This is my area of specialty. I will answer any questions you have. I'll probably post some excerpts from codices/source illustrations while I explain relevant stuff.
I'm not just gonna dump info, but I will explain you ask me to to the best of my abilities, which is probably better than most people as this is what I did my graduate thesis on; specifically the cholula massacre (pictured), but I have a very good understand of the socio-politics that went into the events that transpired. That said, ask away! This is a woefully misunderstood area of history, and perhaps one of the most momentous in history.
>>1207237
I'm a retard who's interested in Mesoamerica (and studied pre-Columbian North America, as a Mohawk Tribe member), and I only know about the Aztec conquest and the stuff from M2TW.
So, after the Aztecs, how did the Spaniards subjugate the other cities, the ones that allied with the Spanish, the farther away ones, especially the Tarascans, whom it seems, as an AH writer, could've united Mexico following an Aztec collapse in the absence of European contact. Was it more or the same, did they do it through diplomacy as well, did they encounter any organized resistance, and how long did the whole thing take?
>>1207237
how important was Spanish Calvary in the conquest of mexico?
>>1207237
I realize I should probably explain the picture, it is a Tlaxcalan account of the Massacre at Cholula (I have a UN hearing next year to determine if this should be classified as a genocide or not, I am of the opinion it was, with reasons I will explain).
Basically, when Cortés had secured the cooperation of Tlaxcala, Tenochtitlan's rival altepetl (like a city-state but closer to the Sumerian version than the Greek type, having different relatively important differences from each other and each having their own identity rather than seeing themselves as all being Nahua), they stopped at Cholula on the way to Tenochtitlan (thereby forcing Cortes to stay with them) as they saw the support of Caxtilan (the nahua saw Castile as just another altepetl from far away) as the ally they needed to tip the balance of regional hegemony out of the Aztecs' favor. Cholula was a vassal/ally altepetl to Tenochtitlan, so the Tlaxcalans wisely decided to take the city before moving further, lest they have an enemy city at their backs. They blockaded the city, and rather than wait for a long protracted siege, the Tlaxcalans stormed the city, killing every man they could find. Not to be left out, the Spaniards followed suit. The tlaxcalans, however, did what the Spanish would *not* do, which was to round up the women and children in the sacred ball court and set them on fire. Around 30,000 lived were lost in total.
>>1207296
You can clearly see the nobles in the top right, the Tlaxcalan artist has drawn them as complicit but not instrumental in the massacre. The Spanish are depicted as doing most of the work, though as they had no real stake in the politics of the great central valley, it is highly unlikely (and in fact there is no evidence to suggest) that they initiated the massacre, or even had strong motive. On the right though, you can clearly see Malintzin (Cortés's lover and translator who wielded enormous influence over him), viewed as a race-traitor by all parties, depicted as being the one who have the order to the Spanish. The artist shows her as being the true perpetrator of the massacre, misleading Cortés as to Tlaxcalan intentions. More on that if you want to know.
>>1207237
looking for first hand accounts of the conquest. i already have del castillo's
Why were the totonac people enslaved by the spanish and their city of Cempoala desolated if they had helped the spanish to defeat Tenochtitlan?
>>1207237
If you can, tell me as much about Tenochtitlan's role in the conquest. What was happening prior to the siege, and after the conquest.
>>1207237
Who killed Moctezuma II, his people or the Spaniards?
>>1207296
lol that's stupid. you can't declare genocide, something that wasn't considered to be an ethnic cleansing, at the time.
>>1207258
Ha, you seem to be a fan of Pastwatch. Tarascan influence is overststed, during the conquest they were merely mountain tribes known for their silverwork, not much of a military force. There is no evidence that I know of that they took place in the ritual warfare (xochiyaoyotl, lit. "Flower war") that made up the bulk of military interaction in Nahua culture.
Once the regional hegemony of Tenochtitlan collapsed, the other alteptl were isolated and economically weak, easy for the Spanish to force to terms. They let the Tlaxcalans take much of the native nobilties' positions, cementing them in a more permanent feudal encomienda system than the flux of influence nahua culture used to regulate noble power.
>>1207283
Greatly overstated. Cavalry didn't work in the jungles like it did in the sweeping Iberian plains, and the age of the feudal knight in shining armor was over. It was mostly their native allies and eventually their lake navy that secured their victory.
>>1207302
Two reasons: the arguments of Juan Ginés de Sepulveda argued that the entire potpourri of cultures/peoples of Mexico were inferior slave races, which became a widely accepted interpretation of Christian theology at the time. The second is because they actually seemed to support this interpretation by betraying those to whom they had sworn loyalty. This serpaciousness was seen as sub-human, and they were enslaved without moral qualm.
>>1207316
We don't know who actually killed him but we do know both sides blamed each other for the fighting that resulted in their figurehead ruler being killed. There was holiday celebration in Nahua culture that demanded a display similar to a Roman Triumph, noble warriors marching through the streets in full regalia. The Spanish thought this was an insurrection and attacked, dragging the Tlaxcalans, who actually knew what it was, into the fighting. During this time, the great pyramid was stormed and Montezuma ended up dead. This is a truly muddy affair as both had reason to want him dead: the Spanish if they thought he was the head of the perceived insurrection,and the Tlaxcalans seizing the chance to kill the man who reigned unjustly, as they saw it.
>>1207329
Ah, but it was. The city was destroyed in the name of St. james, known to the Spanish as Santiago Matamoro, killer of moors (to them, anyone with dark skin). Given their perception of native religion as devil worship (this being during the inquisition, after all) saw it as their Christian duty to destroy what they could of native religion and culture in that one city that had offended them (by insisting their God alone, Quetzalcoatl, would save them and their God was weak). It is a cultural genocide, but a geopolitical massacre.
Did the massacre of nobles at the Festival of Toxcatl affect the Aztec military?
>>1207405
But the killings were initiated by the tlaxcalans, in fact it was their intention to bring the spanish there.
For it to be a genocide, the Spanish had to make a conscious decision to ethnically cleanse them, a thought that would've been impossible for them to think because ethnic cleansing wasn't defined then. It's like saying the aztecs attempted ethnic clensing of the spanish, because they fought to kick them out.
>>1207430
The UN has wider criteria for what is defined as a genocide.
>>1207417
It basically ended xochiyaoyotl.
Xochiyaoyotl, aka. Flower war, was a system in which nobles agreed upon days and places for measured amount of forces to meet (just as blood had to be spilled to Tlaloc to keep teotl going, so too did war have to be fought for Huitzilopochtli to keep teotl rotating). This was how nobles could be captured as slaves for sacrifice (though truly important people were usually not sacrificed, and you could sometimes get away with your life if you could demonstrate that you knew how to read and write), young men advanced up the social ladder (by winning glory in battle), and how regional dominance was asserted.
Side note, this is partially why the tlaxcaltecas hated tenochtitlan so much; they participated in total war unlike most of their history.
>>1207237
This is kind of an odd question but was the name New Spain adopted just because it was the first big continental conquest or was it related to the topography of Mexico being similar to that of Spain?
>>1207450
nope
>any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
you need to show that was their intent all along. Maybe you can show it was the intent of the tlaxcalans.
I ask you. did the aztecs attempt Genocide against the spanish? under your definitions it seems so.
>>1207454
I actually don't know. I would guess because they saw It as territorial acquisition, not imperialism, that it would be called so because it was considered a noncontiguous part of Spain (since Spain itself was still divided into a few kingdoms that where not formall united, and the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula was just wrapping up)
>>1207460
I'm curious how you figure that.
Yes, I find it was the Spanish intention to completely destroy the religion (it may slightly less accurately be referred to as a cult) focusing on Quetzalcoatl, Cholula's chief deity. They didn't see it as an aspect of the same religion their allies believed in, but rather a cult of devil worship, which they deemed needed to be destroyed.
>>1207450
The conditions to gain liberty are fairly interesting, do you know where I can read more about them?
>>1207480
>They didn't see it as an aspect of the same religion their allies believed
citation needed.
>>1207493
Kemp et al, "The Broken Spears: the aztec account of the conquest of mexico." 43-45. Can take pics of the book pages if you would like.
>>1207481
Keep in mind that this is a wiki and you should read the sources it references to make sure I'm not being misleading you.
http://xochiyaoyotl.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
>>1207509
:D
This is what I came for when I came to /his/. Sources discussion, not /pol/fags spewing memes.
>>1207237
Is mesoamerican history teached at high school level in the states?
>>1207549
No. It's basically there were Mayan astronomers that made a calendar, then the Aztecs that sacrificed people, then Spanish came and colonized them.
>>1207549
I learned a basic rundown but very basic. No history and did not cover the conquest period.
>>1207237
Okay OP, I have a question about Mexico's conquest. When the collapse occured in the region, is there any evidence of other North American civilizations taking note or warning from it?
Or was the collapse so "sudden" that it never reached those kingdoms, empires, tribes, etc.?
>>1207549
Not when I was in high school (05-09). The most I got of Mesoamerican studies was actually in my Catholic school 6th grade social studies class where we studied the "great classical" civs, and that included the olmecs, toltecs, mayans, and Aztecs. Of course, it was 6th grade level.
>>1207587
>Of course, it was 6th grade level.
Not familiar with the US school system. What age is this?
>>1207585
While word spread throughout the altepetl, they didn't see it as what it was. To them it was just a new and powerful altepetl establishing dominance. The natives didn't really have a concept of the wider world outside their cultural hinterland. They certainly knew there were more lands out there but the Nahua has never met a people who they could not (excuse the term) utterly btfo in warfare. They had no idea people would show up with new metals and new diseases.
As for other civilizations (i assume you mean chaco/anasazi cultures?) They are a bit out of my scope, but given the geographical boundaries (deserts and oceans), the physical limitations of their writing (only the highest highest echelon of society could read, unlike the mayans before them who had something near 30% literacy based on estimates), and cultural ethnocentrism of the Nahua prevented them from having too much diplomatic contact with anything western anthropology would call a "civilization" (i.e. state-level society). It was also this ethnocentrism that was their downfall; had they been able to recognize the Spanish as "other", as in fundamentally different to any other people with whom they inteeacted, they may have recognized the existential threat. But to use another colloquialism, the Tlaxcaltecas were intent on playing the Game of Thrones.
>>1207595
11-12 for most kids. It was not a particularly detailed or accurate representation of course, but it did outline the basics of their society. Cacao as a common item for barter (they did NOT use it as currency), the teotl system of cyclical power and shifting dominance, their incredible astronomical acumen, their obsession with time within cosmology, etc.
>>1207237
Who killed Montezuma?
Was Cortes rightfully charged as a traitor?
Was Cortes really responsible for the downfall of Aztec society?
During the massacre of Tenochtitlan, was the Spanish officer justified in his attack on the temple, or was the ritual not one of war but just a harmless ritual?
Did the Spanish have good reason to be distrustful of the Aztecs after they were ambushed twice by them? I mean, the Aztecs made peace twice then ambushed them twice, making peace only when they failed....
Were the Spanish justified in their conquest?
what was their education system like? what did they learn?
how prosperous were their economies?
>>1207649
I make no judgement about whether the Spanish were justified. For that I would suggest you look at the theological debates between the Bishops convened in Barcelona. You can draw from them what you will but be warned, you will see horrific and ludicrous racism.
I do not think Cortes himself can be held solely culpable. If anything it would be a composite between himself, Malintzin, and the Tlaxcalan nobility. His arrival was certainly the catalyst that brought about the end of Aztec dominance, as he emboldened the Tlaxcaltecas.
It is objectively verifiable that it was a peaceful holiday, only meant to keept teotl going. While there was some guerilla resistance, it was not state-sponsored. The Spanish had every reason to distrust everyone as none of these natives were a known quantity. Vice-versa.
did the lakes dry out naturally or were they filled in, or a mix of the two?
>>1207303
bump for answer.
>>1207405
to me, your narrative fall inside the dutch "spanish black legend" meme as well as into posmodernist "muh victims" narrative. Sad thing the UN keeps employing people like you to rewrite history inside that political correct mindset
>>1207651
The city states had no formal education system; that is a very recent invention. An Aztec child would be educated by their parents or uncles/aunts (being bilinneal, whichever parent's house was more prestigious during that cycle of teotl was generally considered to be the better choice, as their own knowledge and skills were believed to be greatest during that cosmological juncture).
The altepetl had a trade economy, with no currency other than barter. Cacao for xocolotl (only drank by the nobility) was commonly accepted as a baseline good, as it almost always could be traded in to the state for food. As for taxes, they had a draft rotary labor system similar to the Mit'a system of Tihuantinsuyu (inca). I forget the exact nahua word (ce ceatcoatl, Iirc?) but they called it "the snake that bites everyone". Farmers would set aside time to cultivate crops for the state, often cacao. Workers and artisans would work in public works projects for certain parts of the year, which is how they built the architectural feats we know the Nahua for.
There was robust trade between altepetl, with some having access to certain materials like obsidian, silver, stone, or quetzal feathers, while some did not. I can't speak too authoritatively on the topic, because as soon as the Spanish took over, they replaced all trade economy with the encomienda (primary sector feudalism) system.
So where's all the gold that sank to the bottom of the lake after the Noche Triste? Why didn't the Spanish dredge or dive for it once the conquest was over?
>>1207707
It is interesting you say this, as one of Cortés's trusted confidants and one of the conquistadors with the most blood on his hands in terms of decisions made is Juan Garrido, an African man. It is not that the Spanish were evil or anything, just that they represented the first relatively-global power to contact the Nahua. They had just come from years of fighting Muslims and dark-skinned moors that led to intense xenophobia. I encourage you to look at contemporary representations of Santiago to see, if not how the individual Spaniard felt, how the church saw anyone construed as "other".
>>1207697
Ah, sorry, missed that. Tenochtitlan rose to dominance in the early 1400's, expanding and actually attacking the other altepetl along the shores of lake texcoco. The Mexica in particular were among the most warlike of the Nahua peoples. They claimed descent from the wildly violent Chichimeca, who scared even the brutally torturous Comanche. The the prior kings of tenochtitlan (which if you don't know is where Mexico city is today, literally built on top of it) has secured a pax mexica (as I like to call it) where they exacted tribute/taxes from their vassal altepetl and the surrounding countryside. Tlaxcala (and her allies) was the bulwhark against total domination of the central valley. An easy peace was maintained via xochiyaoyotl.
>>1207756
Presumably somebody went and got it. That sort of thing wasn't the sort of thing the natives would keep records about, and the Spanish probably just coerced them into retrieving it themselves. I'm not sure, so that is speculation.
>>1207761
So how Juan Garrido managed to be a trusted confidant to Cortés if they were so "RACIST"? Too much lefty books for you.
>>1207770
I never said they were racist. I said they were xenophobic. Juan Garrido was a black man who confirmed to Spanish cultural norms and spoke spanish, and had a Spanish name. It wasn't the race that motivated the cultural genocide, it was the culture and religion. Had the natives converted to Christianity and attempted to learn spanish, I have no doubt the Spanish wouldn't have seen them as "other". The Spaniards were clearly very impressed with Nahua civilization, praising Tenochtitlan as a city equal to Barcelona. I must stress that skin color did not mean anything to them until *after* the Bishops had become convinced the native religion was begat by Satan (which was fueled by their rampant xenophobia, having just had 600 years of war along lines of religion) that they classified them as "other". The footsoldiers can't really be blamed for wanting to destroy that which they could not understand; in spain "witches" were regularly burned in autos de fe, as were jews, muslims, and anyone suspected of demonic persuasions. If there is any one factor that holds accountability it is supersition/fanaticism.
>>1207796
>>1207770
Also, one more thing. You have to understand that to a person with western European sensivities at that time, with no understanding of anyone outside where you live.... How can you possibly even begin to understand why the Nahua were slaughtering people on their altars? Its not like they could be explained to. They didn't even have the proper vocabulary to understand even without a language barrier, they were far too uneducated. They just saw it as antitheosis, and acted as they thought was their moral obligation to Christian virtue.
Why did the Mexica continue to listen to Montezuma's orders during the 6 months that the Spanish were holding him hostage? Why didn't the hundreds of thousands of Mexicans just storm the palace of Axayacatl and wipe out those traitorous, murderous blasphemers, or at the very least refuse to bring them food and water?
The colonialists were conquerors, no different from a native American tribe driving another off their land, the mongol conquests or aztecs raiding for prisoners. No one accuses the Mongols of having a "glass ceiling" preventing a Russian from becoming Khan, this would be an incredibly naive imposition of modern cosmopolitan values on a completely different world. Pinning their actions on them being especially racist or xenophobic is an echo of European exceptionalism.
>>1207982
I direct you towards https://www.jstor.org/stable/20840082
While you are correct they are just doing what everyone else was doing, Christian Iberia was undeniably more xenophobic than the rest of the continent. They just got finished retaking their homeland.
Were the Zapotecs less gruesome in their rites then the atztecs giving missionarys a harser time to condemn them?
How could believs like that earthmother stuff from central mexico survive and from whom comes it?
>>1207619
Thank you very much, yes I did mean the Anasazi cultures. Very interesting answer
>>1207761
Were alot of spanishized Gypsies and Moors part of the conquistadors?
>>1207237
Got any info on the ships they used to sail from Cuba to Mexico? I only heard them being described as being small and big...
I reckon they might have had carracks but were these built on Cuba or sailed in from Spain?
>>1207361
>in the jungles like it did in the sweeping Iberian plains
Jungles in Mexico?
Sweeping Plains in Spain?
Can I have some of that tequila you're drinking? Wasn't Cortez literally recorded having said that 'After god we owe our victory to our horses?'
