|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the proper sequence where specific dating is unavailable, and by kingly reign at a minimum. Problems of interpretation necessarily arose, since the historical sources sometimes contradict one another or list towns that are highly improbable at the time mentioned. My reconstruction, then, is a reasoned account, not a verbatim one, and seeks to list the sequence of conquests so that some sense can be made of the various imperial military strategies. The total number of towns I discuss is far below the total actually dominated by the Aztecs when the Spaniards arrived. Even the expansive Codex Mendoza, which does not list all of the towns known to have paid tribute to the Aztecs, presents a listing at the time of the Spanish conquest that is almost twice as extensive as the total number of towns recorded in chronicle sources as having been conquered by all the Aztec kings. Thus the reconstruction is necessarily incomplete, and, given the way the empire expanded, there is no reliable way to reinsert all of the tributaries into the historical sequence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the lists of Aztec conquests are incomplete, so, too, are the maps. I have included all the conquered towns that could be located. Towns for which only approximate locations could be established are also included and are so designated; towns that could not be located at all are not included. I have included an initial map showing the basic tripartite land division (tropical lowlands from 0 to 1,000 meters [03,280 feet], temperate regions from 1,000 to 2,000 meters [3,2806,560 feet], and cold lands above 2,000 meters [6,560+ feet]) of central Mexico to orient readers. Contour maps, however, have not proven useful: terrain type, not altitude per se, is the main determinant of military routes, and my maps reflect this. As a result, the landforms will appear strange even to those familiar with Meso-america, but the resultant maps offer a superior, though necessarily simplified, display of march information. Thus, although some marches appear to violate the principle that the easiest route (considering terrain and distance together) was the route followed, a more detailed map would reveal topographical features making the proposed routes logical. I deleted that detail, however, in the interest of readability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks are owed to various people for assistance rendered throughout my work on this book. First and foremost, I am deeply |
|
|
|
|
|