|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then they, too, retreated.
14 If there was no refuge, they all fled together, with the women and children in the middle.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes, retreat discipline broke down, or an orderly withdrawal was neither possible nor desirable. When the troops at Itzyohcan were routed, for instance, they escaped by jumping into the river. The heavily armored Spaniards could not follow, since the Indians had destroyed the bridges.16 As mentioned above, a disorderly withdrawal could easily turn into a disorganized rout, with disastrous consequences. But maintaining order in the ranks while pursuing a retreating opponent was sometimes even more difficult than maintaining it during one's own retreat, as pursuers often stopped to gather goods dropped in flight.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victory meant the imposition of tribute on the vanquished, an obligation owed to the Aztec king by the defeated town's nobility, although the tribute was actually divided among the Triple Alliance members. But decisions about the new tributary town were made by the Aztec king alone,18 with the disposition of the defeated military leaders decided on by the Aztec war leaders.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defeated towns were frequently sacked in Mesoamerican wars.20 But sacking was not inevitable, and it usually happened when the conflict had not been concluded by a negotiated halt or surrender. Enemies would ordinarily surrender before total defeat to save their cities from being sacked. Refusal to submit to Tenochtitlan merely meant that the Aztec army would march against that city, but submission before the battle could save it; tribute requirements would increase, but sacking would be avoided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the battle had been joined, sacking could still be avoided if the city surrendered. If not, sacking immediately followed the successful battle, but it could be stopped at any time if the enemy leaders surrendered. Sacking was the ultimate act and could be avoided as long as the vanquished retained something to grant the victors in return, even as little as surrendering themselves and pledging obedience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, in the war between Tetzcoco and Azcapotzalco, the Azcapotzalcas sacked cities allied with Tetzcoco while the latter's army was absent, since Tetzcoco had not surrendered and the other towns, as dependencies, could not.21 But once a major town had been conquered, so, too, had its dependencies, rendering physical conquest of these additional towns unnecessary. Sacking was not merely an act of vengeance, but was one way soldiers were compensated, and when |
|
|
|
|
|