>>724124882
>>724125615
>>724126037
>>724127837
>>724128030
This is just made up horseshit, so such law exists.
>>724127953
Most people bitching about the Aztec in either direction have no idea what they're talking about, but strictly speaking, the Aztec actually weren't imperalistic, but hegemonic
They were militaristic conquerors, but didn't actually directly govern the places they took over, leaving existing kings, laws, customs etc in place most of the time: The only especially widespread demands or interference they had over their empire was taxation (which was predominately economic goods and labor or military service, demands of captives as slaves or sacrifices were rare: most of those were taken DURING conquests, not from existing subjects) and so that states within it didn't block roads and would provide military aid, alongside some other basic obligations. Hell, vassal states/"strategic" provinces didn't even technically pay taxes, though they did send "gifts" at times
This is the actual reason Cortes got allies against them rather then them doing sacrifices (which everyone in the region did) or them being oppressive (which as I said, they weren't), because this system left subjects with their own political identity, agency, and interests, enabling opportunistic side switching, arranged coups, secession etc. Each of the states which allied with Cortes had their own distinct motives, for say Tlaxcala resentment was a legit factor (but they also weren't even an Aztec subject), but for most it really was just them switching late when Tenochtitlan was fucked anyways and them having more to gain and less to lose by switching sides
See pastebin.com/h18M28BR + arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/640670498/#640679139 + desuarchive.org/his/thread/16781148/#16781964 for more info
>>724129468
I do too but your pic is inaccurate as hell, see mine. I'll dump some Mesoamerican games for you,
>>724124758 (OP) and
>>724127358 in a bit
1/?