And why do you think they fitted stone ends onto wooden clubs? Because it increases the damage that they can do.
And criticizing something from the 90s as obsolete is laughable in historical fields of study, but if you want something more recent then here is an excerpt from Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest (2003) by a well respected expert in the area, Matthew Restall:
And criticizing something from the 90s as obsolete is laughable in historical fields of study, but if you want something more recent then here is an excerpt from Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest (2003) by a well respected expert in the area, Matthew Restall:
QuoteThe one weapon, then, whose efficacy is indubitable was the steel sword. It alone was worth more than a horse, a gun, and a mastiff put together. Because a steel sword was longer and less brittle than the obsidian weapons of Mesoamerican warriors, and longer and sharper than Andean clubbing weapons or copper-tipped axes, a Spaniard could fight for hours and receive light flesh wounds and bruises while killing many natives. Spanish swords were just the right length for reaching an enemy who lacked a similar weapon. Pizarro preferred to fight on foot so he could better manipulate his sword. Descriptions of battles in which Spanish swordplay caused terrible slaughter among native forces pepper the Conquest accounts of Cieza de León, Cortés, Díaz, Gómara, Jerez, Oviedo y Baños, Zárate, and others. Military historian John Guilmartin deftly summarizes the point: "While Spanish success in combat cannot be attributed to a single factor, it is clear that the other elements of Spanish superiority took effect within a tactical matrix established by the effectiveness of Spanish hand-held slashing and piercing weapons."
This trilogy of factors—disease, native disunity, and Spanish steel—goes most of the way toward explaining the Conquest's outcome. Remove just one and the likelihood of the failure of expeditions under Cortés, Pizarro, and others would have been very high.