Aztec pics!!!!

[Zenicetus]

To say that the superior weapons of the spanish had no effect it lunacy, it had the utmost greatest efect in battle, and I hope CA demonstrates this in battle as any European country of the time should have a massive advantage in atach power ratio.

I don't know about "massive advantage," and I hope CA doesn't overdo that aspect. It's still basically hand-to-hand combat for the most part, and the Aztecs were a very tough society. They were at war constantly with their neighbors, so their men were experienced in combat. They based military ranks on how many captives each man had taken in battle. With the combination of physical toughness, combat experience, and a huge advantage in numbers, they shouldn't be a pushover. The conquistadors were very lucky that things played out as they did, historically.

P.S. on a different topic -- another thing I'm a little worried about is the terrain modeling. I hope most battles are in open areas, which wouldn't be a-historical for Mexico. That place isn't all jungle; in fact the jungle is only around Yucatan and the southern states like Chiapas. I hated fighting inside the "forests" in RTW due to camera problems, and I doubt that CA has been able to make that work better. Unless there is some kind of option to visually remove the tree canopy, I don't think jungle combat will be much fun with this game engine.

[Favre]

I forget the exact numbers or exact battle, but I remmeber reading about a battle where only about 150 Spaniards were encircled by about 2500 unarmed aztecs.


You would think that Numbers alone - whether armed or not should confer some sort of advantage :/


Roughly 10 or 15 Spaniards i think were bludgeoned to death whilst thousands of Aztecs lie dead, wounded, and routed. To get killed by a Wodden stick or a sharp piece of rock is much harder than to be killed by iron.

Besides, you could probably suffer multiple punctures by sharp wood, wheras one solid jab is all it takes via iron. All in all, I'd say Technology was a huge factor, as was disease.

[Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom]

It doesent matter what anybody debates; the facts are that Iron, cavalry, and guns-especially would confer the Europeans a "huge" advantage. Not only were natives very naive, (one situation they brought all of their nobles and king to a meeting with unknown spaniards, and got all nobles killed and their king captured--- Battle of Cajamarca, with Francesco Pizzaro and 168 spanish soldiers VS. 80,000 mostly lightly armed indians. Ending with 7000 dead indians and the rest fleeing from 'cavalry' and 0 dead spanish. ) but they also were scared of the gun, and its effects. The best weapons they had were obsidian and these barely even did half the damage a stab from a well placed metal sword would confer. Although the Spanish were lucky in there exploration and anihilation of the south and central american populations, they won many decisive victories against the savage aztecs, and mayans which would ultimately result with their conquering of both civizations capitals.
So if for example in Medieval Total War 2, you go to central america as the English, and bring with you armored cavalry, armored musket men, basicaly anything armored (even profesional bowmen, which the central americans lacked. The best armor they had was wooden shields, and linen) you would find it quite easy to smash the basicaly unarmored aztecs and conquer land.
This A-HISTORICAL, logical, and scientific ratio in technological strength must be represented in the game. Sure you can argue that the aztecs were fierce (which they were) and that they were organized (which they also were), in the big scheme of warfare this independent bravery would have fared well in a different time, maybe around 500 B.C. to 1000 A.D, but against guns, and armies relying more on technology, skill became less of an issue ( it doesent take much to learn to aim and fire a musket, while swords and such take years or at least months to become basicly proficent with.) No matter what way you look at it or argue about it the technology employed by most European countries of the time would leave the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, and most other native north or south american civilizations at a massive disadvantage, especially in a full scale war, which is what most people will be partaking in if they wish to be succesfull in America. Battles against the aztecs should be easy, especialy for an experieced and tacticaly mided general. It doesent matter what tactics the Aztecs employ theyl have a hard time beating armored swordsman with wooden weapons .---will wood even ountire iron armor--no.

[Incongruous]

Uuuh as I said The Maya were wiped out on the 13th century.

You are thinking of Azteks and Incas.
And as you said, the Europeans due to their cavalry and guns were conferred a huge advantage, but their biological weapons (disease) caused havoc.
`

[R'as al Ghul]

Don't talk nonsense.

Nonsense? I may have phrased it a bit strong and made the impression that the European weaponry wasn't superior, grant you that, but it sure is no nonsense that diseases killed most of the mesoamerican people.
From Wikipedia for your education:

Spanish conquest
Main article: Spanish conquest of Mexico

The empire reached its height during Ahuitzotl's reign. His successor was Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin (better known as Moctezuma II), who was Hueyi Tlatoani when the Spaniards arrived in 1519. After a long battle and the siege of the capital, Tenochtitlan, where much of the population died from hunger and smallpox, Cuauhtémoc surrendered to Hernán Cortés, who had an estimated 500 Spanish soldiers and thousands of allies from Tlaxcala and Texcoco, who were resisting Aztec rule. Tenochtitlan's forces were defeated on August 13, 1521.

The fall of Tenochtitlan usually is referred to as the main episode in the process of the conquest of Mesoamerica. Accounts of the Spanish conquest of Mexico often stop with the fall of Tenochtitlan and leave the reader to assume that the rest of the conquest was quick and easy. However, the process of conquering Mesoamerica was much more complex and took longer than the three years that it took Cortés to conquer Tenochtitlan. It took almost 60 years of wars for the Spaniards to conquer Mesoamerica (Chichimeca wars), a process that could have taken longer were it not for three separate epidemics that took a heavy toll on the Native American population. The Spanish conquest of Yucatán took almost 170 years.

Most of the Mesoamerican cultures were intact after the fall of Tenochtitlan. The freedom from Aztec domination may have been considered a positive development by most of the other cultures. The upper classes of the Aztec empire were considered as noblemen. They learned Spanish, and several learned to write in Roman characters. Some of their surviving writings are crucial to our knowledge of the Aztecs. In addition, the first missionaries tried to learn Nahuatl and some, like Bernardino de Sahagún, set out to learn as much as they could of the Aztec culture. All this changed rapidly and eventually, the Indians were forbidden to study by law and had the status of minors.
[edit]

Population decline

Main article: Population history of American indigenous peoples

The first epidemic, an outbreak of smallpox (cocoliztli) occurred in 1520 and 1521, decimated the population of Tenochtitlan and was decisive in the fall of the city. Two more epidemics, of smallpox (1545-1548) and typhus (1576-1581) killed up to 75% of the population of Mesoamerica. The Spaniards, trying to make more of the diminishing population, merged the survivors from small towns into the bigger ones. This broke the power of the upper classes and dissolved the coherence of the indigenous society. Collected in larger towns, the people were more susceptible to epidemics due to the higher population density.

The population before the time of the conquest is estimated at 15 million; by 1550, the estimated population was 4 million and by 1581 less than two million. Thus, the "New Spain" of the 17th century was a depopulated country and many Mesoamerican cultures were wiped out. Because of the fall of their social structure, the population had to resort to the Spanish to maintain some order. In order to have an adequate supply of labor, the Spaniards began to import black slaves; most of them eventually merged with the local population.

I wouldn't call 75% kiled by diseases a side-effect or a bonus.
It was the main factor.

R'as

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Uuuh as I said The Maya were wiped out on the 13th century.

You are thinking of Azteks and Incas.
And as you said, the Europeans due to their cavalry and guns were conferred a huge advantage, but their biological weapons (disease) caused havoc.
`

Mate the Mayays around the Yucatan peninsula fought very successful battles against the spanish in the 16 the and 17th centuries. They were the first to realise the strenght in the spanish cavalry and would use terrain, forest and ambush to achieve victories. The lasy Maya stronghold did fall to the late 18th century, 1761 and tribal warriors revolted long into the 19th century.

The death total of the indians in Central America was well into the millions. Although estimates say between 5-15 million the number may have been even bigger. Some say more than 20 million

Although the spanish advantage were in armour, tactics, the horse and gunpowder don't think that 600 men conquered Mexico. There were thousands of native warriors involved on the spanish side in the final siege of technochitilan around 70 thousand and whose barbarity in the final siege was arguebaly worse than anything the spanish had did before that point.

[Watchman]

It was the main factor in depopulating about the whole damn continent (if nothing else there simply weren't enough Europeans around to genocide everybody, and why'd they have done that to their future subjects and workforce anyway?). There's about two main factors as to why the Conquistadors were able to dismantle majoe empires with such apparent ease in such rather short time with so few men.

Weaponry and politics. The two partly go together.

For example, when Cortez and his merry men first came into Aztec lands they numbered something like 100-150 close-combat infantry (mainly sword-and-buckler men; neither their numbers, background nor the campaign conditions were too conductive for pikemen), some arquebusieurs and crossbowmen (mainly useful as officer-hunting "snipers" - their weapons were total overkill against the lightly equipped natives as well as too slow firing and too few in number to have any real impact on the actual rank-and-file), a handful of cavalry (extremely useful, both for their speed and their combat power), and a few cannons which actually had enough psychological impact to be useful in open battles and were quite valuable for sieges. Gunpowder supply as well as remounts were naturally problematic.

These few hundred men were able to fight off full Aztec armies a few times with minimal casualties. After that the Azzies' local opposition and disgruntled vassals were suitably impressed to revolt and cheerfully reinforce them with their own armies. Things were somewhat similar with the Incas who had internal dynastic disputes (as well as general anarchy and social distruptions brought about by the new plagues running amuck), which Pizarro and crew were only too happy to exploit. The Mayas were long past their prime at the time; IIRC they were reduced to a confederation of city-states - which actually made them a pain to conquer, as they had no "head" to decapitate like the more centralized empires.

The fact is, in hand to hand the Conquistador swordsmen were practically invincible against the native line infantry. The armour helped of course; volcanic glass isn't exactly the prime material to try to penetrate good steel cuirasses and helmets with. But the big difference was in the weapon. Given their background and constraints imposed by the materials the local weapons were actually very good - after all, the locals had been fighting each other with them for a long time and had naturally developed them to a high degree of functionality. They just plain couldn't measure up against the Early Modern cut-and-thrust steel swords in about anything. The Euro swords were simply too fast, agile and lethal for the somewhat clumsy sword-clubs to compete aghainst (native officers who aquired metal swords, either as loot or as gifts from allies, were noted to be able to fight as well as the Conquistadors). The glass-edged weapons weren't all that good at actually quickly taking out enemies either, being saddled with the usual issues of slashing weapons as well as having their ability to cut deep limited by the necessities of their construction and materials, and tending to have some trouble getting through the thick quilt armour commonly worn by local warriors. In comparision the metal cut-and-thrust blades could drop a man with a single quick thrust that simply went right through the textile armour like it wasn't there.

By this time European tactics had also developed to the point where true small-unit cohesion was the norm. Although few of the Conquistadors actually had military background, they nonetheless drew from the same corpus of know-how and seem to have been able to operate as extremely well-knit groups in combat.

The armoured lancers were simply unfair. Not only were they faster than the best runners and messengers the natives had, they could also simply plow through the infantry lines with virtual impunity. So long as they kept in formation so that a single rider could not be swarmed and overwhelmed by numerous enemies they were essentially untouchable, and could penetrate the lines of the native armies practically at will. The psychological effect of this alone would have more than made up for their vanishingly small numbers. Had the Conquests taken longer the native armies would no doubt have figured out the tactics and tools required to stop heavy shock cavalry (read as massed spearmen and pikes) and indeed displayed considerable ingenuity in improvising countermeasures; as it was they collapsed before the tide could be turned.

There's some pretty interesting and detailed discussions online on just how the Heck the apparent miracles of the Conquistadors' exploits worked in practice. I can dig them up if someone wants to.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

It was the main factor in depopulating about the whole damn continent (if nothing else there simply weren't enough Europeans around to genocide everybody, and why'd they have done that to their future subjects and workforce anyway?). There's about two main factors as to why the Conquistadors were able to dismantle majoe empires with such apparent ease in such rather short time with so few men.

Weaponry and politics. The two partly go together.

For example, when Cortez and his merry men first came into Aztec lands they numbered something like 100-150 close-combat infantry (mainly sword-and-buckler men; neither their numbers, background nor the campaign conditions were too conductive for pikemen), some arquebusieurs and crossbowmen (mainly useful as officer-hunting "snipers" - their weapons were total overkill against the lightly equipped natives as well as too slow firing and too few in number to have any real impact on the actual rank-and-file), a handful of cavalry (extremely useful, both for their speed and their combat power), and a few cannons which actually had enough psychological impact to be useful in open battles and were quite valuable for sieges. Gunpowder supply as well as remounts were naturally problematic.

These few hundred men were able to fight off full Aztec armies a few times with minimal casualties. After that the Azzies' local opposition and disgruntled vassals were suitably impressed to revolt and cheerfully reinforce them with their own armies. Things were somewhat similar with the Incas who had internal dynastic disputes (as well as general anarchy and social distruptions brought about by the new plagues running amuck), which Pizarro and crew were only too happy to exploit. The Mayas were long past their prime at the time; IIRC they were reduced to a confederation of city-states - which actually made them a pain to conquer, as they had no "head" to decapitate like the more centralized empires.

The fact is, in hand to hand the Conquistador swordsmen were practically invincible against the native line infantry. The armour helped of course; volcanic glass isn't exactly the prime material to try to penetrate good steel cuirasses and helmets with. But the big difference was in the weapon. Given their background and constraints imposed by the materials the local weapons were actually very good - after all, the locals had been fighting each other with them for a long time and had naturally developed them to a high degree of functionality. They just plain couldn't measure up against the Early Modern cut-and-thrust steel swords in about anything. The Euro swords were simply too fast, agile and lethal for the somewhat clumsy sword-clubs to compete aghainst (native officers who aquired metal swords, either as loot or as gifts from allies, were noted to be able to fight as well as the Conquistadors). The glass-edged weapons weren't all that good at actually quickly taking out enemies either, being saddled with the usual issues of slashing weapons as well as having their ability to cut deep limited by the necessities of their construction and materials, and tending to have some trouble getting through the thick quilt armour commonly worn by local warriors. In comparision the metal cut-and-thrust blades could drop a man with a single quick thrust that simply went right through the textile armour like it wasn't there.

By this time European tactics had also developed to the point where true small-unit cohesion was the norm. Although few of the Conquistadors actually had military background, they nonetheless drew from the same corpus of know-how and seem to have been able to operate as extremely well-knit groups in combat.

The armoured lancers were simply unfair. Not only were they faster than the best runners and messengers the natives had, they could also simply plow through the infantry lines with virtual impunity. So long as they kept in formation so that a single rider could not be swarmed and overwhelmed by numerous enemies they were essentially untouchable, and could penetrate the lines of the native armies practically at will. The psychological effect of this alone would have more than made up for their vanishingly small numbers. Had the Conquests taken longer the native armies would no doubt have figured out the tactics and tools required to stop heavy shock cavalry (read as massed spearmen and pikes) and indeed displayed considerable ingenuity in improvising countermeasures; as it was they collapsed before the tide could be turned.

There's some pretty interesting and detailed discussions online on just how the Heck the apparent miracles of the Conquistadors' exploits worked in practice. I can dig them up if someone wants to.

I read into the spanish conquest of the Inca emipre and the arrogance of the cavalry was extraordinary. I read one account during the revolt of Manco Inca where an Inca warband numbering in the hundreds was attacked by three mounted spaniards and held them off till reinforcements arrived.

Although i do not discount the conquistadors bravery there brutality was beyond belief in their conquest of the americas. Yes we know the Aztecs were a brutal people, subjected the native tribes to pain and torment but the Inca and Maya civilisations should not be compared to the Aztec one as it differed in culture and religion practise.

I also believe they grossly overstimated indian numbers once battle was joined

[R'as al Ghul]

Hello Watchman,

thanks for all the info. It's appreciated and afaik all valid.
I don't want to engage into any major dispute here.
My initial post was a reaction to post #20 where the impression was made by a patron, that a few hundred conquistadores "steamrolled" millions of Indios in open battle, which is clearly wrong. I felt compelled to adjust this view.

We also seem to agree on the point that, if it weren't for the diseases, the Indios might have sooner or later defeated the conquistadores with their sheer mass of people and perhaps the one or other new tactic.



R'as

[Furious Mental]

Oops?

[Husar]

Didn´t read the whole thread, but my German magazine from the beginning of March says what units they are.

First are Jaguar warriors and second are Coyote-priests it says...

[Viking]

Haha...that`s the silliest units I`ve ever seen; but since they`re (or supposed to be) historically accurate, noone will complain.

[Taurus]

It does look like a fancy dress party but they do look awesome.

[Watchman]

The Landsknechts could take the Native Americans on in equal terms over the title of Most Garishly Dressed To Kill Ever, but otherwise I suspect there's few serious competitors. The standard aristocratic gaudiness just doesn't cut it in comparision.

[Zenicetus]

Although the spanish advantage were in armour, tactics, the horse and gunpowder don't think that 600 men conquered Mexico. There were thousands of native warriors involved on the spanish side in the final siege of technochitilan around 70 thousand and whose barbarity in the final siege was arguebaly worse than anything the spanish had did before that point.

I think that's the critical point in the argument; it wasn't just a few Spaniards wandering around alone. The allied tribes were hugely important. Which raises a question. Will this be modeled in the game? Or will whatever faction reaches Mesoamerica first, be fighting alone with no local allies?

[econ21]

I think that's the critical point in the argument; it wasn't just a few Spaniards wandering around alone. The allied tribes were hugely important. Which raises a question. Will this be modeled in the game? Or will whatever faction reaches Mesoamerica first, be fighting alone with no local allies?

I hope there are severe logistical limitations on the number of Europeans who can be transported to America (and no recruitment of said troops there). The TW system for hiring mercs could handle the allies.

[The Stranger]

Eagles... I think.

yes they represent eagles and are special units. they did reconnaisance behind enemy lines and you need to capture atleast 4 men in battle to become part of this elite

[Unforgivable-Fenrir]

That looks really cool, i hope you can play as them MTW 2. But i wonder, where did they find that many feathers. It would of been easier just to run around naked like all the other indians.

[Myrddraal]

Heh, needs to be more dirty. The costumes look like they just got out of the dryer and were ironed. Some rips, dirt, maybe a little blood would make it seem more realistic.

Remember that in MII TW units will get bloodier and more battered as the battle goes on...

[Sir Robin]

This is my main concern with stretching the game past the fall of Constantinople and into the New World era.

How can they possibly model, gameplay-wise, the massive upheavals caused by the Europeans invasion of the Americas?

First, you have the biological disruption with the introduction of European diseases.

Second, you have the significant technological disparity.

Third, you have the political turmoil with many protectorates/allies/subjugated tribes siding with the Europeans against their former masters.

As a medieval era fan I would greatly prefer that the focus be kept on the European/Middle Eastern region. Not getting that wish, comon mods , hopefully CA will be able to implement this without having to lead my faction through dozens of battles where I do nothing but slaughter.

I do not want to spend hours slaughtering all of their reinforcements piecemeal since there is a limit on how many soldiers can be "fighting" at the same time no matter how many stacks they have me surrounded with.

[Constantinius]

Are you kidding me? Although disease did take the greatest toll on native life, The battles that did take place were utter slaugters. The Aztecs, and Mayans had never seen Horses before, add to that the fact that The Spanish had noisy, and smoky guns, along with heavy metal armor, and iron swords in comparison to the mainly wooden and obsidian weapons of the aztecs and mayans and you see that they were ata n extreme diadvantage. To say that the superior weapons of the spanish had no effect it lunacy, it had the utmost greatest efect in battle, and I hope CA demonstrates this in battle as any European country of the time should have a massive advantage in atach power ratio.

It is estimated that more than 1/4 to 1/3 of all American Indians died due to disease. Numbers are hard to come by, but this is not some random quess. Plus, when the spanish attacked the Aztec, they had literally TENS of THOUSANDS of native allies like the tlaxcala who were more than eager to throw off the oppressive Aztec leadership. When battles took place at first, the Aztec usually ran away b/c of the noise and horses, but they (like all humans) adapted, and learned to stand apart from each other to minimize the effects of cannon, and to carry spears into battle to stop the horses.
*Maybe CA could have the armies of europe be in a constant state of 'winded' for any battle fought in America for a few turns, and maybe that would encourage the use of Native allies who would not be 'winded'. they would provide the skirmish help that they historically did, and i think this would help add a little realism to the conquest of America.

[Casmin]

Ok we are all pretty much aware that disease killed the most Native Americans. However, on the battlefield the Europeans cleaned house.

And to the guy who quoted Wikipedia, it's not the bible...very far from it. Be sure to cross-reference stuff you read on Wikipedia because it's not the most reliable site.

[Husar]

This is my main concern with stretching the game past the fall of Constantinople and into the New World era.

How can they possibly model, gameplay-wise, the massive upheavals caused by the Europeans invasion of the Americas?

First, you have the biological disruption with the introduction of European diseases.

Second, you have the significant technological disparity.

Third, you have the political turmoil with many protectorates/allies/subjugated tribes siding with the Europeans against their former masters.

As a medieval era fan I would greatly prefer that the focus be kept on the European/Middle Eastern region. Not getting that wish, comon mods , hopefully CA will be able to implement this without having to lead my faction through dozens of battles where I do nothing but slaughter.

Well, you could just as well argue that you won´t see a siege of Constantinople if the egyptian player wipes out the Turks and in the end, you will be watching a movie instead of playing a game.

[R'as al Ghul]

And to the guy who quoted Wikipedia, it's not the bible...very far from it. Be sure to cross-reference stuff you read on Wikipedia because it's not the most reliable site.

It's not? What a complete and utter surprise.

[Orda Khan]

I seriously don't think anyone can have any complaints on how these guys turned out.

My complaint is that I would not include them in a Mediaeval game.

Jaguars are black. The skin they are wearing is that of a leopard.

Correction, Panthers are black. Both Jaguar and Leopard are similarly coloured though the Jaguar has a central spot in the rosette markings of its coat and it is also a heavier built animal

.........Orda

[Kralizec]

Jaguars are black. The skin they are wearing is that of a leopard.

Jaguars definitely look like that. Leopards are an indigenous animal of Africa, and can be either spotted or black (actually the blacks one have spots too, but they're less visible). Jaguars are more strongly built and have slightly different spots.

EDIT: didn't notice Orda's post :-/

[Tiberius maximus]

I think that the player should be able to land only a small number of troops in the New World and should be able to train only native auxiliaries. There should also be big penalties for wearing heavy armour, fighting in pike hedges or from horseback and using missile weapons in jungle. This would prevent the Aztecs simply being steam rollered by thousands of musketeers, cannon, pikemen, armoured knights etcetera.

As far as pelts go jaguars can be both black and speckled.

i totally agree with this otherwise the aztecs will just be another push over faction and i wouldnt like that

[Avicenna]

I think the second picture might be coyote costume, infact i'm sure of it. The warriors would often have coyote, eagle or Jaguar costume in battle.

Coyotes? Aren't those from Australia?

Anyhow, the Jaguar and Eagle warriors were the two most prestigious warrior groups.

They are kind of full time as well, as they regularly provoked wars with the neighbouring states, to capture enemies to be sacrificed to the Sun (forgot its name) who demanded that others sacrificed themselves if they wanted him to move. That caused many of the other natives to ally with the Spaniards, as the Aztecs were hated for the short period of time that they were in power.

@Favre: They don't stab the Spaniards with wood like you say. They had obsidian blades on their weapons, which are incredibly sharp, smooth black rocks. Also, it's not that the Aztecs as a whole were stupid. You can blame Moctezuma. Also, it would be like having Jesus come back again for Christians. According to their religion, the god Quetzalcotl (spelling?) had left after teaching their civilisation the basics, such as farming and writing, and then had sailed off, to return much later. Hernan Cortez seemed to fit the description, being white, having a mount (Aztecs wouldn't know what dragons looked like, and Quetzalcotl could change mounts I guess) and having funny things that they've never seen before. The horses were not just important due to their military role, they had no horses in America, so these inspired awe. They also didn't have much metal apart from Gold, and these here Europeans come dressed up in steel and led by what seemed to be a god. You can't just say they were stupid because they had no clue. Also, that massacre was a cheap tactic. The Aztecs and Spaniards had met for a discussion, and then they Spaniards had just pulled out their weapons and butchered them. The Aztecs were ordered not to attack by Moctezuma himself, so they had no choice. Steel wasn't always in the favour of the Spaniards though, since one time, when they were attacked at night, stranded on the island-city of Tenochtitlan, and the bridges partly dismantled, many Spaniards drowned because of the heavy armour. It was also the first occurence of a person pole-vaulting

Another major thing was smallpox. If I'm correct, it wiped out most of the Aztec population.

DISCLAIMER: This is all from my memory from books I have read years ago, so it might not be entirely correct, especially my last fact.

[Gealai]

I have to agree. The battles of the wellarmored Spaniards against Indians of a all kind usually turned into a bloodbath. I will try to find some historic sources, I already have some in mind.

Heavily armored lancers with pistols against stone-axe wielding warriors

[Avicenna]

They're more swords than axes. The Spaniards also tended to use pistols/riles/cannons more than lances. If they used melee weapons, it tended to be swords.