|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cal claims to the title were also important. These rewards were crucial to the maintenance of the empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although the system was born of conquest, the Aztecs did not institute major structural realignments in their tributaries, so personal tieseither of friendship or of intimidationserved to hold the empire together. In their infrequent attempts to control tributaries directly, the Aztecs imposed military governors, though usually only when conquest had been followed by rebellion. This did not signal a structural shift in systems but was merely one of a series of temporary coercive measures the Aztecs could use against recalcitrant cities. Even then, local rulers were usually retained unless they were likely to establish some threatening outside alliance (e.g., Cuetlachtlan with Tlaxcallan and Tolocan with Michhuacan). This policy did, however, soothe succession disruptions and achieved continuity in local (albeit subservient) policy.
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Aztecs also occasionally established garrisons and, to a lesser extent, colonies for both internal control and external security functions, but the relatively few people involved played only a small role in the political control of the local populace. Garrison troops and colonists became increasingly common in the Aztec system of imperial control, but a major presence would have upset the earlier alliance system. Alliances were maintained by power, so the relationships between the Aztecs and their tributaries tended to wax and wane as their perceived costs and power differentials shifted. But establishing significant fortifications, garrisons, and colonies would have stabilized the relationship and locked the locals into it on a long-term basis, undermining local rule, raising the local cost beyond that of merely being a tributary, and increasing the likelihood of rebellion. In short, stationing large contingents of Aztecs in tributary regions would have altered the power balance and required more direct control of local affairs at a significantly higher cost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because their troops were not tied down in garrison duty, the Aztecs were able to demonstrate overwhelming force. The larger the client state, the better, since it could maintain order more easily, but under a policy of direct rule (which requires garrisons), the disposable troops are few, the local garrison troops are finite, and the perception of power declines. Though garrisoned troops can be withdrawn in the event of war elsewhere, if they are integral to the political control of the place where they are stationed, withdrawing them weakens the local situation and encourages revolts. |
|
|
|
|
|