>17903583
cont:

really sick of this spam filter shit making me break links

>>17903244
>17903573
The Spanish themselves noted this and drew comparisons between some Mesoamerican religious concepts, ceremonies, and holidays and Christian ones. Some friars even thought that the Mesoamericans were a lost tribe of Israel that had their Abrahamic religion corrupted over time, that Quetzalcoatl was Saint Thomas (see pic), etc.. Of course the similarities/comparison were used (or may have been exaggerated) to convert people.

>>17898058
>>17898074
>>17898957
You're both wrong and right.

As I say in >17900662 and >17902709, The Mexica of Tenochtitlan were "bullies" in that they were militaristic conquerors. However, they were also hands off and mostly left local kings, laws, customs etc. But, that also doesn't mean they didn't leverage their economic and political influence to pressure states or kings into doing what they wanted even if they didn't directly govern them.

I think calling them "bullies" is fair, if perhaps misleading in how it renforces people's misconceptions of them being oppressive tyrants when they weren't. >>17898074 is right that states allying with Cortes against the Mexica was mostly states opportunistically turning on them rather then having resentment towards Mexica rule, but say Tlaxcala really did probably resent the Mexica (even if they also used Cortes to gain political power over other states like Cholula), and I would say that most of the allies who were primarily opportunistic didn't even "hate the [Mexica] for being on top", in fact a lot of them like Texcoco, Xochimilco, Chalco etc likely benefitted from Mexica conquests and supremacy since they had close political ties to them and shared their valley and therefore some tax income.

5/?