|
|
|
|
|
|
|
their military exploits elsewhere in the empire. Thus they were a cost-effective approach to a persistent military problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The frequently reported Aztec rationale for flower wars with Tlaxcallan was that these conflicts provided a source of sacrificial captives close to Tenochtitlan, offered convenient training for the Aztec soldiers, and allowed Tlaxcallan to remain unconquered for these purposes, even though the Aztecs could have conquered it at any time. Although this reasoning has been roundly criticized as an Aztec rationalization for an inability to subdue the Tlaxcaltecs, it contains considerable truth. This is demonstrated in the wars with Tlaxcallan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Aztecs did not undertake the outright conquest of Tlaxcallan (or of their other xochiyaoyotl opponents) because they did not want to divert the necessary men and resources, for a variety of reasons. The troops were needed elsewhere in the empire; to divert these for an all-out push against Tlaxcallan would have been risky. If the Aztecs had tried unsuccessfully to conquer Tlaxcallan, their control elsewhere in the empire could have been undermined, and the king's position in relation to the nobles and calpolli heads could have been jeopardized. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unquestionably, the Aztecs benefited both in military training and in the taking of captives in flower wars. Training as a function of the xochiyaoyotl was a real concern in relation to elevating and seasoning warriors, though certainly not in the sense of fighting a weaker opponent. Such a circumscribed war, however, could be undertaken without risk of total loss. It is likely that the Aztecs could have subdued the Tlaxcaltecs had they wanted to, given their greater manpower and resources, but the cost would have been very high. It was with just such a situation that flower wars (as modified by the Aztecs) were designed to contend. A flower war was largely an exercise in power, but one that also entailed very real strategic benefits for the Aztecs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Aztecs did not tightly integrate tributary areas into the empire. Conquered city states continued substantially as before, trading with their traditional marketing partners, retaining existing economic ties, and merely paying the Aztecs their due. Conquered towns afforded support for the Aztecs, not security, so there was |
|
|
|
|
|