" Aztec Spanish Battle Final Moves" Topic

The AAR of the second play test of my Have a Heart rules is up on my blog.

The whole game played smoothly to completion in 2 and a bit hours. In true Piquet style there were high moments and low moments. Here's a bit of the action.

The Mexica won and if you would like to see how, here's the link.
withob.blogspot.co.uk

I Love reading this stuff. But being an FOB vet I think your native card deck, commander ratings and troop ratings are way too good. The natives are pretty much the equal of the Spanish. In reality they were not. The close fighting in Mexico city took away many of the Spanish advantages. But in the open, the cavalry fought with impunity for the most part.

The regular Aztec troops should probably be d6 and higher class warriors d8 or d10 at best. Spanish Cavalry d12+ and swordsman d10 to d12 with a good defense die. Aztecs should not have Avery tough defense die. Although you could leave better Aztec warriors d10 or d12 with d4 defense die. Nasty but won't stand up long.

You have both sides almost equal. Spanish should have a better deck and commanders. What causes them issues will be their brittle army morale points. The Aztecs will always have more.

Ymmv.

Thanks,

John

Glad you enjoyed it John and I appreciate your interest.

I've spent much time over many years reading the sources and that's why I did so many introductory pieces to the game to set the scene.

My thinking goes like this, and now its going to get very PK, firstly Cortez's Spanish were not crack troops but they did have advantages.

A unit of Mexica Eagles start off on a D12 but facing Spanish swordsmen are immediately Down 2 because of the Spanish armour so that's a D8. The Spanish on a D8 are immediately up 1 for steel weapons so that's a D10. All other tactical factors being equal the Mexica quite properly fight at a disadvantage. Mexica elite warriors tended to do more dying than running hence the high DD.

For lesser Mexica warriors the disadvantage is worse D4 to D10 which is where you came in.

You are right about the cavalry on level ground they could mostly operate with impunity but everything had to be right. When it wasn't casualties occurred.

I agree about the numbers. The Spanish should, historically speaking,have had more Tlaxcala allies pretty much matching the Mexica overall unit for unit. That is after all how Cortez won.

There are a couple of tweaks I have in mind and they will appear in the third play test. I hope you will continue to find Have a Heart interesting and give me your thoughts. Thanks for your comments.

My pleasure. I love the period and have painted figs for it. Just need to rebase some of the newer figs. I enjoy discussing it with other like minded souls. There was a series of army lists created for this period for WAB. Very extensive info about each army and fighting style. I was just going through them again about a week ago. Good stuff!

I agree about the Spanish crack troops remark. However, there were many vets mixed in and the Spanish were arguably THE power in the world in the West. Lots of those vets came to the New World for glory and riches.

That's grand John.

Further to your previous post I think you have a point about the Deck. After Alvarado massacred the Mexica top warriors at the dance command and control could not have been what it was.

On the veterans thing with Cortez's Spanish. Bernal Diaz iirc correctly only once credits a fellow with Italian service. The rest were a mixed bunch. Some were clearly able but I would not go further than that. The best Spanish soldiers were not in the Indies in Cortez's early days. After his success more came but if you were capable and well connected careers began at home.

Navarez's troops were even worse, one of them, a scion of a noble house, died with shock after being locked up for a couple of nights. Lots of them died in the retreat from Mexico.

Hi, are you talking about the retreat after La Noche Triste? If so, there were numerous wounded. Limited medical resources I have no doubt they died if wounded seriously.

My view of the Mexica forces was that they were brave troops with some of the warrior societies being borderline fanatics in combat. However, I also believe that a good proportion of their combat was somewhat prescribed or set piece. The Tlaxacalans were renowned for their ferocity. Yet the large force that fought Cortez initially was defeated in an open ground battle. The Spaniards use of steel weapons, artillery, arquebus fire and Cavalry proved to be decisive. The Spanish as a core of the greater allied Spanish-Tlaxcalan army later on always was in the thick of the fighting. Their cotton armor having multiple javelins or arrows stuck in them. The Spanish with allies could withdraw to the safety of their allies if hard pressed. Then regroup and attack again. I do not believe the Mexica Officer class had the required flexibility to face this new warfare.

I believe the only times the Spanish faced a serious chance of complete destruction was when facing the Tlaxcalans initially. Tactically, the Spanish won. If Cortez had not used diplomacy he may well have been beaten then strategically if the Tlaxcalans had continued to fight over a longer time. Facing the Cholula ambush. The first incursion into Mexico City. They could have been overwhelmed once in the city. They could have been again wiped out in the city when Cortez left to face the new Spanish army coming to arrest him. Lastly, during La Noche Triste. Being totally wiped out was a real possibility.

Once disease started to ravage the Empire I think chances began to evaporate for Mexica victory.

Thanks.

In the long term I'd say the Mexica were doomed though they might have seen off Cortez.

The Mexica missed a trick when Cortez had his allies make copper headed pikes for use against Navarez's cavalry. They were never used had the been the Mexica probably would have produced their own. Copper was available in Tenochtitlan and craftsmen too.

I think the Mexica showed endless ingenuity in the street fighting in Tenochtitlan and that was after the loss of the core of their military leadership. Once outside not so much, but of course so many leaders were gone by that time. The three lads Cortez burned to death seemed to have given him pause for thought.

Hugh Thomas in Conquest takes the view that the Tlaxcala were not up to Mexica standard. My own view is that the Tlaxcala nobles were as good as anything Mexico had but they were much fewer in number. Their archers were good.

I agree the Tlaxcala could have beaten Cortez and co, another couple of days fighting would have finished them, but that left Tlaxcala with Mexica problem.

If we are speculating about "could of" situations here's another one. Cortes landed in modern day Veracruz. He came across the relatively peaceful Totonacs.

What if Cortes had landed, like the first two landings, in the Yucatan and met the Maya instead. The Maya seemed to be hyper belligerent……no interest in discussion, no interest in trade, ……just, "you're on my beach and now we will kill you".

Cortes was very adept at reading a situation and figuring out how to exploit it for his own benefit. I'm not sure he could have pulled that off with the Maya. It would have taken years just to get a read of the ever shifting political situation of the Mayan city states and their changing alliances.

In the dense jungles of the Yucatan and Guatamala, the "road weasels" of the Mayan armies would make the Spanish come down dangerous narrow defiles before ambushing them. (Similar to Roman Legions going deep into the German forests). They would rarely benefit from their horses and their cannons. I'm thinking the Spanish would have their hands full in the Yucatan and the surrounding lands, and may not have made it far into the interior.

Or maybe not. Smallpox is also a powerful force. Who knows? It's fun to speculate.

Oh that's a great what if? The Maya held out for years and years.

On the small pox thing it requires one of the Spanish to be actively infected, which the original contingent were not. Diaz said a Black servant (presumably a slave) brought the infection?

True on the smallpox. Diaz's version sounds legitimate, even though Heath suggests it was brought by Narvaez's men.

Hope I didn't derail your topic too badly. I'm painting 28mm Maya right now and Diaz's descriptions of the first two encounters come to mind.

It's a great discussion between you and John, and I just had to join in.

Great to hear from you and no, not a bit. The Maya are a great choice and will look spectacular in 28mm.

I keep re reading Diaz he seems such a modern voice to me. His matter of fact description of the slaving expeditions (excused as punishment) really hit home.

I found a great essay on the web the other day. failed to bookmark it and now cannot locate it. Anyhow whoever wrote it made the very interesting point that once the Spanish had fought their way to the top of the great pyramid and desecrated the temple they had despite not being able to hold it technically won under Mexica rules.

Just to chime in, Caesar Miniatures make 1/72 Maya. I have several boxes along with Inca packs. Anyone care to postulate who were tougher to fight? I believe the Maya having terrain in their favor along with incredible ferocity are #1. Then the Mexica and lastly the Inca.

I am also looking at the Sword and the Flame variant called 'The Sword, the Cross and the Gold'. It looks pretty interesting. 20 fig Native units and 12 figs Spanish foot units. I think 6 figure Cavalry units but may be wrong. A gent I know ran a game of it many years ago at a local show with scratch built pyramids. It was AWESOME! He used either Ral Partha or Plastics. I can't remember which. Sadly, I was running a game so could not play in it.

Thanks,

John

It's hard to tell, John. We have a bigger problem in the Conquest of South America. Almost all the Pizarro brothers and the generals, such as Almagro were functionally illiterate. There are no contemporary chroniclers like there are in Mexico. The "established facts" were written well after the events took place.

The Battle of Cajamarca always seemed dubious to me as written. Atahualpa was moving a massive army back to Cusco after crushing his brother Huascar in a civil war of ascension to the Inca throne. And somehow Atahualpa gets defeated by 150 men? After Cajamarca, why did Pizarro have so much trouble in finally subduing the Incas at Cusco? I'm not sure one can take everything as written.

The reason the Incas and Aztecs collapsed so totally and the Maya never did has less to do with fighting prowess and more to do with the nature of the respective empires. The Incas and Aztecs both administered a large hegemony, that was ruled from a single centralized city. Once Tenochtitlan and Cusco were captured, the empires were effectively decapitated.

The Mayan political system, on the other hand, were closer to the Greek city states. They formed complex shifting allegiances between other city states that were constantly vying for better trade routes, better land and more resources. If the Conquistadors attacked one city, the other allied cities would also attack. If the Conquistadors would have defeated one league of allied city states, there would be other groups of allied cities to contend with. Since there was no central polity to overthrow, the Spanish would have to systematically destroy many Mayan cities to fully subjugate these people.

I agree, I think the Maya would have always been the hardest nut to crack. Many say that the final subjugation of the Maya only occurred in 1901 at the completion of the War of the Castes.

Bearing in mind its a tricky question to answer because of gaps in our knowledge I'd say Maya, Inca, Aztec.

The Maya were a confederation of polities as Bowman outlines so grabbing the top guy and playing politics was not an option. The Maya were last boys standing by miles.

I'd say The Battle of Cajamarca went like this the Inca and most of the top commanders are trapped in a confined space most are massacred and the Inca seized. Outside the army is left shocked and leaderless and then exposed for the first time to horses and steel and gunpowder.

Later Paullu and Manco gave the Spanish a run for their money. Vilcabamba was created and held out and the Indians rallied to it until its destruction. Resourceful lads the Inca.

The Aztecs not to put to fine a point on it were hated by their neighbours and so once they were done there was no chance of a rally.

All the foregoing were of course very brave soldiers.

I find Hemming's The Conquest of the Incas to be a very worth while read. And his Red Gold too.

Totally agree. I enjoy Hemmings too, have both books.