alt Hacker NewsThe text wrongly claims that the Spanish defeated the Aztecs because of their iron weapons. Actually, the Spanish were vastly outnumbered, so their weapons alone were irrelevant in the battle. The Spanish had alliances with Indigenous peoples who opposed the Aztec Empire, giving them a much larger army. That defeated the Aztecs.
Replies
One and the same. The Spanish were seen as gods, in part because of appearance and in part because of armaments. It's not like if a random cadre of people, with comparable levels of tech as the Aztecs, wandered down to South America that they'd have been able to form alliances willing to go thrust themselves into battle, on their behalf, against the establishment of the time.
On top of being what enabled them to form alliances, it also begs another question. If it was primarily these masses that overwhelmed the Aztecs (and I don't disagree) then what need did they have of outsiders, let alone letting them act as rulers? It was the perception of alien levels of weaponry and technology that both gave the locals the morale they needed, and justified the Spaniards being deemed leaders.
I read Bernal Diaz's book about the conquest of Mexico and in it he says that formations of Aztec warriors would break when a conquistador would charge into formations on an armored horse. They thought the horse and rider was one sort of monster. It was also a combination of a bunch of things they had never seen before: steel weapons, armor, the power and mobility of a trained war horse.
I don't think they could have taken control of the Aztec empire without allies and a lot of political intrigue. I think a good modern analogy was how the US quickly took over Afghanistan after 911. You could say we did it with a small group of special forces and a lot of air power. But really it is more like there were already (warlord) factions ready to strike at the Taliban who knew they could win with air support and everything that would come after. For the Aztecs, the role of the cavalry was like those B52 strikes.
Camilla Townsend's "Fifth Sun" was a really interesting read in that it brought together a lot of sources of the conquest to tell a more detailed story than I had probably heard before.
When the Spanish showed up, the Aztec's enemies didn't immediately line up to join the anti-Mexica alliance, as some people tend to think. The Spanish weren't seen as gods and worshipped. Pestilence would be a factor later on, but in early days the natives they met were quite healthy. The Spanish weren't seen as foreigners from across the sea or anything special because that wasn't really a concept for the natives. The Spanish were just another funny looking tribe from over the horizon that had showed up to fight for space, much like the Aztec's once had.
The Spanish initially had to fight hostile tribes on their own. There were battles where they had to fight through the night, while they were injured, and against incredible odds. The Spanish, especially the ones from Extremadura, were widely regarded by contemporary Europeans as some of the very best soldiers on the continent. Only after they'd done some hard fighting were they seen as having a chance against the Mexica and worth making alliances with.
So, yes, the Spanish won allies who helped them fight the Mexica, but they needed their guns, steel, and horses to win those allies.
The Spanish also brought with them diseases that the Aztecs (or any new world peoples ) had no immunity to.
I just found out this [1] book review today about the Aztec society today and my takeway is that the Aztecs were a highly militaristic death cult. Almost all men were warriors educated for war at young age and competing with each other to get as most captives as possibles because this is what gives you status.
It doesn't mention the spanish conquest but I wouldn't be surprised if all those tribes living under Aztec rule needed a little morale boost and seeing a bunch of guys with iron weapons and armor who wanted to do away with the aztecs surely helped with that
[1](https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-aztecs-by-inga-clendinne...)
I highly recommend this (long) book review discussing the conquistadors: https://mattlakeman.org/2025/03/24/conquest-of-the-incas/
TL;DR - native alliances were important, but Spanish armor made them nearly invincible against native weapons, their military tactics were superior, and cavalry were extremely overpowered against armies made up only of footsoldiers. Weaponry and tech were certainly not irrelevant.
Why then couldn't the indigenous peoples form their own alliance against the Aztecs before the Spanish arrived?
Their weapons were certainly not irrelevant. They had other capabilities to their weapons - much did the aztecs. And they also took down the empire with a decapitation strike while being hosted as a guest, with their weapons.
Steel armor was definitely a huge advantage and the Indians soon learned that the only two reliable ways to defeat armored soldiers were to drown them or to throw large stones at them if they ventured into a narrow valley. Neither was usually available.
"the Spanish were vastly outnumbered, so their weapons alone were irrelevant in the battle"
Irrelevant? Tell this to Atahualpa Inca, who, during the second big Spanish conquest, was taken alive by a group of mere 168 Spanish soldiers, unsupported by any local warriors, while having at least several thousand guards with him. Force ratio of 40 or 50 to 1 ultimately made no difference.
This is blatant misinformation. Three things led to defeat:
- European diseases
- superior weaponry
- alliances with local Aztec enemies
The first wave of smallpox killed 5-8 million and is by far one of the greatest factors.
Now you have to explain why an alliance of tens of thousands was formed to support a few thousand foreigners.
Wasn't it like the biggest factor was they benefited from biohazard weapons they didn't know they were carrying?
Huh? Sounds like a string of events that they didn’t engineer. I mean, did they engineer the spread of Christianity to the New World? They’d need a confluence of disease, tech, and a safe boat ride to achieve it. We’ve all had experience with Product Development, so I ask, how the heck could any of this been engineered?
Sounds like luck (and if luck, why is it cohesive?) or a GOD wanted a certain outcome.
HNers don’t know what being a goth with a bunch of horses and some bros who’ve pissed of a king can do when they lock in
The misinformation about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is one of the most depressing things imaginable.
The historical record is completely clear and we have first hand accounts, primary sources, from the people present. It's all readily available and anyone interest can easily verify it.
And yet, even in the comments responding to yours, people confidently state just blatantly untrue things.
Also, the introduction of foreign pathogens which killed of many of the native population.
Usually a single explanation isn’t sufficient, but and it’s likely a combination of disease, better weapons, cultural differences (attitudes towards war and one another), alliances as you mentioned, etc.
Small Spanish forces could defeat much larger Aztec forces, particularly in open terrain where cavalry, steel weapons, and armor were effective. Alliances played a role, but better weaponry and warfare isn't just an anecdote. Spanish military strength helped make those alliances attractive.