|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chart 1.
Chart showing the relationships of the Aztec kings, based on Durán 1967.
For a reconstruction that differs slightly, see Carrasco 1984b:6061. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derived from their individual calpolli rather than from the tlahtoani, but the conflicts lessened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although the Aztecs fought battles before their adoption of the tlahtoani political system, these did not involve political expansion or incorporation of the vanquished and will not be considered here. The post-tribal wars began with the exploits of Acamapichtli, but the position of the Aztecs in a wider political context must be considered first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The three earliest Aztec kings were not independent rulers but, like the kings of many cities, including Colhuacan, were subordinate to Tetzotzomoc, king of Azcapotzalco and leader of the Tepanec Empire, the most powerful polity in the basin of Mexico at that time (see map 2). Nearby Azcapotzalco dominated the western basin of Mexico, and the Aztecs became its tributary,
4 paying the Tepanecs in lake products and gaining access to the markets of the Tepanec cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conquests by the Aztecs during this time were presumably under the aegis of the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco. This presents a number of difficulties in interpretation: when were the Aztecs the principal conquerors, when were they merely auxiliaries, and when did they wage war in pursuit of their own strategic goals as opposed to those of the Tepanecs? The Aztecs also fought on behalf of the |
|
|
|
|
|
