|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arrangedusually calls for assistancethey conveyed only previously agreed-on information.
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, the Aztecs accomplished a remarkable level of coordinated planning and control in their troop movements.11 They could divide their army into smaller units for simultaneous attacks on a single objective12 or on several dispersed objectives,13 and they could coordinate joint land and water operations.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For tactical communications the usual frontal attack was signaled by a variety of sound-making devicesdrums and trumpetsaccompanied by the shouts and whistles of the warriors, especially when they were winning.15 The Aztec leader, either the king or a general, usually signaled the attack with a conch-shell trumpet, while the king of Tetzcoco signaled his troops with a small drum (see fig. 13), but other devices were also employed. The same sound that signaled attack also signaled retreat.16 Fire was used as a signal in coordinated attacks only when the units were too far apart for audible commands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sound devices were effective in signaling the armies' advance, but warriors of each unit entered battle shouting the name of their town and beating their shields with their swords, so such devices were ineffective for maneuvers during the engagement. For that, the tall cuachpantli standards were used. Unit leaders wore standards and led their troops into battle.17 If the cuachpantli bearer was killed or the standard was taken, the unit was thrown into disarray, and the Spaniards reasoned18 that the Indian warriors fled because losing their standard was an evil omen.19 Actually, this disarray was caused by more pragmatic considerations. Because the noise and confusion in battle made it impossible to rely on audible commands, sight was used, and the standard, towering above the fray, provided an easy sign indicating where and when the unit was advancing and retreating. Individuals and groups could keep in touch with their main body simply by observing the standard. And though the loss of the standard and the leader carrying it no doubt proved a major psychological blow to the rest of the unit, this setback was secondary to the loss of direction. Without the standard soldiers could not determine where their comrades were going, and they risked being cut off and captured by the enemy. The consternation shown by the army units had real tactical significance, and the loss of the standard-bearer did not mean divine displeasure and lead to dispersion; rather, it disrupted control and blinded the troops. |
|
|
|
|
|