|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warfare, it cannot explain the extent, direction, and execution of the Aztec expansion. Moreover, much of this perspective comes from an unwarranted intermingling by modern writers of data from ordinary wars of conquest with data from the flower wars (xochiyaoyotl). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The third approachbased on the flower warsderives from overemphasizing the practices in, and the role of, these wars. In its classic manifestation, the xochiyaoyotl was a ritual war allegedly undertaken for several purposes; most prominently mentioned are combat training and securing captives for religious sacrifices.
28 However, this explanation is not universally accepted,29 and sacrificial captives were not taken exclusively in flower wars. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The xochiyaoyotl was characterized by the formality of the battles and the conventions that surrounded them. A day was set for the battle, which was to be held in a space purposely left as common ground between the lands of the two enemies. This space, the cuauhtlalli or yaotlalli, was sacred30 and took on special significance.31 The fighting was formally initiated by burning a large pyre of paper and incense between the two armies.32 Death in the flower wars, as opposed to death in an ordinary war, was called xochimiquiztliflowery death, blissful death, fortunate death.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The xochiyaoyotl was unquestionably one of the most unusual and spectacular aspects of Aztec warfare, prompting analogy with the medieval melée.34 However, both early and modern analyses have generalized the ritual elements of flower wars, projecting them onto ordinary warfare and perpetuating the idea that the ''classic xochiyaoyotl'' was a distinct type of warfare. While it is true that the flower wars were conceptually distinct from "ordinary" wars, their functional distinction is less clear. To assess the role and purpose of the xochiyaoyotl properly, we cannot extract its stereotypical characteristics. Rather, we must reinsert it into the historical sequence as an integral part of the Aztec military repertoire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The three foregoing perspectives present Aztec war as a matter of principle, undertaken only after grievous provocation and after all peaceful options had been presented to the enemy; as a religious and ideological imperative; and as a formal and ritualistic endeavor. These views also present battle as a matter of demonstrating superior ability and, perhaps, divine favor, rather than as a matter to be concluded by whatever means were effective. In fact, Aztec practices were shaped by political realities and practical necessities. And many of the religious explanations were ex post facto rationaliza- |
|
|
|
|
|