|
|
|
|
|
|
|
larly, the newly-incorporated city-states gained by being tied into the empire's trading network (which was exceptionally far-flung and prosperous) and by falling under its protection. Conversely, however, the city-states were then vulnerable to attack by an enemy over matters previously of concern only to the empire, and they were dependent on that empire for protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The existence of various power blocs altered the political environment in Mesoamerica but did not lead to the ultimate emegence of only two competing coalitions, largely because of the limits on projecting force. Logistical constraints meant that areas had to be relatively contiguous to be incorporated or to form an effective coalition, because widely dispersed areas could not readily reinforce one another. Moreover, this type of empire was effective only when the conquered groups were settled, civilized peoples. The Aztecs'method of extracting goods through an existing power structure was unsuited to seminomadic peoples such as the Chichimecs who lacked formally recognized political hierarchies and offices.
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empire building also caused internal opposition, the most serious manifestation of which was rebellion. Rebellions ranged from the failure of a region to grant the Aztecs certain presumed rights, such as unobstructed transit, to defaulting on tribute payments, to killing Aztecs and their subjects. Few or no imperial forces were necessary or available at any given location in the empire; only the local leadership kept tributary provinces loyal. But because the hegemonic system depended on the perception of Aztec power, this situation could change with any alteration in the status quo; thus one of the expected results of a hegemonic system was the occurrence of intermittent rebellions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebellions were likeliest to succeed when the empire was temporarily weakened (e.g., after a disastrous campaign or the death of a king), especially if the rebellious polity could form an alliance with another power nearby. Thus cities near Tenochtitlan were less likely to revolt, even under oppressive conditions, than were more distant cities and those near independent regional powers.6 Moreover, many of the tributaries that had been ''voluntarily'' incorporated into the empireparticularly those at some distance from Tenochtitlanwere less reliable allies and more likely to rebel than those that had |
|
|
|
|
|