2 ms·

In the case of the spaniards its a little different. They ambushed the emperor and essentially slaughtered his host who continued to throw themselves in front o

by asdff 3y ago

In the case of the spaniards its a little different. They ambushed the emperor and essentially slaughtered his host who continued to throw themselves in front of the spanish to protect the emperor, eventually order broke down and they were routed, but the incan empire and the spanish would contest for power for decades still. Another Spaniard around this time, Magellan, made it to the beaches with some 60 men thinking with god and modern arms he would have the advantage against some three thousand Filipinos, and he didn't make it off that beach. The narrative that the spanish just routed everyone doesn't actually hold much water, most of the big takings e.g. in mexico were from identifying existing political enemies operating within a feudal system not unlike that of europe, rallying them and supplying them in their own proxy war against the established aztec power. In modern times you only see the restraint you see because of the political consequences of allowing the full force of the military machine to be umleashed. Consider how the military actualy behaved in afhanistan or iraq vs the pacific theater. They would visit villages on foot and use interpreters and attempt to form relationships with the locals, instead of just strategically bombing them flat on the off chance they harbor something important to the war machine. The most intense battle of Iraq, the second battle of Falluja, saw 600 civilian deaths. The battle for Okinawa saw over 100,000 civilians dead, a third of the population. That being said I think it goes to show that if push really came to shove, the new war planning would readily go away for the old war planning of strategic bombing along with atomic weaponry, at which there is no cave that will protect you when we have nuclear warheads designed to penetrate the deepest bunkers. There is no safe haven when the US army can engage you from beyond the curve of the earth.

somenameforme 3y ago
The Battle of Cajamarca [1], where the Incan Emperor was captured, had the emperor arrive with a retinue of some 7000+ experienced soldiers who were armed with weapons such as knives, axes, and lassos. His advisers had already advised him that the Spanish were low in number, probably human, and recommended killing them. The Incan recounting of the battle states that the Spanish attacked after the Emperor threatened to kill them. The slaves the Emperor had around him were the ones who stood impassively as the Spanish butchered them, but that happened after the 'army' of 168 Spaniards had already managed to route the army of 7000+ warriors around the emperor, suffering a total of one injury in the process. In modern times you're conflating conventional warfare with insurgent warfare, which are very different. Conventional warfare is largely defined by sizable groups organizing and intentionally making the presence known in a limited region, setting the stage for 'normal' engagements. So for instance Iraq quickly turned into an insurgency but the Second Battle of Falluja was one of the few conventional encounters. Several thousand disorganized insurgents with limited arms and equipment decided to stick around and engage a modern military, multiple times their size, head on. They were obviously, and knowingly, signing on for a one way trip to Allah. That said, even there a heavily outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-teched rabble suicidally engaging in conventional warfare managed to inflict hundreds of casualties - about 5% of the military force. Imagine a similar scenario in times past where you had a rabble of 4000 peasants equipped with whatever instruments they could manage, against 13,000+ armed and armed soldiers with cavalry and archery support. It's highly unlikely that the army would suffer a single casualty, let alone death. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca

by asdff 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

The Battle of Cajamarca [1], where the Incan Emperor was captured, had the emperor arrive with a retinue of some 7000+ experienced soldiers who were armed with weapons such as knives, axes, and lassos. His advisers had already advised him that the Spanish were low in number, probably human, and recommended killing them. The Incan recounting of the battle states that the Spanish attacked after the Emperor threatened to kill them. The slaves the Emperor had around him were the ones who stood impassively as the Spanish butchered them, but that happened after the 'army' of 168 Spaniards had already managed to route the army of 7000+ warriors around the emperor, suffering a total of one injury in the process. In modern times you're conflating conventional warfare with insurgent warfare, which are very different. Conventional warfare is largely defined by sizable groups organizing and intentionally making the presence known in a limited region, setting the stage for 'normal' engagements. So for instance Iraq quickly turned into an insurgency but the Second Battle of Falluja was one of the few conventional encounters. Several thousand disorganized insurgents with limited arms and equipment decided to stick around and engage a modern military, multiple times their size, head on. They were obviously, and knowingly, signing on for a one way trip to Allah. That said, even there a heavily outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-teched rabble suicidally engaging in conventional warfare managed to inflict hundreds of casualties - about 5% of the military force. Imagine a similar scenario in times past where you had a rabble of 4000 peasants equipped with whatever instruments they could manage, against 13,000+ armed and armed soldiers with cavalry and archery support. It's highly unlikely that the army would suffer a single casualty, let alone death. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca