|
|
|
|
|
|
|
two partners, Tlacopan on the west shore and Tetzcoco on the east. An island, Tenochtitlan was relatively secure from attack because, the Aztecs controlled the causeways and all areas where canoes could land. The same was not true of its partners, however. The Aztecs could secure the support of either ally against the other through bilateral arrangements, since Tenochtitlan posed an immediate threat (or security) for either city. Aztec forces could attack either city from numerous lakeshore locations, and Tlacopan and Tetzcoco were too far apart to reinforce each other quickly. Thus, the Aztecs were in both a geographical and a strategic position to coerce either ally or to use either bilaterally against the other.
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This balance-of-power strategy was apparently successful: there are no records of Tlacopan ever having opposed the Aztecs, possibly because it was more vulnerable to Aztec coercion than more distant Tetzcoco, with whom there were some difficulties. Thus Tlacopan was tied tightly to the Aztecs, and this bilateral configuration gave Tenochtitlan a preponderance of power from the outset of the Triple Alliance. The Aztecs' power grew to the point that they could defeat either or both of their partners without outside assistance, but the coalition remained important to Tenochtitlan. Destroying its partners would not place greater power in its hands; it would only deplete the Aztec army, reduce the allied forces, and eliminate two relatively reliable partners, thus undermining the Aztecs' own power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, the further expansion of the Aztec Empire could have been accomplished through military conquest and subjugation, but only at great cost in time, money, and men. And since the purpose of the empire was not to usurp all the wealth of dominated regions but to extract moderate amounts from the existing tributary flow, there were several advantages to retaining the local leaders in office. It placed minimal administrative burdens on the Aztecs. It ensured the loyalty of the local populace to the local leaders. It placed the burden of maintaining local control on the local leaders rather than on the Aztecs. And it offered some incentive for the local leaders to submit without fighting a total war that would be costly to the Aztecs and would probably seriously damage or destroy the economy of the target region and ultimately reduce its value to the Aztecs. Since the terms of subordination were not harsh (particularly in view of the alternative), many towns submitted without more than a show of Aztec force. |
|
|
|
|
|