Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 18 2016 07:45am)
One would think so, however that wasn't always the case. Some plains indian tribes developed a rather sadistic form of warfare over the ages. Instead of arrows or other sharp edged weapons they preferred blunt weapons like clubs and mauls. Sounds more humane right? Wrong. The goal was not to kill your opponent, the goal was to maim them. This way they would be a burden to their families, as disabled people don't fit well into a nomadic society. They were trusting on familial ties to weaken the other tribe.
Obviously this anecdote shouldn't be used to say they are as bad or worse than Europeans, they were not. However there were some practices and specific groups who were specifically inhumane.
This isn't correct.
Natives used blunt weapons because they didn't have horses in the Americas. This meant using weapons made of iron and steel weren't viable because fighting was done on foot. Since it was on foot, warriors wore cloth and leather armor since it was light and protected the wearer from arrows and whatnot.
Clubs and other bludgeoning weapons were therefore more effective than swords and spears, which the Old World developed because they could ride into combat. Swords could stab into armor gaps or chainmail. Or, if you were on horseback, could rake off the heads of infantry as you charged through them.
When the first Europeans arrived in the Americas, many of them preferred the armor of Natives because of how unbecoming the terrain and style of war was to heavy armor.
Edit: dumb phone.
This post was edited by sylvannos on Mar 3 2016 04:16pm