Educate me on the Aztecs /his/.
They had the wheel and built huge civilizations. Why did they collapse? Was it just the human sacrifice thing, or something else?
They only had the wheel on toys, it wasn't useful in any practical capacity compared to beats of burden.
They collapsed because they were dicks ti their vassals, who sided with the Spanish.
>people come over looking for delicious gold and delicious slaves
>these people have firearms
>these people have smallpox
>these people have horses and plate armor
>everyone in the region hates you because of the whole "demanding sacrificial victims as tribute" thing
>>1222427
This. But also flu.
Azteks would have probably eventually killed the initial waves of conquistadores, had it not been for flu going loose on their cities.
the Americas before 1492 were the biggest island in the world.
It was inhabited by people who descend from a small number of siberian hunters who crossed the Bering during the last Ice age.
Those people had little genetic diversity, and had no defenses at all against the deseases of the old world, and they fell by the millions very quickly.
The conquest of the Americas was for the natives like the black death multiplied by 3.
The population in the Spanish colonies that were conquered in the XVI century only begun to recover in the XVIII century, and they begun to import black because the natives were dying in huge numbers.
Also, their technology was primitive, although very impressive for people who had to invent everything they had themselves. Europeans didnt invent agriculture or writing, they got it from the middle east.
It is best to be loved and feared
If you must choose between the two then choose feared
But NEVER allow yourself to be hated
The Aztecs learned the hard way
>this huge civilization
This is a meme.
They had a tiny little piece of land (lake actually) at the bottom of what is modern day mexico.
The Mexicans were allied with two other little cities to form "the aztec alliance" and they had a half dozen villages that payed them sacrifices and food.
They were also absolute autists, and farmed the nutrients out of their land. If the Spanish had never come, they would have had a population collapse anyways sometime in the next few decades as they all starved to death.
The mexicans were a fascinating culture, but they weren't actually very strong or smart. Their city was their greatest achievement, a floating fortress basically impossible to conquer, but they even managed to fuck up defending it not once but twice.
>>1222535
>farmed the nutrients out of their land
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_%28agriculture%29
I'd like to point out that Aztec is a misnomer they actually called themselves The Mexica they also collapsed because spanish are evil and had guns and small pox
>>1222419
they didn´t collapse, they were conquered
you must be thinking of the maya
>>1222457
Why was the Battle of Otumba such a stomp against the Natives? I understand that the Spaniards had superior tech, but it just seems a little unreasonable.
>>1222837
The emperor's advisor (Matlatzincatl) raised an unprofessional army from peripheric Aztec city-states, while the elite army remained in Tenochtitlan to protect the capital and reorganize after the death of the kings of the Triple Alliance.
Matlatzincatl chose a plain to take advantage of his numbers, but the Spanish countered it with cavalry charges and routed the army by killing Matlatzincatl and many of his commanders.
As in previous battles, the efectiveness of the cavalry was increased due to the native's fear towards creatures never seen before, which were almost perceived like semi-mythological beings.
>>1223008
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks!
>>1222562
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_%28agriculture%29
And the Aztecs had access to this?
>>1222419
The Aztec Empire seems impressive, until you realize it happened in the Middle Ages, not in the BC.
Similar to the Zulu Empire. Seems pretty legit, but them you see what year it is... ooops.
>>1224112
Yeah, their technology was lacking compared to the rest of the world. Then again, the Americas were isolated from the rest of the world.
>>1224079
The wiki mentions that the Milpa was a variation of the technique in a large scale. They also had floating gardens to support the populations close to the Lake of Texcoco.
>>1224112
Tech development doesn't work like a 4X game old chum.
>ywn be a conquistador
>ywn spread the word of God
>ywn fuck a qt native girl who loves you
>ywn destroy a heathen culture
>>1223008
>centaur
I see what you did there. I feel like that part gets played down a lot, just because ppl want to give the aztecs more credit, that they quickly understood that the spanish were not gods but frauds...but considering the spanish (to my knowledge) were the only ones still in posession of horses during the entire campaign, there wouldn't really have been a moment where the majority of the aztec would get used to a horse. It would just be like when Hannibal showed up with his elephants at Cannae which brought with it the extra element of terror, except this happened over and over again, no?
The Aztecs were unlucky that they were in a region with few cultural exchange. Not that that necessary would prevent them from being conquered, but maybe it wouldn't have destroyed most of their culture.
>>1222419
>Why did they collapse?
Like all native American societies, they collapsed when 90-95% of them were killed by diseases spread from Europeans. This is by the far the biggest cause.
Other people are talking about the political situation (their empire included a lot of people who resented them and jumped at the chance to ally with an outsider and rebel), but that's not really an answer. That can topple dynasties but not destroy civilizations.
>Was it just the human sacrifice thing, or something else?
The Aztecs actually sacrificed fewer people, relative to their population, than were publicly executed in Spain, France, or England. It was an important part of the Aztec religion, but its scale tends to be greatly exaggerated.
>>1225510
kekked
>>1222535
Little cities and villages with a total of roughly 20 million people?
>>1222419
The Aztecs were a glorious civilization
Their mythology was pretty cool too; can we talk about that instead of rehashing the same story of how Cortes destroyed them
>>1222535
>They were also absolute autists, and farmed the nutrients out of their land. If the Spanish had never come, they would have had a population collapse anyways sometime in the next few decades as they all starved to death.
Let's be fair pretty much every society exploits and drains its available resources if able to. Hell we're doing it on a worldwide scale right now.
>>1225510
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, its funny because you said video games ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Meanwhile, the post is absolutely correct. The achievements of the Aztecs are only impressive if you forget that almost everywhere else people were doing much more impressive things.
>>1227674
Why should we expect a civilization a continent entirely isolated from the rest of the world to somehow keep pace with everyone else?
Considering Amerind civilizations started from scratch just like European/African/Asian civilizations did, it is kind of impressive.
>>1227688
The Americas are the size of Asia, the whole of it.
And "The Old World" sure as fuck wasn't all of Asia.
Most of it was off limits, as was most of Africa, only dangerous, rare and multi-step trade expeditions made it.
You will find that the Aztecs had comparable easy land reach to work with as did the Mediterranean civilizations, or the Indian and Chinese civilizations.
They achievements are not impressive when compared to those of most everyone else.
You are acting like a parent insisting that their retarded child is very smart for having learned to count to 20 in German when it was in its teens.
>>1227752
>You will find that the Aztecs had comparable easy land reach to work with as did the Mediterranean civilizations, or the Indian and Chinese civilizations.
The whole of Mesoamerica is barely the size of Spain and France, north of it there are many deserts they had to travel on foot since, in case you actually forgot, they had no horses. Further south you reach the seemingly easy to claim Central America. The Scots tried to colonize it and failed, even Lesseps' project to build the Panama Canal failed. It wasn't until the XX century when there was technology able to fight the tropical diseases.
Save your argument about workable land for the fertile plains of Eastern Europe, but you'll find the same answer. It isn't an easy task, even for people with the transportation means.
>They achievements are not impressive when compared to those of most everyone else.
Mention a cilization that that could field an army of 200 000 men, without horses.
True, there are many who deployed even more , but they all had horses to improve their logistics.
>>1228592
>what are boats
Also,
>Mention a cilization that that could field an army of 200 000 men, without horses.
Thats like saying the turks were better than the french, because they could field and army of 50000 turks. See,t he french couldn't even field 5000 turns! Ha!
Stop trying to twist cons into pros.
>>1228642
And yet you are bashing the Aztecs for not doing things like in the Old Wrold.
>>1227674
the aztecs built a massive capital on a lake, a planned city with pourpouse built civic centers, canal sysytems, roads, water managent systems to keep the lakes level in check, and it boasted a populationas large or larger then paris or london at the same time....id call that pretty sophisticated and impressive
>>1222837
The superior tech of the conquest wasn't on the guns, as they were shitty and slow arquebuses that were designed to be useful against highly armored knights in Europe not against lightly armored Native Americans, and as a distance weapon the Spaniards relied more on the crossbows than on said guns. The superior "tech" came mainly from the cavalry because the Spaniards usually didn't wear much armor (steel) themselves as the climate made them an overheating trap, at most they usually wore a cuirass. People think about the Conquest of Mexico with lines of Spaniards firing guns in volleys, that's pure fantasy, the reality of the Conquest of Mexico was very far from the Zulu movie and the battles constisted basically of close infantry formations with pikes and swordsmen with rodelas and constant flanking cavalry charges.
>>1222419
Why does he have his eyes on his nose?
>>1225835
>than were publicly executed in Spain, France, or England
That's stupid. Aztecs didn't execute criminals or something? Sacriface has nothing to do with execution of criminals.
>>1222419
None of their neighbours liked the Aztecs, so when there was a chance to take them down a notch with the Spanish, they were happily to ally themselves with them.
>>1228783
If I remember correctly the book on Aztec metaphysics by James Maffie says that criminals were considered "tainted" and sacrificed also.
>>1222752
Cortés didn't have a lot of guns in his expedition, and they were not really that great like the other anon explains.
>>1225815
Hannibals elephants had all died by Cannae.
>>1223008
>>1225815
It's not just that. Look at things like the first years of the Peloponesian war, where some thirty cavalrymen proved decisive in a hoplite match of over 20,000, or a few hundred unsupported horsemen gave the Spartan invasions of Attica enormous trouble.
It takes time to come up with good anti-cavalry tactics, even if you're not mythically afraid of horses. And if two years ago, neither you nor anyone you know have ever seen a horse, well, good fucking luck.
>>1222419
Sexual degeneracy and decadence is the root cause. That human sacrifice thing was most likely a fetish.
>>1222507
>very impressive for people who had to invent everything they had themselves
This was a great effort to say least
I love how people uses the "they were scared of horses" as a kind of argument on why they were conquered, on people who dressed themselves with the skins of jaguars and were by no means retarded morons. It's so diminishing and patronizing.
I mean, there were big weird animals on México prior to the introduction of horses like the manatees or the aforementioned jaguars, there's no way horses could have been that impactful on their "feeble barbaric minds" or anybody could have thought that they were actual half-men half-animal beings for more than a split second, until they actually saw that the man was just mounted on the beast.
All of this sounds like if the Aztecs lost because they were uneducated retards that thought they were fighting Centaurs, instead of just giving them some respect and historical credit as the non-retards and formidable warriors they were and also congratulate the Spaniards for their incredible achievement, because that's something that seems to be constantly diminished too, like if the Spaniards never actually had to put any effort and the magical meme-guns and the smallpox did all the work.
Why did the aztec shit their pants when they saw horses instead of quickly learning to become riders like the natives from north and south america did?
>>1228928
It does seem strange and to be a meme. From what I've read Aztec warriors placed importance on bravery - the bravest enemy warriors were captured to be sacrificed, not the cowards - thus it makes little sense. Or maybe I'm a bit to quick to judge.
>>1228938
>Why did the aztec shit their pants when they saw horses
They probably didn't, sounds more like a condescending attitude of modern historians towards the Aztecs than anything else.
Sure, the first sight of a horse might have surprised or even scared them a bit, but the horses they saw were tamed and under control, they didn't have claws or big teeth they used to kill people and they realized about it, they were peaceful animals under the control of a human.
Spaniards and Aztecs had a first peaceful encounter until they kidnapped Moctezuma and the first sight of horses the Aztecs had was peaceful, they didn't encounter them for the first time on the battlefield.
>>1228966
I might read it anon thanks. Note however that when I say that Aztecs being scared of horses is possible a meme I do not mean it equals to Aztecs not knowing how to deal with cavalry.
>>1228928
The Aztecs literally thought that Hernan Cortes was the god Quetzacoatl though.
>>1229030
That's seems to be another meme-tier "fact".
That was in any case Moctezuma and he was probably pretending (maybe this could reinforce his power and position as in he was the one "dealing with the Gods"), he was killed by his own people for this anyway. Maybe some truly believed it but they soon realized that the "Gods" were actually very human.
The Aztecs weren't a single person, and they were as smart and mentally agile as any human today and they knew when they were fooled. They were less cultured and way more ignorant, of course, but so were most humans of the time.
>>1229030
it's not that clear in the source material. the way aztec diplomacy worked was that dignitaries would speak in very formal, deferential language, so comparing Cortes to a god was not out of place. In addition, the way Cortes was treated in Tenochtitlan by Montezuma was really no different than receiving an embassy from tributaries or allies
>>1228928
not to mention the spaniards ate most of their horses halfway through the campaign kek
>>1228928
>>1228972
I think it was a religious fear towards the creatures, more than being scared the creatures themselves. They might have been undecided if attack them was an affront to the gods, since they looked like a considerably bigger version of one of their most respected animals, the deer.
I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just taking into account the conquistadors' description of their fear towards horses.
Nevertheless, albeit this explanation helps me to understand more their actions, we certainly should take the descriptions with a grain of salt.
>>1229030
Well, he did arrived from the same direction Quetzalcoatl said he would come and in the same year. However, we don't know if this legend is false, considering the only documents that mention it were made after the conquest.
Still, it's possible they initially considered him as a another reincarnation of him, but we don't know for sure. Moctezuma allowed the Spanish to live as his guests in Tenochtitlan, but many nobles and priests began to question his decisions right after the year of Cortes' arrival was over.
>>1222419
Well, for one thing, while the Aztecs were called an empire, they were by no means a unified civilization.
Kind of like Greece, it was three independent city states (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, & Tlacopan).
The Triple Alliance was birthed from a pretty wild war where a shitton of stuff went down, and essentially they were the ones who came out alive.
Anyways, the coalition which made the Aztecs while decent at war, was not too good on the diplomacy front.
One big issue was the Aztecs had sacrificial ceremonies each month, and the Aztec calendar had 20 months.
While they would sometimes use their own people, the Aztecs more often tithed sacrificees,
which while seen as a great honor, very few were eager to be killed (a particular ritual for a rain god held significance in the tears of the children who were afraid of their imminent demise).
When it comes to the collapse of the Aztecs however, I am of the opinion it was due to the social mix-up the Spaniards caused.
The Aztecs had a fairly complex social structure (like any civilization really), and while the Spaniards and disease did it's fair share,
the dilution of Aztec hierarchy ruined that sense of identity.
Aside from disillusioning the people of the Emperor's godhood by pupeteering Montezuma II, and executing the succeeding Emperor,
when dealing with the aftermath, the started mixing the Aztec classes, in an attempt to repopulate areas affected by smallpox.
They pretty much grabbed whoever, regardless of class and culture, and mixed them in, deteriorating an already somewhat non-homologous culture.
>>1229180
forgot to mention, i have to disagree with this though:
> Spaniards never actually had to put any effort and the magical meme-guns and the smallpox did all the work.
disease and disaffected tributaries were absolutely crucial to the fall of the aztecs. it's also important to mention that cortes and the aztecs were fighting two different styles of war. the spaniards were fighting in the way they were accustomed to; through deceit, treachery, equivocation and most of all, utter ruthlessness and brutal efficiency. They had no moral qualms when it came to killing; the noche triste, for example, was met with utter horror by the aztecs. Butchery of that kind had never been experienced. Their rules of war were highly regulated by ritual, a rigid code of ethics and many other conventions. They had never witnessed the kind of total war the Spaniards brought, some of whom fought in the Italian wars.
>>1228740
I don't have the best knowledge of the subject, but I think you're underestimating the power of steel armor and swords. first of all steel armor was impervious to any and all native weaponry. Steel swords likewise made mincemeat of native armor, which was made out of textiles. if you read about the noche triste, the author's (a later native author iirc) description of the slashing swords is nauseating, with natives being disemboweled, their guts spilling out and blood soaking the square where the massacre occurred. I'm also skeptical when you say that the climate made armor "an overheating trap". If you knew anything about central Mexico where the aztecs lived, you'd know that it is mountainous terrain and the weather is mild to cold. Tenochtitlan, where Mexico city is today, is about 7000 above seal level.
>>1228797
this. gun powder ran out very quickly in fact.
>>1222535
>The Mexicans were allied with two other little cities to form "the aztec alliance" and they had a half dozen villages that payed them sacrifices and food.
tenochtitlan had a population between 200k and 250k people, with aqueducts feeding the city. In other words, it was one of the largest cities in the world with 5 to 6 times the size of London and probably many times larger than any city in Spain.
>>1229207
>>1229332
I also forgot to mention, and I'm mostly being serious here, is that the Spaniards vastly reported the amount of african slaves/freedmen they brought along with them during the conquests of both Mexico and Peru. It is believed that a significant number of the rank and file were africans which, as incredible as it seems, was not that farfetched considering that Spain and Portugal had been engaged in the slave trade for many decades at this time, and that there was already a few thousand slaves in each kingdom, some of whom escaped to the americas or were brought by spaniards.
so...WE
>>1227656
sadmexican.jpg
>>1222419
>They had the wheel
nice meme
>>1229195
This.
Disease and war created social turmoil, for Spaniards it wasn't hard to take advantage of a vulnerable situation.
>>1228982
Oh, for sure, and I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.
I was just trying to demonstrate that the Aztec ineffectiveness against cavalry at Ovambo could still easily happen even before you get to some sort of "Oh they never saw horses before and were terrified".
What terror there was was more likely due to the Spanish having a force that could traverse the battlefield quickly, strike extremely hard at any given point, had people swinging at you out of easy reach for your weapons (try swinging a baseball bat at a point in front of you at a height over your head, see how awkward the motion is) who ride in, kill a bunch of people, and wheel away before an organized response can form.
>>1229426
It makes more sense if they were scared of the effect horses had than just horses.
They didn't have any large animals to use as beasts of burden. For this reason it's amazing they made such a large civilization at all. For sure, they did things worthy of respect. They weren't just ignorant savages incapable of statecraft, and fear of horses is kind of ridiculous. These theories can be dismissed as racist.
Disease was the main cause in my mind. It created turmoil and killed thousands at all levels of society. Massive internal struggles made them weak, but they were still pretty powerful. The Spanish were able to manipulate their neighbors into fighting for them. That's where guns/horses/metal armor became useful. A well organized and technologically advanced military force leading masses of neighboring tribes made it a well executed, but frankly easy victory.
My commentary: the Spanish were massive assholes, they didn't have to conquer the foreign land, but they chose to. They destroyed centuries of accumulated knowledge and culture. Modern Mexico speaks Spanish, but the people and culture looks back more positively on their native heritage. Mexico is still native and will probably be more so in the future. The Spanish left their mark but Mexico is still Mexican.
>>1225617
>ywn be a poor conquistador
>ywn go to the caribbean by way of a journey that leaves you vomiting and shitting your guts out for several months
>ywn arrive in cuba to already find that most of the indians have been kill, the land has been distributed among the richer and well connected spaniards
>ywn on a futile expedition to some shit-tier caribbean island looking for indian gold and land only to find savages tending to their yams and cassava
>ywn return to cuba destitute, waiting for the next big expedition to be organized in hopes that your journey to the americas is not in vain
>ywn take out a usurious loan to buy subpar armor, sword and supplies to meet the minimum requirements to join Cortes' expedition, while other soldiers all have cool swords, horses and crossbows
>ywn spend two years combating heathens in mexico, all the while banging the ugliest native women (as cortes and other social betters take the qts for themselves), hauling supplies hundreds of miles on foot (cortes has horse or litter carries by natives baka)
>ywn see the fall of tenochtitlan, for which you suffered a broken finger and a sprained ankle escaping aztecs who chimp out after you try and redpill them about their devil worship
>ywn see the day when Cortes and the other spanish chads distribute encomiendas among themselves
>ywn get rewarded a shit little plot on poor soil and a few bags of jewels for all your troubles
>ywn eke out a difficult living for the rest of your days in new spain, but at least you're comfy,right?
>ywn be married by some disinherited noblewomen who only did so because she had nowhere else to go, her family having died of smallpox.
>tfw
>>1229455
Also consider that they did not have as much cultural exchange. Eurasian civilizations could import, copy and steal ideas and technology from different cultures.
>>1227656
I really wish I could, but I barely understand what they meant by "Smoking Mirror".
>>1231657
Didn't "Smoking Mirror" just refer to obsidian mirrors used for rituals?
>>1228790
Lies, they only sacrificed people with noble blood becouse sacrificing a criminal or slave would be something disrespectful for their gods. Sorry for bad english, Mexican here :P
>>1231801
They praised the smoke because it is the only natural manifestation of a direct link connecting to the sky, which was a representation of the soul in the mind directly linked to the heaven-universe by a string. The word for the soul's mind (Tonali) is the same word for destiny and day, in fact their word for calendar (Tonalpohuali) means count of days.
This can get quite complex once you start to consider their language.
>>1222507
>Europeans didnt invent agriculture or writing, they got it from the middle east.
patently false
>>1231956
I could be mistaken.
But the book surely says that they only sacrificed brave warriors not cowards that would flee.
>>1228809
No, they had one left.
But Cannae wasn't about Stampy, it was about tricking the dumbass Roman consuls.
>>1228928
Don't act so triggered by reality. Armies in Asia and Europe had, at that point, experienced battles where infantry got routed by cavalry because horses can be fucking terrifying.
The Aztecs being blown away by cavalry isn't "diminishing" or "patronising" them, it's demonstrating they're human too.
>>1228972
>They probably didn't, sounds more like a condescending attitude of modern historians towards the Aztecs than anything else.
you stupid fuck
>>1229466
Would make a great book series.
>>1229455
> fear of horses is kind of ridiculous. These theories can be dismissed as racist.
There are people in the modern world who are terrified of horses because they've never seen them before in person and their size. How in the world is it racist to think that people would be afraid of them when they didn't even have the television to see them on.
>>1235490
How is that racist? Is it racist to think Romans being frightened of Carthaginian elephants are racist? I love how everything in history can be handwaved away as racism nowadays, and modern stuff can be handwaved away as backlash/results of imperialism.
>>1235526
I was replying to someone else who said that, m8
>>1229389
Citation? I've read Garcilaso de la Vega's Royal Commentaries on the Incas, one of the best sources available on Incan history and the Spanish conquest, BTW, and there was no such mention. In fact, I'm not quite sure there were many, or any, black slaves imported to the Peruvian/Mexican region. Black slaves were mostly used by Portugal; the Spanish had plenty of natives to use.
Furthermore, this idea that the Spanish conquered the natives because of superior tech is just plain foolishness. This used to be believed, but modern anthropology has discovered many corpses whose cause of death was not from a gun. Rather, there were many rivalries between opposing native factions and the Spanish were just able to use these to their advantage.
This is most likely what happened. Garcilaso actually depicts a scene where the Spanish, vastly outnumbered, stave off an onslaught of natives with the help of St. James who came down and defeated the natives with lightning bolts.
We know that wasn't what happened, though.
>>1227674
What stupid fucking premises to evaluate a civilization on. Your infantile simplification reveals your inability to think critically
>>1229455
>The Spanish left their mark but Mexico is still Mexico is still native and will probably be more so in the future. The Spanish left their mark but Mexico is still Mexican.
Sorry to break your bubble but Mexico is hispanic, culture is Iberian, language is romance and religion is roman catholic, their people (mestizo) have more european in them than native and even the real natives have hispanized their ways and culture. Native heritage is alive and well thou, in a museum that is.
>>1227674
>When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about.
>—Bernal Díaz del Castillo
>no u
>—anon
Anyone got some reading recommendations on the Aztecs?
>>1239183
1491
>>1239183
Here are some sources I used during my thesis:
Portilla, Miguel, and Lysander Kemp. The Broken Spears: the Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962.
Terraciano, Kevin and Sousa, Lisa. “The "Original Conquest" of Oaxaca: Nahua and Mixtec Accounts of the Spanish Conquest.” Ethnohistory, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Spring, 2003) , pp. 349-400. Duke University Press. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279892
The Aztec "Flowery War": A Geopolitical Explanation
Barry L. Isaac
Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter, 1983) , pp. 415-432
Published by:University of New Mexico
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629865
Demographic Aspects of the Classic Period in Puebla-Tlaxcala
D. E. Dumond
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Summer, 1972) , pp. 101-130
Published by:University of New Mexico
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629338
Residence Rules and Ultimogeniture in Tlaxcala and Mesoamerica
David Luke Robichaux
Ethnology, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring, 1997) , pp. 149-171
Published by:University of Pittsburgh- Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3774080
THE CODEX CORTÉS: INSCRIBING THE CONQUEST OF MEXICO
Ross Frank
Dispositio, Vol. 14, No. 36/38, COLONIAL DISCOURSE (1989) , pp. 187-211
Published by:Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41491359
Beyond Utopia and Paradise: Cortés, Bernal Díaz and the Rhetoric of Consecration
David A. Boruchoff
MLN, Vol. 106, No. 2, Hispanic Issue (Mar., 1991) , pp. 330-369
Published by:The Johns Hopkins University Press
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2904863
Oudijk, Michel R.. Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the conquest of Mesoamerica. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2012
>>1239266
If you don't have access to jstor I have uploaded some sources on the conquest for you
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0M0mGd2C7TUVmJjRmE0QWYwY0k&usp=sharing
>>1239266
>>1239290
>>1222419
>Why did they collapse?
Spain and Smallpox
>Was it just the human sacrifice thing, or something else?
Partly. Subjugated tribes/city-states of the Aztecs were tired of paying tribute, and when a powerful foreign force comes from over seas, they were eager to ally with them, in hopes of destroying the Aztecs.
Problem is that smallpox rekt all the natives.
Even if the Spaniards hadn't succeeded in capturing Tenochtitlan, disease would've still wiped out all resistance
>>1237185
I remember reading it in a book called resilient cultures
>>1222419
i think you're forgetting about some guys from across the ocean with advanced technology they had some conflict with
it was sort of a big deal
>>1229207
>>1229389
You should remember that spaniards had to fight with said dissatisfied tributaries, and that those conflicts were considerably harder than the conquest ofd tenochtitlan itself, just read on the first battle they waged on the tlaxcalans led by Xicoténcatl the Young, who only yielded after suffering heavy loses
People tend to forget that spaniards at that time were the foremost european military power, also
>deceit, treachery, equivocation
only against tenochtitlán itself, in the case of cortés, yet he did respect every agreement he had with the rebel tributaries, as the spanish crown would still regard their leaders as legit nobility and aside from conversion (which was a clause they all agreed on), they retained their way of life for a very long time
>>1229389
>both Mexico and Peru
don't know about per, but Bernal Diaz del Castillo, the most important soursce for the mexican campaign, often repeated how undermanned they were and how they had to rely on native servants sent by their allies, not african slaves
>>1229455
>Mexico is still Mexican.
jajaja, no.
t. I live in mexico city and shit is way more iberian than proper mexica, seeing how the actual ethnic aztecs have mostly faded and the peoples imaginary of them is mostly (and widely regarded as) goverment sponsored propaganda
>>1234220
he literally described Bernal Dias' life m8o
>>1240870
>>1240888
Yeah you guys are right. I don't doubt that dissatisfied natives were the source of most of the labor on the spanish expeditions, but I do remember the number of africans being more than thought, though my memory might be failing me
>"You should remember that spaniards had to fight with said dissatisfied tributaries..."
thats true but iirc some native tribes joined cortes right away and fought for him against these said dissatisfied tributaries like the Tlaxcalans.
>People tend to forget that spaniards at that time were the foremost european military power, also
I agree. If you noticed I mentioned that the Aztec conquest also included a few soldiers from the Italian wars.
> in the case of cortés, yet he did respect every agreement he had with the rebel tributaries, as the spanish crown would still regard their leaders as legit nobility and aside from conversion (which was a clause they all agreed on), they retained their way of life for a very long time
I don't think the relations were as good as you make it out to be. Cortes only abided by his agreements with the native allies as long as it was useful for him to do so. As soon as the conquest ended he distributed ownership of different aztec leaders and their peoples to the highest ranking spaniards and those who had invested most in the expedition. Sure, the Tlaxcalans and maybe a few others got special privileges for their pains, but within the decade there was no denying that a racial hierarchy was in the making, with the Indians, even the noble leaders, on the lowest rung of it. Sure, the native nobles could live relatively well, but the huge tributary burdens placed upon them, and the constant supply of labor demanded by their spanish overlords definitely cut them down a size, if it didn't impoverish them entirely. I could go on...but I think it's clear that Cortes didn't respect the rebel tributaries considering his immediate violation of their sovereignty.
>>1240870
>>1241006
cont.
>>1240888
I do not deny the possibility that the Spaniards were short of labor and they relied on native auxiliaries, but you also remember that Diaz wrote his book with a purpose in mind, namely to protest the mistreatment of those soldiers who fought on the expedition but were not rewarded for their sacrifices. In other words, Diaz had an interest in emphasizing the frailty of the Spaniards, the mightiness of the Mexica and questioning Cortes' leadership and judgement, considering that Cortes benefitted most from the campaign.
>>1240900
Diaz had it pretty well though. After Mexico he helped conquer central america and then settled in Nicaragua with a nice estate and several hundred natives in his possession.
>>1228928
Have you ever been in a paddock with a horse? Even a single riderless horse can be scary, they're huge fucking animals. now imagine that you didn't even know that horses existed and your first encounter with them was a fully armored cavalry squadron charging you at a full gallop. The intimidation factor wasn't because they had infantile minds and were scared by something new. The intimidation factor came because horses are fucking intimidating. When you look at riot-control footage where mounted officers are used, often all the officers have to do to get a crowd to break and run is to canter towards them in a single loose line. Horses were an enormous force multiplier for pre-industrial soldiers. There's a reason that heavy cavalry dominated European warfare for 1000 years. As soon as saddle and harness technology became sophisticated enough, armored horsemen could basically rout any infantry force they encountered. See the Hunnic Invasions, the Mongol Invasions, the Bauernkrieg, and the entire military history of the Medieval period.
>>1237185
>>1240170 here. I found some sources on the matter. they're not from the original secondary source i read but they seem legit
https://books.google.com/books?id=2hMp9z_OsUMC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=blacks+spanish+conquest&source=bl&ots=Rtis1pVuH1&sig=W45GhXPjApGV3hOuFoNj4lBT4lU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZz42B_4_NAhUDU1IKHaQWBPcQ6AEITjAH#v=onepage&q=blacks%20spanish%20conquest&f=false
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/colonial/black-conquistadors.pdf
here's a wiki on one of the more famous black conquistadors who served on cortes' expedition and later on in central america.
>>1241271
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Garrido
also some pics from my book resilient cultures is forthcoming because it offers a great concise section on how expeditions were organized and how the aztec and incan conquests went down.
