|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 22.
War with Coyohuacan. (Tovar 103; courtesy of the John Carter
Brown Library, Brown University) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tary leader, they were his to distribute.
21 The tlahtoani could reward successful warriors and maintain the newly emerging nobility without the active support of the commoners, and he could elevate meritorious commoners (the cuauhpipiltin), separating them from the calpolli heads on whom they had been dependent. Thus he could create a body of soldiers primarily dependent on and responsive to him. Although the conquest did increase the calpolli holdings, commoners remained dependent on their calpolli for access to lands, but the nobles, including the calpolli leaders, received lands and wealth independent of the commoners, and the interests of the state (i.e., of the nobles) could be furthered without hindrance.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This shift in relative power was rationalized as an explicit agreement with the people. According to Aztec accounts, the lords asked permission of the people to fight the Tepanecs,23 but the fearful commoners did not want to fight them, and some even suggested that they deliver their god, Huitzilopochtli, to Maxtlatl as an act of obe- |
|
|
|
|
|
