Search Results
7/25/2025, 2:25:16 PM
>>149549710
>>149543437
>>149543482
>>149544439
>>149547483
>>149547779
Whoops, forgot a "did so" at the end of my post there
Anyways, cont:
Most of the states that did ally with Cortes only did so after Tenochtitlan was already struck by smallpox and Moctezuma II died, leaving it vulnerable and making it so states had more to gain and less to lose by switching sides and taking it out to hopefully retain political status in the new regime they'd help put in place by doing so. This was a very common tactic across Mesoamerican history and it's how the Aztec Empire itself got started a century prior.
The origin of this misconception is that Tlaxcala (pic), one of the first major players to ally with Cortes, DID resent the Mexica, but Tlaxcala was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with, so it's a mistake to project it's motives and relationship to say Huextozinco, Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco etc who had their own more different political reasons for eventually allying with Cortes:
Huextozinco in general often flip-flopped between being a Mexica or a Tlaxcalteca ally as it was a city in the pass connecting their two valleys and got fought over. Texcoco was a secondary capital in the Aztec empire and it initially stayed loyal to the Mexica, but a specific prince, Ixtlilxochitl II, who previously lost a succession dispute to a competing Mexica backed heir, defected to the Conquistador and Tlaxcalteca side after they re-entered the valley to start the siege (but even this was after Tenochtitlan was already weakened). Chalco was one of the longest unconquered holdouts in the core of the empire that had only relatively recently been subjugated, so it flipped as the Conquistadors/Tlaxcalteca/Ixtlilxochitl's faction's finally pushed their way into that portion of the valley during the siege. Xochimilco was also in that area, and fought with the Mexica against them, and only switched sides when it was beaten by the invaders/defectors and forced to, etc.
3/?
>>149543437
>>149543482
>>149544439
>>149547483
>>149547779
Whoops, forgot a "did so" at the end of my post there
Anyways, cont:
Most of the states that did ally with Cortes only did so after Tenochtitlan was already struck by smallpox and Moctezuma II died, leaving it vulnerable and making it so states had more to gain and less to lose by switching sides and taking it out to hopefully retain political status in the new regime they'd help put in place by doing so. This was a very common tactic across Mesoamerican history and it's how the Aztec Empire itself got started a century prior.
The origin of this misconception is that Tlaxcala (pic), one of the first major players to ally with Cortes, DID resent the Mexica, but Tlaxcala was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with, so it's a mistake to project it's motives and relationship to say Huextozinco, Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco etc who had their own more different political reasons for eventually allying with Cortes:
Huextozinco in general often flip-flopped between being a Mexica or a Tlaxcalteca ally as it was a city in the pass connecting their two valleys and got fought over. Texcoco was a secondary capital in the Aztec empire and it initially stayed loyal to the Mexica, but a specific prince, Ixtlilxochitl II, who previously lost a succession dispute to a competing Mexica backed heir, defected to the Conquistador and Tlaxcalteca side after they re-entered the valley to start the siege (but even this was after Tenochtitlan was already weakened). Chalco was one of the longest unconquered holdouts in the core of the empire that had only relatively recently been subjugated, so it flipped as the Conquistadors/Tlaxcalteca/Ixtlilxochitl's faction's finally pushed their way into that portion of the valley during the siege. Xochimilco was also in that area, and fought with the Mexica against them, and only switched sides when it was beaten by the invaders/defectors and forced to, etc.
3/?
Page 1