Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition

[BING XI LAO]

Reread what I wrote, since I mentioned both ships and horses. Nevertheless, even if they had AK-47s, what either Cortes and Pizarro did was not a success of military strategic, tactics or technology (aside from actually getting there in the first place), while state of Spain and its regular army did possess superiority of metallurgy, military organisation and military tactics, none of that was relevant to the what is essentially the loose streetfight type of melee they got involved.

Do you think you'd have much luck persuading the conquistadors that their metal armour, swords, cannons and arbalests didn't matter, and they might as well just ditch them for cotton breastplates and wooden clubs with sharp rock edges? I guess they were a bunch of idiots hauling all that gear around. And that's just the technology, now you also say tactics and organisation didn't matter? The natives may have been engaging in a loose streetfight type of melee, but the spanish made sure to maintain their formation, otherwise they would have far more casualties. It was probably very similar to the Roman legions going up against the barbarians, back when the barbarians didn't yet have good armour or weapons. A metal breastplate, helmet, shield and shortsword, in a orderly formation, is pretty ideal for a streetfight!

Few things help morale as much as discipline and superior protection, and the expectation that the K-D ratio will be sky-high. That flipside of that also applies, lowering native morale when they were up against the Spanish. Everyone likes to think their life is more valuable than the other side's, man for man - no-one wants to be the side that has numbers but not quality. Without that morale, and the ability to act as an (on the tactical level) unbeatable battlefield force with weapons the natives didn't even understand, I doubt the Spanish would have got very far with their diplomacy and alliances. IIRC on one occasion they even told a cacique that their cannon was an angry growling spirit that had better be appeased, although I doubt that particular diplomatic gambit was essential.
If they had been equipped to the same standard as the natives, attrition from missile weapons would by itself have eventually worn them down.

Their equipment wouldn't have been enough without all the other stuff - bravery, alliances, disease - but I do think it was necessary. Aren't you the one being reductionst? - you said that the equipment, organisation and tactics of the Conquistadors weren't relevant!
Sure, it is annoying if people insult the real history of the conquest by reducing it to only technology, but there's no need to go so far the other way.

Also the point we made wasn't that Pizarro relied on guns against the Inca, or that only the technology mattered - the point was that an RTS with 200 pop limit for every player will give native factions some strong or elite troops for gameplay reasons. This leads to idiocy like some guy running around with a spear and an eagle headdress, performing on par with an armoured cavalryman. Absolutely destroys muh immersion, just look at this shit https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Elite_Eagle_Warrior more pierce armour than a paladin

 

[FreeKaner]

Do you think you'd have much luck persuading the conquistadors that their metal armour, swords, cannons and arbalests didn't matter, and they might as well just ditch them for cotton breastplates and wooden clubs with sharp rock edges? I guess they were a bunch of idiots hauling all that gear around. And that's just the technology, now you also say tactics and organisation didn't matter? The natives may have been engaging in a loose streetfight type of melee, but the spanish made sure to maintain their formation, otherwise they would have far more casualties. It was probably very similar to the Roman legions going up against the barbarians, back when the barbarians didn't yet have good armour or weapons. A metal breastplate, helmet, shield and shortsword, in a orderly formation, is pretty ideal for a streetfight!

Few things help morale as much as discipline and superior protection, and the expectation that the K-D ratio will be sky-high. That flipside of that also applies, lowering native morale when they were up against the Spanish. Everyone likes to think their life is more valuable than the other side's, man for man - no-one wants to be the side that has numbers but not quality. Without that morale, and the ability to act as an (on the tactical level) unbeatable battlefield force with weapons the natives didn't even understand, I doubt the Spanish would have got very far with their diplomacy and alliances. IIRC on one occasion they even told a cacique that their cannon was an angry growling spirit that had better be appeased, although I doubt that particular diplomatic gambit was essential.
If they had been equipped to the same standard as the natives, attrition from missile weapons would by itself have eventually worn them down.

Their equipment wouldn't have been enough without all the other stuff - bravery, alliances, disease - but I do think it was necessary. Aren't you the one being reductionst? - you said that the equipment, organisation and tactics of the Conquistadors weren't relevant!
Sure, it is annoying if people insult the real history of the conquest by reducing it to only technology, but there's no need to go so far the other way.

Also the point we made wasn't that Pizarro relied on guns against the Inca, or that only the technology mattered - the point was that an RTS with 200 pop limit for every player will give native factions some strong or elite troops for gameplay reasons. This leads to idiocy like some guy running around with a spear and an eagle headdress, performing on par with an armoured cavalryman. Absolutely destroys muh immersion, just look at this shit https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Elite_Eagle_Warrior more pierce armour than a paladin

Conquistadores themselves wrote amply on the topic, they mention Inca slings left on armour similar dent to an arquebus, and any hit to the head was lethal, even through helmets. They also mentioned they had hard time cutting at inca armour but pikes could go through them. They also wrote plenty about courage and persistence of Inca skirmishers so there is very little to suggest they should have a morale impact. They mention artillery got very little actual kills, but the sound and smoke of it scattered the incas (which was very important because they took over Inca empire after a street melee, 168 men essentially doing "crowd control" against some 2000-3000 people. It was basically like riot police against protestors). Of course much like riot gear helps riot police to crowd control protestors, the helmets and breastplates of Spaniards definitely helped, especially since from what we know the Incan soldiers at the time were lightly and ceremonially armed, but as far as I know they couldn't even get through the pikes and many died attempting to do so and started to disperse after artillery fire.

People have a misconception about Pizarro's overtake of Incas, because rather than thinking essentially, in modern terms, a paramilitary force succeeding a coup, they think of some sort of open field battle of tactical manoeuvres or worse some sort of shoot out. There was no military organisation and tactics to be employed in such a situation, certainly not organisation of tactics prevalent in European warfare at the time. Spanish had state of the art military organisation and tactics in 1536, best in Europe and probably only rivalled by Ottomans at their time and for many years to come. Yet Pizarro had 168 men, which barely amounts to a company of men, there is no military organisation or tactics to be had here. A standard company of tercios was supposed to be 250 pikemen, they couldn't even fill a company in a regiment, (which would be ideally 2500 men).

As for Incas, they were aware of battle formations and military discipline, superiority Spanish veterans had over them was similar to superiority they had over most concurrent European, or alternatively, would be say Chinese forces. Amongst everything else in terms of military, Spanish soldiers morale, determination and discipline was definitely the decisive factor. Which is essentially what I am getting at.

In any case, chasing realism in any age of empires games is a futile affair, it's better to think of it as some sort of historical themed super smash bros. English has longbowmen for fucks sake while you get wild west pistoleros and such as mercenaries. Entire Indian faction based on Mughals has not a single horse unit, when horse archers and lancers made the core of Mughal armies. In AoE2 and AoE3 you have melee camel units, which was not a thing that existed at all, not to mention stuff like throwing axeman and sword-throwing mamluks riding camels.

Beyond this, Spanish in AoE3 are very decently represented, especially with their missionaries boosting performance of troops nearby, which can be seen as morale advantage Spanish had.

 

[JarlFrank]

AoE2 had Joan of Arc be saved in the end. But all of the above is just a big pile of 'why'.

Uh, I don't remember this. Joan gets captured and burnt in the penultimate mission and the final mission is all her compatriots seeking revenge.

Yeah AoE2's campaigns are pretty historically correct/authentic.

That was my main gripe with AoE3. They went for some stupid fantasy stuff in a historical strategy game, probably inspired by Age of Mythology's campaign... which funnily enough felt more authentic to the mythology than AoE3's campaigns feel to the history and the myths of the time (myths like the golden cities of central america, or the US manifest destiny of moving west... which would have been great themes for the campaigns).

The Asian Dynasties expansion campaigns were much better, as they followed the AoE2 model of taking a historical character/event, even though the Chinese campaign added a "what if" scenario of a Chinese expedition reaching the Americas. Which is still 6 million times more authentic and believable than whatever illuminati shit the main campaigns came up with.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Conquistadores themselves wrote amply on the topic, they mention Inca slings left on armour similar dent to an arquebus, and any hit to the head was lethal, even through helmets. They also mentioned they had hard time cutting at inca armour but pikes could go through them.

You make these statements but then you don't explicitly draw a conclusion from them. Probably because the implicit conclusion is "Therefore, a sling and an arquebus are basically the same, also cotton armour and metal armour are basically the same" - which is clearly retarded once you put it into words.

They also wrote plenty about courage and persistence of Inca skirmishers.

The courage to skirmish at range is one thing, the courage to enter melee against a stronger foe is another.

There was no military organisation and tactics to be employed in such a situation, certainly not organisation of tactics prevalent in European warfare at the time. Spanish had state of the art military organisation and tactics in 1536, best in Europe and probably only rivalled by Ottomans at their time and for many years to come. Yet Pizarro had 168 men, which barely amounts to a company of men, there is no military organisation or tactics to be had here. A standard company of tercios was supposed to be 250 pikemen, they couldn't even fill a company in a regiment, (which would be ideally 2500 men).

No organisation or tactics to be had with 168 men vs a more numerous foe? What utter bollocks.

In any cases, chasing realism in any age of empires games is a futile affair, it's better to think of it as some sort of historical themed super smash bros. English has longbowmen for fucks sake while you get wild west pistoleros and such as mercenaries. Entire Indian faction based on Mughals has not a single horse unit, when horse archers and lancers made the core of Mughal armies. In AoE2 and AoE3 you have melee camel units, which was not a thing that existed at all, not to mention stuff like throwing axeman and sword-throwing mamluks riding camels.

 

[JarlFrank]

Do you think you'd have much luck persuading the conquistadors that their metal armour, swords, cannons and arbalests didn't matter, and they might as well just ditch them for cotton breastplates and wooden clubs with sharp rock edges? I guess they were a bunch of idiots hauling all that gear around.

Cotton armor has always been a staple of European light troops for centuries, and the native American armor seems to be very similar to European gambesons. They are very effective against piercing and slashing attacks, but of course less effective than steel armor in a close push of pikes, against crossbow and musket, or against a charging knight's lance. Neither of which you had to be wary of when fighting against native Americans, who have neither guns nor cavalry nor specialized armor-piercing weapons such as war picks and warhammers.

Dominic Mancini (1483): writing about the archers in Richard III's army
They do not wear any metal armour on their breast nor any other part of their body, except for the better sort who have breastplates and suits of armour. Indeed, the common soldiery have more comfortable doublets that reach down below the loins and are stuffed with tow or some other material. They say that the softer the garment the better do they withstand the blows of arrows and swords, and besides that in summer they are lighter and in the winter they are more serviceable than iron.

Companion of Hernan Cortez (early 1500s)
The armour 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. 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 colours, making a fine effect… for neither arrows nor darts pierce them, but are thrown back without making any wound, and even with swords it is difficult to penetrate through them.

Howard Household Accounts (mid 1400s):
I took to the doublet maker, to make me a doublet of fence; for every four quarters: 18 folds thick of white fustian, and 4 folds of linen cloth, and a fold of black fustian to put without.

Aguado, History of Venezuela (mid 1500s)
Out of sacking or light linen cloths they make a kind of surcoat that they call 'escaupil'. These fall below the knee, and sometimes to the calf. They are all stuffed with cotton, to the thickness of three fingers. The layers of cotton are quilted between folds of linen and sewed with rough thread…

 

[JarlFrank]

throwing axeman

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

 

[FreeKaner]

You make these statements but then you don't explicitly draw a conclusion from them. Probably because the implicit conclusion is "Therefore, a sling and an arquebus are basically the same, also cotton armour and metal armour are basically the same" - which is clearly retarded once you put it into words.

No, they are not equivelant, but while in a battlefield of actual armies, employing military tactics it would matter, in small skirmishes they do the job. Moreover gambesons were used by Europeans themselves, they are very effective against cutting and crushing weapons, though not very effective against pikes.

The courage to skirmish at range is one thing, the courage to enter melee against a stronger foe is another.

They lacked not any such courage, since not only were they going towards pikes while only being lightly armed which is a foolhardy courage, they generally fought to death. I recommend you read accounts of conquistadores themselves. This is also an overall bizarre point you are trying to prove, what are you trying to accomplish here by suggesting that Incas were ignorant and inept without courage or understanding? They certainly were not and this also didn't stop the Spanish.

No organisation or tactics to be had with 168 men vs a more numerous foe? What utter bollocks.

What sort of organisation and tactics can 168 men, 150 of them with pikes, can actually accomplish here? Some soldiers standing close together and impaling with pikes what they can after shooting 12 arquebuses (once, as far as I know)? Military organisation requires an administrative structure and tactics requires a sort of chain of command, a loose melee has very little tactics. For example a Spanish square is military organisation, it's a precise formation with a clear role and aim, while military tactics is employing personnel and materiel you have with chain of command, for example using such squares in checker board formation, while using cavalry to screen. In so far any tactics can be ascribed to a melee, both sides tried about same thing, which is that get the opponents in your weapon's range and stab them. Incas were not unfamiliar with pike tactics themselves since they did use two-handed long spears and polearms in general, they had officers and chain of command.

I will also repeat again, from start my point was that it was not technological, organisational or tactical advantage bur rather discipline, courage and determination of Spaniards that won the field here. As being cornered, they stood firm and fought back. Though that melee itself wouldn't be decisive, if Pizarro didn't have the clarity of mind to prevent one of his men from killing the Inca Emperor and use as a bargaining chip to accomplish the coup.

 

[FreeKaner]

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

Yes, I corrected that before you wrote, no small axes thrown during charge is not at all what the Frankish giant axe thrower is, nor is it age appropriate since it comes at era of knights.

 

[JarlFrank]

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

Yes, I corrected that before you wrote, no small axes thrown during charge is not at all what the Frankish giant axe thrower is, nor is it age appropriate since it comes at era of knights.

I mean yeah, the portrayal of axe-throwers in AoE2 is hilarious. Huge double-bladed two-handed axes lmao.

Then again we also have the Huns and Goths progressing to the Imperial Age, Huns with cannon galleons, Goths with hand cannoneers, Chinese without gunpowder weapons for balance reasons, etc etc etc.

 

[Delterius]

No organisation or tactics to be had with 168 men vs a more numerous foe? What utter bollocks.

Ally the hundreds of thousands armies of Tlaxcala, which not only fought the Aztecs but also followed the spanish down to Peru?

 

[BING XI LAO]

No, they are not equivelant, but while in a battlefield of actual armies, employing military tactics it would matter, in small skirmishes they do the job. Moreover gambesons were used by Europeans themselves, they are very effective against cutting and crushing weapons, though not very effective against pikes.

The difference in armour would be if anything more important against less advanced weapons, away from Europe's heavy polearms, arbalests, guns, etc. Why do you think the conquistadors wore metal armour, ceremonial reasons? Why do you think slings went out of fashion in Eurasian warfare?

They lacked not any such courage, since not only were they going towards pikes while only being lightly armed which is a foolhardy courage, they generally fought to death. I recommend you read accounts of conquistadores themselves. This is also an overall bizarre point you are trying to prove, what are you trying to accomplish here by suggesting that Incas were ignorant and inept without courage or understanding? They certainly were not and this also didn't stop the Spanish.

I have read Bernal Diaz's account of the conquest of the Aztecs, where an unwillingness of the natives to enter melee was observed in some battles. I haven't read about the conquest of the Inca, however, it sounds like your views are much more reasonable when applied to that case, as opposed to Cortez's expedition, since the Inca had pikemen unlike the Aztecs, and since Pizarro's group was smaller than Cortez's.

I'm not suggesting the Inca were inept, ignorant etc, I'm saying that being worse equipped and organised has a serious effect on morale especially for melee combat. I didn't know that the Inca generally fought to death, but even the Zulu at the Battle of Blood River ran away eventually after they sustained thousands of losses without killing a single enemy. If there is the option to retreat I don't believe that any war would have generalised fighting to the death.

What sort of organisation and tactics can 168 men, 150 of them with pikes, can actually accomplish here?

Keeping the pikes all pointing the right way while consistently and cohesively obeying orders to charge, retreat, change what way they're facing, that kind of thing. If you thought I was for some reason talking about the very complex and large-scale formation of pike battles in Europe a century later, well why'd you think that? Tactics and organisation can refer to the smaller scale as well, even the very small scale of just four or so men, depending on what they are about. I didn't know Pizarro mostly used pike, that makes it more important to be in good formation.

I will also repeat again, from start my point was that it was not technological, organisational or tactical advantage bur rather discipline, courage and determination of Spaniards that won the field here. As being cornered, they stood firm and fought back. Though that melee itself wouldn't be decisive, if Pizarro didn't have the clarity of mind to prevent one of his men from killing the Inca Emperor and use as a bargaining chip to accomplish the coup.

Given the unlikely and heroic nature of the conquest, why not say that pretty much every factor was important?
If a people are brave, intelligent, intrepid etc then it's only natural that along with discipline, courage, and determination they will also have better abstract tools at their disposal, ranging from the technology of their equipment to tactics and organisation.
Though that no longer applies once a civilisation enters a period of decadence..... but this is 1500s Europeans.

 

[Delterius]

No organisation or tactics to be had with 168 men vs a more numerous foe? What utter bollocks.

Ally the hundreds of thousands armies of Tlaxcala, which not only fought the Aztecs but also followed the spanish down to Peru?

And the only response is pressing a button. Sad!

 

[BING XI LAO]

No organisation or tactics to be had with 168 men vs a more numerous foe? What utter bollocks.

Ally the hundreds of thousands armies of Tlaxcala, which not only fought the Aztecs but also followed the spanish down to Peru?

I know you like smarmy one-liners, but this one has been shortened so much it isn't a grammatically complete sentence (unless you are suggesting someone should ally the Tlaxcala and send them to Peru??? Did that happen?) and it's unclear what its relevance is.

 

[Delterius]

No organisation or tactics to be had with 168 men vs a more numerous foe? What utter bollocks.

Ally the hundreds of thousands armies of Tlaxcala, which not only fought the Aztecs but also followed the spanish down to Peru?

I know you like smarmy one-liners, but this one has been shortened so much it isn't a grammatically complete sentence (unless you are suggesting someone should ally the Tlaxcala) and it's unclear what its relevance is.

That Hernan Cortez didn't conquer the Aztecs with 168 men?

That spanish accounts claim they allied with tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of native warriors for all of their greatest victories?

That the precise reason the Tlaxcalans maintained a lot of privileges within spanish america for so long is because they were the backbone of the conquest of not just Mexico, but also Peru?

And you're here thinking 30 dudes with a shitty impractical arquebus is the crux of history.

 

[BING XI LAO]

That Hernan Cortez didn't conquer the Aztecs with 168 men?

Well now I know why your posts read as so low-effort, it's because you don't read the thread you're replying to.

 

[Delterius]

That Hernan Cortez didn't conquer the Aztecs with 168 men?

Well now I know why your posts read as so low-effort, it's because you don't read the thread you're replying to.

Bing Xi Lao: i'm going to ignore 99% of the army and talk about the tactics involved in the war effort now please stop calling me out

 

[BING XI LAO]

That Hernan Cortez didn't conquer the Aztecs with 168 men?

Oh right, you think that my argument was that the tactics must be there because of the relative size disparity, so you bring up that Cortez had more.
But actually my point was that 168 men, and a much larger force on the oppsing side, is still a big enough number. Just shut up, smarmy, one-liner retard.

 

[Delterius]

my point was that 168 men, and a much larger force on the oppsing side,

168 men plus tens to hundreds of thousands of allies*

 

[FreeKaner]

The difference in armour would be if anything more important against less advanced weapons, away from Europe's heavy polearms, arbalests, guns, etc. Why do you think the conquistadors wore metal armour, ceremonial reasons?


I have read Bernal Diaz's account of the conquest of the Aztecs, where an unwillingness of the natives to enter melee was observed in some battles. I haven't read about the conquest of the Inca, however, it sounds like your views are much more reasonable when applied to that case, as opposed to Cortez's expedition, since the Inca had pikemen unlike the Aztecs, and since Pizarro's group was smaller than Cortez's.

I'm not suggesting the Inca were inept, ignorant etc, I'm saying that being worse equipped and organised has a serious effect on morale especially for melee combat. I didn't know that the Inca generally fought to death, but even the Zulu at the Battle of Blood River ran away eventually after they sustained thousands of losses without killing a single enemy. If there is the option to retreat I don't believe that any war would have generalised fighting to the death.


Keeping the pikes all pointing the right way while consistently and cohesively obeying orders to charge, retreat, change what way they're facing, that kind of thing. If you thought I was for some reason talking about the very complex and large-scale formation of pike battles in Europe a century later, well why'd you think that? Tactics and organisation can refer to the smaller scale as well, even the very small scale of just four or so men, depending on what they are about. I didn't know Pizarro mostly used pike, that makes it more important to be in good formation.


Given the unlikely and heroic nature of the conquest, why not say that pretty much every factor was important?
If a people are brave, intelligent, intrepid etc then it's only natural that along with discipline, courage, and determination they will also have better abstract tools at their disposal, ranging from the technology of their equipment to tactics and organisation.
Though that no longer applies once a civilisation enters a period of decadence..... but this is 1500s Europeans.

My point is that military organisation and tactics is something that concerns scale of warfare that is way greater than number of men who couldn't even amount to a single company of tercios. You have to have something organise and direct tactically in terms of numbers for there to be organisation and tactics. Spanish experience with military organisation and tactics gave them military discipline to be sure, but Incas also had organised armies, with officers and corps. They however were accustomed to a warfare between light infantry, with small amount of heavy infantry. Much like how a duel between two men, even if they are wearing breastplates and using swords is something else than military organisation and tactics, there is a cut off point between where personal discipline and skill turns into military organisation and tactics, and while lines in the sand, I would say it requires at least multiple companies of soldiers under a single officer for that to be accomplished.

Spanish were armed and armoured for the battlefields of Europe, which demanded at the time a higher level of solid armour. Especially the swordsmen and pikemen, as they needed to contend with weapons like halberds, greatswords and pikes. These things are however contextual, there is a reason why Europeans themselves actually reduced the amount of armour they are wearing and started to wear more gambesons. A cuirassier of 17th century was less armoured than a man-at-arms of 16th, yet they were both still fighting in a situation pike and shot. For Incas, who fought mainly with percussive weapons, assisted by pikes and javelins, light-armoured warfare is what made sense. Moreover, this light armoured warfare is very well fit for skirmishes involving small amount of men. Fighting as heavy infantry core, against light infantry even more lightly armed than usual in a melee, there wasn't much of any organisation or tactics going on here.

As to give another example, to get this out of Europeans vs. Natives context, in 16th century, a ship boarding action between say Spanish and Dutch, involving Spanish soldiers and Dutch ones, would also have very little in the way of organisation and tactics. As it's a very loose, chaotic melee. Equipment is surely relevant here, but my point isn't that it wasn't not relevant at all, but that the supposed difference between Spanish and Incans wouldn't be too high, Incans would have polearms and missile weapons, so would Spanish, and while Spanish armour would definitely be superior to gambesons, gambesons were certainly effective at stopping side arms of the Spanish forcing them strictly into a push of pike.

Also don't take it personally, I was speaking against something and someone else, that is very common misconception about conquests of Cortes and Pizarro, as if it was a scenario of some sort that involved employment of full military might, with all organisation and tactics it had its disposal employed against Incas, which the result was a slaughter. As don't get me wrong, I reckon that a Spanish army of 40000 strong, against an Incan army of 40000 strong would lead to slaughter of the latter, as there isn't much Incans would have as option against the Spanish squares, artillery or lancers (though cavalry is what they could deal best with the tools they have). It's that this is trying to fit a conflict into a categorisation that it doesn't belong. It also certainly wasn't due any lack of courage on part of Incas (or Aztecs), though their weapons were less effective than their opponents, so would be most anything in the world against veteran Spanish swordsmen in a close quarters melee as theirs represented an expertise of military swordfighting par excellence at the time.

It's also not how Pizarro's 168 armed and armoured soldiers managed to disperse 2000-3000 lightly armed troops, which they could certainly also do in Antwerp and Rome at the time but rather how they managed to transform this skirmish into conquest. In which how recent Incan Empire was and how much it revolved around their ruler certainly plays the decisive part, as well as willingness of both Spanish and Incan aristocracy to cooperate. Perhaps most importantly, it was also Spanish crown's prompt declaration of Incans as subjects of the crown much like those of Castile, with appropriate respect appointed to their elite.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Bing Xi Lao: i'm going to ignore 98% of the army and talk about the tactics involved in the war effort now please stop calling me out

That's because it's the contrast between Conquistadors and natives which is being discussed, and the 2% was the most important in every sense, including in battle.

 

[Delterius]

Bing Xi Lao: i'm going to ignore 98% of the army and talk about the tactics involved in the war effort now please stop calling me out

That's because it's the contrast between Conquistadors and natives which is being discussed, and the 2% was the most important in every sense, including in battle.

Bing Xi Lao: the spanish were outnumbered 200 000 to 1 so they had to have tactics on their side

Normal person who can count: actually they weren't, sometimes they even outnumbered the enemy

Bing Xi Lao: look, arquebuses are basically machine guns which is why the 0.000001 percent of the army is what really matters its not like i'm just ignoring the true power of the conquering army to pretend things are more impressive than they have to be ok stop posting pls

 

[FreeKaner]

Bing Xi Lao: i'm going to ignore 98% of the army and talk about the tactics involved in the war effort now please stop calling me out

That's because it's the contrast between Conquistadors and natives which is being discussed, and the 2% was the most important in every sense, including in battle.

Bing Xi Lao: the spanish were outnumbered 200 000 to 1 so they had to have tactics on their side

Normal person who can count: actually they weren't, sometimes they even outnumbered the enemy

Bing Xi Lao: look, arquebuses are basically machine guns which is why the 0.000001 percent of the army is what really matters its not like i'm just ignoring the true power of the conquering army to pretend things are more impressive than they have to be ok stop posting pls

In the battle that Incan emperor was captured, it was indeed 168 Spanish soldiers versus 2000-3000 Incan troops. However the troops at the time were in their "civilian gear" so to speak, which involved only sidearms, and not the polearms and missile weapons they would normally have.

 

[BING XI LAO]

That's because it's the contrast between Conquistadors and natives which is being discussed, and the 2% was the most important in every sense, including in battle.

Bing Xi Lao: the spanish were outnumbered 200 000 to 1 so they had to have tactics on their side

Normal person who can count: actually they weren't, sometimes they even outnumbered the enemy

Bing Xi Lao: look, arquebuses are basically machine guns which is why the 0.000001 percent of the army is what really matters its not like i'm just ignoring the true power of the conquering army to pretend things are more impressive than they have to be ok stop posting pls

Unfortunately, I was already talking in this thread about the importance of sword-armed melee, and the importance of their alliances, to Cortez's conquests before you showed up in this thread with typical vapid one-liners. Also the point with 168 is that even that number of men will still benfit a great deal from proper formation especially if they are using pikes.
I know you were very excited when you saw an opportunity to be a smug faggot, but you'll have to wait for a better opportunity.

 

[BING XI LAO]

My point is that military organisation and tactics is something that concerns scale of warfare that is way greater than number of men who couldn't even amount to a single company of tercios.

I should mention that in Cortez's case, Diaz does mention the importance of maintaining formation - but I must concede this wouldn't apply to the Incan case where it was pike vs pike. It sounds like the less famous of the two conquests was the more remarkable.

 

[FreeKaner]

My point is that military organisation and tactics is something that concerns scale of warfare that is way greater than number of men who couldn't even amount to a single company of tercios.

I should mention that in Cortez's case, Diaz does mention the importance of maintaining formation - but I must concede this wouldn't apply to the Incan case where it was pike vs pike. It sounds like the less famous of the two conquests was the more remarkable.

It's ironic too, since most of wealth of Spanish Empire didn't come from Mexico, but rather silver mines of Peru. Mexico however formed a central piece in the whole system, as it was the central piece in organisation of Spanish overseas empire, where galleons going to both Manila and Castile often departed from.

I would say both are very remarkable but they are definitely very different.