Rome Vs. Mesoamerican Empires
 

In keeping with a thread I found interesting, what if Rome battled the Aztec, Maya or Inca empires; who would win (consider Rome as one side and the Aztecs, Inca and Maya on the other)

Depends where they fight, I'm not much of a history buff, but I'm pretty confident Romans aren't that adept at fighting in jungles.

I agree with the above. If all military forces of both were just plonked into a flat plain, though, then I reckon Rome would win. Technology was what won it for the Spanish, and Rome is the more technological of the two.

But the mesoamericans only lost militarily because of a lack of gunpowder. The Romans didn't have that either and their forces would have been pretty equal with the mesoamericans.

Depends. Do the Romans get their Cavalry? Catapults? Ballistia's?

Knowing Rome they would clear out a section of jungle and make the locals fight in a plain made out of the jungle and let them exhaust themselves on Roman camp defenses, then go offensive and destroy them.

Also I think thsi would be similar to the Romans versus Gaul and Celts. The Aztec Jaguar warriors were in peak physical shape and were fierce warriors but I dont think they would be any match for a Roman shield wall of the big square Scutums and Centurions in armor and jabbing at them with a Gladius. Add to that the Aztech attack would be broken up by a wave of Pilums.

The Mesoamericans Empires had their own version of most Roman weapons. They weren't primitive barbarians and were more than a match for Rome. The only way Rome would have an edge is with gunpowder.

It depends on how the war would be fought, clearing European woodlands to fight the gauls was relatively easy, simply burn the trees as far back as they will go and reduce the forest to ash. The rain forest is a very different environment; first of all, it's wet, very, very, very, wet which means you're going to need to go through some serious trouble to start a decent forest fire. Then of course, there are the animals, who romans have never seen, much less dealt with before. One stops to look at a parrot and all of the sudden the entire group would be open to a jaguar attack from that tiny undefended position. Line tactics don't work in a divided landscape with trees, or any terrain with real obstructions to one's view. Cavalry are useless versus a few unleashed big cats like jaguars or leopards, and catapults requires some sort of line of sight to at least get a baring on how far the rock is meant to go, where it is meant to go, and so on, that a forest denies. Ballistas may be the only real advantage for the romans, though they would be 1 shot, or at best, 2 shot weapons as reload time would be next to nothing and you can forget about re-aiming anything bigger than a scorpion ballista.

Cortez used the tribes to fight each other and weaken the whole and then, already bloodied and potentially infected with European diseases which they had no immunities to, he wiped out the remainder. Guns were of little use other than fear with the humidity and common occurrences of wet gunpowder.

Romans were excellent at using tribes against each other or getting them to assimilate, a trait shared mainly by the southern Mesoamerican empires(aka, not the Aztecs). Romans also were good at using the terrain to their advantage, fighting on their own terms, etc. I'd have to go with the Romans, if they couldn't set the forests on fire and were not winning many of the battles, odds are they'd be able to sneak a few guys into the fields to at least raze and salt the earth.

Roman armor was excellent, especially compared to the Mesoamerican's weapon. Obsidian is damn sharp, but no match for a strong metal plate.

Exposed thighs and arms would be key targets as usual, and while you may survive a deeply wounded arm, you won't be able to fight with it, if you survive anyway, a deep enough cut in any limb will open a major artery and then you will bleed to death. Also the mesoamericans were excellent at ambush and guerrilla tactics. The sneaker, was first made from the sap of the rubber tree to create soft shoes that would hide the sound of walking on leaves to allow them to sneak up on their enemies who they then usually suffocated and/or strangled with a tightly woven bag. Obsidian, unlike steel or iron, doesn't dull, it simply gets sharped with each piece that is broken off, the only problem is running out of it, in which case they simply pick up the nearest sharp object and start whacking.

Exposed thighs and arms? The Roman shields were excellent protection, especially in a massive group, as the Romans normally fought. If the Romans got to choose where they fought, then they would win. If they were ambushed in the forest, they'd burn the forest down.

Romans may not be familiar with a Jaguar but they were familiar with Lions and Cheetah's and Leopards. Lions used to be native to Europe and Cheetah's were encountered in North Africa and Leopards used to be native to Spain.

I think the Romans would have cleared a area X number of feet from the perimiter of their camp and used the wood to build their camp with. Also the rainforest canopy does a pretty good job of keeping the underbrush much dryer than expected.

As for cavalry, ever seen what a horse kick can do to a Lions skull? And I doubt if any big cats would get that close to cavalry charging at them with men on their backs.

The Romans had the Gladius, the Aztecs the macuahuitl (A club with obsidian laid in one side like a swords edge)

The Romans had Pilums the Aztecs had barbed and hardened darts which were more akin to arrows.

The Romans had archers. The Aztecs did not have archers but they did have auxilary troops from Allies who used archery.

BUT it does not look like the Aztecs made much use of armor besides wood and light cotton. The Jaguar Knights IIRC fought naked draped with a Jaguar skin carrying a Maquahuitl and a small round shield.

Compare this:

http://history.missouristate.edu/jch...eapons%201.jpg
http://history.missouristate.edu/jch...eapons%201.jpg

And this:
http://history.missouristate.edu/jch...eapons%202.jpg
http://history.missouristate.edu/jch...eapons%202.jpg

To this:
http://www.globaleffects.com/C_pages...dier972_hi.jpg
http://www.globaleffects.com/C_pages...dier972_hi.jpg

The Aztecs have very good and advanced weaponry for their time and was one reason why they were the rulers.

But we are talking a fully equipped Roman Legion, which IIRC contains 10,000 men and is pretty much self sustaining and s per Roman practice erected a pallisade around their camp everynight and dug defensive ditches and earthworks and placed guards.

A Aztec with cloth armor, a obsidian sword, and a small wooden or wicker shield IMHO would not fare well in a battle with a Roman Centurion wearing Lorica Segmewntata, a Pilum, Gladius, and carrying a Scutum.

Also not all of Mexico is heavy jungle. It is towards the south but where Tenochtitlan, aka Mexico City, was the climate was more temperate.

The idea that Rome only fought primitive barbarians is complete crap to begin with (not singling you out here, but dispelling a myth). In terms of civilized enemies, Rome had to fight the Gauls, Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians, Seleucids, Parthians, Egyptians, etc, not to mention themselves.

If one were to place a Roman legion and a similarly-sized Aztec or Mayan army opposite on an flat piece of earth, I would firmly put my faith in the Romans being victorious. The advantages of plate, scale or chainmail armour for the Romans (depending on which era of legions, as they did evolve), being a key and deciding factor.

In light of previous and present "Rome vs Somebody" threads, I've been thinking how the professional standing legions of Early-to-Late would fare against the feudal armies of Medieval England, France, Holy Roman Empire and others around the 8th-11th Centuries. Longbows and heavily armoured knights come to mind as advantages, but they were few in number compared to peasant-based infantry.

Even if the big cats wouldn't do as much damage as I first thought, something definitely would; mosquitoes, I don't think the Roman Army would have much protection against Malaria and if they traveled by boat, well... piranhas and anacondas would be interesting for them to try and deal with. I stand by my previous statement on the forest being unable to reduce to ash like they did European forests, they may reduce the underbrush, but any large trees that would fall and not be consumed by fire would be major obstacles.

If I recall, the pilum was for what it's worth, a javelin, and they would carry at most 3 or 4 of them on their back. Now they are all well and good, but not in a wooded area. A poisoned blow dart would be more likely to make a hit than that.

Iron.

Malaria is an Eurasian disease, that the Romans must have been familiar with (in fact it plagued Italy till the Modern Era). If anything, the Romans, like the Spaniards, had the advantage in diseases.

Concerning the jungle: if "primitive" Indian tribes with low-tech equipment could clear them (hack and slash agriculture in English?), why not the Romans?

Malaria, without a vaccine, is fatal if I recall regardless of whether it is common where you are or not, mosquitoes simply spread the disease at a much faster rate.

The natives cleared the forest slowly by chopping it down, the roman army attempting to accomplish the same would be prey to guerrilla (military tactics) ambush situations until they had cleared a battlefield big enough to wage war on, and then they'd still have to get the natives to it somehow.

Relying on local wildlife to severely weaken an average Roman army is useless. They should need some time to addpat to certain creatures sure, but to think you'd loose 500 men (which is still a small amount of soldiers compared to an average Roman army) to panthers, anacondas and tarantulas is ridiculous.

Poisoned darts on the other hand could prove challenging, but they require time to aim (you'd have to hit an unprotected spot for a dart to penetrate) and in a giant battle that time could become a very big downside.

The Central/South American lack of native horses would have been a disadvantage to Mayans, Aztecs and Incas facing a Roman legionary army. Roman cavalry or allied auxiliary cavalry forces would have had little opposition in charging or running down Mesoamerican forces as they would have had little in the way of pikemen or spearmen train specifically or with experience fighting cavalry. In terms of infantry, the battle would be close-fought, being that both sides used shorter weapons (Gladius and clubs) than say, the Gauls, who used long, slashing swords. The Romans excelled in these sorts of situations.

Malaria isn't 100% fatal, its just damn annoying. Romans were trained to be the toughest sons of bitches around, they knew how to deal with mosquitoes, and if they traveled by boat, they'd beach the boat instead of just hopping off of it. The Romans were not masters of naval warfare, they were possibly the most superstitious and fearful ancient civilizations when it came to the sea, so they'd spend as little time as possible on boats.

The domestication of Eurasian animals is the deciding factor. I recommend you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, where he looks at why some societies advanced, conquered, and succeeded, and why others didn't.

The sections concerning why Montezuma didn't invade Spain, and why the opposite happened, focus on animal husbandry and animal diseases. The military engagements in the Spanish conquest of America were in fact a small part in the conquest - most of the work was done by disease.

And all the diseases were Eurasian ones that occur from close contact between humans and animals, which only really occurred in Eurasia, as the rest of the world has not had the same concentration of domesticatable animals. North and South America have no native horses, cows, pigs, chickens etc, the only domesticatable animals being the llama and the turkey. So diseases like smallpox (originally from cows) are completely alien to Mesoamericans. All you'd need was enough smallpox carrying soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of people could die. Much more efficient than in a battle.

But if we take that out of the equation, then the Aztecs/Maya will win the war on home ground, but I would expect them to lose the first bunch of battles. There were victories against the Spanish, and with a much more even playing field, I think the Aztecs/Maya would have been able to adapt and win. I believe that while the lack of armour would have damaged their line, they had a flexible fighting style that would have drawn the Romans away, or left them behind.

Yes, but wouldn't the Romans ally with pissed-off locals to have a more flexible army, like they did everywhere else?

Probably.

Then it becomes a question of hegemony. Would Romans+allies have enough power to win?

And I think my earlier conclusion is the same.

The scenario seems a bit unrealistic to me.
but would the romans have gunpowder? then their armour and tactics would change.

I'd say in a field battle with even conditions and numbers Romans would win because of superior technology.

It seems silly to ask "would the Romans have gunpowder?" If they didn't have it when the Roman empire was a going concern, I don't see why they'd have it in this hypothetical situation.

Gunpowder was invented in China in the 9th century. It didn't reach Europe till the 12th century. The Roman Empire 'fell' in 476.

Hypothetically, at the most I'll give you (maybe) early, early firearms to work with in this discussion but only in limited usage on the Romans part.

But those weapons were slow and cumbersome, and if the Romans fired, hit a few and reloaded with a huge mass of Aztecs charging with weapons they didn't need to reload, the Romans would have been screwed, so firearms would really be counter Roman success.

this is a ripoff of my thread!!!
Romans vs China ring a bell?

It ain't a ripoff if its only half-related.

Read the first post here

The advantages of early firearms versus civilizations without firearms was the entire scare-factor. Early French military campaings in New France come to mind. In one encounter, Samuel de Champlain, 2 other Frenchmen and a small Huron war party encountered 200 Iroquois warriors, Champlain shot 2 of the Iroquois warchiefs with his arquebus and the entire Iroquois force fled.

In any case, the Romans wouldn't have gunpowder as the Roman, and later Western Roman Empire pre-dated gunpowder weapons in Europe. The Eastern Empire would have encountered some form of gunpowder weapon prior to its fall in 1453, but at that time (and pretty much from the 7th Century on), the Eastern Empire was then the Byzantine Empire and could hardly be called Roman.

I still hold that a properly-supplied, armed and more importantly, commanded Roman army complete with cavalry and possibly ballistae would have annihilated a Mesoamerican army of the same era, should it be fought on a fair and evenly balanced field of battle. Should it take place in deep jungle, the Romans would have initial setbacks, but the Romans as always would have adapted and overcome, much like they did on the high seas during the 1st Punic War, or on land during the 2nd Punic War.

Instead of arguing based on where these two armies would hypothetically collide, consider the general question: Rome vs. Mesoamericans.

If you staged battles in all the terrains on earth, from tundra to rainforest to deserts, the Roman armies would win the vast majority of battles. They fought as units, and had superior weaponry and armor. Regardless of valor or personal strength, those advantages are too great to overcome.
Even though the Roman's didn't have gunpowder, they had plenty of explosive and combusting artillery. That counts for something