>>716291573
cont:

>>716287153
>>716288360
>>716290028
>>716291086
and you anons also see what I said in >>716291573 just now re: the other anon's big greentext. The new anti spam rules prevented me from quoting all of you at once

>>716284542
>>716284263
>The Aztecs must have been truly despised
>They were. When it comes to 'States universally hated by all of their contemporaries' their only real competition is the Assyrians

As I stated at the bottom of >>716284939, and allude to in >716286931, >716287291 and >716289083 , the reality is that the Mexica of Tenochtitlan didn't actually impose sacrifices or even collect them as taxes: Their "Empire" was really more of a hands off hegemony where they demanded economic goods as taxes and other fairly basic obligations but otherwise left the cities they conquered or took on as voluntary vassals alone, though obviously there were exceptions where they were more hands on. There's some texts which suggest they had a reputation for being warlike from early on but them being expansionistic conquerors (which they absolutely were) is not the same thing as them being widely resented or oppressive.

Also keep in mind that sacrifice was a universal thing in Mesoamerica, as I mention in >>716286931 the Mexica and other Nahua groups actually came from the fringes of or just outside of Mesoamerica and likely would have adopted sacrificial rites from other existing Mesoamerican civilizations. The Mexica did sacrifices at greater scales, but few if any of their sacrificial practices were unique to them.

Most of the states that allied with Cortes did not do so because they resented the Mexica: Tlaxcala (pic) did, but it was an enemy state they were at war with, not an existing subject. Most of the others which did so like Texcoco, Xochimilco, Chalco, etc were mostly doing it out of opportunism or their own political ambitions after Tenochtitlan was already weak and vulnerable.

Again, see the link at the bottom of >716284939

13/?