general Aztecs vs Romans

[heavens-champion 1,907]

In a war between Aztecs and Romans, who would win?

[Raritas 6,820]

Despite existing 1000 years after the Romans, I think the Aztecs lacked the technology the Romans had at their disposal. The Romans were miles ahead of their time in terms of technology, battle tactics and warfare in general, and I think a legion of Roman soldiers would outmatch anything the Aztecs could throw at them, assuming they were fighting in a fair battleground.

[Hazard Time 1,127]

Considering the resources and tactics the Romans had at their disposal (Iron weapons and armor, cavalry, siege weapons, etc), the Aztecs (Stone weapons, no cavalry, no armor, no siege weapons) would have been far outmatched.  I can't say this with certainty, but I'd also be willing to say that the Romans were far more disciplined than the Aztecs.

[Once In A Blue Moon 896]

It depends on which era of the Roman empire (or republic) you are talking about, as its military structure, capabilities and battle tactics varied over the years.

 

Still, my money would be on the Romans pretty much regardless as they proved extremely innovative in their approach to problem-solving, be it straight roads or army logistics, and I think they would have adapted faster to the challenges that the Aztecs would have presented than the Aztecs did to the Romans. That said, I don't really know anything about the Aztecs (militarily at least) but without wheeled carts and beasts of burden I doubt that they could have provided the logistical support to their armies that the Romans did.    

 

 

 

assuming they were fighting in a fair battleground

 

Define 'fair.' The civilisations were so different that symmetric warfare (fighting with similar types of armies / units on both sides) simply wouldn't have happened. Much like many of the 'barbarians' the Romans fought, I suspect that the Aztecs would have adopted a more hit-and-run or guerrilla style of warfare if they couldn't beat the Roman heavy infantry directly.  

[Zyrael 1,473]

is this even a question? 

 

 

the aztecs were powerful in their local corner of the world around people just like them. They'd lose to virtually anyone else.

[Anneal 2,198]

Neither, because Han Dynasty China says hi.

[Raritas 6,820]

 

Define 'fair.' The civilisations were so different that symmetric warfare (fighting with similar types of armies / units on both sides) simply wouldn't have happened. Much like many of the 'barbarians' the Romans fought, I suspect that the Aztecs would have adopted a more hit-and-run or guerrilla style of warfare if they couldn't beat the Roman heavy infantry directly.  

 

I mean the terrain for example. If they fought in a jungle like area, the Aztecs would have an advantage because they are used to it, whereas the Roman's would have an advantage on flat ground, where their tactics can be deployed. But yeah, it's very unlikely the Aztec's would be able to beat Roman infantry in a normal battle, they're probably comparable to a lot of the barbarians throughout Europe at the time of the Roman Empire's domination