|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
49. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Chimalpahin 1965:104 [relación 3]; Clark 1938, 1:33; Crónica mexicana 1975:423 [chap. 52]; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119. Tlaximaloyan lies along the probable route of march into the Tarascan territory, as does Malacatepec, which was also probably conquered during the entry (Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:144 [chap. 53]; Torquemada 197583, 1:250 [bk. 2, chap. 58]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50. Herrejón Peredo (1978:22) asserts that the Tarascan campaign march went from Tenochtitlan to Neucatepec, over the Sierra de Angangueo, to Tlaximaloyan (Tlaximaroa), and then to Matlatzinco, with the retreat going to Tlaximaloyan and back to Tzinacantepec. I am unable to concur with this sequence. The specific data are too thin to fill out this march definitively, and the route specified is too tortuous to be either logical or feasible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51. I am indebted to Neil Goldberg for this analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:57; Crónica mexicana 1975:42930 [chap. 54]; Durán 1967, 2:293 [chap. 38]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53. Durán 1967, 2:265 [chap. 34]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54. The actual route taken by the Aztecs in this campaign is uncertain, but access to the area posed few difficulties. The most direct route went up the Teotihuacan Valley, either to Tollantzinco and then east or due east and then north. From Tliliuhqui-Tepec, Zacatlan was a short, easy trip, but it is likelier that this battle was fought at a border location and not actually at either of these towns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The exact location of Tliliuhqui-Tepec is uncertain, but it is conventionally placed to the north of Tlaxcallan at present-day Chignaupan, Puebla (Gerhard 1972:390). Its location implies the possibility of an alliance with the other independent states of the present-day Puebla/Tlaxcala Valley, such as Tlaxcallan, Huexotzinco, Atlixco, and Cholollan, which the Triple Alliance fought for decades (Davies 1968: map 3). Given the intermittent nature of the wars in this area, the fact that they were often flower wars, and the absence of indication that the city was conquered, it is likely that the war with Tliliuhqui-Tepec was also a xochiyaoyotl. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Barlow 1949b:123; Berlin and Barlow 1980:17; Clark 1938, 1:33; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119; Torquemada 197583, 1:251 [bk. 2, chap. 59]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Berlin and Barlow 1980:17; Clark 1938, 1:33; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119. Chimalpahin (1965:106 [relación 3], 211 [relación 7]) is unique in recording the conquest of Tochcalco (unlocated) in 1479, which may refer to a town in this region, or may be an error for Tochpan. Torquemada (197583, 1:251 [bk. 2, chap. 59]) also records the reconquest of Tototlan, where some merchants had been killed, but it is unclear whether any of these reflect actual conquests during Axayacatl's reign or whether they extended into that of his successor, Tizoc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The meaning of "Tizoc" is uncertain, but as written (or in its variant form of Tizocicatzin), the name is meaningless. If the i in Tizoc can be inter- |
|
|
|
|
|