>>213101325Anon look at the posts I directed you to, I link multiple posts I did in other threads, and those posts also link to other posts I did that give even more info, some of which ALSO have even more links.
Just to make it easy for you:
>>>/co/149549710>>>/co/149549936>>>/co/149549976pastebin.com/h18M28BR
arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/640670498/#640679139
desuarchive.org/his/thread/16781148/#16781964
And yes, you can draw comparsions to the mongols, but the Mexica of the Aztec capital didn't usually raze/sack cities who refused to comply: They sometimes did, but typically they just invaded and tried to occupy the city to force the local king (or senate, high priest, etc: governments varied) into submission, and their tax burden would be worse then if they had voluntarily become a vassal and merely had to pay "gifts", plus obviously the Mexica would take spoils during the occupation.
In fact even if a city repeatedly tried to stop paying taxes, the Mexica often just went and re-conquered it over and over, though the more they did that and the fiercer they resisted the more likely it was that they'd make an exception and actually replace the local rulers or keep a garrsion of soldiers nearby (maybe, it's kinda complicated) or say "fuck it": and actually sack the city and massacre or enslave everybody there to make an example of them.
But maybe the Mongols didn't always default to sacks either, they're not my area. My impression is also that the Mexica, while hands off, were not AS hands off as the Mongols: The vibe I get is that the mongols were not really concerned with empire building at all and were more of a big racket, wheras the Mexica, while not interested (or able) to build a true imperial style empire, still did foster a hegemonic political network where they had power and intra-region influence and fingers in things, just via mostly indirect means