|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
according to a number of considerationstheir proximity and danger to Tenochtitlan, the availability of alternative logistical support, the level of resistance (actual or potential), and other nontribute benefits of the relationship. Trade was a major factor in the case of Teotitlan, which straddled the major routes into the lucrative Anahuac areas. Aztec interest in participating in this economic flow was doubtless balanced by Teotitlan's interest in retaining control of its own trade, position, and as much political autonomy as possible. In short, the rationale and evidence for Teotitlan having been incorporated into the Aztec Empire is persuasive; the timing of its incorporation is less clear, however. Massive commercial interests indicate the existence of such a relationship by the time of King Ahuitzotl, and the relative inactivity of Kings Axayacatl and Tizoc in the Teotitlan area, coupled with Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina's incursion into the region, argues strongly for its incorporation at this time. As with most of the Aztec tributaries to that point, the political relationship between Tenochtitlan and Teotitlan was asymmetrical, but unlike most, it was loose, the Aztecs finding it more advantageous to extract the benefits of trade, location, and control of market flow without the political and military disruptions that could have occurred through direct conquest and control of the city: it was better to tap into a compliant and mutually beneficial arrangement than to risk creating local hostility that could discourage trade completely. A more determined show of force was unnecessary, as logistical support could be obtained elsewhere en route or purchased in Teotitlan, and the benefits of the ongoing arrangement were obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although Teotitlan was brought into the Aztec sphere of influence, the main road it dominated into Anahuac does not appear to have been a major conquest route. This is not to say that Aztec armies did not march on that roadparticularly when striving to transit the region speedily and without anticipating military engagements on the road. But it does not appear to have been used as a major artery from which the Aztecs struck at other towns. Other roads offer more convincing conquest routes, although the Teotitlan road could well have played a more significant role in consolidation, security, and maintenance of the conquered areas. Moreover, the Aztecs probably tried to minimize disruptions on this significant economic link. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50. Crónica mexicana 1975:333 [chap. 32]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51. Anales de Tula 1979:35, 1443; Chimalpahin 1965:98 [relación 3], 1446. As it stretched on, the fighting became more serious with the advent of arrow warfare (Chimalpahin 1965:99 [relación 3], 1453). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52. Itztompiatepec (Chimalpahin 1965:19899 [relación 7],1444), Panohuayan (Chimalpahin 1965:100 [relación 3], 201 [relación 7], 1456), Atezcahuacan (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:53; Anales de Tula 1979:35, 1461; Chimalpahin 1965:100101 [relación 3], 302 [relación 7], 1461), and Tzacualtitlan Tenanco (Chimalpahin 1965:101 [relación 3], 1464). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:53; Barlow 1949b:122; Chimalpahin 1965:101 [relación 3], 1464; Clark 1938, 1:31; Códice Aubin 1980:71; Garcia Icazbalceta 188692, 3:306; Herrera 193457, 6:211; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:126 [chap.45]; Leyenda de los Soles 1975:128; Paso y Troncoso |
|
|
|
|
|