|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Given the reasons a xochiyaoyotl was fought (the inability or expense of outright conquest), selecting a xochiyaoyotl opponent for the precoronation campaign would not be effective. Such cities were enemies, not rebels, and they were unlikely to be subdued outright. Thus while martial skill might be demonstrated, the political consequences of rebellion would not be. A newly selected king had everything to lose and little to gain by selecting such a foe and was unlikely to do so. While there may have been a battle with Atlixco, and captives from that city may have formed part of the sacrifices for the coronation ceremony, I do not think that Atlixco was a primary target of the precoronation campaign. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. The issue of which towns in the Huaxyacac region were conquered during the reign of Moteuczomah Xocoyotl is problematic. While many conquests are temporally specified in the documents, numerous others are not. Thus, the distribution of these conquered towns among the various campaigns can only be approximated. The specific time of a conquest cannot be given with assurance, since the conquerors passed through the region repeatedly, and their practice did not include the necessary conquest of all cities in seriatim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Crónica mexicana 1975:582 [chap. 84]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Crónica mexicana 1975:58384 [chap. 84]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Crónica mexicana 1975:58485 [chap. 84]. There are several alternative routes available to the site of these conquests, most fairly direct, but the historical accounts lack sufficient information to select one with a reasonable degree of certainty. The most direct route left the basin of Mexico, proceeded through Cuauhnahuac, and followed the tributaries of the Mexcallan River southeast before crossing a pass, following the Rio de la Cuehara and then the Atoyac River to the vicinity of Icpatepec and Nopallan. The return journey would have approximated the outward trek. The campaign stretched 975 kilometers (605 miles) round trip and would have required 30 to 51 days of march, exclusive of days for combat, rest, and regrouping. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Durán 1967, 2:41112 [chap. 54]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Durán 1967, 2:403404 [chap. 53]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. Durán 1967, 2:21112 [chap. 26]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Durán 1967, 2:21112 [chap. 26]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Sahagún 1954:87. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Cortés 1971:109. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. Carrasco 1984b. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15. Another account describes the southern campaign beginning over the killing of Aztec merchants by the people of Xaltepec, Cuatzonteccan, and Icpatepec (Crónica mexicana 1975:59799 [chap. 88]; Durán 1967, 2:417 [chap. 55]). Moteuczomah Xocoyotl led the Triple Alliance army on the campaign and conquered Xaltepec and Cuatzonteccan, and as a result the lords of Tecuantepec, Miahuatlan, and Izhuatlan also became tributaries. However, the cities were conquered by Ahuitzotl, and the latter half of this description merely mislabels the king. Consequently, I have placed the Tecuantepec portion with Ahuitzotl's conquests, but retain the Xaltepec- |
|
|
|
|
|