1. Your cunt 2. Which one looks better?

mexihcans look slightly less ridiculous

File: 0.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>66508373
shame that colors can't capture its whole appeal

>>66508314
Tlaxcalans

File: Xicotencatl1.jpg (561KB, 1024x766px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1024x766px

>>66508314
Where did you get those ridiculously cringey illustrations? IRL they looked the exact fucking same, same, ethnicity, gear and culture. And they dressed more like pictured for actaul warfare, Ichcahuipilli armor on those drawings is based more on the ceremonial dress shown in codices than functional reconstructions.

>>66508314
one side has neutral backdrops and the other one doesn't
MANIPULATIVE PICTURE

File: Tlaxcala-lienzo-10.jpg (712KB, 1043x949px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1043x949px

>>66508904
>THE armor which they use in war are certain loose garments like doublets made of quilted cotton, a finger and a half thick, and sometimes two fingers; they are very strong.12 Over them they wear a doublet and hose all one garment, which are corded behind. This garment is made of thick cloth and is covered with a layer of feathers of different colors, making a fine effect. Some companies of soldiers wear white and crimson, others blue and yellow, and others again of different styles.

>To guard the head they carry things like the heads of serpents, tigers, lions, or wolves, with open jaws, and the head of the man is inside the head of the creature as if it was being devoured. They are of wood covered over with feathers and with jewels of gold and precious stones, which is a wonderful sight.

t. a conquistador

File: montezuma.jpg (41KB, 236x472px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 236x472px

>>66508314
Both seem pretty white washed

File: Ichcahuipili Aztec warrior's gear.jpg (265KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1200x900px

Here's a reconstruction and the link discusses both the vest type and long coat type of armor based on actual sources, the real thing was both protective andlight and fresh enough several Spaniards actually adopted these after the fall of Tenochtitlan.

http://www.armoryoftheamericas.com/ichca-huipil/

>>66509289
>actual sources
the source I posted is in that link you know

>>66509275
No portraits of Moctezuma where made while he was alive. In fact, most of them date from the 17th century, when a descendant of him came back to New Spain as a viceroy.

>>66509375
Yeah, I got a phone call while writing my post and didn't see yours, anyway my argument stands, I'm pretty sure ssome of these armors were ornamental as fuck but it's one thing to post an illustration from an actual codex like >>66509196 and another to go for the out of context illustrations which are basically just an artist's rendering based on literal interpretation of drawing/sculpture.

And your post is baity as fuck, what's with this Tlaxcalans vs Aztecs bs?

File: codex_mendoza_folio_65r.jpg (977KB, 802x1130px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 802x1130px

>>66509643
>I'm pretty sure ssome of these armors were ornamental as fuck
Then why would they need thousands of them yearly like their tributary records show?
Why the Codex Mendoza states that warriors wore different dresses according to their ranks?
Why Bernardino de Sahagun also says that warriors wore better dresses according to the number of captives obtained in war, just like the codex shows?

>And your post is baity as fuck, what's with this Tlaxcalans vs Aztecs bs?
how the fuck is it baity?

>>66510019
I'm saying armor was functional, while some no doubt were ornamental as fuck, aka highly decorated, most had to be practical enough to actually offer protection without getting in the way, only high ranking warriors would wear these, even so they obvioulsy wouldn't go for large head dresses, carrying heavy and fragile ceremonial objects or using helmets that were loose fitting, same with the armors. these are all things clearly present in your OP.

And it's baity because leaving aside there really wouldn't have been any visible differences in between Aztecs and Tlaxcalans, at least readily visible ones to outsiders, you're making people choose based on just different illustrators in between Mexico's national root culture and the traitorous element which led to its downfall, what's the purpose/idea?

File: codex_mendoza.jpg (206KB, 913x432px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 913x432px

>>66510607
>only high ranking warriors would wear these
yes

>even so they obvioulsy wouldn't go for large head dresses, carrying heavy and fragile ceremonial objects or using helmets that were loose fitting
pic related

>And it's baity because leaving aside there really wouldn't have been any visible differences in between Aztecs and Tlaxcalans, at least readily visible ones to outsiders,

>Xicotencatl had now five chiefs under him, each of whom commanded 10,000 men. [...] Each troop had its standard and arms, the latter being a large white bird, with outspread wings, as if preparing to fly, and resembled an ostrich.[25] Besides this, every chief had his particular insignia of war and colours, in the same way as our Spanish dukes and earls.
t. another conquistador

And you simply don't find that kind of insignia among the Mexihca.

>you're making people choose based on just different illustrators in between Mexico's national root culture and the traitorous element which led to its downfall
kek, where do I say they are traitors?

>what's the purpose/idea?
they look cool

>>66511438
>that kind of insignia among the Mexihca
I mean the back banners with birds, you also don't find jaguar warrios among the Tlaxcalans

>>66508314
WE

>>66508314
i didnt know being a drag queen was a thing back then in mexico

>>66509520
t. 100% white spaniard
Learn the real history of your country and stop trying to hide the fact that Mexico was black before all of the Spaniards like you came

>>66513568
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bhp7i7WNcM

good thread

File: Aztec Shield Chimalli.jpg (147KB, 605x650px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 605x650px

>>66511438
I forget the Nahuatl name for the umbrella type accesory the guy on the left is wearing, but that's obviously a ranking officer who would not have participated in battle, the one in the middle looks more like a banner bearer while the red suit might be a field comander for a specific division, eg archers or atlatl throwers. It doesn't make sense to have worn what was for the time very costly and elaborate regalia to just have it trashed on the begining of battle, nevermind it would impair your nobility and make you a fucking target, which would have had a point during flower wars but not real warfare.

as for insignia, yes, they likely wore different ones, the overall field was however probably a bit too colorful for someone unfamiliar, the Spaniards might have known to support the guys in white or those with green feathers, etc. but probably didn't fully appreciate the nuance in adornment, besides a Chimali like pictured is more than enough to identify individuals, and certainly a lot more practical in the field.

And Tlaxcalans turning against Aztecs it's the inherent subtext for anyone familiar with Aztec history.

File: Aztec Shield Chimalli1.jpg (69KB, 540x675px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 540x675px

>>66513938
A different Chimali

>>66511438
>in the same way as our Spanish dukes and earls

breh i dont know anything about aztec stuff but >>66513938 seems to be talking sense. watch some vids of battles in yurop and information about weapons and armor etc. and you'll see that no group of people would seriously wear all their decorative stuff into a bloodbath. some people are there to carry flags and make signals and such and some important people wear tall/visible things so they can be seen but theres no way every soldier went to war completely dressed as his fursona + wings + headdress etc

>>66514057
What about Renaissance pikemen/musketeers?

>>66513724
fuck your revisionism, our history started with the real conquistadors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Garrido

>>66513768
eh, the Aztecs and the Tehuantepecs had pretty much an opposite view on that regard desu

>>66513938
>specific division of archers or atlatl throwers
that's some well crafted b8

>elaborate regalia had a point during flower wars but not real warfare
the conquistador description mentioning commanders using heron back banners was from an actual battle against them you know

>And Tlaxcalans turning against Aztecs it's the inherent subtext for anyone familiar with Aztec history.
Yeah, from people with an anachronic view. Tlaxcalans were at war with the Mexihca.

>>66514057
didn't say every soldier wore them, look at the beginning of my post:

>only high ranking warriors would wear these

What can you guys tell me about the Tarascans/Purepecha empire? I hear they actually had metal (bronze) weapons?

File: Tarascans.jpg (60KB, 650x483px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 650x483px

>>66514821
their main god was the god of fire and they used to smoke a lot

File: Codex_Fejervary_Mayer_Aztec warrior.png (512KB, 758x359px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 758x359px

>>66514821
So did the Aztecs who received them as tribute (moren like a bribe not to invade) from both the Tarascans and the huastecs, macahuitls were far more effective than the bronze alloys being used on tepoztli, as in they did fucking decapitate horses with those, so their use was more limited although they were greatly appreciated. The Tarsacans had a very impressive civilization, while obviously Tzintzuntzan lacked much of the elaborate splendor and engineering of Tenochtitlan, they were no less advanced on most aspects and their land was a fertile, beautiful one. Up until this day there are artisans working bronze and copper with much the same methods. Pictured is a tepoztli axe about to be used by the bat figure.

>>66514784
No, we had written history long before European arrival, the guy you're responding to is just making a WE WUZ joke, some blacks in the US claim they descend from Amerindians and that whites conspire to hide their civilization and identity from them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8bSKfWL244

>>66514427
Spain evolved those into the most effective military force of their era, the tercios. Pretty awesome stuff. It's amazing how close we came to living in a world in which Spanish culture would have been as dominant as anglos today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio

File: laketexcoco.jpg (216KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1000x750px

How much does it trigger you that Mexico drained Lake Texcoco?

File: Dawn at Xochimilco.jpg (101KB, 1600x862px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1600x862px

>>66515338
whatever
;_;

Also the Tlaxcalan costumes look better. Sorry Mexicans.
But would the Tlaxcalans even be able to afford those costumes with how much the Mexica were stealing from them? I thought they were poor af

File: axolotl.jpg (80KB, 760x564px)

80KB, 760x564px

>>66515338
It's obviously not ideal, maybe the day will come the city is not so heavily populated some of these areas can be rehabilitated, it would be precious indeed. Axolotl has largely become endnagered because of loss of habitat.

File: 567_07_2.jpg (87KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x425px

>>66515338
it was kind of boring anyway

File: Tlaxcala.jpg (316KB, 1590x1060px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1590x1060px

>>66515392
No, they ween't as heavily taxed, the Tlaxcalans were largely allowed to remain independent so that the flower wars could be fought, which was a mutually beneficial arrangement it also allowed them to capture Aztecs for human sacrifice. They shared the exact same culture, in fact Tlaxcalans originated in the valley of Anahuac, what is today Mexico City.

Tlaxcalans today are ironically enough the biggest heritage tards in the country, they were largely privileged over other Amerindians and got to keep much of their culture and traditions.