|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the emperor's role, and he might have succeeded had the empire been more secure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the eastern side of the basin, the Acolhuas were disgruntled over their recent defeat and the loss of their lands. Many of the original city rulers had been replaced by Tepanec puppets, so there was a group of legitimate and disgruntled Acolhua pretenders, largely living in exile in states hostile to Azcapotzalco. Loyalties were deeply divided in the Tepanec cities on the western side of the basin as well. Maxtlatl's seizure of power was a breach in the legitimate (and consensually agreed-upon) rulership, and many other city rulers who were also descendents of Tetzotzomoc had an equally legitimate claim to the throne.
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was during this unstable political situation that Chimalpopoca and his son, Teuctl-Ehuac, were killed. The most widely reported version of these events maintains that Maxtlatl ordered his soldiers to enter Tenochtitlan at night and kill the Aztec king and his son,55 presumably out of fear of the growing power of Tenochtitlan, in retribution for Aztec pretentions, and from a desire to weaken that city and remove a threat to the empire. But this explanation seems unlikely, because Maxtlatl would not want to remove a young, untried ruler and permit his replacement by a much stronger and more experienced one.56 The second and more plausible version of Chimalpopoca's death places the blame on his successor, Itzcoatl.57 |
|
|
|
|
|