An Aztec game

 

The first draft of my Aztec Game is now done.  Wounds and different coloured dice proved to be the way in.  

I use a single colour dice for all Spanish troops and dice of two contrasting colours for all Amerindian units.  The contrast indicating elite or ordinary warriors. 

As an example, a unit of 16 Tlaxcalans gets 8 red dice for its front rank elite warriors and 8 white dice for its archers. Yellow and blue dice for the Aztecs. Easy enough to remember.

How does it work? Wounds and kills reduce a units fighting dice allocation. Armour helps prevent loss. Killing horses or riders and taking prisoners generate extra dice.  It is a simple enough system.

What’s it like?  Well Spanish cavalry are deadly but have to take care.  You can use them in realistically small numbers too.

The units follow what we know.  A sprinkle of missile troops with the swordsmen for the Spanish.  I’ve simplified the Aztec units into two rank affairs, front elite, the back not. Each Aztec unit is also accompanied by a small number of non close fighting skirmishers.  Should you wish, more complex options would also work.

Prisoner taking is done and dusted to my satisfaction.  It has consequences for both sides. Losing your heart after a dance isn’t a metaphor in this game.

It is a card driven game, with a special card each for Aztecs, Tlaxcalans and Spanish.  There is no figure removal and D6 are used throughout.  Any basing system will work.

In short, I’m pleased.   

Let me take you through two combat match ups and you can see what you think.

Three Spanish cavalry figures attack a 16 figure Aztec unit. One Spaniard hangs back in case a rescue is needed.  As the Spanish charge in, the Aztec front rank uses it’s Atl-Atl. One of the cavalry men is wounded but both charge home. The Aztec officer is killed and, in the furious fighting, so is a Spanish horse. The third rider swoops in and rescues his dismounted comrade.

The Aztecs lose 2 dice for their killed commander but gain 1 dice for killing the horse.  They have also used one of their two Atl-Atl shots.  The rescued Spaniard is dropped off with nearest Spanish infantry unit which consequently gains an extra dice. He has now become an infantryman.

Does this sound like Bernal's account?  Pretty much.

Both units are still in the game.  The Spanish feel they have been unlucky - which they were. Two out of three times they would have killed and retired intact.  It could have been worse, had they lost both horse and rider the Aztecs would have come off best.

Here is another one match up.

A unit of Aztec Priests sets out to tackle a unit of Tlaxcalans.  Half the Tlaxcalans are archers and they shoot up the Aztecs.  The elite front rank Aztecs are protected by their armour (Saving throws can apply) but some of the second rank are wounded.  The Aztec units lose a dice and continue to advance.

At close range the Aztecs are shot up again.  This time with both arrows and Atl-Atl (More deadly) from the front rank Tlaxcalan elite warriors. The Aztecs lose another 4 dice.  Their own Atl-Atl inflict a loss of two dice.

The Tlaxcalans now fight at a disadvantage.  Only their front rank is equipped and trained for close combat.  Outnumbered, they get the worse of it and are pushed back losing a prisoner in the process.

The Tlaxcalans began with 8 elite combat dice and now have only 2.  The archers still have all their 8 dice. The unit now needs to avoid close combat.

The Aztec Priests began with 8 elite combat dice and 8 other dice. They lost 4 elite and 1 other dice to missiles and combat. Now they have 7 other dice and 6 elite combat dice having gained 2 such dice for capturing a prisoner.

Both units are still in the game.  The remaining elite warriors of both units only have one Atl-Atl shot left.

That is where I have got to and I still don't have a title.  Should you have wondered, 5 sides of A4 so far. 

Early days then, but not without promise.

As to the toys, my Minifig's Aztecs are decades old and could do with a refurbishment.  I have a newer contingent from Naismith and Gladiator.  These two happily are very compatible with each other. I'll have some pic's for our next Aztec outing.

Why The Aztecs Lost

Why did the Aztecs lose?  The short answer is encapsulated in Jared Diamond’s pithy phrase Guns, Germs and Steel.  There was more to it than that. Above Tenochtitlan, the Spanish had seen nothing like it.

Let me begin by saying Cortez never faced the full strength of the Aztec Empire.  Had he done so he would have ended up stretched on the altar stone of the Great Temple.  That he did not is down to a number of factors, all of them Aztec related.

The Aztecs were not popular with their neighbours and didn’t see any need to be.  Consequently, when Cortez arrived, he was able to recruit whole armies of non- Aztecs.  All of them fully committed to destroying the Aztec State. 

Moctezuma (pictured above and below) equivocated on how to deal with the Spanish.  He tried bribery, he tried proxy war, he probably intended treachery.  We should understand that he would have been fully briefed on the Spanish, their conduct and intentions. 

Did he think they were returning gods?  I doubt it. The correct response would have been to mobilise everything he had and march on them.  This he failed to do.

Fatally, he allowed Cortez into Tenochtitlan with his whole army. It may be that he thought they would be easier destroyed there.  Indeed, when it came to it the Spanish did have a very hard time fighting in Tenochtitlan. They were driven out with heavy casualties.  By then it didn’t matter to Moctezuma for he was dead.

There were consequences to Moctezuma decision.

First the Spanish immediately took him prisoner rendering him a puppet Emperor.

Second deadly disease entered the city.

Third the Spanish took the occasion of a festival dance to mass murder most of the unarmed Aztec officer class.

Fourth the Spanish found out that the Aztecs were rich beyond dreams of avarice.  Gold rich, that is.  Spanish motivation, never lacking, abounded.

Moctezuma was killed during a riot either by the Spanish or his own people.  Once he was gone the Aztecs rose against the Spanish.  Let us now consider how they stood.

They needed a new Emperor and got one, Cuitláhuac, unfortunately he was already infected with small pox. He reigned a short time and died.  Before doing so he presumably set the resistance in motion. The Aztecs were to have a succession problem.

His successor was Cuauhtemoc a thoroughly able man. Today he is a Mexican national hero. Moctezuma by comparison seems mainly to be associated with stomach disorders.  

The Aztec military assembled.  Most of its leadership was dead. All ranks were sick or shortly to be so. Key allies decided to sit it out.  It was not the army Moctezuma had inherited.

These disadvantages notwithstanding the Aztecs walloped the Spanish and their allies. The Spanish called their retreat from Tenochtitlan the Night of Sorrows.  The slaughter was considerable.

The Spanish and their allies would be back.  The Aztecs simply lacked the strength to finish the job. Try as they might.   They had lost too many men and were losing more by the day.  Once they had boasted that they let Tlaxcala survive purely as a source of war prisoners for sacrifice. Tlaxcala endures yet.

Tenochtitlan fell after a most valiant defence. It was mainly destroyed in the process.  There is much to the Guns, Germs and Steel argument, especially if you add horses.  Even so, it is not hard to envisage how different decisions by Moctezuma could have produced other results.

For a moment let us imagine an early decisive Aztec victory. Fought outside of Tenochtitlan by a full strength Aztec Army. The Spanish dead or captured. Their Tlaxcala allies chastened in defeat and now ravaged by disease.  Perhaps too, civil war, for there was an anti-Spanish faction.

Disease, given Aztec prisoner practice, would have come to Tenochtitlan.  So though would have steel weapons, crossbows, metal armour and horses.   

Less centralised polities than the Aztecs managed to do an awful lot with those things.  

The last image on this page is by Diego Rivera.  If you don't know his work, check it out.  There is much to enjoy.

Spanish Lances and Flint blades

 

A while ago I wrote about the Spanish encounter with the Maya in Yucatan. If you would like read it click the Maya tag below.

Today we will see how Spanish cavalry fought the warriors of Tlaxcala.   We should note  that none of those warriors had ever seen a horse before let alone fought cavalry.  I want to have a closer look at how these interactions played out.

Our guide throughout is Bernal Diaz who was there and fighting in the infantry:

“Our cavalry was to gallop up three abreast, with lances fixed, and run the Indians full in the face.”

The target for such charges was the Tlaxcala commanders, easily recognisable from their banners and splendid war suits. 

The cavalry, moving faster than any Indian had ever seen, sought to drive their locked lances through the faces of the foe.  A killing blow. Formidable indeed.  The horsemen then rode off at speed, and turned, ready to repeat the deadly deed.

The Tlaxcala, to their immense credit, tended not to panic, at least not while their formation held. 

Sometimes things went wrong for the cavalry, on occasion fatally wrong.  Consider this encounter with an advance party of 30 Tlaxcala warriors:

“Cortes ordered some of our cavalry to go in among them, and try, if possible, to capture one, but not to inflict any wounds. These were followed at a distance by five others, to assist them should they fall into an ambush.”

There were 30 Indians “They had broad swords, which are used with both hands, the edges of which are made of hard flint, and are sharper than our steel swords. They were also armed with shields, lances, and had feathers stuck in their hair.”  I’d put the Spanish cavalry at 8 to 10 men.

The 30 Indians “Began to retreat slowly, and arranged themselves again in order, whenever our men attempted to take any of them prisoners. They defended themselves right valiantly with their swords and lances, wounding several of our horses. The blood of our men now also began to boil, who, in return, killed five of the Indians.”

Many more Indians appeared and the Spanish horsemen “Now immediately closed their ranks.” before retiring.  This tells us the had been making discrete repeat charges at individual targets in the style outlined above.  The Spanish could not expect to replace lost horses and no Caballero yearned to join the infantry.  Perhaps the horsemen could have prevailed against odds of three to one.  I doubt they could have done so without seriously risking a dead horse.  The cost would have outweighed the benefit.

What happened next was "At that moment a swarm of more than 3000 Tlascallans rushed furiously from an ambush, pouring forth a shower of arrows upon our cavalry, who now immediately closed their ranks. At the same time we fired among them with our cannon, and so at last we obliged the enemy to give ground, though they fought bravely and with a good deal of manœuvring. On our side we had four wounded, of whom one died a few days after, if I still remember rightly. Seventeen of the enemy lay dead, and the number of their wounded was very considerable. As it was growing very late they continued to retreat, and we to follow them."

The Tlaxcalan rank and file was about two thirds archers as best as I can tell.  We can note that the advance party of thirty men do not use bows. Bernal only mentions their melee weapons.  This indicates that they were elite close fighting warriors appropriately tasked with the dangerous job of acting as bait. When the ordinary fellows arrive so do the arrows.   

The casualty ratio testifies to the Spanish advantages in weaponry.  All the same we can clearly see the Tlaxcalans fought in formation within a defined command and control system.  The cannon must have been a shock and one which could not be countered and so the Tlaxcalans withdrew out of range.

 Here is another encounter:

“The chief object of the enemy was to capture one of our horses, in which they did not altogether fail; for, as Pedro de Moron on his well-trained mare, attended by three others of our cavalry, was attempting to break through the enemy's ranks, the Indians wrenched the lance out of his hand, and fell furiously upon him with their broad swords, wounding him severely. They gave his mare such a terrific cut with the same weapon in the neck, that the animal instantly fell down dead. If Moron's three companions had not immediately hastened to his assistance, he would have shared his horse's fate; for this gave our whole company time to come up.”

Once again, we have a small group of cavalry who seek to break up the foe’s formation. 

Observe, the Tlaxcala are keen to fully understand the new threat posed by horsemen. Orders have been given to secure a horse. They are carried out regardless of danger.  Those so tasked understood what they needed to do to capture the horse.   

As it happened de Moron died of his wounds on the same day as his mount.

The bold section of the quotation above seems to have given rise to the idea that Indian flint or obsidian edged weapons could decapitate a horse.  That is not what Bernal tells us. Nor does any other contemporary account say so.  Horses could be and were killed but not by decapitation.

The Spanish were well aware of the risk to their precious horses and issued strict instructions to minimise it.  

“At the same time, they were to be particularly upon their guard that the enemy did not lay hold of the lances with their hands; should such, however, be the case, the rider was to keep the tighter hold of his lance, give his horse the spur, and either by a sudden jerk wrest it out of the enemy's grasp, or drag him along with it.”

 Furthermore:

 “It was also the particular duty of our cavalry not to leave each other in the lurch, always to attack in full gallop, and only aim at the face and eyes.”

We can see then how the Spanish used their cavalry.  It was with care and economy.

Subsequently, the Tlaxcala became allied to the Spanish.  The reasons for this are fully comprehensible.  Tlaxcala was locked into an existential struggle with the Aztecs and it was one they could not hope to win.  They could have wiped out the Spanish but then what?  The threat from Mexico remained and European diseases were already decimating the population.

  

They made a bargain that allowed for survival and marched for Tenochtitlan.  We see the allies above, note the Atl Atl darts and sling stones flying.  

Interestingly both sides considered themselves to be the senior partner.  Without Tlaxcala Cortez would not have prevailed in Mexico.  A subsequent bigger Spanish expedition of course might have done so regardless of the stance of Tlaxcala.

I was hoping to locate an image Tlaxcala warrior with a Spanish sword for this piece.  For such gifts were then made. Alas, I could not.  Post Conquest of Mexico such swords had to be returned.  This I think resolved the issue of who truly was the senior partner in the alliance.

The Indian with a Spanish sword was a recurring Spanish nightmare  as is well attested by the colonial legislation of New Spain.  We may have a closer look at this in another post.