|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
during the previous reign where it is overwhelmingly attested, so this is another instance of temporal misplacement with the conquest belonging to the previous king. Third, the conquest of Chiapan is listed for Chimalpopoca and for no prior king (Anales de Tula 1979:34), but given the town's location in the northwestern basin far removed from his other conquests, this seems unlikely. Rather, it appears to fit more easily into Huitzilihhuitl's campaign into that section of the basin, an interpretation buttressed by the fact that this is the first conquest listed for any of the Aztec kings by this source. Thus, I believe that another instance of temporal misplacement has occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55. Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975b:104; Chimalpahin 1965:190 [relación 7]; Durán 1967, 2:7172. [chap. 8]; García Icazbalceta 188692, 3:298; Herrera 193457, 6:207 [decade 3, bk. 2, chap. 12]; Torquemada 197583, 1:16777 [bk. 1, chaps. 2528]; Vázquez de Espinosa 1942:142 [bk. 3, chap. 12]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56. Davies 1974:61; 1980:306309. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57. Anales México-Azcapotzalco 1903:50. However, this source is an earlier part of Chimalpahin's work (Gibson and Glass 1975:372) which is generally hostile to the Aztecs and may not be as accurate for the western area of the basin of Mexico as its name implies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By some accounts (e.g., Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975b:104), Xihuitl-Temoc ("He-descends-like-a-comet"), a son of Chimalpopoca, ruled Tenochtitlan for sixty days. If true, Tenochtitlan would doubtless have been governed by a regent in his stead, but that Xihuitl-Temoc ruled at all is not generally accepted and I have omitted him. See also Carrasco 1984b:60. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Itzcoatl, Chimalpopoca's successor, became the first Aztec king to whom independent conquests can be assigned. This does not mean that the Aztecs pursued their wars unassisted, since they did have help from other city-statesnotably from their two partners in the Triple Alliance, Tetzcoco and Tlacopanbut rather that they played a major, if not exclusive, role in determining the thrust of those conquests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conquests of the imperial kings are recorded by many historical sources, but there are inconsistencies in both the sequence and number of conquests. Moreover, none of the conquest histories or enumerations of a given king's victories is comprehensive. One major distinction in the sources affecting their consequent assessment is between chronological recountings and conquest enumerations. Many of the conquests included in the conquest lists are not mentioned in the chronicles. The reverse is also true, although this is less often the case. Many towns were conquered during the various campaigns, and it is not unexpected that the different accounts would mention some and overlook others. Moreover, these accounts were recorded by people from different towns and they reflect their respective interests and foci. In Chimalpahin's account of the Chalca region, for instance, minor local towns take on a major emphasis unreflected in any other chronicle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While variation in recorded conquests is expected, it does cause some |
|
|
|
|
|