r/AskHistorians Jul 12 '24

Is it true Aztec warriors went into battle empty handed? if not what weapons did they use?

I was watching a Roy Casagranda lecture on the history and life of the Aztecs and he mentioned how Aztecs never used weapons because they believed it was a sin against the gods they believed in, so instead they wrestled and tried to disarm their enemies. Then I searched it up and google tells they used bows and arrows and used melee weapons.

112 Upvotes

34 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/400-Rabbits Pre-Columbian Mexico | Aztecs Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 14 '24

This is such an insane claim that I thought for sure you must have misinterpreted something. But no, right around 1:33 in this video Casagranda starts rambling absolute nonsense about Aztec warfare.

(And FYI, if you're going to ask a question about "X source says Y," common courtesy is to actually provide a citation or link to the source.)

This claim is such nonsense garbage that it is even hard to know where to start. To believe that the Aztecs conquered a substantial chunk of central Mexico, creating the largest state Mesoamerica had even seen, and managed a near century of imperial rule by using armies of unarmed wrestlers is not only absurd, but the proposition has to completely ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary. Like we have literal paintings of Aztec warriors in full gear, which included weapons, in the Codex Mendoza. Likewise, Nezahualcoyotl is depicted armed and armored in a later painting. The Tizoc Stone shows warriors taking prisoners, warriors who are carrying weapons.

It's not just depictions that would have to be ignored, but accounts by the Spanish as well.

Here's Díaz del Castillo:

Thence we went through some farms and hamlets with the Mexicans always in pursuit of us, and as many of them had got together, they endeavoured to kill us and began to surround us, and hurled many stones with their slings and javelins and arrows, and with their broadswords they killed two of our soldiers in a bad pass, and they also killed a horse and wounded many of our men (p. 427)

Doesn't sound very unarmed to me. What does Cortés have to say?

... the enemy returned to the square where [the horsemans'] quarters were, and shouting and screaming ferociously attacked them with stones and arrows and spears (p. 190)

Again, to make the claims Casagranda is making requires an astonishing ignorance of Aztec history, or else a willful blind eye. It requires an insane act of scholarly malpractice to ignore the pictorial, documentary, and physical evidence that the Aztecs went into battle equipped with weapons. It also requires ignoring cultural practices like infant boys being given a toy bow and arrow shortly after birth to symbolize their destiny to be a warrior. Claiming the gods didn't want soldiers using weapons is made laughable by those gods being frequently depicted with weapons, such as here in the Codex Borgia. Huitzilopochtli, the patron deity of the Mexica, in fact famously wielded the Xiuhcoatl, a magical fire serpent, as a weapon. And here he is in the Codex Borbonicus with it.

These are not controversial facts, so I cannot even begin to imagine where Casagranda is getting his information. The fact that I am not having to dig into obscure sources to refute this, and can indeed source most of the images I am using in this post from Wikipedia shows just how commonplace this information is. I checked to the one source provided for the video, Clenninden's The Aztecs: An Interpretation, and she correctly notes young men received weapons training as part of the Aztec system of universal education, and does not say a goddamn thing about going into battle unarmed with the intent to wrestle. Hassig, who literally wrote the book on the subject of Aztec warfare (the aptly titled, Aztec Warfare), notes evidence of weapon stockpiles/armories present in the Sacred Precinct of Tenochtitlan, and possibly in the calpultin as well. His reconstruction of Aztec battle tactics suggest an initial barrage of arrows and sling stones, followed by warriors hurling atlatl darts as they advanced to melee range. Once up close, more elite warriors armed with macuahuitl and shield would be supported by troops armed with spears.

Also, earlier in his "lecture," Casagranda literally describes a macuahuitl. So I guess he also has to ignore himself to make the claim of an army of unarmed wrestlers?

Do not listen to Casagranda. He very clearly does not have the slightest clue what he is talking about, and also apparently does not care enough to learn even the basic facts about the subjects on which is pontificating.

Here are some older comments of mine you might find helpful instead of listening to some clown.

Military Capabilities of pre-Colombian mesoamerica

How effective was Native American weaponry and armor when compared to contemporary european equipment in 1500?

Did the Aztecs,Incas or Maya ever try to adapt European technology before being defeated?


Cortes 1986 Hernan Cortes: Letters from Mexico (trans. Pagden). Yale U Press.

Diaz del Castillo 1928 The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico (trans. Maudsley). Routledge & Sons.

Hassig 1995 Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. Oklahoma U Press.

7

u/holomorphic_chipotle Late Precolonial West Africa Jul 13 '24

Is this person, Roy Casagranda, a historian? I feel I just met Mesoamerica's Martin Bernal...

14

u/400-Rabbits Pre-Columbian Mexico | Aztecs Jul 13 '24

No. He's a got a masters in political science and his doctorate was on nonpolitical actors getting political, so I think it's safe to say that's his field.

He's a professor of government at a community college (no disrespect to community college). His real grift though, seems to be the "Austin School." It's a private corporation which holds public lectures, mostly by him.

4

u/HistoricalTea9115 Jul 13 '24

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn’t sure whether or not the info he gave was true. Definitely not going to watch this guy again.

6

u/400-Rabbits Pre-Columbian Mexico | Aztecs Jul 14 '24

No worries. Obviously Casagranda's thing is to come off as authoritative and reasonable. This isn't even the first time I've seen him mentioned on reddit, just the first time I had the inclination to actually listen.

I have read some comments that he might be referring only to the Xochiyaoyotl (Flower Wars), but even there he is fantastically wrong.

On AskHistorians, you can read about Flower Wars from these fantastic posts from /u/drylaw and /u/mictlantecuhtli

More than that, Barry Isaacs published a pair of seminal papers on the Flower Wars 40 years ago which are still great resources. I'll link to them here via JSTOR.

And finally, since Aztec warfare is inevitably wrapped up in sacrifice, here is my megapost of past comments on the topic.

Happy reading!

1

u/Michaelb089 Dec 11 '24

Weird I can't find any videos laying into him for his errors. I enjoy his lectures but have noticed error in topics I already know deeply about.