>>2216871
The Tlaxcalteca were "Aztecs" in most definitions of the term, but I assume you mean Mexica
The Mexica were based too, though
4chan Search
10 results for "2802e4a9bae7a4ea8f10dd57b0c396a3"
>>18126881
Cortes, the "conquering Chad" who grew up seeing supposedly superior cathedrals, what did he bark/say about Tlaxcala? Let's look at the primary sources:
>>The city is indeed so great and marvellous.... It is much larger than Granada and much better fortified. Its houses are as fine and its inhabitants far more numerous... Its provisions and food are likewise very superior... There are gold, silver and precious stones, and jewellers' shops...as well arranged as in any market in the world. There is earthenware of many kinds...as fine as any in Spain. Wood, charcoal, medicinal and sweet smelling herbs are sold... There are booths for washing your hair... there are also public baths. Finally, good order and an efficient police system are maintained...and they behave as people of sense and reason.
>It is much larger than Granada and much better fortified.
Yes.. better than spain :)
Cortes, the "conquering Chad" who grew up seeing supposedly superior cathedrals, what did he bark/say about Tlaxcala? Let's look at the primary sources:
>>The city is indeed so great and marvellous.... It is much larger than Granada and much better fortified. Its houses are as fine and its inhabitants far more numerous... Its provisions and food are likewise very superior... There are gold, silver and precious stones, and jewellers' shops...as well arranged as in any market in the world. There is earthenware of many kinds...as fine as any in Spain. Wood, charcoal, medicinal and sweet smelling herbs are sold... There are booths for washing your hair... there are also public baths. Finally, good order and an efficient police system are maintained...and they behave as people of sense and reason.
>It is much larger than Granada and much better fortified.
Yes.. better than spain :)
>>64447391
>>64434397
cont:
>Conquistadors and Tlaxcalteca escape back to Tlaxcala and rest/regroup for a while, in the meantime over the next few months, smallpox begins to ravage Tenochtitlan and other cities, this would have created further political instability and hurt the Mexica's standing and influence as it became vulnerable
>Eventually Conquistadors and Tlaxcalteca re-enter the Valley of Mexico to siege Tenochtitlan, I believe they pick up Huextozinco as an ally along the way here (though they may have allied with Cortes etc earlier), one of the 3 traditional allies of Tlaxcala, though which was located in a narrow pass connecting their valley to the Valley of Mexico and as such frequently flip flopped between Mexica and Tlaxcalteca alignment as armies passed through
>Additionally, as they arrive in the eastern side of the Valley, they make an alliance with Ixtlilxochitl II and his followers: He was a prince from Texcoco, the second most powerful city in the empire/in the ruling triple alliance, who previously lost a succession dispute (gaining the throne/control over smaller cities instead) where the Mexica backed a different candidate. He allies with Cortes and the Tlaxcalteca either to seize the throne in Texcoco or to elevate Texcoco's position in general over the Mexica, depending on how altruistic you think he was. While some sources conflict, the rest of Texcoco's leadership seems to flee to Tenochtitlan and stays loyal to them
>Battles across the Valley of Mexico, notably Xicotencatl II, Ixtlilxochitl II etc target cities and towns and retreat based on what suits their interests, not just what helps Cortes, who isn't able to overule them. Most cities stay neutral, many stay loyal to the Mexica, some switch sides willing (such as Chalco, which was the one of the latest states in the Valley to be conquered by the Mexica), others (such as Xochimilco) seem to only switch sides when defeated and forced to
10/?
(again, pic mostly unrelated)
>>64434397
cont:
>Conquistadors and Tlaxcalteca escape back to Tlaxcala and rest/regroup for a while, in the meantime over the next few months, smallpox begins to ravage Tenochtitlan and other cities, this would have created further political instability and hurt the Mexica's standing and influence as it became vulnerable
>Eventually Conquistadors and Tlaxcalteca re-enter the Valley of Mexico to siege Tenochtitlan, I believe they pick up Huextozinco as an ally along the way here (though they may have allied with Cortes etc earlier), one of the 3 traditional allies of Tlaxcala, though which was located in a narrow pass connecting their valley to the Valley of Mexico and as such frequently flip flopped between Mexica and Tlaxcalteca alignment as armies passed through
>Additionally, as they arrive in the eastern side of the Valley, they make an alliance with Ixtlilxochitl II and his followers: He was a prince from Texcoco, the second most powerful city in the empire/in the ruling triple alliance, who previously lost a succession dispute (gaining the throne/control over smaller cities instead) where the Mexica backed a different candidate. He allies with Cortes and the Tlaxcalteca either to seize the throne in Texcoco or to elevate Texcoco's position in general over the Mexica, depending on how altruistic you think he was. While some sources conflict, the rest of Texcoco's leadership seems to flee to Tenochtitlan and stays loyal to them
>Battles across the Valley of Mexico, notably Xicotencatl II, Ixtlilxochitl II etc target cities and towns and retreat based on what suits their interests, not just what helps Cortes, who isn't able to overule them. Most cities stay neutral, many stay loyal to the Mexica, some switch sides willing (such as Chalco, which was the one of the latest states in the Valley to be conquered by the Mexica), others (such as Xochimilco) seem to only switch sides when defeated and forced to
10/?
(again, pic mostly unrelated)
>>64383492
The Mesoamericans smelted Bronze, anon.
They also had cities bigger then any Bronze age city in the Near East: The Spanish themselves compared them to the Greeks and Romans in terms of cities, art, architecture, social order and systems of law and government, etc
I wouldn't go quite that far, the Greeks and Romans definitely had more developed math, engineering in most areas, and probably formal legal and intellectual institutions then the Mesoamericans did, but the Mesoamericans still had plenty of impressive accomplishments in those areas, and with water management infrastructure (moreso the scale of infrastructure then the complexity of the engineering), botany, sanitation, and medicine in particular, they were pretty cutting edge even by global standards in the 16th century
Also in general the stone/bronze/iron ages are a meme, they're just shit 18th century museums came up with in Eurasia to sort their collections before they had proper dating methodology for artifacts. Was never intended to describe stages societies develop through: Mesoamerican civs that existed even before the region had any metallurgy like Teotihuacan rivalled some of the largest Roman cities of the time, while there are African tribes that smelted steel while never developing Bronze and who still lived in simple villages
The Mesoamericans smelted Bronze, anon.
They also had cities bigger then any Bronze age city in the Near East: The Spanish themselves compared them to the Greeks and Romans in terms of cities, art, architecture, social order and systems of law and government, etc
I wouldn't go quite that far, the Greeks and Romans definitely had more developed math, engineering in most areas, and probably formal legal and intellectual institutions then the Mesoamericans did, but the Mesoamericans still had plenty of impressive accomplishments in those areas, and with water management infrastructure (moreso the scale of infrastructure then the complexity of the engineering), botany, sanitation, and medicine in particular, they were pretty cutting edge even by global standards in the 16th century
Also in general the stone/bronze/iron ages are a meme, they're just shit 18th century museums came up with in Eurasia to sort their collections before they had proper dating methodology for artifacts. Was never intended to describe stages societies develop through: Mesoamerican civs that existed even before the region had any metallurgy like Teotihuacan rivalled some of the largest Roman cities of the time, while there are African tribes that smelted steel while never developing Bronze and who still lived in simple villages
>>214671303
cont:
>>214671261
>>214671293
The actual answer is that "the bronze age" doesn't exist: "___ ages" are just shit 19th century museums came up with before they had proper dating methods for artifacts as a simple way to sort and display their collections from Europe and the Near East. Some African tribes never smelted bronze but went right to iron and steel smithing but still lived in simple villages, and as I noted last post, Mesoamerica had cities on par with Roman ones without ANY metallurgy
Different societies focus on different things: The Mesoamericans may not have smelted iron or steel and only had limited use of Bronze tools and weapons as of the time of Spanish contact, and hell they never developed the sail at all, but had mathematics, engineering, military organization etc on par with Bronze age civilizations, cities rivalling Classical and Medieval European ones in size, also with waterworks and hydraulic infrastructure that covered massive amounts of urban infrastructure with interconnected elements that would have been impressive by Greek and Roman standards even if the Mesoamericans didn't have as complete an understanding of fluid dynamics. They also had legitimately cutting edge practices when it came to sanitation, medicine, and botanical sciences.
Images and posts like >214668181 or >>214669038 set things up as a contest when even the Spanish and Mesoamericans themselves respected each other's achievements: Conquistadors, Catholic Friars, royal court annalists, etc all regularly praised the hell out of Aztec cities, art, architecture, systems of law and order, the discipline/skill of their armies, even some of their ethics and theological concepts were compared favorable to Christianity at times: They were often compared to the Greeks, Romans etc as "Civilized pagans"
>>214670456
I and my friends have a 60+ page document with quotes from 16th/17th century Spanish, Italian, and German authors who disagree
2/2 for now
cont:
>>214671261
>>214671293
The actual answer is that "the bronze age" doesn't exist: "___ ages" are just shit 19th century museums came up with before they had proper dating methods for artifacts as a simple way to sort and display their collections from Europe and the Near East. Some African tribes never smelted bronze but went right to iron and steel smithing but still lived in simple villages, and as I noted last post, Mesoamerica had cities on par with Roman ones without ANY metallurgy
Different societies focus on different things: The Mesoamericans may not have smelted iron or steel and only had limited use of Bronze tools and weapons as of the time of Spanish contact, and hell they never developed the sail at all, but had mathematics, engineering, military organization etc on par with Bronze age civilizations, cities rivalling Classical and Medieval European ones in size, also with waterworks and hydraulic infrastructure that covered massive amounts of urban infrastructure with interconnected elements that would have been impressive by Greek and Roman standards even if the Mesoamericans didn't have as complete an understanding of fluid dynamics. They also had legitimately cutting edge practices when it came to sanitation, medicine, and botanical sciences.
Images and posts like >214668181 or >>214669038 set things up as a contest when even the Spanish and Mesoamericans themselves respected each other's achievements: Conquistadors, Catholic Friars, royal court annalists, etc all regularly praised the hell out of Aztec cities, art, architecture, systems of law and order, the discipline/skill of their armies, even some of their ethics and theological concepts were compared favorable to Christianity at times: They were often compared to the Greeks, Romans etc as "Civilized pagans"
>>214670456
I and my friends have a 60+ page document with quotes from 16th/17th century Spanish, Italian, and German authors who disagree
2/2 for now
>>17968134
>>17968399
>Teotihuacan
>Tenochtitlan
Sometimes things are popular because they're just the right choice
>>17968399
>Teotihuacan
>Tenochtitlan
Sometimes things are popular because they're just the right choice
>>213090448
Cont:
>>213087448
>>213085470
See >>>/co/149549710 >>>/co/149549936 >>>/co/149549976
Nearly everyone the Mexica of the Aztec capital interacted were city-states, kingdoms, or empires, not "tribes". The Mexica also didn't do genocide unless you specific cities being razed as a genocide (and they typically didn't even raze stuff, since...): The main goal in their expansionism was to conquer subjects to pay economic goods as taxes without needing to work for it: A genocided populace can't farm cacao or pan for gold.
And in general, while the Mexica were definitely warmongering conquerors, they were loose with their rule and usually left conquered states to self manage. Cortes got most of the allies he did was because that system left subjects with their own interests and agency, which in turn enabled opportunistic defection: it's not that the Mexica were exceptionally bad or hated (remember EVERYBODY in Mesoamerica did sacrifices, so that's not something they'd be resented for), it's that after Tenochtitlan was struck by smallpox etc, some states felt they had more to gain and less to lose by turning on it to gain/retain their status within the new Spanish/Tlaxcalteca regime they'd help prop up (though Tlaxcala specifically DID hate the Mexica)
>>213084505
>>213082258
>>213082522
>>213083872
>>213089907
>>213083967
I don't mind if you think the Mexica were evil, if you do so based on an accurate assessment of what they were actually like (EX: see above re: their rule of conquered subjects), but I find it ironic that people post stuff like this when Spanish Conquistadors and Catholic Friars themselves praised Aztec cities (see pic), art, architecture, ethics, systems of law, etc all the time and sometimes explicitly said that much of that was worth preserving and respecting.
See all the quotes I posted across these: >>>/v/716322542 >>>/v/716324741 >>>/v/716325865 >>>/v/716326547 >>>/v/716327371 >>>/v/716328771 >>>/v/716329637 >>>/v/716330829
3/?
Cont:
>>213087448
>>213085470
See >>>/co/149549710 >>>/co/149549936 >>>/co/149549976
Nearly everyone the Mexica of the Aztec capital interacted were city-states, kingdoms, or empires, not "tribes". The Mexica also didn't do genocide unless you specific cities being razed as a genocide (and they typically didn't even raze stuff, since...): The main goal in their expansionism was to conquer subjects to pay economic goods as taxes without needing to work for it: A genocided populace can't farm cacao or pan for gold.
And in general, while the Mexica were definitely warmongering conquerors, they were loose with their rule and usually left conquered states to self manage. Cortes got most of the allies he did was because that system left subjects with their own interests and agency, which in turn enabled opportunistic defection: it's not that the Mexica were exceptionally bad or hated (remember EVERYBODY in Mesoamerica did sacrifices, so that's not something they'd be resented for), it's that after Tenochtitlan was struck by smallpox etc, some states felt they had more to gain and less to lose by turning on it to gain/retain their status within the new Spanish/Tlaxcalteca regime they'd help prop up (though Tlaxcala specifically DID hate the Mexica)
>>213084505
>>213082258
>>213082522
>>213083872
>>213089907
>>213083967
I don't mind if you think the Mexica were evil, if you do so based on an accurate assessment of what they were actually like (EX: see above re: their rule of conquered subjects), but I find it ironic that people post stuff like this when Spanish Conquistadors and Catholic Friars themselves praised Aztec cities (see pic), art, architecture, ethics, systems of law, etc all the time and sometimes explicitly said that much of that was worth preserving and respecting.
See all the quotes I posted across these: >>>/v/716322542 >>>/v/716324741 >>>/v/716325865 >>>/v/716326547 >>>/v/716327371 >>>/v/716328771 >>>/v/716329637 >>>/v/716330829
3/?
>>716294540
cont:
>>716292368
>>716293583
>>716292501
Define "weren't that bad"
The Mexica of Tenochtitlan were expansionistic conquerors who made military campaigns a key part of their economic and political authority and masculine ideal. They also sacrificed 100s to 1000s people a year, and they were pretty classist and executed people for relatively minor crimes
But they also weren't a bloodthirsty dystopia: Most people went about their day eating meals with family, working in farms or workshops, visiting markets, and playing/betting on games. You had merchants, artists, diplomats, doctors etc. There was a formal judicial system with courts and judges. There were aqueducts, bathes, and toilets. Nobles valued poetry, public speaking and botanical sciences, and they mostly left the places they conquered to still self-rule
Again, as stated in >>716291573 and >>716289940, even the Spanish repeatedly praised their cities (pic), art, architecture, social order, laws, ethics, and intellect
IMO they're comparable but not exceptionally worse to other expansionistic military empires in history, and/or ones that did a lot of holy wars or religious killings
The mongols aren't my area but based on my high school taught knowledge of them: Both they and the Mexica are kinda similar in they'd both stroll up and go "become our subject and pay up or else" (tho there's subject vs vassal nuances I'm skipping over here for the Mexica) and if you did, you got left alone to mostly self manage, but 1. My impression is the Mexica weren't AS hands off as the Mongols even if they still mostly were and 2. the Mongols afaik almost always razed cities who refused while the Mexica only infrequently did, just invading to then force them to submit but still being hands off after, they actually often had to re-conquer cities multiple times since their loose rule meant a subject could just secede every once in a while until the Mexica put their foot down
>>716293948
see
>>716292191
16/?
cont:
>>716292368
>>716293583
>>716292501
Define "weren't that bad"
The Mexica of Tenochtitlan were expansionistic conquerors who made military campaigns a key part of their economic and political authority and masculine ideal. They also sacrificed 100s to 1000s people a year, and they were pretty classist and executed people for relatively minor crimes
But they also weren't a bloodthirsty dystopia: Most people went about their day eating meals with family, working in farms or workshops, visiting markets, and playing/betting on games. You had merchants, artists, diplomats, doctors etc. There was a formal judicial system with courts and judges. There were aqueducts, bathes, and toilets. Nobles valued poetry, public speaking and botanical sciences, and they mostly left the places they conquered to still self-rule
Again, as stated in >>716291573 and >>716289940, even the Spanish repeatedly praised their cities (pic), art, architecture, social order, laws, ethics, and intellect
IMO they're comparable but not exceptionally worse to other expansionistic military empires in history, and/or ones that did a lot of holy wars or religious killings
The mongols aren't my area but based on my high school taught knowledge of them: Both they and the Mexica are kinda similar in they'd both stroll up and go "become our subject and pay up or else" (tho there's subject vs vassal nuances I'm skipping over here for the Mexica) and if you did, you got left alone to mostly self manage, but 1. My impression is the Mexica weren't AS hands off as the Mongols even if they still mostly were and 2. the Mongols afaik almost always razed cities who refused while the Mexica only infrequently did, just invading to then force them to submit but still being hands off after, they actually often had to re-conquer cities multiple times since their loose rule meant a subject could just secede every once in a while until the Mexica put their foot down
>>716293948
see
>>716292191
16/?
>>149363700
If you want more Mesoamerican suggestions, my friend I mentioned has a big media list here:
https://x.com/Majora__Z/status/1779068465631904240
>>149365164
If you're talking about the owner of Cartoon Universe/who is narrating, that's not who I was talking about there, I meant MajoraZ as linked above who helped her with the video and in turn I also did a bit indirectly
>>149365468
The Inca aren't Mesoamerica: They're an Andean civilization, like Caral, the Chavin, Nazca, Paracas, Moche, Wari, Tiwanku, Sican, Chimu, etc, who are all in Peru and bits of Bolivia and Ecuador. Mesoamerican civilizations like the Aztec, Maya, Olmec, Zapotec, Teotihuacan, Mixtec, Purepecha etc are in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize, primarily. There's like 4000 kilometers seperating the Aztec and Inca capitals, as much distance between the Aztec capital and Canada, or the West and East US coasts, or London in the UK and Baghdad in Iran.
That said, my favorite Mesoamerican civilizations are Teotihuacanos and Aztec, because Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan are just really fucking sick cities and I like the architectural style they mostly share a lot (The Aztec actually excavated ruins at Teotihuacan and intentionally made a kind of Teotihuacano revival style in their art and architecture as a result)
>>149355062
>>149354000
>>149362965
>>149366185
You just need to see good recontructions, for example the Gentling's art of Aztec cityscapes, see pic, which I alluded to in >>149360083
If you want more Mesoamerican suggestions, my friend I mentioned has a big media list here:
https://x.com/Majora__Z/status/1779068465631904240
>>149365164
If you're talking about the owner of Cartoon Universe/who is narrating, that's not who I was talking about there, I meant MajoraZ as linked above who helped her with the video and in turn I also did a bit indirectly
>>149365468
The Inca aren't Mesoamerica: They're an Andean civilization, like Caral, the Chavin, Nazca, Paracas, Moche, Wari, Tiwanku, Sican, Chimu, etc, who are all in Peru and bits of Bolivia and Ecuador. Mesoamerican civilizations like the Aztec, Maya, Olmec, Zapotec, Teotihuacan, Mixtec, Purepecha etc are in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize, primarily. There's like 4000 kilometers seperating the Aztec and Inca capitals, as much distance between the Aztec capital and Canada, or the West and East US coasts, or London in the UK and Baghdad in Iran.
That said, my favorite Mesoamerican civilizations are Teotihuacanos and Aztec, because Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan are just really fucking sick cities and I like the architectural style they mostly share a lot (The Aztec actually excavated ruins at Teotihuacan and intentionally made a kind of Teotihuacano revival style in their art and architecture as a result)
>>149355062
>>149354000
>>149362965
>>149366185
You just need to see good recontructions, for example the Gentling's art of Aztec cityscapes, see pic, which I alluded to in >>149360083