|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by marching along different routes it was possible to keep the enemy from knowing the size of the entire army, at least long enough that it might not seek assistance from allies elsewhere or might lack the time to assemble. Second, the larger the army, the longer it took for everyone to reach the battle site if only one route was followed. For example, an army composed of twelve xiquipilli would stretch out over twelve days, leaving the advance troops outnumbered during the time the main forces required to catch up. But dividing the army substantially reduced the total march time, allowing the entire army to assemble more rapidly. Third, proceeding along separate routes removed one defensive tactic from the enemy. The attacking Aztec army was almost always larger than the defending city's army, and the one way the target city could offset this advantage was by attacking the Aztecs as they approached. Regardless of how many men the army had, only those at the front could actually fight. Therefore, if the defenders attacked the Aztecs in a pass or other constricted terrain, they could neutralize the advantage of numbers. With a restricted front, the two armies were tactically equal, and the longer the Aztecs were stalled, the more their logistical support eroded. But if the Aztecs sent their armies along several routes, the defending army usually lacked the manpower to fight all of the advancing armies simultaneously and so withdrew to its city. The primacy of the tactical reasons for separate routes over the logistical ones is evidenced by the fact that the Aztec army did not divide for the return trip. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defense of the road or its destruction were primary aims in Mesoamerican warfare.
56 If roads could be controlled, access could be denied, or enemy troops could be funneled along less advantageous routes.57 Thus the closing of roads was one of the first defenses in the event of war.58 Trees and large cacti were felled to block roads,59 grass ropes were employed as barriers,60 bridges and causeways were often destroyed,61 and roads were rendered generally impassable.62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But closing a road was not intended to prevent all passage, and in a world based. on foot traffic it could not do so. It did, however, hinder the progress of an invading army. Such a bottleneck slowed the army and caused logistical problems. The greater the delay, the less time the army could afford to spend fighting an enemy. Furthermore, marching armies were usually attacked in the rear, where the baggage was located, in an effort to destroy the supplies.63 Thus the |
|
|
|
|
|