|
|
|
|
|
|
|
egy. He made no structural changes in his army, in the role of nobles, in the rule by local tlahtohqueh, or in rule by power. He lost the offensive and concentrated (to the extent he did) on putting out brushfire revolts. The longer his reign continued, the more the Aztec empire eroded. Because the system was held together by threat of military reprisal, internal revolts were even more dangerous than failed campaigns, the former arose from a perception of Aztec weakness, while the latter were thrusts into unconquered and unknown areas and might require more than one effort to succeed. Tizoc forgot (or never realized) that the key to keeping the empire together was maintaining the appearance of power, which required constant attention. His was a failure of implementation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tizoc's reign lasted only four or five years, cut short by poison administered by his subjects,
30 and news of his death was immediately sent throughout the empire.31 The general reasons for doing away with Tizoc involved the withering away of Aztec influence and control of the empire and were readily apparent. But the specific reasonswho would dare kill the king and whyare not recorded, although an examination of the effects of Tizoc's reign suggests some possibilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any sustained lapse in maintaining the Aztecs'reputation meant a shrinkage of the empire and a corresponding reduction in tribute goods and lands that went disproportionately to the nobility. So Tizoc's failure to maintain the empire struck directly at their interests and undermined their support. Consequently, there may have been considerable motivation among the nobility for his removal. General ill feeling against the king was probably inadequate for any single individual to have taken the undoubted risk of harming someone so exalted and powerful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tizoc's poor performance had reflected on the chances of his apparent successor, the tlacochcalcatl Ahuitzotl.32 Kings were drawn from a limited pool of upper nobles who had good military records. Though the tlacochcalcatl position gave its occupant an advantage in any succession selection, it did not guarantee it, and this was probably even more the case during the reign of Tizoc. Performance was a critical criterion, and regardless of ability, service under a militarily poor kingwhether because of his timidity in prosecuting war or because of his poor tactical directionsdiminished the tlacochcalcatl's chances to ascend to the throne. Thus, he had a considerable interest either in forcing more wars or in eliminating the king. |
|
|
|
|
|