Talk:Battle of Ollantaytambo/GA1

GA Review

Minor issues

I fixed the grammar at one place and the last sentence needs a source.

Content issues

In which article do you want to tell more about the political situation in the former Inca Empire? Who allied himself with whom and why. I think a bit more background on this would be quite good for the battle article that describes a significant part of the war.

Some more info about equipment and tactics of the Indian forces would be nice because they were essentially the ones doing the fighting, only supported by a few Spaniards.Wandalstouring (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I should perhaps tell this more directly. Please do explain the political situation. Why did Indians join the Spaniards and which tribes were these?

Equipment of the common Inca and Indian soldier (clubs, spears, wooden swords, slings) compared to a Spanish soldier(how much armour?) is missing. Is anything about tactics known, like phalanx formations? Wandalstouring (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added more text on the political situation, I'll add some more tomorrow as well as info on the weapons and tactics used by both sides. --Victor12 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, info on politics, tactics and weaponry has now been added. Could you read it again? --Victor12 (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You did make good progress, however it is not clear to me of what material the spear tips and maces of the Incas and the Spanish auxiliaries were. I think stone or bone, but some more info would be helpful to provide the reader a picture of their military capability. You should also mention that the auxiliaries had the same equipment as the Incas. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just added the requested info. --Victor12 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is important to mention the historical sources on which the descriptions of the battle are built. The article is written in a quite matter-of-factly style - but of course the reason that there is doubt (i also prefer the word doubt to "controversy") about the location of the battle is that the sources are unclear about this information.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob, I'll, add a "Sources" section tonight. As for doubt vs controversy, I think controversy sounds better as a section title. Maybe we should change the title to "Location". What do you think? --Victor12 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah maybe location is a better title - I just think controversy sounds too ... uh controversial.Btw I think it is a well written article and I am very happy that someone puts in some energy on the often overlooked area of latin american history.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I changed the "controversial" title and added a sources section. Further suggestions are more than welcome. --Victor12 (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent change weapons detail

Hi. The Spanish cavalry and their forces were very tenacious, but common sense dictates that the "Conquerors" of America were the native inhabitants. There were almost a million native auxiliaries fighting the civil war. Without these forces, the Spanish simply could have not colonized America without the whole of the European continent. The real catalyst for the fall of the great Empires were the Muslim cannons they used. In coherence to that fact, their sloops or brigs (boats) were their real weapons.

1) Copper spears in closed ranks could effectively stop and dismount cavalry. To be successful, volleys of cannon fire or musket fire would be needed. To advance costs casualties---to effectively do this without the attrition factor against repetative guerilla tactics, multitudes of Indian auxiliaries would be needed for skirmishing.

2) Atlatls could penetrate chain mail at short ranges and steel armor if the spear is used as a long range weapon---gaining massive momentum from the pendulum-type swaying of the flexible spear.

3) The Mapuche learned to wrought iron and use horses and cannons effectively. Their use of horses to simply move infantry allowed the implementation of the local, over total superiority which, in turn, allowed them to cause some 90,000 native and Spanish deaths---along with countless civilians from both sides. In fact, they were one of the most effective wagers of war who ever lived... Ex: They had these guys called "Clown soldiers" who were used to simply to lure fire to cost the Spanish $$$. I forget said, "These Indians are in the habit of doing clownish things: throwing themselves to the ground, dancing, advancing---suddenly retreating." They had special soldiers who had hooks on their spears to carry away dismounted knights. Francisco Nunez (the happy captive) reported that the massive Mapuche clubs could "fell a horse".

4) Slings, which used very dense lead-type stones, could crush a steel helmet and break a sword in half from 50 feet away.

5) Bronze, stone, or copper maces were used very effectively against Caballeros (knights).

6) In the Amazon, the warriors would often lure them into the swamps and ambush their barges after pouring blood in the vicinity (crocs).

7) The Zacoteca long bows were extremely effective. They could produce tremendous velocity because they used their feet as the left arm and their arms as the right arm. I don't know if they could could penetrate steel, though.

8) Even with the natives, they lost against the Chichimecas.

9) Wave after wave of Spaniards were killed in trying to subdue the Maya. Only after they recieved help from the Xiu Maya (some 40,000) did they manage to subdue the Chichen Itza.

10) Cinnabar covered darts or "dust-bombs" could easily poison any soldier causing massive distortians in the senses before hand---eventually killing them.

11) Hornets could cause a massive delay in time and morale if they're exposed to crossing a hornet-covered bridge (not fatal).

Basically, thats it. InternetHero (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)