What Are Slavic countries?

[Johannes]

Well he looks very Yugoslavic to me

By now it looks like it is a linguistic construct, but before people had motorized transportation, it was a time when language, ethnicity, blood, cultural phenomena, etc, were highly related.

Well, they probably did mix, just like most of other people (except for the isolates). Mixing helps refresh the DNA, and it's even desirable in a small amounts. Considering phenotype, do we have studies that confirm how does latitude makes impact on the same people after many generations?

Exactly: In fact that is what I was about to say in my last post but forgot -- Klitschko looks very "Balkan." In fact he could pass for Greek. The point is that Ukrainians have mixed with Turkish peoples, Greeks, Italians, Jews, and peoples from the Caucasus. The Serbs also the same. The have mixed with Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, but mostly with Illyrians. Illyrians are said to have been tall with dark hair. Is this true? Maybe Serbs are Illyrians???

 

[Tomenable]

in the beginning the Spanish Conquistadors wanted to exterminate the Indians

This is totally incorrect. Cortes was fascinated by Indian culture, just like Alexander the Great was by Persian.

And just like Alexander encouraged mixed Macedonian-Persian marriages, the same was done by Cortes.

Historian Ryszard Tomicki in his book "Tenochtitlan 1521" (in Polish) writes about the attitude of Hernan Cortes:

Page 222:

"(...) Cortes was behaving like a native Mexican hueytlatoani [Indian king] - he was surrounding himself with natives, starting from mistresses and midgets, ending on dignitaries; he was granting native nobility with lands and subjects, showering them with gifts and promises. (...)"

Cortes had a Native Mexican woman as his lover! - La Malinche (picture below shows Cortes with La Malinche):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche

 

[Tomenable]

BTW - Cortes could defeat the Aztec Empire ONLY thanks to Mexican support - he was supported by 150,000 native warriors.

And when I call them Mexicans, I am right. Those people were not called the Aztecs. The Aztecs was only part of the Mexicans.

The name Aztecs comes from the legendary land of Aztlan, from which their ancestors had come, according to their legend.

The name Aztecs was applied mostly to Mexican ruling class and Mexican nobility, while their subjects were simply Mexicans.

Native Mexican chronicler Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin wrote during the early 1600s:

In Nahuatl:

"In quexquichcauh maniz cemanahuatl ayc pollihuiz yn itenyo yn itauhca in Mexico-Tenochtitlan"

In English:

"As long as the world will exist the fame and the glory of Mexico-Tenochtitlan will not disappear."

It is characteristic that Chimalpahin was the descendant of inhabitants of the city of Amaquemecan - one of the Indian cities which were subjects of the Aztecs, and rebelled against them, allying with Cortes during the war against the so-called Aztec Empire (or the Triple Alliance - and ultimately just against the city of Tenochtitlan in 1521). He was the author of "Codex Chimalpahin" written in Nahuatl language in the 17th century.

The Spanish conquest of Mexico was so easy, because in fact they fought against just the Triple Alliance (= 3 cities).

And even that was no longer the case, as 2 out of 3 cities betrayed, and Tenochtitlan was left alone in 1521.

Tenochtitlan was the original city of the Aztecs, established on 20 June 1325 according to Aztec myths.

According to Aztec myths, they had come to Mexico from North America, during the 14th century.

 

[Johannes]

Scythians did not expand to the east into Mongolia. They actually CAME from the east, expanding west into Ukraine:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...a-surprising-pattern-unlike-modern-day-clines

According to what FireHaired / Krefter posted, 90% of R1b Yamnaya people had brown eyes, vast majority also had dark brown and black hair. But pigmentation of R1a in the Eastern Steppe (to the east of Yamnaya people) was much lighter - mostly fair hair and light eyes.

Scythians lived there much earlier than the 3rd century BC - here are all the dates (all of them in BC, unless stated that in AD):

Wait a minute now: you are saying that "Aryans" or Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Central Siberia right in the heartland of the Turks (north of Mongolia)???? What about the Kurgan hypothesis that stated that PIE originated in southern Ukraine-Russia and expanded in every direction?? Or Renfrew's hypothesis that R1b originated in Anatolia??? Are you saying that my blonde haired and blue eyed ancestors came from Asia???

What was the percentage of blue eyes and blonde-brown-red hair among the Andronovo and Sintashta? where they all fair skinned? this seems incredible according to the laws of genetics.

 

[Tomenable]

in Central Siberia right in the heartland of the Turks

Turks did not live in Central Siberia at that time. Turks emerged in Mongolia, or somewhere around that place.

Modern Yakuts also speak Turkic - check their appearance and check where they live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuts

IMO Proto-Turkic language could emerge as a mixture of Mongolic-speakers and Indo-European speakers.

What was the percentage of blue eyes and blonde-brown-red hair among the Andronovo and Sintashta?

The majority in the Eastern Steppe had blue or green eyes, but some also had brown eyes. Large part had brown and blonde hair:

Western Steppe cultures (mostly R1b haplogroup):

- Yamnaya culture - dark hair pigmentation; ~90% brown eyes, ~10% light eyes; rather swarthy skin
- Catacomb culture - predominantly dark pigmentation just like in case of Yamnaya culture above

Eastern Steppe cultures (mostly R1a haplogroup):

- Xiaohe mummies - light brown, dark brown, chestnut, red and black hair colours (also 2 blondes were found)
- Andronovo-Sintashta - blond, light brown, dark brown hair; mixed eyes (light & dark); fair to medium skin
- Mongolian Altai - dark brown, brown, dark blond, black hair; eyes mainly brown
- Tagar culture - blond and brown hair; mixed eyes (blue, green, brown); skin fair to medium
- Tashtyk culture (samples from Khakassia) - blond, brown hair; blue and green eyes; skin fair to medium
- Pazyryk culture - blond ("Ukok Plateau Princess"), brown, black ("Amazon of Ak-Alach") hair
- Karasuk culture - mixed eyes (light and dark, that is blue, green and brown)
- Mezocsat culture (in Hungary) - one sample - dark blond hair and brown eyes

More details:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...kurgan-groups-from-eastern-Europe-quot/page16

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...kurgan-groups-from-eastern-Europe-quot/page17

Eastern Steppe phenotypes - note that I made this chart months ago and some things are clearly wrong, so sorry for these mistakes (for example Xiaohe mummies should be dated to 2515 ± 43 BC, not to 1980 ± 40 BC. R1a folks from Xiaohe in the Tarim Basin are now dated to 2515 ± 43 BC. And their association with Yuezhi is my speculation - Yuezhi was a Chinese name for some Indo-European group, but not necessarily them:

http://s4.postimg.org/5gjpqzz31/Steppe_Phenotypes.png

where they all fair skinned?

All had "fair or medium" skin according to genetic testing.

this seems incredible according to the laws of genetics.

Why so ??? Light features are recessive - so they can easily disappear when light people mix with darker people.

Modern Kalash, Nuristanis, Tajiks, Uyghurs, Pashtuns, etc. have actually preserved these light features to some extent.

 

[Johannes]

:grin:

This is totally incorrect. Cortes was fascinated by Indian culture, just like Alexander the Great was by Persian.

And just like Alexander encouraged mixed Macedonian-Persian marriages, the same was done by Cortes.

Historian Ryszard Tomicki in his book "Tenochtitlan 1521" (in Polish) writes about the attitude of Hernan Cortes:

Page 222:

"(...) Cortes was behaving like a native Mexican hueytlatoani [Indian king] - he was surrounding himself with natives, starting from mistresses and midgets, ending on dignitaries; he was granting native nobility with lands and subjects, showering them with gifts and promises. (...)"

Cortes had a Native Mexican woman as his lover! - La Malinche (picture below shows Cortes with La Malinche):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche

I dont know what you have read, but NO: you are misinformed. Actually you are very naive: I never heard of your Polish author but the truth is that Spaniards never intended to mix or assimilate with Mexican Indians. They were ONLY after gold and either wanted to go back to Spain, or if they stayed in Mexico, they wanted an apartheid state (just like the Anglo-Americans). In fact the Spanish wanted to enslave ALL Mexican Indians and only had sexual relations with them because they had no women (or very few). Cortes used Malinche only for his own purposes. Only after Spanish women began to come into Mexico did Spaniards reject their Indian concubines and marry Spanish women. Cortes was a crafty man. He knew how to seduce Indians as well as Europeans. He was just an actor. He married a Spanish countess. So that really makes him a Mexican??:grin:

 

[Johannes]

BTW - Cortes could defeat the Aztec Empire ONLY thanks to Mexican support - he was supported by 150,000 native warriors.

The name Aztecs was applied mostly to Mexican ruling class and Mexican nobility, while their subjects were simply Mexicans.

The Spanish conquest of Mexico was so easy, because in fact they fought against just the Triple Alliance (= 3 cities).

Yes of course Cortes was not stupid: he took advantage of the Indian hatred of the Aztecs. In fact Cortes decided to invade ONLY when he learned from the "fat cacique" that there was extreme hatred of the Aztecs (he learned about human sacrifices, cannibalism, and fabulous amounts of gold). He knew he could gather support. He thought the Tlaxcalans would join him but he was mistaken and had to fight almost to the death so the Spaniards could secure an alliance. So in effect the "conquest" was a civil war between Indians with on one side Spanish leadership. But I would bet that if it wasn't for Cortes and his Conquistadors another Spanish Army would have eventually conquered Mexico.

The Spanish Conquest was not "easy." It was a grueling contest between two very different civilizations. Over 1,000 Spaniards were killed (Cortes had only 500 Spaniards and used 400 to invade Mexico). The rest came with Narvaez (1,500). But most were killed during the conquest.

By the way; Mexico or Mexicans meant "Aztecs". They were the same thing. Mexico city was called Tenochtitlan-Mexica. Aztecs were called "mexicas." so not all Mexican Indians were "mexican."

 

[Tomenable]

Rather the other way around: all Mexican Indians were Mexicans, and Aztecs were only one part of Mexicans.

Mexicans denoted people living in Mexico, just like nowadays "British" denotes people living in the British Isles.

But there were subdivisions of Mexicans, like in case of British people (English, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, etc.).

So in effect the "conquest" was a civil wart between Indians with on one side Spanish leadership.

Indeed.

And Tenochtitlan was massacred, but Indians who were Spanish allies only later were decimated by smallpox.

 

[Tomenable]

He was just an actor. He married a Spanish countess. So that really makes him a Mexican?

He had children with many Indian and European women, not just with that Spanish countess.

Moreover, wikipedia says that of all his Mestizo and White children, his favourite son - Martin - was born to La Malinche:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernán_Cortés

(...) Cortes left his many mestizo and white children well cared for in his will, along with every one of their mothers. He requested in his will that his remains eventually be buried in Mexico. Before he died he had the Pope remove the "natural" status of three of his children (legitimizing them in the eyes of the church), including Martin, the son he had with Doña Marina (also known as La Malinche), said to be his favourite. (...)

 

[Tomenable]

BTW:

In North America north of Rio Grande, there were most likely only between 1,5 million and 3,5 million people in year 1492.

Any estimates saying that there were more than 3,5 million people in what is now the USA and Canada in 1492 are rather unreliable.

Polish anthropologist and ethnographer Ludwik Krzywicki gathered first-hand data on size of Indian tribes encountered by Europeans. His estimate for 503 tribes from the USA and Canada show, that an average tribe numbered 2000 people at first contact. 503 x 2000 = 1 million. But of course the total number of tribes was higher than that (he says that he did not include all tribes, but only tribes for which reliable estimates existed). And even during first contact with Whites (which was usually in 1600s-1700s), some tribes could be already decimated by diseases compared to 1492.

Mexico alone had a few times more Indians than entire North America to the north of Rio Grande. So the reason why there was more mixing between Whites and Indians in Mexico is not really due to different policies, but because Mexico had more Indians to mix with (even after the majority of them died of smallpox and other European diseases - which really decimated Indians, who had no natural immunity to those diseases).

 

[Johannes]

If they don't know their ethnic origins of each other, you see that all the balkanics people could feel comfortable with each other. If they talking in English. Slavs become disappear before 1000 years. What has in common a Russian with a Serb? They are quite strangers to each other.

I agree: I never saw any connection between Russians and Serbs other than Orthodox religion and language. But the only ones who did not look "Balkan" to me were the Croats. They look different from Serbs or Bosniaks. Maybe they have more R1b?

 

[Johannes]

BTW: In North America north of Rio Grande, there were most likely only between 1,5 million and 3,5 million people in year 1492.

Any estimates saying that there were more than 3,5 million people in what is now the USA and Canada in 1492 are rather unreliable.

Polish anthropologist and ethnographer Ludwik Krzywicki gathered first-hand estimates of size of Indian tribes encountered by Europeans. His estimate for 503 tribes show, that an average tribe numbered 2000 people at first contact. 503 x 2000 = 1 million. But of course the total number of tribes was higher than that (he even says that he did not include all tribes, but only tribes for which reliable estimates existed). And even during first contact with Whites (which was usually 1600s-1700s), some tribes could be already decimated by diseases compared to situation in 1492.

Mexico alone had a few times more Indians than entire North America to the north of Rio Grande. So the reason why there was more mixing between Whites and Indians in Mexico is not really due to different policies, but because Mexico had more Indians to mix with (even after the majority of them died of smallpox and other European diseases - which really decimated Indians, who had no natural immunity to those diseases).

First of all "Mexicans" did not mean all Indians. OK? Mexicans ONLY means Aztecs. They were located in and around Mexico City. Mexica=Aztecs. If you went back in time and asked a Tarascan, or Tlaxcalan, or Mayan if they were "Mexican" they would think you were crazy or an idiot. Mexica-Tenochtitlan meant Mexico/Mexican. After the conquest all of the surrounding areas were called "Mexico" by the Spanish to make it easier to describe or map the area. No more no less.

No my friend: the reason the Spanish "mixed' with Indians was pure lust. Spanish never wanted to mix. My god, don't you know the racial laws of Spain at the time?? Do you know what "Limpieza de Sangre" means??? It meant that if you mixed with any non-white person you will never get a job in government or church or anything important or even climb the social ladder. Do you think they were that stupid to mix without thinking about their future or of their children??? Besides the laws, Spaniards have traditionally been wary of mixing with foreigners. They had ethnically cleansed their country of Berbers and Jews. Do you think they would have been happy to mix with Indians??? It was all out of necessity. What have you been reading? I never heard of these authors.

 

[Tomenable]

Below you have these population estimates for 503 North American tribes (in English):

General overview: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=85

Detailed figures: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=338

In mainland Australia Norman B. Tindale identified 571 pre-colonial Aboriginal tribes:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=pH...Il931pZHSxwIVQ40sCh3vDAWA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tindale's map of Australian tribes: http://archives.samuseum.sa.gov.au/tribalmap/

Australian tribes were much smaller on average, as all of them were hunter-gatherers.

In North America farming tribes were much bigger than tribes of hunter-gatherers too.

 

[Tomenable]

First of all "Mexicans" did not mean all Indians. OK? Mexicans ONLY means Aztecs. They were located in and around Mexico City. Mexica=Aztecs. If you went back in time and asked a Tarascan, or Tlaxcalan, or Mayan if they were "Mexican" they would think you were crazy or an idiot. Mexica-Tenochtitlan meant Mexico/Mexican. After the conquest all of the surrounding areas were called "Mexico" by the Spanish to make it easier to describe or map the area. No more no less.

Mayans were not Mexicans, that's obvious. People living in the Aztec Empire (which didn't include Mayans) were Mexicans.

Tlaxcalans were also not Mexicans, because they were not part of the Aztec Empire, but a separate realm (all maps show that Tlaxcalla was relatively independent - they were just paying tribute and supplying the Aztecs with slaves for their rituals).

If I remember correctly, Mexican identity was similar to Yugoslav identity (check Yugoslavian censuses, you will see that many people claimed they were "ethnic Yugoslavs" instead of claiming that they were Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak, Albanian, etc.).

But maybe you are right. It was a long time ago when I read Tomicki's book (he is a good specialist on pre-colonial America). Ludwik Krzywicki has also been internationally known for his research on aboriginal primitive tribal societies around the world.

 

[Johannes]

Mayans were not Mexicans, that's obvious. People living in the Aztec Empire (which didn't include Mayans) were Mexicans.

Tlaxcalans were also not Mexicans, because they were not part of the Aztec Empire, but a separate realm (all maps show that Tlaxcalla was relatively independent - they were just paying tribute and supplying the Aztecs with slaves for their rituals).

If I remember correctly, Mexican identity was similar to Yugoslav identity (check Yugoslavian censuses, you will see that many people claimed they were "ethnic Yugoslavs" instead of claiming that they were Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak, Albanian, etc.).

But maybe you are right. It was a long time ago when I read Tomicki's book (he is a good specialist on pre-colonial America). Ludwik Krzywicki has also been internationally known for his research on aboriginal primitive tribal societies around the world.

The reason why the Spanish were so successful in conquering the "Mexicans" was that other Indian tribes hated the Mexicans!!!! This was the key to understanding the conquest. Why people have not understood this is a mystery to me.

 

[Tomenable]

The Spanish Conquest was not "easy." It was a grueling contest between two very different civilizations. Over 1,000 Spaniards were killed (Cortes had only 500 Spaniards and used 400 to invade Mexico). The rest came with Narvaez (1,500). But most were killed during the conquest.

Probably almost 2,000 Spaniards were killed or died of their wounds in total in 1519-1521 during the conquest.

According to Juan Cano, casualties of forces of Cortez and his allies since the incorporation of forces of Narvaez to Cortez's army until the escape of remnants of Spanish army to the state of Tlaxcalla (this retreat started with famous Noche Triste, followed by the bloody battle of Otumba) were around 9170 killed (this includes 8 thousands of Tlaxcallans and 1170 Spaniards) and 80 horses killed. Apart from huge losses in men, entire artillery was lost, almost all arquebuses and crossbows, entire supplies of gunpowder, the whole chancellery, entire personal property of vast majority of all soldiers (others managed to save small parts), majority of all loot.

Before that series of defeats Cortes was leading an army of 1300 Spaniards with 96 horses, 80 arquebuses, 80 crossbowmen (according to Diaz del Castillo) supported by 11,000-12,000 Tlaxcallans to rescue the besieged Tenochtitlan. To this we must add the crew of Tenochtitlan under command of Pedro de Narvaez, garrison of Vera Cruz and garrisons left in other cities. After the defeat all of Cortes's forces were repulsed by Aztecs literally everywhere from their lands and remnants of Cortes's army which managed to survive numbered no more than 425 Spaniards - many of them wounded or injured, others exhausted - including just 20 cavalrymen, 12 crossbowmen and 7 arquebusers (according to Vazquez de Tapia). Cortes lost some 70% of his men, Spaniards and Tlaxcallans.

After that, Cortes and his army were recovering in Tlaxcalla

He received new Spanish and Indian reinforcements. At the beginning of the siege of Tenochtitlan Cortes had at least 1000 Spaniards (with ca. 100 horses, 200 arquebuses and crossbows) supported by 18 cannons and 13 brigantines with guns, as well as over 100,000 warriors of his native allies (later over 50,000 more native reinforcements came), supported by 3,000 boats (canoes). The siege lasted until 13.08.1521, and several hundred Spaniards as well as many thousands of his native Indian allies were killed.

In total Spanish losses for 1519-1521 were probably 1,800 dead, not including thousands of dead Indian allies.

The reason why the Spanish were so successful in conquering the "Mexicans" was that other Indian tribes hated the Mexicans!!!! This was the key to understanding the conquest. Why people have not understood this is a mystery to me.

I agree.

The Spanish Conquest was not "easy." It was a grueling contest between two very different civilizations. Over 1,000 Spaniards were killed (Cortes had only 500 Spaniards and used 400 to invade Mexico). The rest came with Narvaez (1,500). But most were killed during the conquest.

Probably almost 2,000 Spaniards were killed or died of their wounds in total in 1519-1521 during the conquest.

According to Juan Cano, casualties of forces of Cortez and his allies since the incorporation of forces of Narvaez to Cortez's army until the escape of remnants of Spanish army to the state of Tlaxcalla (this retreat started with famous Noche Triste, followed by the bloody battle of Otumba) were around 9170 killed (this includes 8 thousands of Tlaxcallans and 1170 Spaniards) and 80 horses killed. Apart from huge losses in men, entire artillery was lost, almost all arquebuses and crossbows, entire supplies of gunpowder, the whole chancellery, entire personal property of vast majority of all soldiers (others managed to save small parts), majority of all loot.

Before that series of defeats Cortes was leading an army of 1300 Spaniards with 96 horses, 80 arquebuses, 80 crossbowmen (according to Diaz del Castillo) supported by 11,000-12,000 Tlaxcallans to rescue the besieged Tenochtitlan. To this we must add the crew of Tenochtitlan under command of Pedro de Narvaez, garrison of Vera Cruz and garrisons left in other cities. After the defeat all of Cortes's forces were repulsed by Aztecs literally everywhere from their lands and remnants of Cortes's army which managed to survive numbered no more than 425 Spaniards - many of them wounded or injured, others exhausted - including just 20 cavalrymen, 12 crossbowmen and 7 arquebusers (according to Vazquez de Tapia). Cortes lost some 70% of his men, Spaniards and Tlaxcallans.

After that, Cortes and his army were recovering in Tlaxcalla

He received new Spanish and Indian reinforcements. At the beginning of the siege of Tenochtitlan Cortes had at least 1000 Spaniards (with ca. 100 horses, 200 arquebuses and crossbows) supported by 18 cannons and 13 brigantines with guns, as well as over 100,000 warriors of his native allies (later over 50,000 more native reinforcements came), supported by 3,000 boats (canoes). The siege lasted until 13.08.1521, and several hundred Spaniards as well as many thousands of his native Indian allies were killed.

In total Spanish losses for 1519-1521 were probably 1,800 dead, not including thousands of dead Indian allies.

The reason why the Spanish were so successful in conquering the "Mexicans" was that other Indian tribes hated the Mexicans!!!! This was the key to understanding the conquest. Why people have not understood this is a mystery to me.

I agree.

BTW - the Aztecs were not sissies. They were a kind of "Spartans of the Americas".

Offensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a javelin-thrower (atlatl), a spear (tepuztopilli), a trident (tlatzontectli), a wooden sword, edges of which had blades made of obsidian (macuahuitl) as well as its larger version, a two-handed sword (macuahuitzoctli), a mace (cuauhololli), a sling (tematlatl), a kind of a long pike, and of course a bow (tlahuitolli) with arrows.

Spearheads and arrowheads were made of stone (obsidian, etc.), bone or fishbones.

Especially dangerous were Aztec swords - macuahuitl and macuahuitzoctli - which could cut off a head.

Initially the Aztecs were afraid of horses but later on they learned how to fight against cavalry, using long pikes.

Defensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a round shield (chimalli), which was so strong that it could sometimes even protect against crossbows, ichcahuipilli (a gambeson or a leather armour) - according to Spanish accounts it was hard to pierce it with a sword. They were also wearing coats or capes called ehuatl, as well as painted helmets made of wood and shaped to resemble heads of snakes, eagles or jaguars, and animal skins. There were differences in clothes depending on status and rank of warriors.

Tenochtitlan had a standing army of regulars numbering 10,000 "Brave People". In wartime they formed elite units or were officers leading levy units. Military training for each Aztec man in schools called telpochcalli was compulsory.

Maybe if they weren't hated so much by their subjects, they would have managed to resist Spanish conquest.

 

[Johannes]

Probably almost 2,000 Spaniards were killed or died of their wounds in total in 1519-1521 during the conquest.

According to Juan Cano, casualties of forces of Cortez and his allies since the incorporation of forces of Narvaez to Cortez's army until the escape of remnants of Spanish army to the state of Tlaxcalla (this retreat started with famous Noche Triste, followed by the bloody battle of Otumba) were around 9170 killed (this includes 8 thousands of Tlaxcallans and 1170 Spaniards) and 80 horses killed. Apart from huge losses in men, entire artillery was lost, almost all arquebuses and crossbows, entire supplies of gunpowder, the whole chancellery, entire personal property of vast majority of all soldiers (others managed to save small parts), majority of all loot.

Before that series of defeats Cortes was leading an army of 1300 Spaniards with 96 horses, 80 arquebuses, 80 crossbowmen (according to Diaz del Castillo) supported by 11,000-12,000 Tlaxcallans to rescue the besieged Tenochtitlan. To this we must add the crew of Tenochtitlan under command of Pedro de Narvaez, garrison of Vera Cruz and garrisons left in other cities. After the defeat all of Cortes's forces were repulsed by Aztecs literally everywhere from their lands and remnants of Cortes's army which managed to survive numbered no more than 425 Spaniards - many of them wounded or injured, others exhausted - including just 20 cavalrymen, 12 crossbowmen and 7 arquebusers (according to Vazquez de Tapia). Cortes lost some 70% of his men, Spaniards and Tlaxcallans.

After that, Cortes and his army were recovering in Tlaxcalla

He received new Spanish and Indian reinforcements. At the beginning of the siege of Tenochtitlan Cortes had at least 1000 Spaniards (with ca. 100 horses, 200 arquebuses and crossbows) supported by 18 cannons and 13 brigantines with guns, as well as over 100,000 warriors of his native allies (later over 50,000 more native reinforcements came), supported by 3,000 boats (canoes). The siege lasted until 13.08.1521, and several hundred Spaniards as well as many thousands of his native Indian allies were killed.

In total Spanish losses for 1519-1521 were probably 1,800 dead, not including thousands of dead Indian allies.

I agree.



Probably almost 2,000 Spaniards were killed or died of their wounds in total in 1519-1521 during the conquest.

According to Juan Cano, casualties of forces of Cortez and his allies since the incorporation of forces of Narvaez to Cortez's army until the escape of remnants of Spanish army to the state of Tlaxcalla (this retreat started with famous Noche Triste, followed by the bloody battle of Otumba) were around 9170 killed (this includes 8 thousands of Tlaxcallans and 1170 Spaniards) and 80 horses killed. Apart from huge losses in men, entire artillery was lost, almost all arquebuses and crossbows, entire supplies of gunpowder, the whole chancellery, entire personal property of vast majority of all soldiers (others managed to save small parts), majority of all loot.

Before that series of defeats Cortes was leading an army of 1300 Spaniards with 96 horses, 80 arquebuses, 80 crossbowmen (according to Diaz del Castillo) supported by 11,000-12,000 Tlaxcallans to rescue the besieged Tenochtitlan. To this we must add the crew of Tenochtitlan under command of Pedro de Narvaez, garrison of Vera Cruz and garrisons left in other cities. After the defeat all of Cortes's forces were repulsed by Aztecs literally everywhere from their lands and remnants of Cortes's army which managed to survive numbered no more than 425 Spaniards - many of them wounded or injured, others exhausted - including just 20 cavalrymen, 12 crossbowmen and 7 arquebusers (according to Vazquez de Tapia). Cortes lost some 70% of his men, Spaniards and Tlaxcallans.

After that, Cortes and his army were recovering in Tlaxcalla

He received new Spanish and Indian reinforcements. At the beginning of the siege of Tenochtitlan Cortes had at least 1000 Spaniards (with ca. 100 horses, 200 arquebuses and crossbows) supported by 18 cannons and 13 brigantines with guns, as well as over 100,000 warriors of his native allies (later over 50,000 more native reinforcements came), supported by 3,000 boats (canoes). The siege lasted until 13.08.1521, and several hundred Spaniards as well as many thousands of his native Indian allies were killed.

In total Spanish losses for 1519-1521 were probably 1,800 dead, not including thousands of dead Indian allies.

I agree.

BTW - the Aztecs were not sissies. They were a kind of "Spartans of the Americas".

Offensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a javelin-thrower (atlatl), a spear (tepuztopilli), a trident (tlatzontectli), a wooden sword, edges of which had blades made of obsidian (macuahuitl) as well as its larger version, a two-handed sword (macuahuitzoctli), a mace (cuauhololli), a sling (tematlatl), a kind of a long pike, and of course a bow (tlahuitolli) with arrows.

Spearheads and arrowheads were made of stone (obsidian, etc.), bone or fishbones.

Especially dangerous were Aztec swords - macuahuitl and macuahuitzoctli - which could cut off a head.

Initially the Aztecs were afraid of horses but later on they learned how to fight against cavalry, using long pikes.

Defensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a round shield (chimalli), which was so strong that it could sometimes even protect against crossbows, ichcahuipilli (a gambeson or a leather armour) - according to Spanish accounts it was hard to pierce it with a sword. They were also wearing coats or capes called ehuatl, as well as painted helmets made of wood and shaped to resemble heads of snakes, eagles or jaguars, and animal skins. There were differences in clothes depending on status and rank of warriors.

Tenochtitlan had a standing army of regulars numbering 10,000 "Brave People". In wartime they formed elite units or were officers leading levy units. Military training for each Aztec man in schools called telpochcalli was compulsory.

Maybe if they weren't hated so much by their subjects, they would have managed to resist Spanish conquest.

Exactly: if the Mexican Indians had not sacrificed so many Indians for their gods, they would have probably ruled a much larger area. However, they forced many Indian peoples to give their children to be sacrificed to their god. This was the key that Cortes used to conquer the Aztecs!!! Cortes knew that many Indians hated the Aztecs/Mexicans and he could conquer and divide the region. Cortes was a military genius.

 

[Johannes]

BTW - the Aztecs were not sissies. They were a kind of "Spartans of the Americas".

Offensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a javelin-thrower (atlatl), a spear (tepuztopilli), a trident (tlatzontectli), a wooden sword, edges of which had blades made of obsidian (macuahuitl) as well as its larger version, a two-handed sword (macuahuitzoctli), a mace (cuauhololli), a sling (tematlatl), a kind of a long pike, and of course a bow (tlahuitolli) with arrows.

Spearheads and arrowheads were made of stone (obsidian, etc.), bone or fishbones.

Especially dangerous were Aztec swords - macuahuitl and macuahuitzoctli - which could cut off a head.

Initially the Aztecs were afraid of horses but later on they learned how to fight against cavalry, using long pikes.

Defensive arsenal of Aztec warriors included a round shield (chimalli), which was so strong that it could sometimes even protect against crossbows, ichcahuipilli (a gambeson or a leather armour) - according to Spanish accounts it was hard to pierce it with a sword. They were also wearing coats or capes called ehuatl, as well as painted helmets made of wood and shaped to resemble heads of snakes, eagles or jaguars, and animal skins. There were differences in clothes depending on status and rank of warriors.

Tenochtitlan had a standing army of regulars numbering 10,000 "Brave People". In wartime they formed elite units or were officers leading levy units. Military training for each Aztec man in schools called telpochcalli was compulsory.

Maybe if they weren't hated so much by their subjects, they would have managed to resist Spanish conquest.

That's correct: The Aztecs were bad asses. I remember reading Bernal Diaz description of 10 Aztec warriors challenging ten Spaniards to a fight (mano-a-mano) and the Spaniards refused. But the Aztecs/Mexicans had a huge disadvantage compared to the Europeans. Toledo swords were much deadlier than anything the Aztecs had. Plus Spaniards had cannon and arquebuses which were deadly. The Spaniards were Spartans as well: The Spanish Army was the best in the world at that time. Why? they had been fighting for 500 years on a yearly basis with their Muslim brethren in Iberia. Therefore Spaniards were a warrior race and the Mexicans/Aztecs had no chance of defeating them. Even if Cortes would have been defeated and killed, eventually the Spanish would have conquered all the area.

 

[Ike]

If they don't know their ethnic origins of each other, you see that all the balkanics people could feel comfortable with each other. If they talking in English. Slavs become disappear before 1000 years. What has in common a Russian with a Serb? They are quite strangers to each other.

Not quite. I personally don't wanna see a Muslim around me, disregarding his ethnicity. It's his political beliefs that bother me.

Wrong: in the beginning the Spanish Conquistadors wanted to exterminate (sorry -- ethnically cleanse) the Indians but the Church and HRE stopped them. In fact The Spanish destroyed the whole culture of the Indians. ONLY after that did the Spanish start to assimilate the Indians (using mestizos as agents). BUT it was a slow and very difficult process which took 500 years to resolve. You think that conquerors and conquered are so easily assimilated? It's a romantic notion of history.

Well, we know how it happened. You can interpret it the way you like, but I guess we'll get to the more precise data of origin of East Germans till the end of the thread.

Exactly: In fact that is what I was about to say in my last post but forgot -- Klitschko looks very "Balkan." In fact he could pass for Greek. The point is that Ukrainians have mixed with Turkish peoples, Greeks, Italians, Jews, and peoples from the Caucasus. The Serbs also the same. The have mixed with Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, but mostly with Illyrians. Illyrians are said to have been tall with dark hair. Is this true? Maybe Serbs are Illyrians???

Not Greek, as I see it. He is more South Slavic. He could blend here, and nobody would suspect him being a foreigner by his looks. Not sure that same would pass in Greece.
Are they, and in which percentage Illyrian? I suppose we'll find out as soon as they sample some Illyrian skeletons here.

 

[Piro Ilir]

I agree: I never saw any connection between Russians and Serbs other than Orthodox religion and language. But the only ones who did not look "Balkan" to me were the Croats. They look different from Serbs or Bosniaks. Maybe they have more R1b?

I mean culturally. I think a Serb feels more close whether with an Albanian and with a Croatian rather than with a Russian. A Muslim Albanian feels more close with an Christian Serb rather than with a Arab Muslim. They have a common culture throughout Balkans. Almost I think.