|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tepanecs in many campaigns in which they had no obvious interest, but they were not mercenaries: assisting in their lords' wars was an obligation of all tributary relationships in Mesoamerica. This pattern was common in Mesoamerica and was one that the Aztecs continued and elaborated in their own empire, but it leaves their actual role in many conquests open to question. Did they provide the bulk of the army, or merely a few troops? Moreover, the Aztecs' role in these conquests may not have been as significant as depicted. Their accounts tend to exaggerate, and some Aztec claims of conquests (such as at Chalco) conflict with the accounts of the people supposedly conquered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever their participation in the Tepanec campaigns, the Aztecs did not determine goals or strategy. The towns the Aztecs conquered do not fall into any readily apparent pattern, because we lack sufficient information on the Tepanec expansion. The same would be true in trying to reconstruct the events of the Second World War solely from the accounts of only one of the smaller participants, such as New Zealand. Not only is the overall picture lost, but many significant battles appear unintelligible.
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although they were tributaries, the Aztecs nevertheless benefited from conquests in which they engaged under the direction of the Tepanecs. Political supremacy belonged to the Tepanecs, but subordinates might be granted immediate political control, other benefits, such as the right to free passage and trade, spoils, and continuing tribute. Thus, being part of the dominant political system gave even subordinate participants enough derivative rights and benefits to bind them to the empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acamapichtli ''Reed-Fist'' (Ruled 13721391) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The earliest war during the reign of Acamapichtli (see fig. 17) began with Chalco in 1375 and lasted for twelve years.6 However, it was not an ordinary war of conquest but one of the anomalous flower wars. The most common reasons the participants gave for fighting a flower war were to secure sacrificial captives and to provide combat training for the soldiers, but these explanations are incomplete. Recent explanations have emphasized the seemingly ritualistic and religious nature of the xochiyaoyotl battles, but they obscure their very sig- |
|
|
|
|
|