|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aztec warfare changed during the expansion of Tenochtitlan's empire, and one explanation of military developments holds that any change in the offense provokes an adjustment in the defense, and vice versa. But in the Aztec case, there was little of this development in technological aspects of warfare. However, increases in scale caused alterations in fortifications, logistics, response time, and the degree of imperial control exercised over local rulers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although they continued to be successful, Aztec forces were limited, and this became more obvious as the empire expanded. Adequate forces could neither be committed year round nor be dispatched everywhere; therefore, conquest scheduling became a key factor in imperial control. In the earliest campaigns troops were not left to control the conquered areas, nor were auxiliary support troops dispatched great distances. Later, troops were left intermittently, and tributaries supplied aid in areas distant from Tenochtitlan or where entire regions remained unconquered. Still later this practice was augmented with the replacement of some conquered rulers to ensure greater local control. Areas that had not been conquered recently or through which troops had not passed were less secure. This became increasingly the case as the commitment of large numbers of troops to one theater of operations reduced their presence elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical accounts vary as to Aztec successes. Those of earlier wars record few defeats, while accounts of later wars include more. There are two causes: the first is chronicler bias. Recent reversals loomed larger in the memories of the chroniclers and their informants, while only the highlights of earlier campaigns were retained. Second, the Aztec approach to expansion had changed in scale. The |
|
|
|
|
|