Talk:Aztec warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

age of kings[edit]

This article seems to be based on the Age of Kings and I propose someone deletes it until it is done by professional researching.

As of now I cannot find anything to back up this article. There seems to be nothing to validate the fact that the army was divided into two seperate branchs. The school section is already covered by the general Aztec article and has not place in a section about Aztec military. Aztec weapons should be filed under weapons stubs after being researched and verified. Nigelthefish 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and Tags[edit]

I was going to do a rewrite, but I couldn't find any WP:V info. so... I added a cleanup tag. I removed several sections that were a direct copyvio of the aztec military article at (except the size of the army was increased in this copy of it... no sourcing for the claim). I removed the school section; it didn't seem to fit here and the info is at Aztec anyway. I wikified it a bit and I added a verfiable tag. Weapon info needs to be sourced.--Isotope23 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree[edit]

I just rewrote the bastard. Did a little research, wiped away the crap and sorted it out a bit. it's still a stub, but I can't really say I care.--The Enslaver 21:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Quauhololli" this is the only page on the internet where this word ocurs, can we believe any of this stuff?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21 June 2006.

Osprey Military Men-At-Arms series 101 "The Conquistadores" by Terence Wise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be because it is alternatively spelled cuauhololli, and you'll find a few matches for that. --cjllw | TALK 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

they didnt use bows?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mexxxicano (talkcontribs) 21 August 2006.

This Article and its lack of references[edit]

There is only one Scholar who published books dealing only with research done on Aztec military techniques and strategies. Ross Hassig's "Aztec warfare: political expansion and imperial control" and "war and society in ancient mesoamerica" are the books that should be used to base this article on. This article is clearly based mostly on a computer game and unreliable sources. If someone decides to get Ross Hassigs books and rewrite the article it would be great. Otherise I will do it when I get the time.Maunus 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But what do we do in the meantime? Should we put this article up for AfD or leave the unreliable stuff here until you get the time to work on the article? --Richard 17:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Leave it as is, (after all its not the only unreliable article around). Or cut out the worst parts. Or go to the library. All are possible solutions. I don't know what standard policies dictate.Maunus 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There's also these lecture notes from an SMU anthropology faculty member, which if nothing else could be used as a basis for an outline until someone can get a hold of Hassig's work.
I am wondering whether this article would not be better under a different title, something like Aztec military history or other- some title which would allow for a greater range of topics to be addressed rather than focussing on the compositional elements of their forces.--cjllw | TALK 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Re Maunus' suggestion to "leave the unreliable stuff in because there is other unreliable stuff in Wikipedia"... this is unacceptable. This sort of thinking degrades the credibility of Wikipedia.
Re Maunus' comment about "standard policy". Consult WP:V, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Standard policy says that if it isn't verifiable, it should be punted. No citation or reference, no inclusion in the article. When in doubt, take it out. It can always be re-inserted later.
If it looks like it might be true but we're not sure, we can take the intermediate step of slapping [citation needed] onto the questionable text. If no reliable citation is forthcoming in a short period of time (2-3 days), then the text should be taken out.
So, if no one is volunteering to provide references and citations soon (say within a week), we should pull out everything that is suspect and park it in the Talk Page or a subpage thereof until we can back it up with a reliable source.
BTW, I agree with cjllw that a broader title might be more appropriate.
--Richard 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I got HAssigs book last week and toda I got the time. So I rewrote it. Writeups are fixups are appreciated but now it is at least readable and factual. I will take some time later putting in inline citations.Maunus 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus, that's gone a long way towards improving the article. With the Hassig reference now to hand, would you think that the article could be renamed to something broader like Aztec military or Aztec military history, or could you envisage there to be sufficient material there for the broader topics to be begun as their own articles (ie separate to this one)? Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 07:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be appropriate to rename it to something broader. It is not really historical since it doesn't describe any developments in the aztec military so I think the appropriate title would be Aztec military or Azte warfare.Maunus 09:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've renamed the article Aztec warfare, I think that should do for now.--cjllw | TALK 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Great job, Maunus! The article is much improved thanks to your efforts. --Richard 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

siege warfare[edit]

Did the Aztecs use any kind of siege warfare (battering rams, catapults, etc)? It says they fortified some of their cities, which leads me to at least ponder the possibility of siege tactics. any help in this would be appreciated.Scott Free (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, city walls such as those found in Mesopotamia or Europe were rare to non-existent in Mesoamerica and therefore there would be no need for siege warfare machines. Just my thoughts. Why don't you research, 4shizzal? Madman (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Useless sentence[edit]

Ya, that sentence is taken out of context. There wasn't a single Mesoamerican civilization that fought the Spanish on equal terms. To say that they couldn't defeat them one on one is taking the history completely out of context. The Mapuche defeated them as well as the Chichimeca and there were thousands upon thousands of Indian auxiliaries helping them. Montejo the Younger was beaten back by the Chichen Itza no less then twice untill he got help from the Xiu Maya. Do I need sources explaining the idea of Indian auxiliaries to take out the sentence? I can find a book on them. InternetHero (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that you dislike is not in disagreement with what you say. The context is that of flower wars and the argument made by some scholars that the aztecs didn't fight to kill but to capture. The sentence you removed says: "This has been used as an argument to explain the defeat of the Aztecs by the Spanish but it is no longer considered to be probable - since sources clearly state that Aztecs did kill their Spanish opponents whenever they had the chance." In essence the sentence agrees with you since it says that it is wrong to believe that the cultural difference of aztecs wanting captives while the spaniards fought to kill was among the reasons the spanish prevailed in battles - it says that aztecs also fought to kill outside of the context of ritual battles as is testified in many sources. Also you are wrong that no mesoamerican civilization fought against the spaniards in a pitched battle - those of tlaxcala did (just after the spanish arrived) and nearly destroyed them. The Tlaxcaltecs then became the Spaniards first group of indigenous allies that helped them fight the other indigenous groups as "indian auxliaries". I think maybe the sentencw ould read better if it were changed to "This apparent difference in military culture has been advanced as an argument to explain why the spaniards prevailed throughout Mesoamerica. But since both native and spanish sources show that the Aztecs did fight to kill against other indigenous groups and against the spaniards, this argument is now rejected and historians place more emphasis in the Spaniards' strategy of procuring indigenpous allies and their techonological advantages to explain the Spanish succes." ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Aztecs only used the wheels in toys therefore they probably lack siege engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


hey guys.. what would be the difference between a spear and a lance? just that i dont know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirovidicama (talkcontribs) 02:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the Aztecs there would be no difference, and the usage of different terms in the article is probably based on a mistranslation of the Spanish word lanza ("spear"). Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Aztec warfare[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Aztec warfare's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dic":

  • From Human sacrifice in Aztec culture: Nahuatl dictionary.(1997). Wired humanities project. Retrieved September 2, 2012, from link.
  • From Tlatoani: Nahuatl dictionary (1997). Wired humanities project. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from link
  • From Macuahuitl: Nahuatl Dictionary. (1997). Wired Humanities Project. University of Oregon. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from link

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 06:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it.--Ephert (talk)


Perhaps it would be helpful to list the type of wood used for their weapons? Was it rubber? (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)