|
|
|
|
|
|
|
polities. Individual city-states posed little threat because of their relatively small size, but complex politics such as multicity states, multicity alliances, and empires, posed greater problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multicity states composed of several major cities and their dependencies, varied considerably in their internal power structures, but their member cities possessed relatively autonomous leadership, offering a range of centralized control. Those states reinforced by ethnic ties, however, were relatively stable and unlikely to fragment under external pressure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multicity alliances were composed of allied city-states or multicity states drawn together by mutually perceived interests, including security from external military threats, and they could thus be of considerable size. Although they lacked the coordinated and disciplined control of a centralized government and persistent stabilizing ties, such as a common ethnic identity, they were less bound by geographical limitations. These alliances were essentially special purpose institutions, arising from perceived needs and persisting as long as the needs were satisfied. But over time if there were no changes in the way an alliance was structured, it disintegrated when its members' interests diverged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empires were the most complex Mesoamerican politics, reaching considerable size and having a relatively centralized and hierarchical political organization. Being multiethnic, empires suffered some internal divergence of interests, but because they were centralized (at least for imperial matters), they could ward off some of the centrifugal forces that pried alliances apart. Thus, although the various political subunits were not free to leave the empire, they might nevertheless lack a major commitment to it. Because these complex polities had larger populations and greater military potential than individual city-states, the Aztecs used different tactics in dealing with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City-states generally controlled relatively modest areas, so they confronted attacking armies at the outskirts of the city, and the defenders' defeat in battle meant defeat of the city-state. The attackers could immediately follow up such a victory by sacking the city. Empires and multicity groupings, by contrast, controlled relatively large areas and intercepted attacking armies at their borders, where the loss of a battle meant only a tactical defeat rather than the loss of the entire polity. The defenders could simply fall back, regroup in friendly territory, and renew the fight. Thus complex polities could not be |
|
|
|
|
|