Ancient History

Where do you get your claim that Spain had shit? The only advantages the Aztecs would've had were numbers and knowing the terrain. Pretty much everything else was against them: the tribes were fighting amongst themselves, of which the Spanish took advantage, their equipment was far inferior to anything the Europeans had at the time, the Europeans brought diseases with them, and took the Aztecs by surprise.
In the Wikipedia article on this, it states the entire war lasted about two and a half years. Seeing as the forces had to cross the Atlantic Ocean, that's pretty impressive.

What the Spanish got wasn't there own it was stuff diffused via trade with Muslim and Chinese, cultural speaking the Spanish still had there heads up there asses, tribal infighting is to be expected and hey at the times the Spanish where going to war with Protestants and having inquisitions every change they got. Yet again in terms of equipment it was what worked in there environment you honestly think the big old clunky armor of the Spanish would do well in that sort of terrain, oh yeah the Spanish had guns.....thanks to the Arabic and Chinese. There agricultural system is some of the most impressive I've studied, there cities where quoted by Spanish explores as making the Spanish cities fell like shit Not to mention there great education system which gave it out to all people no matter social stander (Something Spain also lacked unless your one of the elite), oh and of coerce there city was build in a freaking lake and they had riches beyond the Spanish dreams. Oh not to mention there Aqueduct system (See Chapultepec aqueduct) they also had paper (called Amate) without the Chinese help again, and Philosophical works that rivaled the Greeks well until the Spanish destroyed all but a small number of books and other works. An advanced system of Medicine and Mathematics (one that would rival the Arabic) and the most advanced Astronomy system. Did i mention how unlike the Spanish they didn't have cow or oxen or horse to do the work for them. The fact they mantiend to do all this is impressive to say the least.

The vikings crossed the Atlantic ocean, the Chinese crossed the Pacific should i be impressed by the Spanish.

As far as I know, the Chinese never did cross the Pacific, they could have, but didn't bother with it.
The Spanish mostly abandoned their old armour and replaced it with lighter armour, there's really no reason to try and compare the militaries of the Spanish and Mesoamericans, there's no question who'd win. In the end, it doesn't matter where the technology comes from, it is how you use it (the Chinese invented gunpowder, yes, but who were the ones who used it militarily to great success? The Europeans).
Also, let's not forget that compared to the situation the Spanish had been in, the Aztecs had all the time to develop, the biggest wars being tribal disputes that can in no way be compared to the carnage Europe, and more specifically Iberia had gone through up until that point.
The fact that they were rich has little to do with anything, except for the fact that there's simply more gold in the ground in Mexico than there is in Iberia.
The Romans, Egyptians and Indians had built impressive agricultural systems far before the Aztecs did. They might not have been as advanced, but have been constructed 500 to more than 1000 years earlier.

By the way, weren't the Mayans the astronomers? Or at least more advanced than the Aztecs were.

You see, the things you name aren't unimpressive. However, most of it was developed only around the 5th century. At that time, it had already existed in Eurasia for centuries. It's great they rivaled the Greeks and Romans, but they had been gone for a long time already (as influencial powers, I mean. You could count the Byzantines to be descendants of both, but at the time even they didn't exist anymore).

As for your last question: Yes. Why? Because even if the Vikings and Chinese reached the Americas, what did they do? Maybe build a village, and then die. What did the Spanish do? Return to Europe, go back with more people and settle the entire fucking continent, together with the French, British and Portuguese, with minor roles for other colonial nations. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

Still, you can hardly deny the Europeans, with the Spanish leading the charge, were absolute dicks at the time. To the Muslims, Native Americans and eachother. For Spain, their intolerance of pretty much everyone led to their demise, giving room to the British Empire to become the most powerful nation to have ever existed.

That's not fantasy. Athens was the premiere power in the world.

How efficient was it and what is the comparison to those of others' of the time?

How good was this paper and how did it compare to others'?

Proof?
And for that matter, how the **** can anybody say that any philisophical work is better than any other?! How do you compare?!

Again, proof?
And how do you compare? Math, maybe. But Medicine? Even today, there are herbal medicines that inexplicably work better than those created and used by hospitals. And there is no guarentee that they were facing the same problems as others were, so there is no frame of reference [i.e. take X disease, they would obviously not have the cure if they did not have to ever treat it and vise versa with the other civilizations].

Proof and comparison?

Not exactly conductive to your argument to say that they lacked the food/work sources to do some of the things that others could.

They did, briefly, if some reports are to be believed. Then they turned back, leaving behind damaged ships.

The Chinese initially used it in war rockets and fireworks and such.

Dude. The Pelloennesian War took a huge toll on both Athens and Sparta. Neither side, no matter who won, recovered from it. Just the fact that there was a war, ensured that Greece would be ripe for take over.

Saying that the Macedonians would have never conquered Greece if Athens had won is quite simply bullshit. Phillip II would have conquered Greece regardless. He had the numbers, he had better tactics, he had better cavalry, and a Macedonian phalangite could destroy a Greek hoplite of equal size due to their much longer sarrissas and more flexible structure.

If that was not bad enough, you have the audacity to say that the Athenians would have conquered the Persian Empire. Mind you, the Persian Empire had sacked Athens once and could do it again if they so chose to. Athens was barely able to hold their own against the Persians and it was only because of all the Greeks uniting, that Athens even survived. Athens never had a large army, they really only had a good navy and you can not invade the largest empire in the world with an army of a few thousand men.

Then to top it off you have to go and say the Romans would not have conquered Greece LOL. What you do not understand is the fact that the Delian League and Pelopenessius League went to war, ensured the fact that both the Athenians and the Spartans would never return to their Golden Age. Since Phillip II would have conquered Greece anyway, due to the Greeks not being united (regardless of whether Athens had won or not), the area would have been ripe for the taking later anyway for the Romans. Not to mention the rise of Pyrhus of Epirus and Phillip V, even if the Athenians had managed to somehow magically hold back Phillip II invasion, they would have eventually been consumed by one of the two.

I don't think so. You have to know Athens (if they won the war) would have had all of Greece. This war ended 50 years before Phillip II. To top it off Rome didn't become a power house for about 150 years. Persia was pretty weak considering they had lost about 100,000 men. (Idk though maybe more) Athens probably would have taken Macedonia and the northen countries first then attack Sciliy and move up into Northern Italy. Remember their main commander Alcibiades never lost a battle.

First of all Persia lost 10,000 men. Out of an invasion force of a quarter of a million. They were still a powerhouse up to the time Alexander invaded them. Again, Athens had an army of only a few thousand men. If they won the war they would not have had all of Greece. They would have just defeated Sparta or more likely forced them into a peace treaty to end the war. To say they could have beat the Persian empire is complete and utter nonsense. They had like I said only a few thousand men.

Not to mention they were not that expansionist. Athens was more interested in trade than military might. The only reason they had a strong navy was to protect their trade routes. There is no reason they would invade Macedon and much less Persia. Once Phillip II enacted his military reforms, the Greeks were absolutely doomed. The Macedonian phalangites only lost 2 battles under Phillip II, one of them being an ambush.

While I admit the Romans beat the Aztec to the Aqueduct race by hundreds of years, they were still effective by any measure and in doing their job the Aztec Aqueduct was special designed for continues use (a two way street) Archaeologist have yet to find any evidence suggesting the flow to the Aztec cities was not continues, which the Romans suffered from this problem hugely to the point there was little to no water flowing from the Aqueducts to the cities during even Nero’s time.

Though when it comes to grand scale of things and design, I have to be fair and give it to the Romans.

However, remind you it was an original idea to the Aztec at the time (Pretty impressive for a group with no outside content)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapultepec_aqueduct

The Production of Aztec paper was around 300 to 500 C.E, it was in comparison to the Chinese and Egyptian paper very hard to make however it held out just as well and is still used to Mexico today. The paper was used only by royalties of each tribe to communicate and each one could be colored to show one status in life.

http://www.ancientmexico.biz/aztec-amate-paintings.html (A look at some of their work)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amate

The same way people of the Enlightenment area thought there philosophical works where better than the Renaissance, or how Christian Philosophers thought there work better than Islamic Philosophers or Confucius Philosophers thought there work better than Buddhism.

Getting Proof or anything for you to read will be a lot harder, because hey those damn Spanish had to burn everything. (However it appears very similar to the Greeks, which is interesting)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aztec/

There mathematical system of the Aztecs used twenty as a base, now yes I admit its alot harder to compare mathematics between one another, but hey at least the Aztecs came up with their own idea and System which is still regarded by most Mathematics as one of the most accurate. If I would compare it to any other civilization Math I would go with Egypt's math (There is striking amount of things they had in common)

http://www.livescience.com/2427-amazing-aztecs-math-whizzes.html
http://www.math.temple.edu/~zit/Native American/9 Aztecs_num.pdf
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/04/03-02.html

In terms of Medicine it seems to be a very use similar to China, only more widely spread to the surrounding community. Not to mention being a doctor in Aztec society was considered highly social standing and humble. The litterly term for doctor in Aztec means good. http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/mayan/aztecmedicine.html

http://www.plu.edu/~nguyenpb/aztec-medicinal/home.html
http://www.plu.edu/~nguyenpb/medieval-european/home.html

I'll let you compare the two

Comparison to which one? the Chinese, the Mayans, the Indians? However in every single one of The Aztec measurements they have been right to the date (to the prediction of the coming solicits, to the 356 day ration of the earth around the sun, to the ration of Venus and mars around the sun)

The Xiuhpohuali is the most accurate calendar ever recorded. There Pyramids (which they made the 3rd largest ever, and please don't quote me on this but there is rumor that another big one is being dug up right now in Mexico according to a personal trusted informant) are based off of Astronomy there location and there height and there everything is based off of Astronomy (Heck on one the Pyramid of the sun, if I recall you can see a snake god at certain times)

http://wikis.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php/Aztec_Astronomy
http://dnn.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/17_aztec_beliefs.htm

This goes perfectly with my argument, the Aztecs where limited on animals they could use to their work and had to do it on their own. Not only that they had to make large pyramids without any animal help and travel long distances the same way without any help. This is very committable to the admiration and the ability of the Aztecs to get shit done.

Not only that but the entire idea of horse warfare would have been entirely new, I would be scared if I saw a horse and didn't know what it was (Much like how the Finnish where scared of T-34 tanks and didn't know what they were)

So viva la Aztecs

If you want to know more about this I suggest you read 1421: the year china discovered America.

http://www.1421.tv/extract.htm (A segment of it)

I'll give you that, the Chinese Military machine was amazing. But hey the Aztecs did make their weapons out of volcanic class and rock, which is badass. (Though Aztecs stressed military way more)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare
http://www.ancientmilitary.com/aztec-warriors.htm

While this is true that they had built this far beforehand, you have to take into account the Aztecs where just getting started later then these and had to adopt to the climate and geography that they had, which gave them limited amount of agricultural production and they had to adapt to this.

The chinampaus agriculture tech is a genius idea, and is still in use in Central America today and they build vast canal systems to cover and irrigation their crops

Which although they had less land to farm then most the world, they managed to grow a variety of crops, that most groups would never have figured out.

http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-farming.html
http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-agriculture.html

It is the first society to give education to all its members no matter their gender or social standing and it did it until age twenty. Now compare that to European education....wait European education sucked then and was only for the elite and the catholic monks.

http://aztec.com/page.php?page=education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_society (Read the part on education)

By dumping their old armor this leads to open to Aztec weapons, which the Aztecs had the advantage of speed and mobility to the Spanish. Not to mention that when they ever did fight the Spanish had a lot of advantages
*Horses
*Tribes wanting revenge on the Aztecs
* Plague that whipped out 50%-70% of the Aztec population, I don't care what nation you are. You are never going to be able to fight any sort of fight with this kind of numbers
* The Spanish where thought as gods, Huge advantage for the Spanish

Which lead to the death of entire civilizations, forced movement of people from their native land, forced Christianization of the locals, Plague that killed entire groups,

The European genocide against the native population killed an estimated 40,000,000 to 200,000,00 maybe even more lives (Which makes it the number 1 genocide in all history, but of course Europeans like to hide their history and remind people of the Mongols)

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
http://www.operationmorningstar.org/genocide_of_native_americans.htm
http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/historybehindthenews/spring 2005/delema.htm
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

Agreed, Though the English and the Americans where still dicks to world at the time, the French can be argued to have given the best treatment at the time.

I direct you to this http://library.thinkquest.org/10098/aztec.htm

And a very good article: http://theincaslg14.blogspot.com/

When you stand and make the claim ____ is better then ____, you shoulder the burden of proof of your claim. That includes both the proof and explaining how, in every way, yours was better than the others.
In this case, you have claimed that the Aztecs outdid [all?] others. Therefore, you must provide proof [which you have provided some] and prove that it makes them superior.

So far, some of the evidence sounds a little flimsy while others sound more solid.
Take your comment on the Aztec paper:

In which it is clear, that, despite the paper's longevity of use, is only used by a select nation by select groups. Which is kind of like punching yourself in the face in a fight.
Not only that, but this could be easily countered by the fact that Chinese paper was widely used in China LONG before the Aztec paper, moved around the world, and is the ancestor if not the same paper as is widely used today by nations around the world.
Automatically your claim that the Aztecs were superior in every way falls to pieces because of your pointing out one factor that was flimsy.
If you looked at it, I'm sure that you would have spotted this. If you did, it was probably better to leave it out. That way, the burden to find a factor of Aztec technololgy that made them in some way inferior to others shifts more to your opponents to find.

Now compare it to your sphil on Aztec astronomy:

Significantly, significantly better. Nice and solid brick to slam in your opponents' faces.
For one, you made no room for error or misconception. This has its pros and cons. On one hand, you lend a level of believability to your argument by making it seem solid and unquestionable. On the other hand, you cement yourself into a single spot, which can get you in trouble if your claim is disproven.
For another, you built on what people commonly already know and did not leave openings for people to look at other, specific civilizations that may have had proof that disproves you claim.
In this instance, I believe that you are right in your assertions.

True, but I can attack this at the angle that the lack of the animals reduced the max limit to their population by reducing the max yeild of their harvests.
While this does not counter your [adrimable and in all likelyhood correct] argument that the Aztecs were more determined than others, it does counter the idea that they could or did field a larger population.
Additionally, your responce raises questions as to what technology is defined as. What with animals, would the other civilizations not develop technology specific to the animals and thus have a larger sheer number of technologic achievements? And how do you weigh the value of a technology?

*Facepalm*
I'm sorry, but this is just... one of the most terrible ideas to bring up. While yes, the Romans are made to look bad, you are not providing any concrete evidence that the Aztecs were better. All you are saying is that they were not proven to be on par or below. That is a terrible, terrible idea in a debate. This is NOT a situation to use an inference in. I can say that Nanjing's population continuing to grow after 1425 is a reasonable, logical conclusion because the modern proof shows that the population has since expanded. Your inference that the technology was NOT DISPROVEN to work X way, therefore it worked the other, is not.

The 'getting proof' part is understandable.
HOWEVER, the opertive word in your previous sentence is a terrible, but logical choice: THOUGHT. The past tense of THINK. As in TO BELIEVE. I may believe that the sky is blue, but that is an objective conclusion. It proves nothing and thus you have not proven that Aztec philosophy was better and thus have not helped your argument. Furthermore, you only managed to highlight and emphasize my point that the idea is absurd.

You do know that you just proved my point, right? That the Aztecs were not the best in everything? Which was your claim?

Regarding the mathematics and medicine section:
On medicine, as I thought, comparing them is not really likely.
On the math section, in hindsight, as long as the math worked in practice, one could not really rise above the other.

NOTE: I am in no way a master of debate, just some points.

I'll Re go other it later when i have the time, however i'm shocked i manged to back it up that much as i did.

But i never really (personally) wanted to make the Aztec seem the best at everything, just that there very underestimated and did great things but have the perception of barbaric idiots.

There's no mathematical system that is more accurate than another. The difference is the length of your numbers, basically.

I've heard of that pyramid. While it's nowhere near as old as the Egyptian Pyramids, or as high, it has a larger volume.

You said Spain "had shit". So you're pretty much destroying your own argument. The Spanish had metals, horses, cows etc.

Exactly. You're pretty much supporting my point here.

I will, later on. However, I have to go in about half an hour, so yeah...

Yes, the Chinese made rockets and fireworks, but both weren't as effective as muskets or cannons, which were invented in Europe and the Middle East.

Also, the most advanced weapons the Aztecs had were made of bronze. Bronze. And still, obsidian was mainly used in weaponry, mostly rammed into wooden sticks. Their armour was made out of cotton. No matter how you look it, Spanish warfare, which included horses, dogs, metals and gunpowder, was far superior in any way, shape or form.

I highly doubt the Aztec people or their ancestors didn't exist before 500AD. The terrain, layout and nature in general of the American continents wasn't capable of supporting a massive empire back then, that's why it took them so long to develop, and while they might've been experts in some areas, overall they had no chance of survival against Europe.

Warfare is based on getting the advantage over your enemy. Even if the Aztec population was being decimated, the Spanish were with what, 500 men? Also, they did have horses and dogs, but you said yourself the area wasn't suited for their armour (which still was full body armour, just not kilos worth of Medieval knights' armour), then why would it be for horses? Also, I don't see the problem with looking for allies.
Really, why do you put forward these arguments? This says nothing about the Spanish or Aztecs that we didn't already know. Did the Romans have insane advantages over their enemies? Yes, the Roman legions were the best trained, best equipped army in the world. Does that make them any less badass? Hell no.

And? Again, it's fun and great that you make them look like barbarians and all, but I could also say the Aztecs sacrificed their enemies is bloody religious rituals. Cool beans, but it doens't help any argument at all. You claimed the Spanish had shit on the Aztecs, and here you state the Spanish pretty much wiped the floor with them. It was about how impressive both nations were. Oh, and at the time, Americans were the natives.

Lol, I was going to mention this, haha, that was a ridiculous statement, considering the time frame being discussed is early 1500's and the American nation didn't declare independence untill 1772? or is it 1776? Either one.
I like to see myself as a bit of a hobby historian and rarely get dates 100% correct, however they are always close and not out by approximately 200 years.
I agree that it is impressive for the Aztecs to develop all these technologies but isn't it just the same for the European cultures? They had to "overcome adversities in their climate" as the Aztecs did. I am also on the side of Imperial in saying that Ninjang? Would have been larger than Teotitlan by a logical conclusion. It would be hard for a city to not only stagnate in population but reduce by over 50% in saying that the estimation of over 1 million people may be off.

Well, the Europeans had a kickstart due to Eurasia being in a much better position than the Americas (I've read a book that talks about this, "Day of Empire by Amy Chua", which I found to be quite the interesting book, and I can recommend it. I must say I was kind of surprised she counted the Netherlands as a hyperpower, though.

also closer to the "cradle of life" they probably had a few thousand years more time to sort out their crap.

Romans where epic beyond any proportion in my opinion.

Carthage...not so much..

Oh please, everybody knows that the diseases the Spanish brought killed more than 50% of the Aztecs, but a disease alone can't do anything, diseases don't conquer entire new worlds, nor destroy entire civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Wars

I'm just trying to point out the Aztecs came up with a accurate mathematical system then the Spanish ever did.....wait the Spanish never did. The Aztec's came up with there own in isolationism from the rest of the world, Spanish had trade partners and the rest of the world to help spread ideas.

The Egyptians had some of the best Pyramids of all time no doubt about it, however The Aztecs had some very impressive Pyramids and architecture in its self, not to mention the Aztecs had the disadvantage of getting supplies and unlike most of the world had to focus on human labor (Without high slave use) to transport what materials the land would give them, instead of using horses and dogs to move materials.

Metals, yet again the ground gives you the metal (Which is why the Romans loved Iberia)

Horses and Cows--- Not in the Americas there for your point is invalid.

My point was that even giving the tactical advantage the Spanish had over the Aztecs with domesticated horses (Thank the Arabs and Greeks for that) the Aztecs still fought with heart and courage.

I recommend it.

The Cannon was invented in the song dynasty China and was brought into the Middle East, where it was only adopted by the good old Europeans because of the crusades and the Turkish threat

The Musket was invented by the Chinese and first used in the battle of Ain Jalut.

The Aztec armor was suited for their environmental, the Spanish was not suited for the area and left them at a huge disadvantage (Though the support of a few thousand natives helped alot) oh you could argue that the Spanish can take them off but now this leaves you open to attack via the Aztecs where you would absolutely no armor to help you (There armor would still barely help them in the end) and next are you even aware of how shit the musket is or was, yes you could shoot down a portion of the Aztecs (If they didn't use Guerrilla warfare) but by the time you managed to reload your entire group of people would be cut to shreds

The same can be said about the Spanish and without the Romans and Carthaginians they would still be in the mud wasting away doing nothing of any technological importance. While the Aztecs would be doing all the above I mentioned.

500 men + the majority of the native population vs a sick nation (litterly) who thought you where god and really didn't want to fight. Nothing wrong with looking for allies, just make sure your allies know who is in charge (Which I have to hand it to the Spanish they managed to do that, though the entire "OBEY ME WE ARE GODS" concept works well)

Yes look at you master of Spain and Mexico; you must know everything about the two sides. The Romans are very badass, so are the Aztecs.

O.K. do some research on to why You see most people considered (cough Europeans cough) the Aztec ritual of the pulling out of someone’s heart to be barbaric, when really the heart wasn't the real meaning of the ritual it was the blood. For you see the Aztec believed that one of their gods cut himself (I believed it was on the penis) and his blood spilled onto the land fertilized the crops and creating a wonderful harvest, which the Aztecs then repeated. It was Cultural, and the Europeans are some of the most barbaric people in the world at the time, even more so that they tried to make their actions seem justified and there not savaged.

I might have over stated the Aztecs ability; however this is not to say the Spanish are the great magical wonders we claim they are and were better then the Spanish.

So don't point out flaws got it, and yes the Chinese did beat the Aztecs to the race. But hey I was trying to go against the Spanish and not the Chinese; which the Spanish never invented Paper.

Your thoughts are noted.

And to which I can say the Aztec with are far less population and food in growth had the ability to do such wonderful accomplishments. My point was with the Animals to point out even with a Beyond huge disadvantage they still managed to do such wonders like there Aqueducts and Pyramids which competed with the best of the best: Like Egypt and Rome, and could be considered better.

If I recall I was going with the Aztecs water flow into the city was continues, because of its two frame system (I can show some pictures, if one is required) and that because of this the water flow to the roman cities where hugely disadvantage to the point of it not reaching the cities.

I was going with the Philosophers viewpoints, not my own. I was going with the opposition would take the time to read the link to which I have shown http://www.iep.utm.edu/aztec/

My original claim was the Aztecs were better than the Spanish, and did some things the greats of the world did while isolated from them.

Medicine and Math as long as they worked, but they the Aztecs came up with their own Medical and Math system; where is this famous Spanish system I hear so much about....wait I don't because it DOESN'T EXIST.

Never sell yourself short or try to humble yourself, Be a god among men.

You’re Brazilian, o.k you know what I’m going to drop off a deadly disease that kills off 50-70% of all Brazilians and I want your country to defend its self against anyone ranging from Uruguay to Venezuela to Chile. YOU WILL LOSE, and after you lose you will fell what it’s like to be an Aztec.

The European conquest of the Americas can also be classified as a genocide and is in the procces to be according to the human rights Council.

...And? The decimal system worked perfectly, there was no need for the Spanish to make their own. Really, the only other mathematical systems that are widely used besides decimal are the hex and binairy systems, both of which have their own good uses. There's still the octagonal system, but I don't know if it's used a lot. If the Spanish had invented their own mathematical system, you and I would be agreeing over how ridiculously stupid they were for doing that.

Now that I think about it, I wonder how the Aztec pyramids will look like when they're as old as the Egyptian ones. They definitely have the terrain disadvantage, in Egypt, there's little that damages it (except man, I guess), but in the jungles the Aztecs built them in, they're in danger of completley falling apart, which would be a shame, because they look really awesome.

My point was that those were their advantages, and the Aztecs didn't have them. As for the metals, you still need to get them out of the ground and process them into weaponry. And yes, I know they used technology that had been invented before, you don't need to keep bringing that up, as it's quite irrelevant. As I stated before, if the Spanish would've invented their own techniques for tasks that were already invented, we'd be discussion how stupid they were. It doesn't matter if you have more advanced resources, if you have no idea how to use them, you still look like an idiot.

They either fought or died. Kinda like the Iberian nations in the Reconquista. They would either fight and drive out their enemies or die. The Iberians won, the Aztecs lost. While their bravery is to be admired, you can hardly expect them to just roll over and let the Spaniards execute them all.
I recommend it.

Then I stand corrected, while I knew the Chinese had gunpowder, and used it in the military, I was always under the impression the Muslims really invented the more powerful weaponry.

The Aztecs had cotton armour. Now, that would work fine against their own clubs, but it's not going to stop a bullet or rapier. The Spanish disadvantage, if it even was there, could hardly be called huge. Taking their armour off was not an option, the Aztecs still had ranged weaponry, not to mention the moral effect it'd have. The Aztecs hadn't seen metal armour, and when trying to cut through it with a piece of obsidian would do jack shit, they'd be scared as hell.
And I am aware of the performance of the musket in the time. So did the Spaniards. They didn't only use muskets, they still had metal rapiers that would easily cut (or stab) through the Aztecs. The Conquistadors recieved extensive training, they knew what they were doing.

I've said it twice, but for the sake of replying to most of your arguments, I'll repeat it: It wouldn't have made any sense for the Spanish to reinvent everything there is to reinvent, just for the sake of reinventing it. I understand when you admire the Aztecs for making the discoveries themselves, but you can't blame the Spanish for adapting and reusing ideas and methods.

They fought with their heart and soul, but really didn't want to fight? Sounds kinda contradictory.
Anyway, I can't really find a point here, other than that Spain had the advantage. Which was my point anyway.

Agreed. I don't hate the Aztecs. Quite the contrary, they're awesome, and I could probably make quite the list of things I love about them. However, saying they were militarily better than the Spanish is delusional.

On the European thingamagig, at the time, there were no "Americans" (who were quite content on intentionally spread diseases like the ones the Spanish accidently managed to spread), the Africans were incapable of reaching the New World and China had no interest in international affairs, as usual. I don't really see where the European cough thingy comes from.

Also, are you saying while it wasn't about the heart, they still ripped them out for apparently no reason, and were still sacrificing humans, while they coulld've kept them alive, and still have sacrificed the blood? If anything that makes them look even worse. Heck, it even seems to me like you don't mind them ripping out hearts of people
The Europeans (by far not all of them, dare I even say a minority) at the time were very cruel indeed, but they hardly went as far as ripping out people's hearts frequently, ust for the blood.

The Spanish were not better than the Spanish. They were exactly the same as the Spanish. Even better, the Spanish were the Spanish. I've never claimed the Spanish were magical wonders. They ordered the murder of millions of those who might've been my ancestors because they didn't follow the same Christian teachings as the one the Spanish had. Now, I'm not a very patriotic or nationalistic person, nor do I care who was my great-great-great-...-greatgrandfather, but that's just sickening.

Pointing out flaws is how a discussion or debate works. Saying you shouldn't is like saying you should play football (as in soccer) without using your feet.

They were impressive indeed, but not better. The Egyptians and prehistoric man didn't use animals to move giant rocks and blocks that weighed tons. I don't know how far the Aztec aqueducts could go, but the Roman systems are found all over Europe, in some of the weirdest locations.

I think you know what I'm about to say now. However, I'm way too lazy for that, so I hope you still remember the other two or three times I've said it.

Which is ironically exactly what Cortez did.

It is genocide, you can hardly deny that. The population was purposely wiped out, due to the natural resources and a few reactions of the natives.