|
|
|
|
|
|
|
regions of the basin, gaining strength and subjects, and headed inexorably toward the eastern shore of the basin. An eventual conflict may have appeared inevitable, and also the outcome, At any rate, according to Acolhua accounts,
44 Tetzcoco submitted to Tenochtitlan by means of a feigned war. The armies of Tetzcoco and Tenochtitlan met at Chiquiuhtepec and fought, after which Nezahualcoyotl's army retreated to Tetzcoco, whereupon the king set fire to his city's temple as a sign of surrender. The war lasted only eight hours and took place by prior secret agreement.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though Tetzcoco was given unprecedented privileges,46 there were great benefits in this arrangement for Tenochtitlan. As the other major power in the basin of Mexico, Tetzcoco was a potential challenger, and war between the two cities would probably have proven costly and protracted. Tetzcoco's submission offered the Aztecs an extremely low-cost conquest with the appearance of forceful domination, which would enhance the Aztecs' perceived power and increase the likelihood that others would submit peacefully. This conquest also isolated the Chalca city-states in the southern basin of Mexico. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Chalca city-states were independent and powerful, so despite the increasing severity of the intermittent conflict with the Aztecs, it did not seem perilous to the Chalcas. In fact, rather than seeking any opportunity to destroy the Aztecs, the Chalcas often sided with them in other conflicts; they aided Tetzcoco and Tenochtitlan in the war to wrest control from the Tepanecs, refused to assist Coyohuacan against the Aztecs, and agreed not to help Cuitlahuac against the Aztecs. Thus Chalco continued to fight Tenochtitlan, but without perceiving the ongoing struggle as mortal. To the Aztecs, however, the continued independence of Chalco was not merely a failure to seize economic control of the basin but also a serious threat to their security.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All enemies were dangerous, but nearby enemies were particularly so: if the Aztec army launched a distant campaign, these local enemies could threaten their capital. Distant enemies posed a less immediate threat because of the time required to organize and march to Tenochtitlan, but nearby enemies suffered no such limitations. Consequently, leaving an unconquered enemy nearby meant that the Aztec army was an incidental hostage to the vulnerability of its capital. Thus Chalco was a serious threat, to Aztec dominance within the basin of Mexico and to Aztec expansion beyond it. |
|
|
|
|
|