|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tions for warfareideological overlays to justify actions they were determined to take. In short, religion and ideology were manipulated in the service of the state, rather than the reverse.
35 Consequently, relying on idealized descriptions or religious and ritual imperatives to present a portrait of Aztec warfare as it was initiated and executed is largely unjustified. To the Aztecs, warfare was a practical matter and was pursued in that fashion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding the Aztecs and comparing them with earlier Mesoamerican cultures (as well as with Western cultures) depends on the theories and models used to make sense of the information available and to indicate which data are pivotal and which are peripheral. Theories channel observation and explanation, and what is anomalous when seen from the perspective of one theoretical approach may be intelligible when seen from another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The theoretical approaches of various academic disciplines over many years have resulted in so many different perspectives on the Aztec Empire that it is difficult to present a consensual view of the way it has been conceived.36 Nevertheless, there has been considerable unanimity about the political structure of the empire, the towns and provinces conquered by each king have been noted, and there is essential agreement on the sequence, shape, and size of the evolving Aztec system.37 Whether the Aztecs had a true empire has been vigorously debated, largely because of the implicit use of Karl von Clausewitz's theoretical perspective. He asserts that the main concerns of empires are territorial expansion, internal control of conquered areas, and the maintenance of secure borders, all of which require a standing army, control of the enemy's will (most easily accomplished by control of its territory and leadership), and fortifications to guarantee territorial defense.38 When viewed from this perspective, several Aztec practices have been found wanting, throwing doubt on the imperial status of their polity. Aztec warriors have not always been considered professional soldiers (despite the existence of military orders), because membership in the army was not a fulltime occupation.39 Rather, the military was constituted from the populace as needed. But because no permanent standing army existed to impose the Aztecs' will on conquered territories, political centralization was impossible. As for fortifications and troops to |
|
|
|
|
|