|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
1954:1), most offer only one (for Guerrero, see Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:118; for Morelos, see Anales de Tula 1979:35), and there is little support in the chronicles for both together (for Guerrero, see Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:106109 [chaps. 3940]; Torquemada 197583, 1:21819 [bk. 2, chap. 46]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although it keeps the two areas of conquest separate, the Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1975:53) does list both. According to that source, the Matlatzincas were conquered one year; then two years later Ocuillan was conquered, as was Cuauhnahuac; and the following year Poctepec (in Guerrero) was conquered. However, this source is sketchy and at variance with the others. The most compelling argument favoring the conquest of both areas at the same time is their relative proximity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Aztecs usually did not conquer new cities both going and coming on a major campaign. Conquest was more frequent on the outward leg of the journey than on the return. To risk facing an unconquered and hostile region on the return without assurance that the primary campaign had been successful would put the entire enterprise at serious risk. Yet combining Guerrero and Morelos as a joint exercise would do precisely that, requiring entry into the Guerrero area, followed by an exit through the Morelos area (or possibly the reverse), with fighting taking place continuously. The successful movement of troops would depend on logistical support garnered en route by the successful prosecution of the campaign. Failure to conquer any major town would place the entire army in serious jeopardy. Whatever the case, both the Morelos and the Guerrero campaigns (either jointly or separately) followed the beginning of the war with Chalco. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is considerable evidence that the next campaign was against the cities of the Tepeyacac region (Códice Ramírez 1975:127; Crónica mexicana 1975:306308 [chap. 27]; Durán 1967, 2:15456 [chap. 18]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:107 [chap. 39]). However, I feel that these references are erroneous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some sources place the Tepeyacac campaign early in the reign of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina, while others place it late. To reconcile confusing and conflicting data among the sources, Holt (1979:95) asserts that there were two campaigns in the Tepeyacac region, not just one. His interpretation rests on two pieces of evidence. The first evidence of this interpretation is the account in the Lista de los reyes de Tlatelolco (Berlin and Barlow 1980:4), which Holt interprets as recording the conquest of Tepeyacac twice. But there are difficulties with this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One problem is the chronology. In the Lista de los reyes de Tlatelolco Tepeyacac is included among the towns conquered, without any chronological referent, and this is for King Cuauhtlahtoa of Tlatelolco, who ruled for 41 years from 1427 to 1467 (according to Berlin and Barlow 1980:86). His reign only partially overlapped with that of Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina, who ruled 29 years from 1440 to 1468. Therefore, if Tepeyacac was conquered twice, the first time may have been before Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's reign. While the Crónica mexicana (1975:245 [chap. 9]) does list the conquest of Tepeyacac during the reign of Itzcoatl, it is not reliable, |
|
|
|
|
|