|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
19. Chimalpahin 1965:22223 [relación 7]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20. Crónica mexicana 1975:25158 [chaps. 7172]; Durán 1967, 2:34748 [chap. 44]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21. Crónica mexicana 1975:52122 [chap. 71]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22. Crónica mexicana 1975:53336 [chap. 74]; Durán 1967, 2:34755 [chaps. 4445]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23. Crónica mexicana 1975:52628 [chap. 72]; Durán 1967, 2:348 [chap. 44]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24. Crónica mexicana 1975:53335 [chap. 74]; Durán 1967, 2:351 [chap. 45]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. Durán 1967, 2:35455 [chap. 45]. The routes taken by the allied armies are uncertain, and they did not unite until they reached Teticpac. Thus some marched south from the valley of Tolocan, while others probably went through the Cuauhnahuac area and then west. From Teticpac the joint army marched to Teloloapan, probably going almost due south by the shorter more rugged route in preference to the easier but more circuitous route along the Balsas River drainage. From there the troops marched overland directly to Oztoman and then descended on nearby Alahuiztlan. The armies probably retraced their steps on the return journey. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. Durán 1967, 2:354 [chap. 45]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27. E.g., Herrejón Peredo 1978; Stanislawski 1947. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28. Stanislawski 1947:5354. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29. Stanislawski 1947:4950. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30. Brand 1971:644; Stanislawski 1947:51. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31. I do not take seriously Stanislawski's (1947:50) claims that the Tarascans were the aggressors in the Oztoman region but were on the defensive in the valley of Tolocan area simply because the Aztecs had a fortified site in the first area and none in the second. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32. Herrejón Peredo (1978:30) suggests a matching set of "bulwarks" by the Aztecs and their allies, but there is little evidence that they were specialized fortifications similar to those of the Tarascans. Although Oztoman faced Cutzamala (58 km. or 36 mi. apart, or 2 to 3 days' march), Cutzamala was apparently fortified after Oztoman became an Aztec outpost. Thus two different strategic postures were adopted by these competing empires: the Aztec hegemonic empire versus the Tarascan quasi-territorial empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33. Relación de Michoacán 1977:17378, 18697. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34. Vargas Rea 194446:7/3:101103, 10910; 7/4:12831; 7/5:26; 7/8:21, 27. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35. Some of the towns in the subsequent Guerrero campaign had apparently been the objects of conquest previously (Chimalpahin 1965:113 [relación 3], 223 [relación 7]), but others had not and were not within the area of previous Aztec influence (Chimalpahin 1965:113 [relación 3], 223 [relación 7]; Dibble 1981, 1:30). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Chimalpahin 1965:113 [relación 3], 224 [relación 7]; Clark 1938, 1:37; Paso y Troncoso 193942, 10:119. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975:67; Berlin and Barlow 1980:17; Chimalpahin 1965:113 [relación 3], 223 [relación 7]; Clark 1938, 1:37; Dibble 1981, 1:29; Durán 1967, 2:341 [chap. 43]; Ixtlilxóchitl 197577, 2:155 [chap. |
|
|
|
|
|