|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
would logically fall, while no other town near Chiapan was conquered during Chimalpopoca's reign. And temporally, this is the first conquest of any Aztec king listed by that source, albeit for Chimalpopoca. Thus it is probably an example of having amalgamated the early conquests into a coherent whole, but a whole that fails to pay proper attention to the regal temporal divisions. It is also during this campaign that the conquest of Mazahuacan properly belongs and not to that of the previous king, Acamapichtli. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veytia (1944, 1:35253) adds another conquered townChiucnauhtlanseized during the march toward Xaltocan. However, his data seem to derive from Ixtlilxochitl, and he amplifies them considerably, interpreting as a conquest what Ixtlilxochitl may have intended to be a town passed in transit. Moreover, I have tried to rely on chroniclers and sources from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, since later works derive from these and either embroider the facts or distort them by presenting them as a seamless whole. Consequently, I have not included either Clavigero's or Veytia's conquests here or throughout. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24. Cuauhximalpan, in the western portion of the basin of Mexico (García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:251), is solely attested during Huitzilihhuitl's reign and fits within a directly westward expansion. This expansion apparently took place after the northern campaign but does not appear to have been a significant effort. To the west of Cuauhximalpan lies Matlatzinco, which was already dominated by the Tepanecs and their Aztec auxiliaries, so taking Cuauhximalpan may have been merely a matter of securing questionable towns en route to the valley of Tolocan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:36 [chap. 14]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. After the northern and western campaigns some attention seems to have been paid to the southern lake region. Berlin and Barlow (1980:15) are unique in placing the conquests of Xochimilco and Cuauht-Inchan in Huitzilihhuitl's reign and are joined only by Chimalpahin (1965:184 [relación 7]) in crediting him with Mizquic and Cuitlahuac. These alleged conquests clearly belong in the earlier reign, where the majority of sources place them, and their presence here is the result of erroneous repetition. The conquest of Cuauhnahuac, often listed as a conquest of Acamapichtli's, fits more convincingly into the reign of Huitzilihhuitl and is attested by Berlin and Barlow (1980:53), by Alvarado Tezozomoc (1975b:95), and especially by Torquemada (197583, 1:14849 [bk. 2, chap. 17]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As argued above, the illogic of undertaking a military conquest of what is now Cuernavaca, Morelos, is strong. Thus I do not accept the conquest of ''Cuauhnahuac'' (meaning present-day Cuernavaca) by the Aztecs. However, the strength of the written records is also compelling, and I accept their intended application to Cuernavaca, but I believe that the events recorded do not reflect normal conquest. The same limitations listed for Cuauhnahuac as present-day Cuernavaca during the reign of Acamapichtli apply here. It is unlikely that an actual military campaign could have been launched so far afield, and Huitzilihhuitl reportedly secured the daughter of Tezcacoatl, king of Cuauhnahuac, as his wife (Torquemada 197583, 1:148 [bk. 2, chap. 17]). However, accepting a wife from Tezcacoatl may have been construed in |
|
|
|
|
|