|
|
|
|
|
|
|
little incentive or need to conquer territory in a geographically continuous fashion. And since tributaries were in little added danger from ''enemy'' attack in the region, leaving some towns unconquered did not endanger the conquests. Thus not having to subdue everyone in the area made the process of conquest easier, for the conquered towns could then be used for support in further penetration of the region. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although the foregoing account describes the usual means of Aztec conquest, there were differences in degrees of conquest according to its distance. Towns close to Tenochtitlan were often forcibly subdued, while distant ones were often lightly incorporated. Beyond the central Mexican area Aztec interests changed. The security of Tenochtitlan was less threatened, and fewer obligations were negotiated. Also, many of these distant regions possessed only slight political integration, so security was of less concern (except to thwart others, as in the cases of Tlaxcallan and Cuetlachtlan). Other matters took on more pivotal importance, such as logistics, passage, economic goods, and tactical position vis-à-vis potential targets. Thus forceful conquest and incorporation would have generated great resistance while the Aztecs were in a precarious tactical situation, especially considering the more limited interests the Aztec state had in these distant tributaries. However, this shifting of concerns with distance changed as the Aztecs' political situation changed and as the empire grew in complexity, gaining more reliable support in some areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accordingly, the political complexion of the empire was far from uniform, and areas had widely differing obligations. Likewise, the significance of rebellions varied. While all revolts struck at the perceived power of the empire, only towns near potential allies posed major political threats to the Aztecs, and only towns controlling pivotal transit zones posed real economic and political dangers. Hence the Aztecs reacted to the various revolts with different approaches. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no comprehensive imperial policy, simply Aztec policy and the policies of the subordinates, who were free to conduct their affairsboth internal and externalas they desired so long as they did not conflict with those of the Aztecs. Thus wars by and between tributaries were frequent, but these were tolerated because they did not affect relationships with the Aztecs. The tribute assessments owed the Aztecs would not change, but the victor could gain substantially in more tribute from new towns. The right to enlarge |
|
|
|
|
|