Vapourware Ecumene Aztec - action-RPG where you play an Aztec warrior fighting against conquistadors

[d1nolore]

Good exposure to sell the game. They couldn’t pay for that.

 

[tommy heavenly6]

what happened to "latinx bipoc of color"? suddenly it's "spanish white nationalism"

Spaniards don't even count as white according to the US government. But nowadays you don't need to be white to be a white nationalist

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

One of the comments about playing as an Aztec being hardmode should actually be incorporated.

Spaniard weapons 1 hit kill on range, 2 hit on melee.
Weapons break on melee vs Spanish
Spanish armor soak 99% damage
No mounts or fast travel.
Save or die vs smallpox 6' radius of Spanish
Autofail diplomacy with other tribes

 

[0sacred]

hack probably was a false flag operation by antifa or something

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Cortez and Montezuma are both sucking Hitler’s dick in Hell.

 

[goregasm]

These "people" and their "cultures" couldn't defend themselves against literally dozens of catholic men and their catholic canines.

They should be stylized as the iron age cannon fodder they truly were.

 

[Strig]

their catholic canines.

SON FEROCES PERROS DE LA GUERRA!
GRAN ALANO ESPANOL!
SON FEROCES PERROS DE LA GUERRA!
HAIL! AUDAZ CAN CONQUISTADOR!

 

[Harthwain]

Spaniards don't even count as white according to the US government.

It literally says "Dark white skin". Which is more than Conan gets when his face is described:

Conan grinned savagely, involuntarily touching the scars on his dark face.

Source: The Phoenix on the Sword

His dark, scarred, almost sinister face was that of a fighting-man, and his velvet garments could not conceal the hard, dangerous lines of his limbs.

"That man is no Hyborian!" exclaimed Xaltotun.

"No; he is a Cimmerian, one of those wild tribesmen who dwell in the gray hills of the north."

Source: The Hour of the Dragon

Conan made no comment; his scarred dark countenance was immobile.

Source: Shadows in Zamboula

Of course, that's because Robert E. Howard described Conan as having "sun-browned skin". Additionally, the Picts were stated to be "a white race, though swarthy" - so its was more complex than you'd think without proper context.

But this was before the current colorblind modern society that either has to have white people as purely white to be considered white (apparently) or bans the word black, because describing someone's skin color is somehow offensive (and only when it's a very specific color!).

 

[RaggleFraggle]

These "people" and their "cultures" couldn't defend themselves against literally dozens of catholic men and their catholic canines.

They should be stylized as the iron age cannon fodder they truly were.

Cortez only won because the Tlaxcalans had thousands of soldiers to send into the meatgrinder on his behalf.

 

[Serus]

These "people" and their "cultures" couldn't defend themselves against literally dozens of catholic men and their catholic canines.

They should be stylized as the iron age cannon fodder they truly were.

Cortez only won because the Tlaxcalans had thousands of soldiers to send into the meatgrinder on his behalf.

The point is, he landed in Mexico with low few hundreds people and a dozen horses (got a few additional troops later also counted in hundreds) and in a very short time he conquerede the strongest state that existed in the area and dominated the country. Cortez also fought one or twice iirc before he had made alliances. Of curse he forged them eventually but it doesn't change the fact the whole Aztec "empire" was destroyed in no time because of a few hundreds Spaniard's without much backup came there.

 

[Serus]

Spaniards don't even count as white according to the US government.

It literally says "Dark white skin". Which is more than Conan gets when his face is described:

Conan grinned savagely, involuntarily touching the scars on his dark face.

Source: The Phoenix on the Sword

His dark, scarred, almost sinister face was that of a fighting-man, and his velvet garments could not conceal the hard, dangerous lines of his limbs.

"That man is no Hyborian!" exclaimed Xaltotun.

"No; he is a Cimmerian, one of those wild tribesmen who dwell in the gray hills of the north."

Source: The Hour of the Dragon

Conan made no comment; his scarred dark countenance was immobile.

Source: Shadows in Zamboula

Of course, that's because Robert E. Howard described Conan as having "sun-browned skin". Additionally, the Picts were stated to be "a white race, though swarthy" - so its was more complex than you'd think without proper context.

But this was before the current colorblind modern society that either has to have white people as purely white to be considered white (apparently) or bans the word black, because describing someone's skin color is somehow offensive (and only when it's a very specific color!).

Make note that all of those quotes refers only to Conan's face, expression not whole physique.
In "Frost-Giant's daughter there are descriptions of him versus an Asgard (or Vanaheim's) warrior - a white skinned man. The only differences that are mentioned are that Conan was "beardless" and had black hair. Nothing about his skin being darker. And finally, there is a description of Cimmerians as a whole in the "Hyborian Age", nothing about them being "dark" there iirc. Long story short - this "dark skin" clearly means that he was very tanned and weather-beaten after many years of travels.

 

[Fedora Master]

You can find zero info on the developers.
This is gonna be janky shit no matter what.

 

[Fedora Master]

Spaniards don't even count as white according to the US government.

It literally says "Dark white skin". Which is more than Conan gets when his face is described:

Conan grinned savagely, involuntarily touching the scars on his dark face.

Source: The Phoenix on the Sword

His dark, scarred, almost sinister face was that of a fighting-man, and his velvet garments could not conceal the hard, dangerous lines of his limbs.

"That man is no Hyborian!" exclaimed Xaltotun.

"No; he is a Cimmerian, one of those wild tribesmen who dwell in the gray hills of the north."

Source: The Hour of the Dragon

Conan made no comment; his scarred dark countenance was immobile.

Source: Shadows in Zamboula

Of course, that's because Robert E. Howard described Conan as having "sun-browned skin". Additionally, the Picts were stated to be "a white race, though swarthy" - so its was more complex than you'd think without proper context.

But this was before the current colorblind modern society that either has to have white people as purely white to be considered white (apparently) or bans the word black, because describing someone's skin color is somehow offensive (and only when it's a very specific color!).

Make note that all of those quotes refers only to Conan's face, expression not whole physique.
In "Frost-Giant's daughter there are descriptions of him versus an Asgard (or Vanaheim's) warrior - a white skinned man. The only differences that are mentioned are that Conan was "beardless" and had black hair. Nothing about his skin being darker. And finally, there is a description of Cimmerians as a whole in the "Hyborian Age", nothing about them being "dark" there iirc. Long story short - this "dark skin" clearly means that he was very tanned and weather-beaten after many years of travels.

In Beyond The Black River he literally states "I am the first White Man to cross that region."

 

[Harthwain]

Make note that all of those quotes refers only to Conan's face, expression not whole physique.
In "Frost-Giant's daughter there are descriptions of him versus an Asgard (or Vanaheim's) warrior - a white skinned man. The only differences that are mentioned are that Conan was "beardless" and had black hair. Nothing about his skin being darker. And finally, there is a description of Cimmerians as a whole in the "Hyborian Age", nothing about them being "dark" there iirc. Long story short - this "dark skin" clearly means that he was very tanned and weather-beaten after many years of travels.

You're right, of course. Even my father - who is white - looked very tanned when he came back from his journey to Italy. And he was there for just a week.

Coming back to Spaniards - both Spaniards and Italians (and Greeks) have olive skin. That's because they are more exposed to sun where they live. You will have much harder time finding someone of that skin tone in Scandinavia, for obvious reasons. By the way, Duke Leto from Dune was also olive-skinned. One paragraph even said he was: "a tall man, hawk-faced, dark of skin and hair".

 

[RaggleFraggle]

These "people" and their "cultures" couldn't defend themselves against literally dozens of catholic men and their catholic canines.

They should be stylized as the iron age cannon fodder they truly were.

Cortez only won because the Tlaxcalans had thousands of soldiers to send into the meatgrinder on his behalf.

The point is, he landed in Mexico with low few hundreds people and a dozen horses (got a few additional troops later also counted in hundreds) and in a very short time he conquerede the strongest state that existed in the area and dominated the country. Cortez also fought one or twice iirc before he had made alliances. Of curse he forged them eventually but it doesn't change the fact the whole Aztec "empire" was destroyed in no time because of a few hundreds Spaniard's without much backup came there.

That's an absurd oversimplification that erases countless other important factors (much of which we can't even accurately guess at from the fragmented and hugely biased reports that survive to the present) and gives a completely false impression of the actual events to a degree that is... it's pure propaganda. I don't like Aztec apologists either, but claiming Cortez was some kind of amazing ubermensch is equally absurd.

longer rant

If the Flower Wars were as unsustainable as accounts suggest, then the Empire would've collapsed anyway without the intervention of Europeans and smallpox. Also, the smallpox was the single biggest contributing factor that easily dwarfs all others. That's why Africa and Asia weren't colonized until after guns could compensate for the lack of germs. If smallpox hadn't wiped out 90% or so of the indigenous population, then Europeans wouldn't have been able to displace them so easily.

I know predicting alternate timelines accurately is beyond us, but from what I tell Cortez got lucky. He arrived at precisely the right point in time where he could join warring tribes uniting against a common enemy running unsustainable warmongering, then take credit for everything after smallpox killed anyone who could contradict his propaganda. It's impossible to say how much he really contributed with the limited information we have, but that's history for you. What we can say for sure is that he represented the interests of a foreign power and was a neutral party with regard to the affairs of the Aztec's enemies, so he had that advantage as a diplomat and the indigenous tribes would've recognized that.

To claim the Aztecs were just uncivilized savages and cannon fodder falling like chaff to the superior White Man, when they built golden pyramid cities in the middle of lakes without livestock or wheels, maintained a bureaucracy for centuries, etc, goes straight into racist posturing territory. It's the same racist posturing that dismisses the Mongol Empire as uncivilized savages when they had a robust bureaucracy, surprisingly enlightened attitudes about women's rights compared to their neighbors, etc.

I know it's specifically racist posturing because I don't see the same people who dismiss Aztecs as uncivilized savages dismissing the Nazis or Conquistadors as uncivilized savages. Oh no, because they were white they get to have their technical accomplishments praised in the same breath that their atrocities are cursed. Or in the case of the Conquistadors, their genocide against the indigenous people gets ignored or worse justified.

As for the Tlaxcalans? "Oh, those stone age brown people are worthless stupid savages. Tens of thousands of them died in battle? Nope, it was all Cortez who was responsible. He couldn't possibly have taken advantage of existing situations and then lied out of his ass to make himself look responsible for all of it. Humans never lie about their accomplishments, especially not when money and power are on the line."

I know media has trained people to think that non-white people in skimpy clothing were just stupid uncivilized savages easily dominated by the white men in armor (but vikings deserve respect because they're white, nevermind that their entire shtick was piracy and raiding), but that's not remotely true. They were just as civilized as those murderous vikings that white dudebros love to romanticize, but get treated differently because racism.

I consider myself an anti-SJW who hates accusations of racism being thrown around so often that it loses power, but in this case I haven't found any reason to explain why Vikings are romanticized while Tlaxcalans are erased other than racism. Not even deliberate racism on an individual basis, but just decades of racist media and shitty schools training people to unconsciously think ignorantly without critically examining their attitudes. It's incredibly insulting and dehumanizing to the tens of thousands of Tlaxcalans who sacrificed their lives to ensure a brighter future for their children, whose descendants still exist today as a protectorate of Mexico and are being derided as traitors by the descendants of the Aztecs. This is morally and logically akin to modern Germany accusing Slavs and Jews of treason for fighting back against genocide. Protip: when overthrowing and genociding an empire who will then hate you for centuries, maybe don't rape so many of them that the population centuries later still has around 50% of their original genome.

 

[Reinhardt]

but claiming Cortez was some kind of amazing ubermensch is equally absurd.

except spanish did pretty much same "quality>quantity" thing everywhere they went at that time, be it against hordes of injuns in americas or hordes of ching-chong pirates on philippines.

 

[Lagole Gon]

I'm no Aztec history scholar, but I've read some Miguel León-Portilla.
As far as I know:
- This game should be mostly about fighting smallpox...
- ...and other local natives.
- There was something... "autistic" about the Aztecs. Combat traditions burdened with silly customs and indecisiveness. They had to catch on after the culture shock of meeting soldiers focused on... you know... efficient killing.

 

[goregasm]

These "people" and their "cultures" couldn't defend themselves against literally dozens of catholic men and their catholic canines.

They should be stylized as the iron age cannon fodder they truly were.

Cortez only won because the Tlaxcalans had thousands of soldiers to send into the meatgrinder on his behalf.

The point is, he landed in Mexico with low few hundreds people and a dozen horses (got a few additional troops later also counted in hundreds) and in a very short time he conquerede the strongest state that existed in the area and dominated the country. Cortez also fought one or twice iirc before he had made alliances. Of curse he forged them eventually but it doesn't change the fact the whole Aztec "empire" was destroyed in no time because of a few hundreds Spaniard's without much backup came there.

That's an absurd oversimplification that erases countless other important factors (much of which we can't even accurately guess at from the fragmented and hugely biased reports that survive to the present) and gives a completely false impression of the actual events to a degree that is... it's pure propaganda. I don't like Aztec apologists either, but claiming Cortez was some kind of amazing ubermensch is equally absurd.

longer rant

If the Flower Wars were as unsustainable as accounts suggest, then the Empire would've collapsed anyway without the intervention of Europeans and smallpox. Also, the smallpox was the single biggest contributing factor that easily dwarfs all others. That's why Africa and Asia weren't colonized until after guns could compensate for the lack of germs. If smallpox hadn't wiped out 90% or so of the indigenous population, then Europeans wouldn't have been able to displace them so easily.

I know predicting alternate timelines accurately is beyond us, but from what I tell Cortez got lucky. He arrived at precisely the right point in time where he could join warring tribes uniting against a common enemy running unsustainable warmongering, then take credit for everything after smallpox killed anyone who could contradict his propaganda. It's impossible to say how much he really contributed with the limited information we have, but that's history for you. What we can say for sure is that he represented the interests of a foreign power and was a neutral party with regard to the affairs of the Aztec's enemies, so he had that advantage as a diplomat and the indigenous tribes would've recognized that.

To claim the Aztecs were just uncivilized savages and cannon fodder falling like chaff to the superior White Man, when they built golden pyramid cities in the middle of lakes without livestock or wheels, maintained a bureaucracy for centuries, etc, goes straight into racist posturing territory. It's the same racist posturing that dismisses the Mongol Empire as uncivilized savages when they had a robust bureaucracy, surprisingly enlightened attitudes about women's rights compared to their neighbors, etc.

I know it's specifically racist posturing because I don't see the same people who dismiss Aztecs as uncivilized savages dismissing the Nazis or Conquistadors as uncivilized savages. Oh no, because they were white they get to have their technical accomplishments praised in the same breath that their atrocities are cursed. Or in the case of the Conquistadors, their genocide against the indigenous people gets ignored or worse justified.

As for the Tlaxcalans? "Oh, those stone age brown people are worthless stupid savages. Tens of thousands of them died in battle? Nope, it was all Cortez who was responsible. He couldn't possibly have taken advantage of existing situations and then lied out of his ass to make himself look responsible for all of it. Humans never lie about their accomplishments, especially not when money and power are on the line."

I know media has trained people to think that non-white people in skimpy clothing were just stupid uncivilized savages easily dominated by the white men in armor (but vikings deserve respect because they're white, nevermind that their entire shtick was piracy and raiding), but that's not remotely true. They were just as civilized as those murderous vikings that white dudebros love to romanticize, but get treated differently because racism.

I consider myself an anti-SJW who hates accusations of racism being thrown around so often that it loses power, but in this case I haven't found any reason to explain why Vikings are romanticized while Tlaxcalans are erased other than racism. Not even deliberate racism on an individual basis, but just decades of racist media and shitty schools training people to unconsciously think ignorantly without critically examining their attitudes. It's incredibly insulting and dehumanizing to the tens of thousands of Tlaxcalans who sacrificed their lives to ensure a brighter future for their children, whose descendants still exist today as a protectorate of Mexico and are being derided as traitors by the descendants of the Aztecs. This is morally and logically akin to modern Germany accusing Slavs and Jews of treason for fighting back against genocide. Protip: when overthrowing and genociding an empire who will then hate you for centuries, maybe don't rape so many of them that the population centuries later still has around 50% of their original genome.

Forgive the brash joke on a site such as Codex and not doing a deep dive on stone axe wielding savages here, nuance is truly lost on the internet.

Aztecs gave us nothing but legumes and some vine grown fruits here in the Americas.

They along with most backwards civilizations whom come into contact with an advanced one collapsed. Be it guns, germs or steel, it makes no difference. It make no difference if it's scythian or mongol hordes coming from the steps crushing european and middle eastern powers with a more advanced form of warfare, a mechanized infantry from the west, or from mustachioed Spaniards from the sea. Their time came, as do all civilizations times come eventually.

I hold no ill will towards Conquistadors, explorers, slavers, etc because they were operating in the moral codes of their day. Slavers, vikings, and later other empires, dispersed my genetic ancestors, who were an iron age technology in a steel world, and I study them with no ill will or any degree of idiotic present day moral standing as do others.

My issue is with that mentality, less yours.

I will also not mourn what would have essentially been an curiosity of a civilization compared to those of the old world had they somehow survived and found themselves drunk on reservations or casinos.

 

[Lagole Gon]

Let's just appriciate how hilarious Montezuma's tragedy is, if you are into awkward comedy.

- Your forefathers conquer a more advanced civilization (it's just one of theories, but let's go with it). They kill it. They skin it. They wear it as a cloak. They adapt many Toltec beliefs and customs.
- This advanced civilization was ruled by a god-king in the past.
- Apparently the god-king guy returns (scholars argue, but most likely Montezuma initially believed that). A returning god-king will probably want to hear a report about what happened in his absence.
- You have three months to come up with a REALLY GOOD EXCUSE and put a positive spin on this whole situation.

 

[Melcar]

Pinches españoles putos man. I see they are still butthurt.

 

[Melcar]

I'm no Aztec history scholar, but I've read some Miguel León-Portilla.
As far as I know:
- This game should be mostly about fighting smallpox...
- ...and other local natives.
- There was something... "autistic" about the Aztecs. Combat traditions burdened with silly customs and indecisiveness. They had to catch on after the culture shock of meeting soldiers focused on... you know... efficient killing.

They knew how to fight and kill. The "make war to capture slaves and sacrifice them" was more of a mutual agreement among the tribes and a form of psychological warfare to harass their subjects. When they needed to they could make real war just like everyone else.

 

[Serus]

These "people" and their "cultures" couldn't defend themselves against literally dozens of catholic men and their catholic canines.

They should be stylized as the iron age cannon fodder they truly were.

Cortez only won because the Tlaxcalans had thousands of soldiers to send into the meatgrinder on his behalf.

The point is, he landed in Mexico with low few hundreds people and a dozen horses (got a few additional troops later also counted in hundreds) and in a very short time he conquerede the strongest state that existed in the area and dominated the country. Cortez also fought one or twice iirc before he had made alliances. Of curse he forged them eventually but it doesn't change the fact the whole Aztec "empire" was destroyed in no time because of a few hundreds Spaniard's without much backup came there.

That's an absurd oversimplification that erases countless other important factors (much of which we can't even accurately guess at from the fragmented and hugely biased reports that survive to the present) and gives a completely false impression of the actual events to a degree that is... it's pure propaganda. I don't like Aztec apologists either, but claiming Cortez was some kind of amazing ubermensch is equally absurd.

longer rant

If the Flower Wars were as unsustainable as accounts suggest, then the Empire would've collapsed anyway without the intervention of Europeans and smallpox. Also, the smallpox was the single biggest contributing factor that easily dwarfs all others. That's why Africa and Asia weren't colonized until after guns could compensate for the lack of germs. If smallpox hadn't wiped out 90% or so of the indigenous population, then Europeans wouldn't have been able to displace them so easily.

I know predicting alternate timelines accurately is beyond us, but from what I tell Cortez got lucky. He arrived at precisely the right point in time where he could join warring tribes uniting against a common enemy running unsustainable warmongering, then take credit for everything after smallpox killed anyone who could contradict his propaganda. It's impossible to say how much he really contributed with the limited information we have, but that's history for you. What we can say for sure is that he represented the interests of a foreign power and was a neutral party with regard to the affairs of the Aztec's enemies, so he had that advantage as a diplomat and the indigenous tribes would've recognized that.

To claim the Aztecs were just uncivilized savages and cannon fodder falling like chaff to the superior White Man, when they built golden pyramid cities in the middle of lakes without livestock or wheels, maintained a bureaucracy for centuries, etc, goes straight into racist posturing territory. It's the same racist posturing that dismisses the Mongol Empire as uncivilized savages when they had a robust bureaucracy, surprisingly enlightened attitudes about women's rights compared to their neighbors, etc.

I know it's specifically racist posturing because I don't see the same people who dismiss Aztecs as uncivilized savages dismissing the Nazis or Conquistadors as uncivilized savages. Oh no, because they were white they get to have their technical accomplishments praised in the same breath that their atrocities are cursed. Or in the case of the Conquistadors, their genocide against the indigenous people gets ignored or worse justified.

As for the Tlaxcalans? "Oh, those stone age brown people are worthless stupid savages. Tens of thousands of them died in battle? Nope, it was all Cortez who was responsible. He couldn't possibly have taken advantage of existing situations and then lied out of his ass to make himself look responsible for all of it. Humans never lie about their accomplishments, especially not when money and power are on the line."

I know media has trained people to think that non-white people in skimpy clothing were just stupid uncivilized savages easily dominated by the white men in armor (but vikings deserve respect because they're white, nevermind that their entire shtick was piracy and raiding), but that's not remotely true. They were just as civilized as those murderous vikings that white dudebros love to romanticize, but get treated differently because racism.

I consider myself an anti-SJW who hates accusations of racism being thrown around so often that it loses power, but in this case I haven't found any reason to explain why Vikings are romanticized while Tlaxcalans are erased other than racism. Not even deliberate racism on an individual basis, but just decades of racist media and shitty schools training people to unconsciously think ignorantly without critically examining their attitudes. It's incredibly insulting and dehumanizing to the tens of thousands of Tlaxcalans who sacrificed their lives to ensure a brighter future for their children, whose descendants still exist today as a protectorate of Mexico and are being derided as traitors by the descendants of the Aztecs. This is morally and logically akin to modern Germany accusing Slavs and Jews of treason for fighting back against genocide. Protip: when overthrowing and genociding an empire who will then hate you for centuries, maybe don't rape so many of them that the population centuries later still has around 50% of their original genome.

I never claimed or even suggested in the slightest such thing about Cortez. I didn't even talked at all about individual performance at all. Or about Tlaxcalans. You are clearly the one having some issues here - among others problems, great problems with reading with comprehension. And in my eyes you are, openly, an Aztec apologist.

Also yes it was an oversimplification - on purpose. It is very easy to muddle the issue here otherwise. But there is absolutely nothing "absurd" about it. The chain of events was: There were Aztecs - a few Spaniards landed - very soon Aztecs were no more and Spain started to make one of their largest colonies in Mexico. Simple cause to effect. If you want to believe otherwise (similar one happened in other places too) be my guest but you are making it absurd then.

Peoples living in Mexico (and all Americas) were very clearly savages relative to Europeans (and most Asia) at the time. Sum of knowledge their civilizations possessed on almost any subject was tiny relative the old world. Their organization ineffective, art simplistic (if you dislike the word primitive), etc... all material culture in general too. This was not their fault. The most common explanation among scholars is that Americas were inhabited very late compared to Eurasia (and Africa) and civilization stared there much later. Also it had geography making exchanges between various peoples very hard. Yours however is a typical leftist attempt at rewriting history.
It had very little to do with how anyone was clothed (it is a warm climate and Mexico for the most part). Otoh clothes are part of material component of civilization so it can be disputed.
And certainly it has absolutely nothing with Vikings. However it gets much worse bordering retarded. Nazis? Jews? In a disscussion abou 16'th century colonial conquest? Racism is also somewhere in there. You claim not being an SJW?
BTW, Vikings were somewhat primitive and Nazis committing massive atrocities, sure - but this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

As to you "being anti-SJW", a have i friend of yours here:

Spoiler

However this itself doesn't mean you are wrong. Even a SJW can be right on occasion, broken clock and all that. Just be honest with people you discuss with. Your position on backward civilization and the silly relativism that comes with it, not to mention comparing conquistadors of 16th century with Nazis is very typical for an SJW.

Edit: minor changes and corrections.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

And in my eyes you are, openly, an Aztec apologist.

If saying “they built pyramids, calling them savages is reductive cultural posturing” makes me an apologist, then I’m guilty as charged.

 

[Melcar]

Someone here is clearly butthurt.

 

[Serus]

And in my eyes you are, openly, an Aztec apologist.

If saying “they built pyramids, calling them savages is reductive cultural posturing” makes me an apologist, then I’m guilty as charged.

Good you realize that. Progress.

I didn't wrote: "They were savages." but: "savages relative to Europeans and most Asians". There is a difference. It doesn't mean they didn't have a civilization, just a relatively primitive one. But granted, it might be a poor choice of word on my part. Lets make it: "Primitive relative to...".

If pyramids make Aztecs not primitive vs Europe (and most Asia) at the time, what can i say? Relativism and historical revisionism are the words we are looking for here.

Lastly, pyramids are probably the easiest buildings to make if you want to go big. They require the least architectural knowledge. They still require basics but mostly a lot of manpower.