Mayans , Incas and the Aztecs

And even if they were bloodthirsty cannibals, that doesn't make them less interesting does it?

Secondly, if the Aztecs were canibals, why they were defeated by the famine during the siege of Tenochtitlan. If they were canibals as the " historians " says, why not to sacrifice someone to ingest his/her flesh. Purely non sense propanga spread to justify the slaughter.

I think the Aztecs did eat humans during the siege of Tenochtitlan,but only because there was a severe food shortage. Spanish soldiers saw Aztecs eating humans, and thought it was a general practice. In besieged Leningrad in WW2 cannibalism was also practized, but that doesn't make Russians cannibals.

Actually the mayan system sint  hexadeciamal its doudecacimal (the base is the number 20

as the arabic its a decimal one 1253, the number to the right units, next x10, next x100 etc.... in the mayan system it's like that the highest number you can write it's 20 =----( i can't write them as they should be it's one above the other 
-
-
-
-             like that if you want to write 17 its           -
                                                                               -
                                                                               -
                                                                               ..

and the "levels" are vertical ones like the levels in the arabic sistem are horizontal, example: 4l5l5l4l6 so the first 4 its x10000, the following 5 x1000, the next 5 x100, following 4 x10. in the mayan system the "levels" are multiplied x20 and are vertcal levels so for example



   here the numbers equals to the number x1 so - means 5, max number =20

------------------
      

here the numbers equals to x20 so - means 100 and . means 20
max number ---- = 400

--------------------


here the numbers equals to x400(20x20) so . equals to 400 and - equals to 2000
Max number 8000

-------------------



and goes on like this.
Hope i've explained myself

the maya had the intelligence and skill to have rivaled the triple alliance (aztec), but they were fragmented, and had a somewhat different mindset.

The aztec were examples of some of the most successful type of people in history- what I tend to call "The smart barbarians", who use both ruthlessness and combat skill from their difficult pasts and intelligence and pragmatism to succeed. One could argue that in a way, the romans were examples of this, as were the vikings.

The maya were both skilled and intelligent, but I think they could not have matched the Triple Alliance in battle, although the aztec would have had a difficult time of it.

Note, I do not use "barbarian" as a negative term. I do not, either, mean to suggest that the triple alliance was somehow horribly, horribly ruthless, merely that this was a (fairly useful) characteristic they possessed perhaps slightly more than the maya.

Originally posted by pinguin Aztecs used human sacrifice as a policy of state. We should remember, though, that execution is not considered human sacrifice, and that was a common practise done by Romans, Chineses and others when they captured cities: they usually killed many of its inhabitants, specially enemy soldiers. Most of the victims of human sacrifices, indeed, were foreigneirs. In some sense, there is no much difference except for the religious aspect of it. Romans were quite brutal as well in that regard, with decimation and killing in the circus. Besides, what else but human sacrifices were the burnings of the Inquisition and also the burning of witches in Northern Europe? Or perhaps today's capital punishment?

I agree. People seem obsessed with the idea of Mesoamericans and human sacrifice. Yes, Mesoamericans did kill people using religion as an excuse. But is this any different from burning witches? Going off to another country and launching a crusade? Torturing non-believers until they convert? Fighting wars over whether your people follow the Pope or the Patriarch? I don't think the average Mayan spent very much time worrying about his neighbour coming along and ritually killing him. Any more than your average English peasant worried about ending up on the wrong end of a crusade.

Originally posted by TheARRGH it's...an interesting question. Yes, there was ritual sacrifice. That's not really a good thing. However, it wasn't on the scale the Europeans generally reported, most of the "sacrifices" were technically enemy combatants, (although not all), and in terms of religion, it was ultimately more a way of stopping rebellion and showing power than it was a religious necessity.

you are right. There were some books written (remember the Mayan books that were religious in character, or the Popol Vuh) but there wasn't a cannon.

Originally posted by pinguin Now, I don't believe it is unfair to say human sacrifices were inhuman and had to be stopped.

Oh I agree completely. But then again I believe all war is wrong and ought to be stopped, and no one listens to me on that. I expect long-dead Mesoamericans to listen to me even less than modern politicians.

Originally posted by TheARRGH t and if a few relatively small things had happened differently, (even WITH Smallpox), europe might have decided it'd be better to just trade with those "horrifyingly savage" continents, rather than conquering them.

I like those "whats if" of mesoamerican culture, I think the main drive for the conquest was in the spaniards mind, any other country would have been happy to have veracruz and fill it with colons, but not these conquistadores, the key is that the reconquista was still fresh at the time, and the urge to purge world from heretics and pagans, aparently still burning, should Spain arrive to Mexico one generation later, and those spaniards wouldnt possibly be as zealous and power hungry as Cortez. not to mention maybe Moctezuma II wouldnt be around by then.

Anywya about human sacrifice, I personllay find the subject fascinating, what I dontreally understand is why does a lot of people conmems the Mesoamericans by looking at it through todays perspective..."oh no they are evil for making sacrifices"  I mean, The Spanish killed their opponents on the battlefield, the Mexicas did it on the altar...does this make the first any better?

Violence is generally only the answer when it's also the question---the problem is that there's always someone willing to ask the question.

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl � �Any fans of the Mayans and Incas. Just want to know something, the mayans were they a military society yes or no? Do you think the Mayans could have rivalled the Aztecs?

The Mayans could have resisted the Aztecs on their own turf, due to their decentralization (same as they resisted the Spanish until the 1800s). Rivalled? Not a chance ... at least, not after Mayapan fell. Maybe there was some potential in Mayapan for a while but it never panned out.

The Inca would have utterly crushed the Aztec. They were far more organized, far more systematic, and had much better technology, including bronze weapons and superior engineering in terms of things like roads and fortifications. Not to mention that their armies were much larger. The Aztecs relied on the population of the Triple Alliance alone - three cities (well, two, really) to provide all their warriors. They took tribute from and disarmed those they conquered, but otherwise left them alone.

The Inca had many cities and recruited from their entire population of millions. When they conquered a territory, they resettled all the inhabitants to scattered parts of their empire and forbid their religion, culture and history on pain of death - so that within a few generations, they would lose their former identity and become Incans like all the other citizens. They consolidated power in every territory they conquered, whereas the Aztecs did not - everything the Aztecs conquered was actually a liability to them (something Cortes took full advantage of).

Edited by edgewaters - 08-Nov-2007 at 01:11