>>213093194
cont:

>>213081103
>>213083834
How class worked varied, even within the same culture/civilization (EX: Tenochtitlan and Tlaxcala were both Nahua/"culturally Aztec", but the former was quite classist and a de facto monarchy vs the later was more egalitarian and a senatorial republic), but for the Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan, class mobility was difficult and was increasingly restricted over time, there were sumptuary laws limiting what kinds of goods/valuables you could own and/or display publicly based on class, and only nobles could own land and take certain high status offices/titles

So "being super wealthy" was generally not a thing because wealth didn't quite exist independent of your class or bestowed titles and due to the sumptuary laws... but the closest analogy would have been merchants, who had their own guilds and were able to obtain a lot of goods and luxury items to a point where some people think they may have begun amass meaningful "wealth" outside the normal class system, in way which could lead to real wieldable political/social power, perhaps even with the potential to undermine the ruling class, or to where they could disregard sumptuary laws, but I haven't really come across an actual examples of that happening in primary sources.

And conversely, there's examples of merchants acting as an extension of Mexica state and it's political and economic interests (as they were intertwined with taxes and their... liquidation?), to the point where merchants were used as spies or saboteurs, scouting ahead of invasions, sometimes in disguise, and could cause a ruckus, and if they were imprisoned/attacked that would provide the Mexica with a justification to invade. So merchants arriving into an area or asking to do trade could be seen a (plausibly deniable) way to suss out your standing with them: rejecting them was an act of escalation but accepting could be interpreted as you "defaulting" into becoming an ally or vassal

5/?