|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where in the empire or even within the Triple Alliance, who did not participate in the benefits of expansion in the same way the Aztecs did.
18 But even in Tenochtitlan, other general motivations played a more important role. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aztec ideology held that anyone could advance through the social ranks through individual effort and military skill. However, differences in the way men of the various social classes were trained, the weapons they used, the way they were deployed on the battlefield, and the type of war they fought heavily skewed the rewards toward the nobility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In ordinary wars of conquest wielders of shock weaponsdisproportionately noblestook most of the captives in battle since they were the combatants who actually came face to face with the enemy and had the skills to exploit opportunities. Although commoner archers probably killed many combatants, the standardized armory arrows did not allow the archer to be identified (and hence credited). Commoners made up the bulk of the armies and also the bulk of the prisoners, especially those fighting as part of their war service, since they had less training and skill than the telpochcalli warriors and markedly less than the nobles. But taking these commoners prisoner did not necessarily reflect great martial skill or daring, and because so many captives were taken in wars of conquest, the social significance of having done so diminished with time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In flower wars, on the other hand, a primary goal was to demonstrate individual martial skills, and since this involved the use of shock weapons, commoners were largely absent. The net effect was that fewer prisoners were taken and that doing so required considerably more skill. Thus the likelihood of social advancement for the lower class was reduced, in terms of both access to a battle in which captives were taken and success once the battle began. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, social advancement provided some motivation for the individual warrior for taking captives, but at the state level it was more a rationalization for war than its cause or purpose. Much of the reason for taking prisoners was not simply that the gods needed them but that the captives enabled the Aztecs to make a display of power in Tenochtitlan to reinforce their image and might. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By using captives as a measure of military success and advancement, the state dovetailed its own interests in acquiring captives with the development of an effective and highly motivated military. Captives were also necessary to complete kingly succession. Thus |
|
|
|
|
|