict. Also, keep in mind that the Egyptians that built the pyramids did not have chariots.

On that note, we don't have much information on how the Ancient Egyptians fought. I claim no expertise, but Wikipedia suggests that militia and mercenaries formed the bulk of their forces. The Aztec were a highly militarized society. While they still relied on conscription for the bulk of their forces, all boys went through mandatory military training. I'd probably expect their forces to be more professional overall.

Last, but probably most importantly, the Aztecs have a tremendous advantage in terms of manpower. Tenochtitlan and its suburbs likely contained a population comparable to that of the entire Old Kingdom. That's not counting the several million additional people that were under their rule. Even during the New Kingdom, Egypt would have been outnumbered by no less than 2 to 1.

>>2755104
>your description makes it clear that, even after springing a clever ambush, they just charged forward in a disorganized mass. No unit cohesion, no discipline
"suddenly rushed forth from their hiding places, and fell upon this ill-fated division with incredible fierceness"
Rush fiercely doesn't mean attack in mass without cohesion or discipline. Seems you also forgot to adress the pic I posted so here's the text version:

>We noted their tenacity in fighting, but I declare that I do not know how to describe it, for neither cannon nor muskets nor crossbows availed, nor hand-to-hand fighting, nor killing thirty or forty of them every time we charged, for they still fought on in as close ranks and with more energy than in the beginning.
>Sometimes when we were gaining a little ground or a part of the street they pretended to retreat, but it was merely to induce us to follow them and cut us off from our fortress and quarters, so as to fall on us in greater safety to themselves, believing that we could not return to our quarters alive, for they did us much damage when we were retreating. Then, as to going out to burn their houses, I have already said that between one house and another they have wooden drawbridges, and these they raised so we could only pass through deep water. Then we could not endure the rocks and stones hurled from the roofs, in such a way that they damaged and wounded many of our men. I do not know why I write thus, so lukewarmly, for some three or four of our soldiers who were with us and who had served in Italy, swore to God many times that they had never seen such fierce fights, not even when they had taken part in such between Christians and against the artillery of the King of France, or of the Great Turk, nor had they seen men like those Indians with such courage in closing up their ranks.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Chapter CXXVI

>>2755162
It reminds me of Herodotus' description of the Battle of Thermopylae desu:

>the two armies fighting in a narrow space, and the barbarians using shorter spears than the Greeks, and having no advantage from their numbers. The Lacedaemonians fought in a way worthy of note, and showed themselves far more skilful in fight than their adversaries, often turning their backs, and making as though they were all flying away, on which the barbarians would rush after them with much noise and shouting, when the Spartans at their approach would wheel round and face their pursuers, in this way destroying vast numbers of the enemy.

>>2754435
Egyptians had horses,charriots,bronze weapons and armors. The Aztecs wpuldn't stand a single chance with their stone/wood swords and their lack of armors

File: download.gif (74KB, 760x1066px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 760x1066px

>>2755162
Setting up ambushes != fighting in ordered ranks. Literally the entire aztec way of war was based off of single combat after an initial volley of missiles.

Read from the bottom of the first column onwards.

>>2754447
Egyptians had bronze weapons and horses. They would win in any situatiom

>>2754450
The Mongols would have raped Roman legion. You are ignoring the huge technological advantage of the Egyptians.

>>2754462
lol using feet? metres all the way senpai

File: Aztecs-39.jpg (321KB, 1200x929px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1200x929px

>>2755194
>Aztec
>Lack of armor
Kek. They basically have the same fabric armor as Egyptians. While Egypt had lamellar, this was only worn by very few number of people like charioteers.

File: New Kingdom Egypt-39.jpg (313KB, 1200x1620px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1200x1620px

>>2755224
>>2755194
Hell most of the time the average Egyptian conscript only had a penis guard, relying on his shield to do most of the work defending himself.

>>2755224
Aztec armor wouldn't have offered any defence against bronze weapons, or the maces that egyptian officers used

>>2755234
>Aztec armor wouldn't have offered any defence against bronze weapons
Would still defend you from cuts, better than being a shirtless cunt as won't an egyptian tends to be.

Hell, the Conquistadors even used them.

File: Parkin.jpg (60KB, 900x646px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 900x646px

>>2755237
Cotton armor actually offers pretty good protection against slashes and projectiles.

>>2754491
>Aztecs are known for running from former Tenochtitlan to Quiahuiztlán (Now named Veracruz
Do you seriously believe this crap? That is 12.5 km/hour without resting. If they rested that would be like 20km/hour for 15 hours. On top of this you are implying that this is even possible while crossing a fucking jungle without roads.And natives are not precissecily the most athletoc people in the world. In fact they are amongst the least atheletic people on the whole planet

>>2755237
The conquistadors used them because they were a lot lighter than their steel breastplates, and were equally as shitty as the aztecs weaponry (and therefore able to defend against it). The aztec's armor was completely useless against any kind of metal weapon, especially bronze. The fact that the egyptians tended to be half-naked cunts while fighting wouldn't really matter when you consider that aztec weaponry was extremely non-lethal.

>>2755244
>In fact they are amongst the least atheletic people on the whole planet

Tarahumara sure as some nonathletic cunts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwIKZhrdt4

>>2755252
I like how you keep typing as though you're an expert on the subject despite being repeatedly proven wrong.

File: Budiak Spear.jpg (71KB, 1024x407px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x407px

>>2755252
>The aztec's armor was completely useless against any kind of metal weapon
I live in the Philippines- where steel weapons were in use- and the conquistadors mostly used them cotton jackets still considering most of them were first generation Spanish-Americans. They defended pretty well from arrows if Padre Chirino and Antonio De Morga's accounts are to be believed.

They probably wore mostly those things than cuirasses due to the tropical heat.
>The fact that the egyptians tended to be half-naked cunts while fighting wouldn't really matter when you consider that aztec weaponry was extremely non-lethal.
Yes, sharp obsidian blades can be easily fended off by naked flesh.

File: phalanx.jpg (111KB, 800x460px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x460px

>>2755198
>Literally the entire aztec way of war was based off of single combat after an initial volley of missiles.
>Setting up ambushes != fighting in ordered ranks

>often turning their backs, and making as though they were all flying away, on which the barbarians would rush after them with much noise and shouting, when the Spartans at their approach would wheel round and face their pursuers, in this way destroying vast numbers of the enemy

>when we were gaining a little ground or a part of the street the Indians pretended to retreat, but it was merely to induce us to follow them and cut us off from our fortress and quarters, so as to fall on us in greater safety to themselves, believing that we could not return to our quarters alive, for they did us much damage when we were retreating.

yeah, I guess you're right, pic related were a bunch of cohesionless and undisciplined lads

>>2755283
That's a pretty scary looking weapon.

>>2755283
In "conquest" By hugh thomas, the author repeatedly stresses that the conquistadors often suffered dozens of wounds in a battle, none of which were lethal, which appears to suggest that aztec weapons were incredibly nonlethal. This is supported by their need to take live prisoners instead of killing their opponents in combat.
>>2755277
I like how you're wrong and a doo doo head :3
>>2755296
You mean guys who fought in close ordered formations? As in, completely unlike the aztecs?

>>2755310
Ahh, i remember you.
You were that one guy who refused to read anything from a source that wasn't hugh in the last thread.

>>2755325
No, actually, i'm not. It just happens to be the only book I have about the aztecs on hand. Give me some other sources and I'll read em, nigga.
Besides, hugh heavily favored the aztecs in his book anyways.

>>2754435
If we're talking about pyramid era Egyptians than maybe, if we're talking about bronze age Egyptians with their chariots snd bronze weapons then Egyptians would win

>>2754456
M They did, you might wanna document yourself about ancient Egyptians you dumb fuck

File: Aztec, Mixtex & Zapotec Armies-30.jpg (345KB, 1200x1641px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1200x1641px

>>2755310
>This is supported by their need to take live prisoners instead of killing their opponents in combat.
They usually took most prisoners in "flower wars," sweetie. Which are just glorified tribute missions.

Not on actual campaigns versus the other Nahuatl speaking states. The Aztecs weren't the sole power in the region you know

>>2754645
The fuck are youtslking ab0ut?

Read the amarna letters where other kings literally say They'd kneel to the pharaoh a Thousand times and They aren't worthy of kissing their feet as the preludium to each letter

>>2755459
I'm not your sweetie, honey
It has often been claimed by scholars that the Aztecs resorted to a form of ritual warfare, the Flower War, to obtain living human bodies for the sacrifices in time of peace. This claim however has been severely criticised by scholars such as Ross Hassig[29][30] and Nigel Davies[31] who claim that the main purpose of the Flower Wars was political and not religious and that the number of sacrificial victims obtained through flower wars was insignificant compared to the number of victims obtained through normal political warfare.

File: 231456.jpg (474KB, 672x900px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 672x900px

>>2754434
In their respective age, Egyptians would straight up butcher them

>>2755468
Canaan princes maybe. You wouldn't find the Kings of Babylon, Assyria, or Mittani kissing their brother's foot.

>>2755486
>maybe

Surely you mean, the Phoenicians and other Canaanites such as those in Jerusalem did it in every letter

>>2755310
>You mean guys who fought in close ordered formations? As in, completely unlike the aztecs?
close != ordered
cannae tier argument

>>2755505
True, but the aztec formations were neither close nor ordered.

>>2755496
Small principalities.

>>2755532
Probably The king of Ugarit (modern day Syria) too

>>2755515
>We noted their tenacity in fighting, but I declare that I do not know how to describe it, for neither cannon nor muskets nor crossbows availed, nor hand-to-hand fighting, nor killing thirty or forty of them every time we charged, for they still fought on in as close ranks and with more energy than in the beginning.
True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Chapter CXXVI

>inb4 close ranks actually means disorganized and undisciplined masses
have fun with your straws pal, this is the last (You)

>>2755551
I've posted this image>>2755198
before, but clearly you're just being a nigger.The aztecs were terrible at maintaining formation in the heat of combat, and primarily focussed on 1v1.
TL:DR you are a niggerfaggot of the highest caliber.

>>2755566
>>2755551
My dubs have confirmed your faggotry. Begone with you.

>>2755569
>/b/ the post

>>2755574
Digits are a /pol/ thing

>>2755577
We wuz memes and shiet

>>2755601
According to >>2755551 we wuz also as disciplined as the romans

File: Battle of Gembloux.png (161KB, 320x894px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 320x894px

>2755566
Aztec formations certainly were loose.
The
goddamn
problem
is that
you can't
read
for
shit
If you actually could you would have noticed that the account is from the siege of Tenochtitlan. >>2755066
Which took place after the battle of Otumba. Your pic adressed that Spanish cavalry was certainly effective at Otumba, and Otumba was the first time the Aztecs faced the Spanish and their cavalry.
The Spanish fought two times against other Mesoamericans, the Totonacs and the Tlaxcaltecs, before facing the Aztecs.
What you see in the account of Bernal during the siege is that they developed anti-cavalry tactics and adopted close formations after that one battle. Which as your pic adressed is the best thing to do.
TLDR they having loose formations didn't mean they were undisciplined or unable to close ranks

>inb4 they still suffered losses with cavalry charges
yeah and old worlders had thousands of battles to develop anti-cavalry tactics and still ended up having defeats like pic related

>>2755625
Nigger, you're the one who can't read for shit, the I keep referring too clearly states that the aztecs never used any tactics besides ambush, and their formations instantly dissolved once their units got into combat.
You are a nigger of unimaginable proportions

File: download (1).gif (75KB, 760x1066px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 760x1066px

>>2755625
>>2755630
and according to this, the only countermeasures the aztecs came up with against the spanish cavalry were static measures, not close order formations.
"This pattern of infantry formations coordinating their actions with the enemy-unit "busting" cavalry in most battles of the conquests"

>>2754434
What version of Egypt? Around the time the pyramids were built? Then Aztecs would have good chances, the technologies were pretty equal, and their culture was much more militaristic. Though later Egyptians adopted chariots and bronze, and in general became a larger and more populous nation. Also Egypt was always more centralized, unified and had better fleet.

>>2754434
The Jews.

File: italy-piedmont-turin-egyptian-museum-new-staging-second-floor-mace-ek0410.jpg (66KB, 640x446px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x446px

>>2754772
>Also, I'm like 90% sure Egypt could bring more warriors to bear.

Other way around. Egypt fielded rather small armies for its population. The Battle of Kadesh and the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) they only fielded 20,000 men. Those were big battles for them. It looks like Egypt had very real logistical issues for much of its history. It only stopped using stone weapons for a good part of its lower ranks once Ramesses II reformed its army.

Aztecs could and did field armies of up to 80,000 men before the Spanish came in. Its total standing forces was something retarded like 240,000 most of the time. Seven crops a year plus food imports from vassal states work wonders for force projection.

>2755630
>>>>>>aztecs never used any tactics besides ambush
They did at Otumba. And they realized that on open terrain they would be on disadvantage. Hence they retreated to Tenochtitlan, just like any Old Worlder would have. Even more when the cavalry had armour that none of their weapons could pierce through.
>A clever enemy avoided battle on open ground and preferred marshy, mountainous or arboreous grounds for battle. The Swiss defeated the Austrian knights at the Battle of Morgarten (1315) by attacking the knightly army in a narrow place between an acclivity and a swamp. The peasants of Dithmarschen faced in 1500, at Hemmingstedt, the army of the Danish king. They opened the dykes and flooded the country.

They performed the best they could with the available resources. Aztecs didn't have guns nor cavalry to counter attack and prevent it from flanking.
>Pikemen with polearms remained an important part of armies throughout the Thirty Years' War. Later tactics used against this formation included caracole maneuvers with ranged weapons. However, a well-trained cavalry force could outflank a force of enemy pikemen and triumph.
>With increasing firepower and no sufficient protection, the role of cavalry on the battlefield was slowly reduced.

But they certainly came up the only other way developed by Old Worlders to fend cavalry off, pikes and a suitable terrain.

>If our cavalry attempted to pursue the enemy into the water, the latter had provided against this by palisades, behind which they retired, and stretched out against them their long lances, to which they had fastened the swords we unfortunately lost on our retreat from Mexico.
True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Chapter CL

>The Mexicans, on this occasion, received the charge of the cavalry with fixed lances, and wounded four of our horses. Cortes himself had got into the midst of the enemy
Chapter CXLV

>2755643
>>>>>their formations instantly dissolved once their units got into combat.
Not after they realized that the Spanish would not follow the rules of Flower Wars.
>We noted their tenacity in fighting, but I declare that I do not know how to describe it, for neither cannon nor muskets nor crossbows availed, nor hand-to-hand fighting (...)
>Sometimes when we were gaining a little ground or a part of the street they pretended to retreat
Obviously they were already engaged in combat.
>they pretended to retreat, but it was merely to induce us to follow them and cut us off from our fortress and quarters, so as to fall on us in greater safety to themselves
And then, they retreated in order, without lossing formation and, as stated above, maintaining closed ranks.

Feints were used by cavalry too in the Old World, so don't bring up that they were ambush tier tactics.
>Another possibility was to bluff an attack, but turn around before impact. This tempted many infantrymen to go on the chase, leaving their formation. The heavy cavalry then turned around again in this new situation and rode down the scattered infantry. Such a tactic was deployed in the Battle of Hastings (1066).

>>2755806
>>2755807
>"However, hassig's point holds true- the aztecs failed to respond with appropriate organizational adaptations to cope with cavalry"
Aztec unit structure and tactics didn't change significantly after the battle of otumba.
>"more important was the ability of the spanish to maintain the integrity of their formations while killing large numbers of aztec troops"
The source you keep quoting clearly is just talking about the aztecs bunching up, not them fighting as a unit, which would have been impossible for them to achieve in the short period of time between otumba and the final siege of tenochitland. Again, the ONLY effective defence the aztecs ever put up against the spanish cavalry were static defences and traps, NOT improvements in how they organized their troops.

>>2755806
>>2755807
Shorn of their commanders, the Aztec units often disintegrated into panic. The Aztecs were used to loose formations in battle; their primary objective had always been to capture a valiant opponent alive so that they might be later ritually sacrificed, and warfare was highly ritualised with precise moments for starting and ending. The objective of Aztec warfare was never to destroy completely the enemy and overturn their culture, while the Spanish were intent on exactly that. The two sides were not just centuries but millennia apart in terms of arms technology and warfare tactics.

>>2755806
Additionally, to say that they only they couldn't defeat the spaniards in open battle at otumba is idiotic. Mexicans engaged the spaniards at veracruz and were soundly defeated; additionally, mexican spies were present and witnessed the spaniard's skills in combat against the totonacs. And yet they didn't adapt their tactics, because they were incapeable of doing so.

>>2755092
Not an argument

>>2755569
>checking your own repeating digits

pathetic

>>2756022
Verifying your numbers for accuracy is good scientific practice, anon

File: 200_s.gif (12KB, 322x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 322x200px

>>2754434
There needs to be a mod that allows you to import civilizations across all games so we can settle these disputes once and for all

>>2756356
man i wish they redid age of empires with more unique features for each civ and updated graphics.

>>2755848
>The source you keep quoting clearly is just talking about the aztecs bunching up, not them fighting as a unit

>We noted their tenacity in fighting, but I declare that I do not know how to describe it, for neither cannon nor muskets (..) for they still fought on in as close ranks and with more energy than in the beginning. Sometimes when we were gaining a little ground or a part of the street they pretended to retreat, but it was merely to induce us to follow them and cut us off from our fortress and quarters, believing that we could not return to our quarters alive, for they did us much damage when we were retreating.

It clearly isn't. Just like the Spartans were not fighting disorganized at Thermopylae >>2755189, nor the cavalry at Hastings >>2755807
But obviously "rushing fiercely" and "fought on close ranks" clearly means attacking in loose barbarian formations without any discipline or coordination like the incompetent and backward fucks they were. I'm pretty sure the Spaniard wrote that so he could WEWUZ >>2755606 and claim they defeated spartans and shit.

>"However, hassig's point holds true- the aztecs failed to respond with appropriate organizational adaptations to cope with cavalry" Aztec unit structure and tactics didn't change significantly after the battle of otumba.
The source you keep quouting clearly is providing information to support his claims, just like the time when he omitted the "long lances, to which they had fastened the swords we unfortunately lost on our retreat from Mexico.
" in chapter CL, or even adress chapter CXLV at all:
"In the midst of this second conflict, Alvarado Tapia and Oli, with the main body of the cavalry, made their appearance, who had been attacking the enemy at other points. The blood was trickling down Oli's face, nor had any one of them escaped without a wound. They said they had been attacked by terrific bodies of the enemy, in the open fields, and had not been able to drive them back. "

>>2755869
>Mexicans engaged the spaniards at veracruz and were soundly defeated
the fuck are talking about
the battle near Veracruz at Almeria, which the Aztecs won?

>additionally, mexican spies were present and witnessed the spaniard's skills in combat against the totonacs. And yet they didn't adapt their tactics, because they were incapeable of doing so.
now i get it, you haven't read shit but some secondary works on the matter
The Spanish and the Totonacs never fought each other, they fought the Tabascans somewhat near Yucatan. Months before Moctezuma had sent spies and ambassadors.

>And yet they didn't adapt their tactics, because they were incapeable of doing so.
lmao keep pushing your agenda pal

>>2754528
"Mexica" is what the Aztecs called themselves.

>>2754528
Fucking idiot

>>2754563
Where in Mexico have you been? The country side doesn't have any smog and most of Mexico IS country side

>>2754565
>>2754597
>>2754747
Hmm now that you mentioned them, could the Tarascan's beat the ancient Egyptians?

They were able to beat the aztecs and we're also more technologically advanced than the aztecs too.

>>2754786
>with little discipline or training
And how do you know they had little discipline or training?

>>2755104
>>2755198
>>2755643
>>2755848
kys

>>2755869
this is strong contender for one of the most stupid comments on this board

>>2754442
No one actually gives a shit about them. It's just a meme in order to make themselves feel superior

>>2757530
Read about the positive side of mesoamerican civilization with an open mind and you'll see they were pretty interesting.

>>2757540
Not the point I was going for, but thanks for the recommendation

>>2754462
What the fuck is that supposed to represent?

>>2757049
Well, little discipline, at least
>>2757487
>>2757521
Don't hate me because i'm right senpai

egyptians ironically had better technology, but the Aztecs had superior logistics and could gather much larger armies that the egyptians could hope for.

If egypt could find good ground to use chariots and successfully rallied other groups to fight the Aztecs with them, they could win. But if they failed at this and had to face the full force of the Aztecs and their confederation allies, they'd be swamped by numbers alone.

File: few dudes.png (28KB, 350x466px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x466px

>>2754490

>>2757656
I don't. I hate for making "aztecs spies didn't learn from the combats between totonacs and spanish" tier statements and pretend you're right despite all the evidence.

>>2757700
There's a lot of evidence that they didn't, senpai. Like all of the stuff i've been posting.

>>2754496
>Europeans are a very clean people
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f2oye_filthy-cities-medieval-london-bbc_tech

>>2754434

Egypt would STOMP them, absolutely no question. The Egyptians had chariot archers. I doubt the Egyptians would lose a single man, the only challenge for them would be if they could kill every last Beaner before they ran out of arrows.

>>2754464
yeah, but they could never subjugate the purepechas the only (AFAIK) mesoamerican civilization which forged metal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pur%C3%A9pecha_people

>inb4 Wikipedia

I don't have English sources since, as a Spanish speaker, I mainly use spanish sources

>>2757996
Retard

>>2754481
What plague are you talking about? Black Death? It killed a lot of people, yet not enough to make a difference like that.

>>2754434
Depends on the time period for both empires, Egypt didn't have an organized military for a long-ass time