Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AlViking" data-source="post: 9892651" data-attributes="member: 6906980">The Aztecs were armed with stone age weaponry and armor with light armor suited to the tropics.  The conquistadors had iron weapons and armor and only a few few firearms.  More detail at <a href="https://www.historyspage.com/post/why-were-the-spaniards-able-to-conquer-mexico-and-peru-so-easily-military-technological-religious" target="_blank">How did the Spaniards conquer the Americas so easily? Military, Technological, Religious, and Political Factors</a>[SPOILER="Details on the weapons and armor or the Conquistadors"]... Among the technological reasons for this was the fact that Spanish conquerors possessed iron armour and weapons.The Americans, in contrast, used copper and other softer metals – the Peruvians used a brilliant mix of gold and copper called champi. Further, Spanish swords, lances, crossbows and – although few – firearms proved to be considerably superior to the macanas (sharp, obsidian-edged clubs), spears, lances, bows, darts and slings of the Aztecs and the clubs, bows, axes, slings and javelins of the Incas.For protection, Mexican warriors wore a strong garment that was made of quilted cotton: the ixcahuipiles. Although suited to the tropical climate (indeed, some Spaniards preferred it to their own armour), Lynch points out that the ixcuhuipiles was vastly inferior to Spanish armour in the degree of protection it provided. Similarly, the Incas used woollen or quilted cotton with wooden helmets, which, although protecting against some missiles, were far easier to penetrate than Spanish armour. Lynch and White contend that, coupled with their superior armour, Spanish swords provided the backbone of both Pizzaro’s and Cortès’s campaign arsenals. On horseback, Spanish soldiers also used the lance to great effect. Although this is only one consideration among many, iron weaponry and superior arms undoubtedly benefited the Spanish conquerors.[/SPOILER]As far as the Portugal/Malay wars the reference I found <a href="https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/melaka-falls-portuguese" target="_blank">Melaka Falls to the Portuguese | History | Research Starters | EBSCO Research</a> doesn't exactly match your narrative.  What it says is that "The Portuguese did not have the war-waging equipment the Melakans possessed, but the once-proud, well-run government that had brought Melaka to its enviable position in the fifteenth century had given way to the perfidious rule of a despotic sultan."  It doesn't make it sound like military technology was the deciding factor.  As part of the article, there was a later conflict when the Portuguese were attacked by elephants, it was stabbing the elephants with lances that saved the day for them, not muskets.  If you have a reference that provides more details please provide it.In the Portuguese/Malaysian war what I see is ousting an unpopular ruler with the help of locals, followed by mixed of successes in the ongoing campaign.In neither case do I see evidence that firearms alone were a deciding factor.</blockquote>

Verification