"Today I saw a Macuahuitl" Topic

Today I saw a Macuahuitl it was a replica but apparently none of the originals survive. It was next to a Spanish sword from the Conquest as part of a exhibition in the British Museum, I'm sure lots of you have seen pictures of a Macuahuitl as I have myself but to see the 'real' thing next to a Spanish sword puts lots of things in context.

The Macuahuitl was about two palms (of your hand) wide and about three quarters or maybe a bit more of the length of your arm. Edged wirh obsidian as you all know. Essentially its a light weight studded club, great in a street fight, but against the Conquistadores armed with good three foot swords that could stab and slash well forget it. Brave boys those Aztecs.

I thought you might be interested.

That's one of my favorite weapons. (I was going to say something about the macuahuitl being the "sword" of the Book of Mormon, since no iron/steel swords could possibly exist in the Americas before the Spaniards, but I won't because that could be construed as a discussion of some fangled religious book, i.e. verbotten on TMP :(

It is a really coolio weapon in the novel Aztec; even larger than your example dimensions, and used with two hands to lop off legs at the ankles! :D

I gotta tell you could not hope to do that with the weapon I saw today or even a bigger version. Not even if your opponent was tied to a chair and dead drunk. It must have been very unequal combat. It put Bernal Diaz into context for me lots of nasty wounds -no fatalities. Santiago indeed.

I'll give you a dollar if you can pronounce it.

It would do less damage if I hit you with it. However I did learn we should pronounce Mexica as Me-shee-ka so there you go free nauhautl.

I've read it's pronounced as "MAK-wa-wheat." Is that correct?

(I was going to say something about the macuahuitl being the "sword" of the Book of Mormon, since no iron/steel swords could possibly exist in the Americas before the Spaniards, but I won't because that could be construed as a discussion of some fangled religious book, i.e. verbotten on TMP :(

Go ahead – if we can discuss how to wargame a Biblical battle, why not a Book of Mormon battle? Or battle from any religion's sacred texts?

Could not Lehi and his quarrelsome children have brought iron implements with them? It would have been near-impossible to replace them, although Mesoamerican metallurgy allowed the refining of copper and the manufacture of brass, and even hematitie ore was mined, although never smelted.

Allen

Mock – wa – hoo – ittle. No accented syllables. Works for me.

The iron and other metal tailings that would have been impossible to avoid producing, when smelting metal, are non extant in MesoAmerica (or anywhere else in pre Columbian America). Therefore there cannot be any metal weapons for the Nephites and Lamanites, or even earlier Jaredites. So when it speaks of "swords patterned after the Sword of Laban" we have to think of the shape and not the material. Of course, it is possible that Nephi (The First, hehe) was savvy enough to come up with smithing techniques. But his people, being (implied) mostly indigenous, lower-tech subjects, did not get the technique and resorted to their traditional wood and stone clubs.

The macuahuitl is made properly with very sharp knapped flint or obsidian edges. Unless broken, there is nothing inferior about their cutting properties, versus human flesh and bone. And a massive version for two hands would be a fearsome weapon. Iirc, there are Spanish accounts of one taking off the head of a horse in a battle.

I suspect, O *bu33er*, that the museum mockup is lacking somewhat in the knapping department. That was a skill every bit as technical as smelting metals and heat treating them.

Yes, it has been quoted as slicing off a horses head with s single blow.

Thanks,

John

The Tarascans used Copper headed Axes and the like pre conquest as did the Inca so the arguement is a bit strange?

Love it " …The iron and other metal tailings … are non extant in MesoAmerica (or anywhere else in pre Columbian America). Therefore there cannot be any metal weapons … "

Wow! Knight Templar, buddy, – now thats a BIG statement to make on a forum visited by some accomplished historians and archaeologists, about a rugged part of the world covered in jungle and frequently disrupted by volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that cover, uncover, sink and raise vast slabs of the countryside.

Love those big, categoric, definitive, black and white statements … you da man!!

Plenty of great info here :

maquahuitl.co.uk

Thanks for that, Patrick… what a fascinating site!
I found the link for "Maquahuitl Myths" to be particularly interesting.

Cheers,
Scott

….since no iron/steel swords could possibly exist in the Americas before the Spaniards,

Hope this doesn't hamper Mormonism too badly but that statement is totally wrong. Metallurgy existed, steel manufacturing did not. See Lowtardogs comment too.

I've read it's pronounced as "MAK-wa-wheat." Is that correct?

No, that pronunciation is unique to Dr John Pohl who happens to have written most of the Osprey books on Meso-america. That's where I assume you read that.

Other versions are MAK-Wa-Wheat-Lee

or the more likely MAK-Wa-Wheat-Ill

The WH sound in Wheat has expressed air like you are blowing out a small candle and the first syllable always has the emphasis.

I found the link for "Maquahuitl Myths" to be particularly interesting.

But some of those are suspect too.

The "clubs versus paddles" argument is nonsense. Paddles only used in North America? How do you explain the "macanas" of the Caribs (Caribbean), the Tupi (Brasil) and the C-u-n-t-i (Andes) among others?

It is a myth that the maquahuitl was not a thrusting weapon. Why? Because the web site author points to a single illustration in one Codex, which shows a maquahuitl with a triangular flint at the top. OK.

But, cutting a horses head off in battle is a myth. This is despite the fact that the web site owner freely admits that this has been described by various authors. You can't pick and choose when to highlight the sources that reinforce your own beliefs.

But generally, it is a good site.

Here is an interesting fact. The cherts or glass flints were supposedly glued to the wood with a material made from turtle droppings. These were constantly rebuilt by porters and knappers during combat, so the setting time must have been very short.

Ralph

I thought the accent was on the second to last syllable in nauhautl?

I thought the accent was on the second to last syllable in nauhautl?

Oh dear, I miswrote myself. Streetline is correct in stating that the second last syllable is emphasized. That is what I meant with the added expiration sound of the WH in "wheat". Same with the H sound in nauhuatl. Mea culpas all around.

Ralph

Hi

About 20 years ago, I suggested to Doug that as he is an accomplished die cutter and all, that he do a line of figs from the book of mormon and "Battles from the BOM". I don't have to be a believer to game the "era". I have gamed Tecumel, and Stargate and…well who cares.

At the time Doug Decided it was inappropriate to do this for his reasons.

I thought he worred about resolving battles due to the "hand of god" as seems to show up.

Rocky

Rocky,

If you google Arnold Friberg – the artist of "Washington's Prayer at Valley Forge" fame – you get some pretty cool looking warriors from the Book of Mormon – talk about heroic scale! Count me in on any figure ranges produced to these images.

Nick

Yeah, I even started to make some 15mm minis; did up half a dozen or so, using strip epoxy to modify some Aztec figures (blanking on the manufacturer now). They didn't look bad. Then I lost interest entirely and gave the masters to a friend. Haven't heard a thing in all these years. I used Friberg's illustrations as inspiration!

On the metal tailings subject: back in the day when "proofs of the Book of Mormon" were important, the lack of even ONE such tailing pile bothered me somewhat: I mean, in a total history purported to extend well over 2,500 years, there had to be a whopping lot of such tailings as implied by the descriptions of the armor and weapons. Nothing has ever been discovered: I came up with a possible reason: all those MesoAmerican temples used tailings as the core "hill" upon which they were built. I'm no longer waiting to see if the inner material of a temple is rich in ore deposits!…

Doug,

Yep, trust me, professional archaeologists aren't silly enough to start writing up big, strong black & white statements on the basis that they haven't yet found a tailings pile in the areas they've been able to explore thus far.

Nick

Great exhibition at the British Museum. Loved the model of Tenchtitlan in 6mm scale!

The macuahuitl was cool, but showing it in the same case as all that Toledo steel weaponry and armour the Spanish had pretty much told you all you needed to know about which way that particular military struggle was going to go…

My point exactly Oxiana but seemingly lost here.

Hi

Doug, one of my flying buddies has criticized me for decades for not going out to dig up lamanite sites HE knows of to prove his faith.

Another friend told me that god simply removed the proof as a test of your faith.

But I agre, the illos done are wonderful. I still think that the figs would be fun, and, of course, writing Art of War Modules would be a cake walk. But as a sim?

Course, one explanation of the Aztec creation myths suggest that when they describe "springing out of the ground" in creation, that spot is Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake. Even without Book of Mormon, you could do some interesting fantasy wars with Pre-columbian migrations and wars.

Rocky

"God simply removed" … "creation myths": nope, I, the DH king, am not going to go there :)

I have several of Friberg's Book of Mormon illos tacked up on the walls of my game room. I always thought Friberg took N. C. Wyeth's Wallace pic as inspiration for his "Captain Moroni" pic: picture picture Cool "Nephite" sword there, huh?…

The macuahuitl was cool, but showing it in the same case as all that Toledo steel weaponry and armour the Spanish had pretty much told you all you needed to know about which way that particular military struggle was going to go…

Well, it was actually a close run thing for Cortes. By all rights he and his conquistadors should have been annihilated during La Noche Triste and the ensuing Battle of Otumba. Cortes and his officers were driven, ruthless, relentless and very courageous. They were also extremely lucky.

Remember Cortes's expedition was actually the third to land in Mexico. The first two didn't fare so well. Had Cortes succumbed, then other adventurers would have taken his place. Eventually someone would succeed. One way or another the Aztecs were doomed.

Don't place too large an emphasis on European steel armour for the Conquistadors success. Almost to a man, the conquistadors abandoned their plate armour and wore their cotton armour. Many even adopted the Aztec cotton ichcauhuapilli vest. The Toledo sword, on the other hand, was an important reason the Spanish prevailed.

Also the ethno-historians seemed to have neglected two important factors on the downfall of the Aztec empire:

a) The role smallpox played in the war.
b) The role played by tens of thousands of native allies, primarily that of the Tlaxcalteca.

Ralph

Fair points Ralph to which I would add the horse. Also whenever they could Aztecs used Spanish blades to good effect. The inequality in weapons did not help the Aztecs. Nor did their tradition of fighting to capture.

Hi OB,

Fair points Ralph to which I would add the horse.

I don't know about the horse. The only cavalry charge ever done against the Aztecs was at the Battle of Otumba. Granted, that charge won the day. At La Noche Triste and the Siege of Tenochtitlan, the Conquistador cavalry were hamstrung by the close quarter fighting in an urban setting. But the horse was more of an asset in South America where combat sometimes took place in flatter terrain.

Also whenever they could Aztecs used Spanish blades to good effect.

Yes. The swords were also given to allied Tlaxcaltec officers for their services, as is seen in some of the codices such as the "Lienzo de Tlaxcala".

Nor did their tradition of fighting to capture.

I humbly think that that argument might be overstated nowadays. Certainly capture was a staple of Meso-American warfare. However, the Aztecs did engage in wars of annihilation and conquest. They utterly routed the Huaxtecs and they themselves lost almost an entire army against the Tarascans.

Good topic.

Ralph

I was thinking of iirc Bernal Diaz saying that the Aztecs could have killed Cortez but were intent on capturing him enabling his rescue by Avaraldo. But yes, I think the Flower War concept has been overstated.

It occurs to me that if the Aztecs were sick with smallpox then so must have been the Taracans and Tlaxcaltecs. After all it was about proximity to the Spanish.

Hi OB,

I was thinking of iirc Bernal Diaz saying that the Aztecs could have killed Cortez but were intent on capturing him enabling his rescue by Avaraldo.

Sure, and that is understandable. Imagine capturing the main architect of the calamity you find yourself in. Wouldn't killing him on the steps of the Great Pyramid bring incredible good favor to your nation?

Imagine that the Aztecs just ran him through instead. Who would be next in command? Probably Alvarado. Now a careful reading of most of the sources (including Cortes' Letters) paint a picture of a man who is a borderline psychopath (incredibly loyal, but somewhat unstable). I think if Alvarado was in charge of Mexico, after succeeding Cortes, he would have initiated genocidal pogroms against the native population. Assuming things could have gotten worse for the natives, they surely would have under Alvarado and under his equally sadistic underling Nuno de Guzman.

It occurs to me that if the Aztecs were sick with smallpox then so must have been the Taracans and Tlaxcaltecs. After all it was about proximity to the Spanish.

Or proximity to other sick people. Maybe the conditions of having 200,000 to 250,000 people confined to a single huge city made the disease affect the Aztecs more?

You are correct though. The Ethno-histories never comment on the sicknesses of the allied Indians. Since it is estimated that 80% of the Indian population died off in the first 100 years after contact with the Europeans I'm sure the Tarascans and Tlaxcaltecs suffered too. Actually it didn't take either of them too long, after the fall of Tenochtitlan, to realize that the Spanish were not their friends. Small pox was only one of their worries.

Ralph

But would there have been, in all practicality, a "Spanish Conquest" without the smallpox, et al. European diseases? Without the enormous reduction in Amerindian population, I doubt that the Euros would have ever had the manpower to become more than allies to this or that "American" power; and no more than one of the "players" themselves….

Very interesting and provocative question, Doug. I don't know if anyone could know this. We don't even have a consensus of how many people lived in the New World at all. Certainly the Norse never got a permanent foothold in North America.

The Spanish controlled the Caribbean, they had stone aged Caribs and Arawaks to deal with only. No one could move the Spanish from these islands. Could they have been a stepping stone into Meso-America without the help of their micro-organism allies? Who knows?

Ralph

Hi

part of the problem is that we are making a lot of assumptions about the germ theory. No one at the time had a valid method of diagnosis and attribution. And no one considers the reverse, diseases from the new world to europe.

I am cautions with the germ ally point.

Rocky

Since the vastly more numerous "American" viruses did not in fact wipe out or even reduce the Europeans, I think that reservation isn't justifiable. It wasn't in fact a "two-way street": the Amerindians always got the pox, plague/flu and died like flies. Europeans, otoh, seem almost unkillable by comparison.

Even without the inroads of European carried diseases, I think that ultimately the Europeans would have come to stay in increasing numbers. But the nature of the "conquest" would have been much more slow, less dramatic, and far less complete. Without a huge reduction in Amerindians there would not have been a population vacuum….

…part of the problem is that we are making a lot of assumptions about the germ theory.

What assumptions? What problem?

No one at the time had a valid method of diagnosis and attribution.

Not true. People didn't understand that microorganisms caused these diseases, but they were very aware of the diagnosis and had a good grasp of of the attribution. Even as early as Biblical times they knew that the sequestration of infected individuals was the best way to contain the disease.

As soon as smallpox was brought to the New World (ostensibly by one of Narveaz's slaves) the Spaniards were aware that the disease had arrived. They knew what it looked like. They also knew that they were relatively safe. This fact was brought forward by every chronicler and ethno-history of the period.

And no one considers the reverse, diseases from the new world to europe.

Haha! Of course it has been considered. It's even been studied. Doug actually hits the nail on the head. It wasn't an even 2 way street. The European strain of Treponema Palladum mingled with the New World version. This produced the much more virulent hybrid of Treponema Pallidum Pallidum we enjoy today. Upon Columbus's return, the Europeans ended up with a syphilus epidemic in 1494. This was to be a major killer, all through the Renaissance. Major or not, it was not on the same scale as what happened in the New World.

The reason that the white man seemed impervious to the "poxes" was that he really wasn't. The white man of Europe WAS dying of these diseases, but in smaller increments and over much, much longer time periods. You see, most of these diseases are animal diseases that crossed over to our species, after thousands of years of close relationships and domestication.

Smallpox is a virus that has almost most mammals as potential vectors. (See cowpox and monkeypox.) Estimated first infections were about 10,000 BC in the Old World.

Typhus is a bacterium that uses smaller rodonts as the vector. First recorded outbreak in 1489 in Grenada, Andalusia. (Doug, bonus question, "What role did Typhus play in the pro-evolution arguments on the Darwin Day board?)

Influenza. Swine Flu. Avian Flu. New Worlders didn't domesticate pigs and chickens.

Etc. Etc. (measles, the cause of the 1618 epidemic seems to only have a human vector)

So we, (the Europeans), died for millenia from our love of animal meat and furs. The survivors were immune and they flourished. Those in the New World did not acclimatize for countless generations to these diseases and were exposed to them all at once. In other words, we got to swim for years in the shallow end. The natives were immediately dunked in the biological deep end. That is why it wasn't a two way street.

I am cautions with the germ ally point.

So you are cautious that this may not have happened? Or you are cautious about a 60-90% reduction in population causing a lack in being able to defend oneself?

Ralph

Doug, bonus question, "What role did Typhus play in the pro-evolution arguments on the Darwin Day board?

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're alluding to evolution in our midst on a bacterial level, then I would say that the appearance of typhoid fever in a population already "evolved" to survive was sure to be deadly to a human population that had never be exposed to the bacteria, when the carriers of the typhoid exposed the unevolved humans to it….

Wow, what a tangent; obsidian-edged clubs to the evolution of bacteria. Threads are strange "beasts"….

Threads are strange "beasts"….

Yes they are, as they are the product of a collective consciousness. But actually obsidian edged swords and little germs both played an important part in the Conquest of Mexico. So they are more related than most would think.

As for Typhus, it plays an incredibly important role in human evolution. We are what we are because of this little bug. You are condemned to stay after school and re-read the whole Darwin Day thread.

Ralph (in a somewhat pedantic mode)

Oh crap, I hate after-school detention….

Hi

Ralph, correct but missing the big picture. This sub part of the thread started with an observation that is a variant of the attitude of euro guilt.

yes people knew about contact, sort of. The problem is that while the evoltuion of syphilis from an american bug to a scourge is documented in specialst journals I read, the problem isn't what I was addressing.

Rather, in the period in question we don't have the convenience of the marks on the bones for this. We DO have the evidence about the disease in american with the proto-syphelis. With small pox, putative "flu" and so on, the diagnosis is vague and anecdotal reported by people who didn't know the diseases. We speculate on what the diseases described probably was, but it isn't certain. This speculation after a couple evolutions from first person observation, to secondary speculation to tertiary speculation to finality of "proof".

Did indians die from smallpox? Sure. The implication that the Aztecs lost because of it makes the assumption that the allied indians that did the real conquest were somehow not equally effected or that the spanish were also unaffected.

further, every observed sickness somehow is "proven" to have ben introduced by the white guys without notiting the basic fact, in any era, in any place, disease transmission is more deadly than war. And the implication, euro guilt, is that somehow the euros conducted some sort of deliberate evil.

The plight of the indian is really simpler. They were still stone age. Stone versus iron. That simple.

Rocky

Ralph, correct but missing the big picture. This sub part of the thread started with an observation that is a variant of the attitude of euro guilt.

??

The problem is that while the evoltuion of syphilis from an american bug to a scourge is documented in specialst journals I read, the problem isn't what I was addressing.

I have no idea what "problem" you are talking about. You made an incorrect assertion with, "And no one considers the reverse, diseases from the new world to europe." I showed that Treponema Pallidum in it's congenital form is an example of a disease that went to Europe from the New World. So people have "considered" it. I'm stumped for any other examples. Can you think of any? How about lung cancer from tobacco? (haha)

Rather, in the period in question we don't have the convenience of the marks on the bones for this.

No, there are skulls with the perforated palates and destroyed nasal bones formed by tertiary syphilitic gummas already found in the late 16th century.

With small pox, putative "flu" and so on, the diagnosis is vague and anecdotal reported by people who didn't know the diseases.

Sorry Rocky, but that is just not true. Different "pox" diseases were well known to Europeans. They saw it all the time. Same with influenza, which was a very common disease, as it is now. Same with measles, same with Typhoid. In fact the reporting of the symptoms of the various "plagues" that swept through Meso and South America were so accurate that doctors today can easily make a differential diagnosis based upon the writings.

Did indians die from smallpox? Sure.

No, Rocky. A LOT of indians died of smallpox, flu, measles and typhoid fever.

The implication that the Aztecs lost because of it makes the assumption that the allied indians that did the real conquest were somehow not equally effected or that the spanish were also unaffected.

A careful rereading of this thread will plainly show that no one implied that the Aztecs lost purely because of smallpox. But to ignore the role smallpox played in the collapse of both the Aztec and Inca empires goes against what is plainly recorded in the ethno-histories found on both sides. We do not know what the effect was on allied Indians as there is no recorded information. The biology tells us that they must have been affected. Why would you assume the smallpox would affect the Europeans?

And the implication, euro guilt, is that somehow the euros conducted some sort of deliberate evil.

Of course, once again, no one has made any mention of this beyond yourself.

….every observed sickness somehow is "proven" to have beEn introduced by the white guys……

No, Rocky, only smallpox has a written record. And actually it was a black slave that brought the disease. (Talk about pounding a square peg into a round hole to make your point.)

The plight of the indian is really simpler. They were still stone age. Stone versus iron. That simple.

It's never "that simple", Rocky. The population of the Central Valley around Lake Texcoco was in the millions. At no time did Cortes have more that 500 conquistadors. You need more than Toledo swords to win at those odds. Bringing a disease along helps too. Finding allies among the disaffected nations within the Aztec hegemony helps too. Wandering into the middle of an internecine war of succession for control of the Inca Empire helps too. Having horses helps too. Having gunpowder helps too. Finding that your arrival is a harbinger of future calamities within a fatalistic philosophy/religion helps too. And don't rule out dumb luck. Cortes had it in spades and that helps too. All these factors contributed to the downfall of the indigenous empires.

And finally, off topic:

…..in any era, in any place, disease transmission is more deadly than war.

In the pre-antibiotic era maybe. Do you mean more US servicemen have died in Afghanistan from infection than due to actual combat? I doubt it.

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, wonderful nit picking.

Really advances the discussion.

You are right, there were "POX"…the problem with your point is that all the observed "pox" weren't the same as small pox. MY POINT is that casual histories toss this off as if it is THE issue.

Made that at the beginning.

And to use your response, where did I say specifically the current Afgan war versus the general concept that, Historically, more people die from disease than war.

Doesn't advance the discussion.

Rocky

"I think if Alvarado was in charge of Mexico, after succeeding Cortes, he would have initiated genocidal pogroms against the native population."

Ralph I agree with your assesment of Alvarado but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Indians in themselves were a source of wealth to the Spanish. The wealth producing capacities of a servile population are well documented. The Spanish needed enough Indians to survive, That said I have no problem in seeing Cortez as less inclined to slaughter than Alvarado.

"This sub part of the thread started with an observation that is a variant of the attitude of euro guilt."

Rocky I cannot see any euro guilt so far. what are you refering to?

"The implication that the Aztecs lost because of it makes the assumption that the allied indians that did the real conquest were somehow not equally effected or that the spanish were also unaffected."

Did you miss me saying "It occurs to me that if the Aztecs were sick with smallpox then so must have been the Taracans and Tlaxcaltecs. After all it was about proximity to the Spanish." The Spanish had a greater tolerance of European diseases by virtue of being Europeans.

"The plight of the indian is really simpler. They were still stone age. Stone versus iron. That simple." Its not really that simple and I think Ralph provides a useful list of key factors to be considered. But I do agree that stone age weaponry had little chance against toledo steel and horses in combat.

John said "Yes, it (the macuahuitl) has been quoted as slicing off a horses head with s single blow." If I recall correctly in the incident that inspires this remark a group of Aztecs have mobbed a Spanish cavalryman. They hold onto his lance so he cannot fight; many of them strike his horses neck until severed. So not a single blow by any means. If anyone can cite an incident of a single blow killing a horse I would be interested.

Rocky,

Ralph, wonderful nit picking.
Really advances the discussion.

I'm sorry you feel that way Rocky. You mentioned some things that I thought were incorrect and I responded. I thought that is how you advance a discussion.

….where did I say specifically the current Afgan war versus the general concept that, Historically, more people die from disease than war.

When you said, "….in any era, in any place…." I thought that was correct up until the antibiotic era.

Ralph

Old ,

Ralph I agree with your assesment of Alvarado but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Indians in themselves were a source of wealth to the Spanish. The wealth producing capacities of a servile population are well documented. The Spanish needed enough Indians to survive.

Yes that is the theory, however the Spanish were not good at it in practice. The reason the Spanish were going to Mexico, and to Florida, and to the entire gulf coast was that they were killing off their slave labour at an alarming rate. Before the gold and the fountain of youth and all the other things the Conquistadors went looking for, they were looking for replacement workers to take the place of dead Carib and Arawak slave workers. More and more Europeans were coming to the Caribbean islands and starting farms and plantations. War and disease dwindled the labour force to the point of potential failure. African slave were brought in also, but that was too slow and too expensive. (BTW, one of these black slaves was recorded to be the source of the smallpox outbreak.)

The same thing happened in Peru after the Inca collapse. The Spanish system of "encomienda" killed countless Inca slave labourers too.

Eventually, the system was brought to a halt. But not because it didn't make economic sense to the Spanish landowners. It was attacked by the Church as being inhumane. Dominican priests successfully put political pressure on the Viceroys in charge.

To get back on topic:

If I recall correctly in the incident that inspires this remark a group of Aztecs have mobbed a Spanish cavalryman. They hold onto his lance so he cannot fight; many of them strike his horses neck until severed.

I can't recall the source, it may be the "Anonymous Conquistador", who describes an Eagle warrior slicing the horse's head and the conquistadors hand (or foot) off in a single blow. However, many suspect that it may have been the larger two-handed version of the maquahuitl that was used. The chroniclers never did bother with the military details.

Ralph

Ralph, That, the "Anonymous Conquistador", might be it mine was from Bernal Diaz. Yes I know the role the Church played and what happened on the encomiendas. Do you think without the intervention of De Casas and others the Spanish would have destroyed their workers? It had never occured to me that extinction was a possibility.

If a horse head was sliced off in a single blow it HAD to be a two-handed blow. But after reading the above, I believe it is probably an early legend….

Do you think without the intervention of De Casas and others the Spanish would have destroyed their workers? It had never occured to me that extinction was a possibility.

Hard to say. The Arawaks and the Caribs are not extinct, but they are close. There are no pure bred Arawaks left in the Caribbean. They only exist in South America, their original homeland.However, Arawak DNA is scattered about the Caribbean in the mestizo population of the islanders.

If a horse head was sliced off in a single blow it HAD to be a two-handed blow. But after reading the above, I believe it is probably an early legend….

Who knows, again. I remember the scanning electron microscope at university used an obsidian edged microtome to prepare the samples. The edge is 3 carbon molecules thin. That is much thinner an edge than steel. Modern day tests with replica maquahuitls show that they can slice through haunches of beef. But it is hard to tell what that actually implies. The Spanish said that they would produce grievous jagged lacerations. I sure wouldn't want to get hit by one.

Ralph

Mystery solved Bernal Diaz attributes the 'killed a mare with a single blow' statement to Cortez when he is remonstrating with faint hearts. That said it seems to be the incident I described above. So maybe just a rhetorical flourish?