Talk:Indian auxiliaries

Demeaning title
I find the title of this article to be demeaning to the Indians who fought for the Spanish. First of all, the word "auxiliary" implies that the Indians were not essential to the Spanish conquest. Suffice it to say that neither Cortes in Mexico nor Pizarro in Peru would have succeeded in overthrowing the Aztecs and Incas if they had not had tens of thousands of Indians on their side. To call the Indians "auxiliaries" is to minimize and marginalize their contributions in the Aztec and Inca and other wars. The same tendency exists in the U.S. in which U.S. army commanders (and historians) often minimized the contribution of their Indian scouts and allies, although in many cases it was the Indians who did most of the fighting.

I think this article should be deleted -- or an alternative title and focus should be found. Smallchief (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... What? First of all, the sources make it clear that "Indian auxiliaries" was a commonly used name even at the time when these soldiers were active. There is also nothing directly demeaning about "auxiliaries"; for several centuries, auxiliaries of all kinds were used all over the world, many of whom served voluntarily and sometimes as elite soldiers (see for example the Roman Auxilia which included some of the best units of the Roman army). Auxiliaries does not mean someone is not important, but describes their role in the military context. While one could rightfully argue that the Tlaxcalteca and others were allies, not auxiliaries, during the fall of the Aztec Empire, later Indian auxiliaries (such as the ones active in Yucatan, Guatemala, Texas, New Mexico, and so on) directly served under Spanish commanders and acted as auxiliaries in a military sense. Note that this article does not focus on the independent, allied armies of native kingdoms, but on the actual Spanish-led troops.
 * Furthermore, it would demeaning to delete this article because a significant number of Indian auxiliaries served with pride and distinction, though their native commanders generally preferred to call themselves "Indian Conquistadors". (Of course, there were also those who were conscripted and used as cannon fodder by the Spanish.)
 * Finally, this is the most common name for this topic, and per Wikipedia's rules we have to use common titles. If we had to rename it, "Indian Conquistadors" would probably be the best alternate title, as it was used by some of the soldiers in question.
 * If you want to learn more about the Indian auxiliaries, I would recommend reading "Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the Conquest of Mesoamerica", a great book which attempts to show the perspective of Spain's native allies. Applodion (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that the title of the book you recommend refers to "Indian Conquistadors" and "Indigenous Allies" but doesn't call Indian soldiers "auxiliaries." If the author of your recommended book doesn't call them auxiliaries, maybe we shouldn't? I would suggest that the title of the article to changed to something like "Indian allies of the colonial powers." Smallchief  (talk)
 * This would not be fitting. First of all, this article is only about the pro-Spanish native troops, not those of all other colonial powers. Furthermore, "Indian allies" excludes native troops which served in the Spanish armies as, well, auxiliaries. The best possibility would probably be "Indian allies, conquistadors, and auxiliaries of Spain", as this would include all kinds of native pro-Spanish troops in the Americas. However, this title would probably be too convoluted. Anyway, if you want to start a renaming process, I would recommend that you do it through the official process so that others could also share their opinion on this topic. Applodion (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also: "Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the Conquest of Mesoamerica" does occasionally refer to the pro-Spanish native troops as "auxiliaries" where it fits their role; otherwise, Matthew et al. do indeed prefer "allies" or "conquistadors". Nevertheless, other English authors still generally use "Indian auxiliaries". However, I do not know whether modern historians in Mexico have a preferred title; their opinion would probably also matter in this regard. Applodion (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Title misinforming, entire scope of native aid misinformed, the foregoing destiny on life of allied tribes falsely presented
In Spanish, indios auxiliares was not the exact term used throughout the conquest of the Americas and the Philippines, most literature call them aliados. They were not enslaved and forced by the very few Spanish military and power to fight alongside them, to say that they were exploited misleads the reader and doesn't portray the true voluntary recruit that those thousands of tribes offered: they wanted to topple the corresponding preHispanic empire ruling and enslaving them, they accepted the king of Spain as their sovereign, they agreed with the Spaniards to do away with the old order and install a new Spanish order. That they were offered preferential treatment in the new order and self-rule among many other benefits, that's a very normal practice done to this date, no military fight anywhere without postwar benefits in return. They were indeed granted self-ruling lands afterwards with due homologation of rules into the Spanish jurisprudence and retaining the crown of Spain as their King, their tribal leaders and their successors retained perpetual key positions in the new Spanish cities, those native nations lived very well for 300 years. The encomiendas did not actually include the allied tribes, but the defeated ones. When the independence wars broke in the Americas and the Philippines, the core of the royal defense against the independence forces were those native nations, they didn't want to separate from Madrid and the Crown. They were the true victims in the wars, and the murderers were the criollos and the forces they amassed. Once the new countries were created, these hundreds of tribes were deprived of their previous benefits and preferences. The true cause of the current fight of original peoples lies there, and not in today's Spain. 190.63.65.156 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)