|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
22. Rounds 1979:7980. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23. Crónica mexicana 1975:243 [chap. 7]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24. Acosta 1604, 2:48081; Durán 1967, 2:7577 [chap. 9]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. Códice Ramírez 1975:5758; Crónica mexicana 1975:26869 [chap. 15]; Durán 1967, 2:99 [chap. 11], 2:103 [chap. 11]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. Durán 1967, 2:103104 [chap. 11]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27. This is in contrast to the situation elsewhere in central Mexico, where any of the alliance members could break away and find other allies to the lee of the alliance core. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28. Chimalpahin 1965:95 [relación 3], 192 [relación 7]. This probably occurred after the Tepanec war and the conquests in the west of the basin, but this sequence is uncertain (it is recorded as taking place in 1431). In any case the reason for this war is unclear, as is its outcome. And despite being listed as a conquest of Itzcoatl in other sources (Clark 1938, 1:30; Garcia Icazbalceta 188692, 3:252; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128), Tlatelolco's apparent freedom from strictures as well as its later definitive conquest by King Axayacatl argue against full acceptance of this as a conquest, although some conflict did no doubt occur. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29. Berlin and Barlow 1980:84; Chimalpahin 1965:19091 [relación 7]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30. Torquemada 197583, 1:200 [bk. 2, chap. 38]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:47; Durán 1967, 2:122 [chap. 14]; Paso y Troncoso 190548, 6:212, 221, 229, 234; Torquemada 197583, 1:200 [bk. 2, chap. 38]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32. Torquemada 197583, 1:207 [bk. 2, chap. 42]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33. Durán 1967, 2:105106 [chap. 12]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34. Durán 1967, 2:10910 [chap. 12]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35. Barlow 1949b:121; Clark 1938, 1:30; Crónica mexicana 1975:249 [chap. 9], 274 [chap. 16], 280 [chap. 18]; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; Herrera 193457, 6:210 [chap. 13]; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Sahagún 1954:1. Some sources indicate a series of separate and relatively unrelated wars in the southern basin, at least insofar as stated causes are concerned (Acosta 1604, 2:486 [bk. 7, chap. 15]; Chimalpahin 1965:9596 [relación 3], 192 [relación 7]; Códice Ramírez 1975:58, 61; Durán 1967, 2:11112 [chap. 12], 122 [chap. 14]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:80 [chap. 31]; Torquemada 197583, 1:207 [bk. 2, chap. 42]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36. Durán 1967, 2:11011 [chap. 12]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37. Acosta 1604, 2:48586; Crónica mexicana 1975:27377 [chaps. 1617]; Torquemada 197583, 1:207 [bk. 2, chap. 42]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38. Durán 1967, 2:112 [chap. 12]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39. Chimalpahin 1965:96 [relación 3], 192 [relación 7]. One source (Chimalpahin 1965:96 [relación 3]) lists Cuauhquechollan as then having been conquered, but that appears extremely unlikely, for several reasons. First, it would have required a considerable ascent through the pass in the southeastern part of the basin, which was dominated by the hostile Chalcas. Second, it would have entailed a further journey of some length through potentially hostile areas. Third, there seems to have been little military, political, or economic advantage in so doing. And fourth, there were no other nearby conquests. |
|
|
|
|
|