You did NOT want to go man-to-man with an Aztec or Incan warrior.

In fact, it is noted he was not a very good strategist or leader: his appointment to the expedition to conquer the New World for Spain was political in nature. Therefore, he was forced to make battle on his terms in favorable conditions out of necessity and pragmatism, not because he was essentially the best, most well-trained and tactical general in history. Attrition and one decisive battle could spell defeat for Cortes. Cortes and even Pizarro had small complements of men (estimated at around 800, and that's with support staff and non-combatants). That being said, the natives had advantages of their own. Spanish troops fired by rank ensuring maximum musket effectiveness for what they had to work with, usually there were pikemen at the ready to withstand infantry charges while musketmen reloaded, and horses also granted the Spanish a mobility the enemy could not match. Yes, these weapons were arguably better than what the natives possessed, but only because of their tactics. Spanish had cannons, horses (which terrified the natives, who had never seen such a thing), gunpowder (which also terrified the natives, who had no armour or clothing to resist the shock of musket fire), and were generally equipped with swords, muskets, and iron or chainmail armour when in the field (the traditional look of a 'conquistador'). There are a couple key considerations we have to look at when we think of Western technology in comparison to Meso-American and Andean technology in history, if we really want to compare 'who was better'.

Medieval 2 total war conquistadores