The second step is to reconstruct the extent of the settlements ruled by these capitals. Luckily many of the early Spanish documents – particularly those known as the Relaciones Geográficas – list the names of villages and hamlets that were subject to each tlatoani or to the capital town. In some areas these small, subject settlements survive today and can be located on detailed modern maps; in other areas the smaller settlements have disappeared, making it difficult or even impossible to map the extent of a city-state.
In line with the idea that Aztec city-states were more collective than autocratic in organization, there is some evidence that commoners may have been able to switch their allegiance from one king to another. The distribution of small settlements as described in ethnohistoric documents includes instances in which small settlements subject to nearby city-state centers lay interspersed with one another such that it is not possible to draw clear boundaries around the territories of the polities. This situation may appear confusing to us today, but it reveals a crucial point about political organization in ancient Mesoamerica. Polities were defined not in terms of territory or space – as they are in the modern world – but in terms of personal obligations. The city-state of Tepexpan, for example, consisted of all of the people who owed allegiance to the tlatoani of Tepexpan. That some of those people lived closer to other nearby city-state centers than to the center of Tepexpan did not matter. One means by which this complicated pattern could have emerged is if people successfully changed their allegiance from one king to another. Change of allegiance could happen only in a situation where kings were not dominating and despotic, and where commoners had some level of control over their situation.7
A number of ethnohistoric studies have applied these methods to reconstruct the regional political landscape in various parts of the Aztec Empire. The research of the late Mary G. Hodge went beyond this by correlating city-state areas with known Late Aztec archaeological sites.8 The 1579 Relación Geográfica from Coatepec, for example, not only lists subjects of the town but also provides a map. Using this document and other sixteenth-century reports and lawsuits Hodge was able to map the extent of Coatepec and nearby city-states as they existed in 1519. She then compared her ethnohistoric map of this area with the results of the Valley of Mexico Archaeological Survey Project and was able to assign the many small- and medium-sized sites to their appropriate city-state (figure 7.2). Hodge has produced the most accurate and complete political map of the Aztec Valley of Mexico to date, and the application of her procedures to other areas promises to yield additional insights.
Figure 7.2 Map of city-state territories in the southeastern Valley of Mexico (not all of the Aztec sites in this region are depicted on the map) (Hodge 1994:56; reproduced with permission)
Relations Among City-States
Aztec city-states did not exist in isolation. They formed large, regional groups whose member states were in constant communication and interaction with one another. Somewhat paradoxically, nearby city-states engaged simultaneously in both peaceful interactions – trade, political alliances, and visits among lords – and relations of warfare and domination. These regional groups or systems of city-states were quite volatile and alternated between periods of stability and episodes of unrest and rapid change. In this sense, the Aztec political landscape resembled other historically known city-state systems such as those of Archaic and Classical Greece, Early Dynastic Sumeria, Medieval Italy, and nineteenth-century west Africa. In all of these cases, nearby city-states shared a language and culture but maintained their political autonomy and distinctiveness.9 Competition among sister city-states is endemic in these settings. In the Aztec case, this competition frequently led to conquest and political domination, culminating in the formation and expansion of the Triple Alliance Empire.
Peaceful Relations
Nearby city-states maintained three main types of peaceful relations: trade, elite networks, and political alliances. Aztec city-states were small in size, and very few could afford to be economically self-sufficient. Political borders did not stop either merchants or consumers from traveling to markets in foreign city-states. Specialized markets attracted customers from large areas. For example, people from city-states all over the northeast Valley of Mexico traveled to Acolman to shop at its famous dog market. When people needed a costly or specialized item not available at their local city-state market, they could travel to the nearest large market to make their purchase. Nobles from Acolman, for example, might go to Texcoco or Tenochtitlan to buy jewelry and feathers.
As discussed in chapter 6, royal families and other nobles were heavily involved in many activities that transcended the borders of individual city-states. Nobles often married across city-state lines, partly to forge political alliances and partly for the simple reason that in many small city-states there were not enough potential spouses who were nobles. Lords commonly visited their peers in other city-states to participate in ceremonies, festivals, and political summits. Friar Durán describes many of these events. When Nezahualpilli, king of Texcoco, died in 1515, nobles from all over central Mexico attended his funeral:
Then the other leading men of Tenochtitlan, one after another, made sorrowful speeches to the body of the Texcoco king, expressing condolences for his death but speaking to him as if he were still alive. Each one presented jewels and other gifts, according to his possibilities. The king of Tacuba also sent slaves and gifts of royal mantles and jewels, as did the ruler of Chalco and the lords of Xochimilco and of the Marquesado [i.e., Cuauhnahuac]. Noblemen of all the land came with quantities of jewels and gifts and with many slaves.10
The economic and social ties among city-states did not prevent them from fighting one another in an attempt to achieve political domination, however.
Warfare and Domination
The goal of warfare among the Aztecs was to conquer other city-states in order to force them to pay tribute and taxes.11 Warfare was not used to expand the size or territory of a state since the losing city-state typically maintained its tlatoani, government, and lands intact. The losing king simply had to acknowledge the dominance of the victorious king and agree to deliver a specified payment each year. A secondary goal of warfare was to capture enemy soldiers for sacrifice. Human sacrifice was a fundamental part of Aztec religion, and most victims were soldiers captured in battle.
War and battle were dominant themes running throughout Aztec culture. There were no permanent standing armies, and military service was required of all males. Success in warfare was an important part of male identity (see chapter 6). Birth was compared to combat, and women who died in childbirth were likened to warriors. All boys were taught military skills and values at the telpochcalli and calpolli schools.
The public status of a young man was determined by the number of enemy captives he had taken in battle. Various ranks of warriors were proclaimed publicly by dress and jewelry. New soldiers with no captives could wear only plain capes and not jewelry. Upon taking his first captive, a soldier became a “leading youth” and was allowed to wear special face paint and a decorated cape in public; he also became eligible for marriage. With each additional captive, a man gained new privileges. For example, a four-captive warrior could dance at important public ceremonies and wear fine lip plugs and a headband with eagle-feather tassels. The most successful warriors joined elite military orders known as eagle warriors, jaguar warriors, Otomi warriors, and shorn warriors. These exalted soldiers were the commanders and leaders in battle, and enjoyed many privileges back home. Eagle and jaguar warriors, for example, could dine at the royal palace, drink pulque, and keep concubines. The advancement of a young man up the military ladder was a source of great pride for his family and calpolli.
Aztec warfare was ritualized and followed a distinct protocol, although actual battles were fierce and serious. The ruler of a city-state bent upon expansion first sent ambassadors to request the surrender of the targeted town. Gifts were offered to the local lord and the consequences
of refusal were described. These threats included military conquest, the possible destruction of the town, and the imposition of a heavy burden of taxes. Sometimes a local tlatoani submitted willingly, assuming a lower tax rate; in other cases, he sent the ambassadors home with scorn, and war soon followed. The king of the aggressor state could raise an army quickly from among the eligible youths and experienced soldiers, and the women provided food and supplies for the campaign. Although these procedures did not lead to surprise attacks, they did not prevent the use of ambush and trickery on the battlefield.
Forces were led into battle by the most experienced warriors, with the sounds of drums and trumpets urging on the attack. Once battle was joined, soldiers fought with determination and vigor. The primary offensive weapons were thrusting spears and swords. The Aztec sword (maquahuitl) consisted of a long, flat wooden handle into which were fitted rows of obsidian blades (figure 7.3). The extreme sharpness of the obsidian blades made these swords highly effective weapons. The Spaniards described several instances in which Aztec soldiers cut off the heads of horses with a single blow. The bow and arrow was used as an offensive weapon also, and some groups made use of clubs and slings.
Figure 7.3 Soldiers carrying maquahuitl swords into battle (modified after Sahagún 1950–1982:bk.8:fig.78; drawing by Ellen Cesarski)
Soldiers normally carried shields into battle. These were made of wood covered with elaborate decorations, often of feathers (figures 7.3, 7.5). The Spaniards described Aztec shields as quite good at stopping arrows and swords. Soldiers wore body armor of thick, quilted cotton cloth that could stop arrows and darts. War leaders adorned themselves with feather tunics, headdresses, armbands, and other decorative clothing.
The need to capture enemies for sacrifice greatly influenced the nature of fighting in Aztec wars. At one level, armies sought to kill numerous opponents to gain victory. On another level, however, soldiers tried to injure or cripple enemy fighters in order to capture them alive. Captures made by a group of soldiers brought far less status than solo seizures, so most soldiers fought individually, one on one, each opponent seeking to subdue the other for capture.
Victory on the battlefield came when one army succeeded in killing and capturing enough enemy soldiers to subdue and demoralize its opponent. Sometimes victory required the conquest and partial destruction of a city, as indicated in the burning temple glyph for a conquered city (figure 11.3). Each army returned to its capital, one with rejoicing and celebration, the other with tears and sorrow. The victorious king set the tribute or tax quota for the conquered city-state, which the losing monarch was forced to pay while acknowledging the superiority of his conqueror. In most cases, the victor did not depose the conquered king nor attempt to administer directly the territory of his new domain. So long as the tax payments continued to flow to the victors he and his successors usually avoided meddling in the internal affairs of subject states. This form of indirect rule was put to use when the Triple Alliance began its program of imperial expansion after 1428, and explains many characteristics of that empire as the Spaniards encountered it in 1519.
The Empire of the Triple Alliance
What Kind of Empire?
The principles of warfare, tribute, taxation, and indirect rule outlined above were worked out among the Aztec city-states during the twelfth through fourteenth centuries. When the Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan was formed in 1428, the rulers put these practices to work to build their empire. Together, these states easily achieved military and political control of the Valley of Mexico. Once they had consolidated the economic and demographic power of the Valley of Mexico, they set out to dominate an ever-increasing area. By 1519, the alliance controlled an area greater than any previous Mesoamerican realm. But was this loosely organized group of city-states an empire? Some scholars state that because of major deficiencies, “this was not an empire at all.”12 The Aztecs had no standing armies; they left conquered kings in office instead of sending governors or administrators to the provinces; they did not build an infrastructure of roads, cities, or warehouses throughout their realm; and fortresses and garrisons were few and far between. Ethnohistorian Ross Hassig counters this argument by analyzing the Aztec Empire from a comparative perspective. He shows that the Triple Alliance was in fact typical of a certain kind of ancient empire.
Historians and political scientists divide empires into two basic types: territorial or direct, and hegemonic or indirect.13 The popular image of an ancient empire is represented by large territorial domains such as the Roman, Assyrian, or Inca empires. All of these had standing armies, direct political control of the provinces, and major construction programs. Their rulers attempted to incorporate subject peoples into the society of the dominant power. Hegemonic empires, by contrast, are ruled through indirect control, using a combination of force and persuasion to gain compliance by client kings. Far less effort is devoted to managing the affairs of subject peoples. Examples of ancient hegemonic empires include Athens during the Classical period, the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, and the Aztec Triple Alliance. The alliance's Mexica rulers, however, did not lack deliberate strategies and plans for imperial expansion and administration; in fact they employed several distinct strategies to create and exploit the empire for their own ends.
Imperial Control in the Valley of Mexico
The first goal of the newly formed Triple Alliance was to gain control over the city-states of the Valley of Mexico.14 Once these had been conquered or otherwise incorporated into the empire, the imperial rulers initiated a series of political reforms designed to tighten their control and to prevent nearby city-states from rebelling or resisting. These reforms went beyond the heretofore accepted pattern of city-state expansion discussed above and signaled the beginnings of a new, higher level of political and social control and integration. Unfriendly tlatoque were removed from office and replaced by nobles sympathetic to the empire. A system of tax provinces was established that was separate from the preexisting city-state governments. Taxes were collected directly by imperial tax-collectors, thereby keeping it out of the hands of local city-state rulers. Under this system the imperial kings could deal with subject rulers as allies and colleagues, not tax-payers, at the same time that they were assessing heavy taxes from their colleagues' commoner subjects.
As the empire expanded outside the Valley of Mexico, two factors shaped the continuing development of city-states within the Valley. First, the final conquest of Chalco in 1465 brought an end to the warfare that had been endemic among the Valley of Mexico city-states. Under the resulting Pax Azteca of the Late Aztec B period, the market system flourished, and the entire valley became more tightly integrated economically and socially. Second, the growth of the empire in the outer provinces produced a great influx of riches into the valley in the forms of taxes and trade goods. The imperial rulers strengthened their bonds with other dynasties by sharing some of this wealth as gifts to nobles at increasingly frequent and sumptuous gatherings and ceremonies. Marriage alliances among the Valley of Mexico nobility also strengthened regional ties.
Imperial Strategies and Control
Warfare and Taxes in the Outer Provinces
Aztec imperial expansion was motivated by economic interests: the Triple Alliance wanted access to a regular supply of wealth and riches from foreign lands.15 The growing numbers of commoners in Tenochtitlan and the other imperial capitals required ever-increasing amounts of food, cloth, and other necessities, and the nobles required exotic luxury goods to maintain their lifestyles and social positions. To obtain these goods, the Mexica kings and their Acolhua allies devised two fundamental strategies. The economic strategy involved the conquest of rich areas and the establishment of a program of regular tax payments as well as the encouragement of trade and markets throughout the empire. The Aztecs were not the only imperialists in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica, however. When their expansion brought them into conflict with other powerful enemies, the Triple Alliance
devised a second strategy. This frontier strategy involved the creation of client states along enemy frontiers to shoulder much of the burden of protecting the empire so that taxes and trade could flourish in the inner provinces.
These two strategies led to the creation of two distinct types of imperial control in the outer empire. (1) Tax provinces included city-states well under imperial control that could provide regular taxes and trade required by the economic strategy. These provinces tended to comprise the city-states with the longest history of imperial control and those distant from major Aztec enemies such as the Tarascan Empire or Tlaxcalla. (2) Client states, on the other hand, were established to help maintain the imperial borders and frontiers without massive investment by the Triple Alliance.16 A map of the empire (figure 7.4) shows the locations of the tax provinces and client states as they existed in 1519. The empire contained some 450 city-states, all subject to the Triple Alliance in some manner (table 7.1).
Figure 7.4 Map of the provinces of the Aztec Empire. See table 7.1 for the names of the provinces (modified after Berdan et al. 1996; drawing by Pam Headrick)
The Aztecs Page 19
