I'm sorry, but that's not true. How much have you read on the subject?

They had men with clubs (more like swords), they also had men with nets, men with hooks, men with tridents etc. It took a lot of cooperation to bring even one man down and keep him in good enough condition to sell.

The spaniards were mostly colonists, they had a few mercs, but not many. Cortez himself was a lawyer. There's only so much "deck drilling" can do to turn such men into a cohesive unit. Much less a unit as cohesive as the career soldiers they were up against.

> The only thing the aztecs had was special infantry like skull, jaguar, and eagle orders.

Yes. And how did one join those orders? By working together as a unit to bring home slaves.

> In terms of losses the scales are tipped hilariously one sided with 2k aztecs lost to every 100 Spaniards.

Losses were asymmetric yes, but it still was hardly a "frogstomp" as you claimed. The spaniards came very close to losing several times.

> Then there's the cavalry benefit.

They had very little cavalry and it was of almost no use where the fighting was fiercest in the capital city.