4 ms·

Humans aren't fearless automatons though. Shock cavalry is called that for a reason. Also I'm not sure Inca used bows as ranged weapons in warfare that much? It

by pqtyw 2y ago

Humans aren't fearless automatons though. Shock cavalry is called that for a reason. Also I'm not sure Inca used bows as ranged weapons in warfare that much? It was mainly slingers (probably could be reasonably effective? Note sure. Or spears or other thrown weapons (when the effective range is 30 meters and a horse is galloping towards you, well.. it would be effectively suicidal to try even if you hit anything) > long sharpened (and hardened in fire) wooden sticks would be enough. Also extreme discipline and training. Unprofessional armies even in Europe didn't do that well either. e.g. the Battle of Böblingen was about as one sided as some of the battles between the Spanish and Incas or Aztecs.

lukan 2y ago
"when the effective range is 30 meters and a horse is galloping towards you, well.. it would be effectively suicidal to try even if you hit anything" One person on its own, yes, but we are talking about thousands of people. Meaning the horses charge frontal, the infantery there (without Pikes) might get smashed - but those on the side would have a clear shot. Unless they all panic. "Battle of Böblingen" And wikipedia says 2:1. That is not in the same ballpark as 100:1 like with the conquisatores.
- pqtyw 2y ago
  The optimal tactics aren't necessarily that obvious during the first few engagements when you encounter a completely alien force and a way of fighting. And by the time you start figuring these things out the Spanish already have thousands of allied soldiers from other tribes that you have subjugated fighting on their side. e.g. when the Inca finally started trying to fight back back in earnest like in the siege of Cuzco the ratio was closer to 1:2 and the Inca were probably too reluctant to engage due to their experience in the initial battles. After that it was already way too late since the empire was reduced to a rump state with limited resources and the balance of power shifted. Same happened in Mexico. Just like in Peru the early engagements for the Spanish were generally considerably easier than the final battles where they had 10s of thousands of soldiers fighting for them. At the end of the day both of those empires were just a house of cards waiting to collapse. Europeans didn't do even remotely as well in less centralized areas. e.g. even against urbanized societies like the Maya who survived for much longer and successfully fended off several expeditions since the Spanish basically had to conquer each city state one by one.

by pqtyw 2y ago

lukan 2y ago

"when the effective range is 30 meters and a horse is galloping towards you, well.. it would be effectively suicidal to try even if you hit anything" One person on its own, yes, but we are talking about thousands of people. Meaning the horses charge frontal, the infantery there (without Pikes) might get smashed - but those on the side would have a clear shot. Unless they all panic. "Battle of Böblingen" And wikipedia says 2:1. That is not in the same ballpark as 100:1 like with the conquisatores.

pqtyw 2y ago
The optimal tactics aren't necessarily that obvious during the first few engagements when you encounter a completely alien force and a way of fighting. And by the time you start figuring these things out the Spanish already have thousands of allied soldiers from other tribes that you have subjugated fighting on their side. e.g. when the Inca finally started trying to fight back back in earnest like in the siege of Cuzco the ratio was closer to 1:2 and the Inca were probably too reluctant to engage due to their experience in the initial battles. After that it was already way too late since the empire was reduced to a rump state with limited resources and the balance of power shifted. Same happened in Mexico. Just like in Peru the early engagements for the Spanish were generally considerably easier than the final battles where they had 10s of thousands of soldiers fighting for them. At the end of the day both of those empires were just a house of cards waiting to collapse. Europeans didn't do even remotely as well in less centralized areas. e.g. even against urbanized societies like the Maya who survived for much longer and successfully fended off several expeditions since the Spanish basically had to conquer each city state one by one.