Who would win in an all out battle: The Roman Empire or the Aztecs?

Question

because I'm not sure.

Answer 1

No question about it -- the Romans would have slaughtered the Aztecs.

First, the Romans had horses, and the Aztecs didn't. Do you have any idea how much damage a massed cavalry charge can inflict on unprepared and poorly armed infinitry? It's not pretty.

Second, the Romans had advanced metal armor, and the Aztecs had none.

Third, the Romans had advanced war technologies like the short sword (Gladius), catapults, siege towers, crossbows, and on and on. The Aztecs had none.

And fourth, the Romans had advanced military stratagies. The Aztecs simply ran full speed ahead into their enemies. No style, no stratagy.

The Romans with their cavalry, armor, weaponry and stratagy would have ground the Aztecs to powder and blown them away.

With a few legions and a little time, Julius Caesar would have been master of all Meso-America. No doubt about it.

Answer 2

Most definitely the Romans. Their armor and organization of their army was far, far superior to the Aztecs who mostly ruled through fear of being sacrificed and brutality. The Romans built roads for their soldiers to travel on and gave people the lure of Roman citizenship. The Romans had better weapons than the Aztecs.

Answer 3

By every measurable standard, the Romans. Rome was a military society. Although individual Aztecs fancied themselves as warriors, as a society, they weren't particularly militaristic. The history of Rome is rife with wars of expansion. They were extremely organized, with a system of officers and enlisted soldiers that mirrors modern armies. They were also the first group to effectively employ combined arms warfare; artillery (archers, catapults, ballistas), heavy and light infantry, and cavalry. Not to mention that their numbers were quite vast as compared to the Aztecs. The average Aztec would appear to be an uncivilized, unorganized thug to the average Roman.

Answer 4

Stone age weapons (obsidian-bladed swords) vs. steel weaponry, armor, and cavalry? Not a contest. Romans win.

In a way, Rome DID battle the Aztec empire, Cortes was a descendant of Rome--Spanish culture is a "latin" culture, and one of his goals was the spread of Roman Catholicism.

Cortes had just 500 men, and he levelled an empire of millions. (Not to suggest that smallpox didn't make his job a LOT easier...)

Answer 5

I think that the Roman Empire would win.

Answer 6

hi there ,the answer to your question is contained in question,as such the roman empire at its peak could and would conquer almost at will .many millitary campaigns were fought to further the political ambitions of the prominent generals at the time (Cesar,Pompeii and trajan).moreover it is my opinion that roman millitary might would crush the aztecs ,incas, because they were similar to bronze age armies some 1200 yrs after rome fell ,hope this answers your question .

Answer 7

well there is no doubt,Romans would have crushed Aztecs,because their army was on the level that no other civilization could reach.also they had great strategies and excellent warriors,and they were always able to concur everything they wanted,so i think that Aztecs would have lost.

Answer 8

The Aztecs would have run at first sight of the Cavalry, if the smallpox had not got them first.

Answer 9

I think the Roman's would win.