|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when the Aztecs were weakened. Abetted by Tlaxcallan, Huexotzinco, and Cholollan, the Cuetlachtlan challenge had presented the most serious threat to the Aztecs to date. The consequences of failure would have been disastrous for the cohesion of the empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thereafter, the Chalca war was finally resolved. With the encirclement of Chalco now completed as a result of the Gulf coast campaign, the conflict reached the stage of a full-fledged war of conquest.
51 Small towns such as Itztompiatepec, Panohuayan, Atezcahuacan, and Tzacualtitlan Tenanco were taken.52 Then, assisted by the Acolhuas, the Aztecs defeated the Chalcas and sacked the town of Chalco Atenco.53 Many people fled to other Chalca towns, such as Tlalmanalco, Amaquemecan, Tenanco, Chimalhuacan, Tecuanipan, and Mamalhuazzocan, but the Aztecs pursued them and, during the following year, conquered these cities, too. The Chalcas agreed to pay tribute to Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina, and the Chalca lands were divided among the people of Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan,54 but sixteen thousand people abandoned Amaquemecan and fled to Huexotzinco.55 With the final defeat of their sole remaining adversary in the basin of Mexico, the Aztecs finally consolidated control of the area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lords of the newly conquered Chalca towns met various fates. Some fled to friendly cities, and others were simply removed from their offices. The indigenous leaders in at least nine Chalca towns were replaced by Aztec military governors,56 an unusual, but not unprecedented, action. The imposition of military governors (cuauhtlahtohqueh, sing. cuauhtlahtoani) was not a total usurpation of authority by the Aztecs. Rather, the new ruler usually had a legitimate, and noble, kin tie to his new subjects.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usually, local rulers were not completely removed; rather, they remained a vital element in the local government, continuing to make most of the day-to-day decisions. But they were subordinated to the paramount authority of the governor, who acted largely as an overseer. This usually occurred when the cities had militarily resisted incorporation, but it also occurred through natural attrition. When the ruler of a relatively weak city died (and possibly only when there was no appropriate successor), the Aztecs could impose their own choice with relative ease.58 But the replacement rulers were acknowledged to be governors, not tlahtohqueh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Installing an Aztec governor in subject towns, particularly troublesome ones, did not enable the Aztecs to control everything that was |
|
|
|
|
|