|
|
|
|
|
|
|
been militarily subdued, because they had never experienced the full might of the empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although they were expected, rebellions were not taken lightly, and the Aztecs monitored the level of disaffection among tributaries at least intermittently. When rebellions broke out, vigorous action was crucial to prevent their spread. When the empire was weak, less direct challenges and affronts were ignored, but they were not forgotten. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Aztecs could have reduced the threat of rebellion within the empire by fragmenting large tributaries to increase the power disparity between ruler and subject, but they rarely did so. They generally retained large tributaries intact because larger client states could more effectively maintain internal order. This arrangement also lessened Aztec military cost, and the benefits of greater internal order apparently outweighed the threat to imperial stability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In summary, the Aztecs' reliance on hegemonic rather than territorial control produced an empire of distinctive character and vast expanse but loose control. Mesoamerican technological constraints limited the size, strength, and duration of forays outside the empire, and such engagements took on strategic characteristics that varied with the political nature of the target. Furthermore, the Aztec Empire was essentially an alliance, and was expectedly fraught with rebellion. Nevertheless, the system functioned admirably within its cultural context, and through it the Aztecs expanded their domain to a size unprecedented in Mesoamerica. |
|
|
|
|
|