|
|
|
|
|
|
|
able manpower and revenue, either actual in imperial expenditures or potential in local resources diverted to maintain the fortifications. This situation had three logical consequences. First, the number of men available for use elsewhere in the empire was reduced, which decreased the perception of the polity's power. Second, limited manpower meant that the system of fortifications could not be increased indefinitely. Moreover, attempts to control local political offices meant that administrative costs were increasing. And third, the territorial system was considerably less flexible than the hegemonic system, which could adjust its defenses more rapidly and create new areas of vulnerability. Consequently, the increased costs of maintaining this system limited the size of the Tarascan Empire. The Tarascans' control over dependent areas was greater, but it was achieved by sacrificing geographical expanse: it was, in essence, a defensive strategy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, the Tarascan fortifications had several advantages. First, they provided intelligence about the approach of enemy troops. Messages dispatched by runners traveled considerably faster than did marching armies. Thus, even if the Tarascans were unaware of an Aztec advance until it reached the border, they would then be warned in sufficient time to muster an army and advance well before the Aztecs reached the main Tarascan cities. Second, the Aztecs were faced with the option of either conquering these fortifications or bypassing them. These strongholds could be conquered, because they were usually manned with small forces, but doing so would consume considerable time and supplies and correspondingly reduce the Aztecs' chances of success against the Tarascan main forces. Alternatively, the strongholds could be bypassed, but since the fortifications were located in the best passes, bypassing them meant marching through more rugged terrain with a corresponding loss of time. If, however, the Aztec army decided to proceed along the main pass without conquering the strongholds, their rear would be vulnerable to harassment and the fortification's troops could endanger additional logistical support. Containing troops could be left behind to defend against raids from the encircled defenders, but this would also reduce the Aztec forces. And third, a stabilized and fortified frontier effectively stymied the standard Aztec tactic of chipping away at empires by continually conquering frontier towns. Thus, although there were disadvantages in permanently fortifying a border, building strongholds was an educated gamble by the Tarascans about |
|
|
|
|
|