|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
problems in assessing them. For instance, are two towns with different names actually the same town when they occupy the same position in different conquest lists that are otherwise quite similar? Are all listed towns to be included in a maximal list of conquests, or must some selection process choose between them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But these variations also offer some assistance in interpreting the conquests and assessing their significance. The more significant events (the overthrow of the Tepanec Empire in 1427 or the conquest of Tlatelolco in 1473, for example) are almost unanimously mentioned. This bears not only on their authenticity but also on their significance, at least to the recorders, and thus provides some indication of the relative importance of these conquests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Towns included in the lists (as opposed to the chronological accounts) are recorded as conquests. Since the sources draw a distinction between the conquests of a particular king and the extent of his empire, actual conquest and not mere dominance is reflected in these lists. While it is tempting to interpret the lists as possibly reflecting something other than conquest, pictographic examples such as the Codex Mendoza use a conquest glyph (a destroyed and burning temple) for each conquered town listed. Nevertheless, many towns listed (and depicted in glyphs) are of notably less significance than others, judging by the references (or lack thereof) to them in other accounts. This variation in significance springs not from a difference between conquest and voluntary submission but from the considerable variation in what is regarded as a conquest by the Aztecs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conquest involved the army, but the actual destruction of the opposing army and its home city was not a necessary element. Conquest spanned a considerable spectrum from simply appearing before the target city and demanding its surrender to actually engaging in combat, destroying its army, razing the town, and massacring its populace. At any intermediate point surrender was usually possible. This, then, raises the prospect of campaigns and conquests of varying significanceat least in terms of their effort if not in terms of their strategic importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chronicled campaigns tend to be those in which the army fought major battles or carried out particularly savage reprisals. Conquests in which the target cities submitted easily were important and were clearly credited as conquests to specific kings, but they were merely listed and not chronicled. Thus, in assessing the campaigns undertaken by the various kings, the way they are recorded makes it possible to rank their importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts that only enumerate conquests make no claims for temporal sequence, but they may nevertheless have a chronological component. Sometimes, chroniclers apparently listed towns in the order they were conquered, much as I would list the countries I visited in the order I did so. Consequently, these data are occasionally used to assess the chronicled sequences, particularly when trying to place conquests not recorded in the chronicled sequences in their proper sequence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Carrasco 1984b:5961; Rounds 1979. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. For a consideration of succession systems and their limitations, see Burling (1974). |
|
|
|
|
|