Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gabachachida
Janissary
Joined: 30-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Topic: why Tlaxcala? Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 03:30 |
If many tribes chose to aid the Spaniards in the conquest of the Mexica, why are the Tlaxcaltecans the most resented? Is it because they were once the same peoples?
Edited by Gabachachida - 03-Nov-2007 at 03:31
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 11:49 |
I don't know the details, but the Aztecs used a policy of terror to control theirs enemies and friends... Rituals wars and massive human sacrifices had feed up many indigenous people.
Since its entrace to Mexico, Cortes received the help of many Indigenous people that saw him has the chance to get rid of the Aztecs. Besides, somehow people recognized at once that Cortes was a powerful fellow, perhaps the god Quetzalcoatl himself. Cortes, that had studied law and was a pretty smart guy, was able to use the hate against the Aztecs in his own benefit.
It is recorded that the indigenous allies of the Spaniards were usually a lot more drastic or cruel against the Aztecs that the Spanish themselves. It is also known that when the wars ended, Spaniards didn't forget theirs loyals allies and they become part of the burocrats that controlled the farmers.
In a very real sense, the Conquest of Mexico (and Peru) are better understood as coups, change of governments, rather than invasions. The Spaniards were the central group, but without theirs allies the conquest of Mexica was impossible.
Edited by pinguin - 03-Nov-2007 at 11:50
|
|
Gabachachida
Janissary
Joined: 30-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 17:58 |
Originally posted by pinguin
I don't know the details, but the Aztecs used a policy of terror to control theirs enemies and friends... Rituals wars and massive human sacrifices had feed up many indigenous people.
Since its entrace to Mexico, Cortes received the help of many Indigenous people that saw him has the chance to get rid of the Aztecs. Besides, somehow people recognized at once that Cortes was a powerful fellow, perhaps the god Quetzalcoatl himself. Cortes, that had studied law and was a pretty smart guy, was able to use the hate against the Aztecs in his own benefit.
It is recorded that the indigenous allies of the Spaniards were usually a lot more drastic or cruel against the Aztecs that the Spanish themselves. It is also known that when the wars ended, Spaniards didn't forget theirs loyals allies and they become part of the burocrats that controlled the farmers.
In a very real sense, the Conquest of Mexico (and Peru) are better understood as coups, change of governments, rather than invasions. The Spaniards were the central group, but without theirs allies the conquest of Mexica was impossible.
|
Well the way i see it, the allies fall under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and they used one another to bring down an enemy. Im just more concerned with why it seems people highlight Tlaxcalans, when there were many. It is possible that I just see this more often since my husband is from Tlaxcala.
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 18:00 |
Thats true, unless the spaniards had come in tanks, I don't see how 500 men can conquer an empire the size of the aztecs, or later the incas.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Yaomitl
Knight
Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 18:30 |
I imagine because Tlaxcala was the first actual culture encountered by the Spaniards which resented the Triple Alliance from the perspective of an enemy rather than cowed subject. I belive the war between the two had been going on for some time, and Tlaxcala had begun to descend into siege conditions - cut off from the sea and forced to extract salt from the soil. It's not difficult to see why they saw the arrival of the Spanish as an opportunity for change, although even that, as I understand it, was not initially so clear cut - the initial battle between the Spaniards and Tlaxcalans was, I think, the first major conflict the former became engaged in in Mexico, and even when an alliance was struck it was not entirely unanimous - Xicotencatl the younger of the Tlaxcalan council of four was famously opposed to siding with the Spaniards right up until his execution (on what sounds like trumped-up charges to me) whilst the Spanish-led army was gathering strength in Texcoco.
So how is it in Mexico? Is there really still a popular idea of Tlaxcalans as having "let the side down"? I'm far from a fan of the conquistas, and I'd certainly regard Xicotencatl as potential hero material, but it seems a little harsh - never mind even judging sons for sins of fathers - it is not difficult to see how Tlaxcalans may have felt driven to act as they did.
Edited by Yaomitl - 03-Nov-2007 at 18:33
|
"For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico-Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten."
- Chimalpahin Quautlehuanitzin
<a href="http://www.theotherconquest.com
|
|
Gabachachida
Janissary
Joined: 30-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 23:04 |
[QUOTE=Yaomitl]
So how is it in Mexico? Is there really still a popular idea of Tlaxcalans as having "let the side down"? [QUOTE]
well for the most part people dont bring up history in Mexico, but here in the US i have heard several Mexicans from different places...Puebla, Mexico City, or Michoacan...that may refer to Tlaxcalans as "traidores".
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 23:20 |
We shouldn't forget that Mexico created a new identity through education after the Mexican Revolution. In that new created identity the Aztecs were idealized and took as the forefathers of the country.... They forgot that many other native peoples in Mexico didn't like the Aztecs at all, like the Tlaxcalans.
|
|
ehecatzin
Janissary
Joined: 16-Oct-2007
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 01:48 |
yes, people saying tlaxcallans were traitors, its the same as acusing Malinalli for treachery...they werent Mexicas, treason is not a factor here.
The Tlaxcallans, as said, took the oportunity to ally with Spain, because really it was their only chance of getting rid of the Mexicas, who had isolated the kingdom and weaking it until they surrendered.
|
|
Gabachachida
Janissary
Joined: 30-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 03:29 |
Originally posted by ehecatzin
yes, people saying tlaxcallans were traitors, its the same as acusing Malinalli for treachery...they werent Mexicas, treason is not a factor here.
The Tlaxcallans, as said, took the oportunity to ally with Spain, because really it was their only chance of getting rid of the Mexicas, who had isolated the kingdom and weaking it until they surrendered.
|
they may not have been Mexica...but they were from the same ancestry...though id doubt thats the basis for their feelings
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 12:09 |
In pre-contact Americas there wasn't an unified identity at all. Every Amerindian nation was independent. In many times Europeans played the diplomatic game of one nation against other. There are also cases when Amerindians played one European power against other.
Human nature. Just remember how long has it taken to build the European Union and you'll realize uniting different peoples under a single flag is not easy.
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 13:10 |
Originally posted by Gabachachida
they may not have been Mexica...but they were from the same ancestry...though id doubt thats the basis for their feelings |
I don't think they were ... as far as I know, they were not of Chichimec origins as the Tenochtitlans and Texcocoans were. Tlaxcala was a kingdom or small empire as far back as the Teotihuacan period.
Edited by edgewaters - 08-Nov-2007 at 13:18
|
|
Gabachachida
Janissary
Joined: 30-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 02:57 |
Im quite sure that they once were the same people, my husband is from Tlaxcala, and I also read it in Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes and the fall of old Mexico by Hugh Thomas...per history the Mexica were to have reminded the Tlaxcaltecans that they were the same people, of the same roots and should conspire together against the Spaniards.
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 06:43 |
No, the Mexica (Aztecs) were barbarian invaders who entered the civilized Valley of Mexico from the deserts to the north, hiring themselves out as mercenaries and growing in power until they became top dog. They arrived in the 13th century, founded Tenochtitlan as a small town by 1325, were a tributary of other powers already established in the Valley until 1427 when they rose to dominance.
The Tlaxcalans didn't even dwell in the Valley, and moreover, were around as a settled and civilized kingdom long before the Chichimec invaders even came to the Valley, let alone came to adopt the ways of the Nahuatl peoples and eventually dominate the Valley. Like Cholula, Tlaxcala had been around in the era of Teotihuacan - making it about 800 years old before the Mexica even arrived as nomadic invaders.
The Mexica liked to claim that they were "Tolteca" which can variously mean a historical ethnic group (an advanced empire existing in the Valley prior to the arrival of the Mexica) or it could mean any civilized or advanced peoples, or it could mean an artist or learned person. "Toltecayotl" meant the state of being civilized - having cities, books, art, stone edifices, etc. What the Mexica probably meant was that they were both civilized empires and not barbarians, not that they were of the same ethnicity.
Edited by edgewaters - 09-Nov-2007 at 06:51
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 11:51 |
Originally posted by Gabachachida
Im quite sure that they once were the same people, my husband is from Tlaxcala, and I also read it in Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes and the fall of old Mexico by Hugh Thomas...per history the Mexica were to have reminded the Tlaxcaltecans that they were the same people, of the same roots and should conspire together against the Spaniards. |
Tlaxcalans and Mexica were indeed related. They were two of the seven Aztec
tribes, in the original sense of the word (the other tribes were the
Acolhua, Chalca, Tepanecs, Tlahuica and Xochimilca). The Tlaxcalans
arrived in the Valley of Puebla-Tlaxcala around the same time the
Mexica arrived in the Valley of Mexico. Also both the Mexica and
Tlaxcalans spoke Nahuatl.
|
|
Yaomitl
Knight
Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 15:41 |
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
Originally posted by Gabachachida
Im quite sure that they once were the same people, my husband is from Tlaxcala, and I also read it in Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes and the fall of old Mexico by Hugh Thomas...per history the Mexica were to have reminded the Tlaxcaltecans that they were the same people, of the same roots and should conspire together against the Spaniards. |
Tlaxcalans and Mexica were indeed related. They were two of the seven Aztec tribes, in the original sense of the word (the other tribes were the Acolhua, Chalca, Tepanecs, Tlahuica and Xochimilca). The Tlaxcalans arrived in the Valley of Puebla-Tlaxcala around the same time the Mexica arrived in the Valley of Mexico. Also both the Mexica and Tlaxcalans spoke Nahuatl.
|
Agreed. Although the site of Tlaxcala may greatly predate that of Tenochtitlan, a great majority of accounts describe a Chichimec diaspora which leads to The Huexotzinca and Tlaxcaltecs being the only two to settle outside the highland basin. Whilst there's inevitably a certain amount of mythologising going on here, the Tlaxcaltecs shared many cultural, theological (same Gods, same names), and even political traits (council of four) with the Valley groups. If anyone is the odd one out, it seems more likely to be the Mexica who retroactively inserted their own Aztlan legend into the greater Chichimec migration story.
|
"For as long as the world shall endure, the honour and the glory of Mexico-Tenochtitlan must never be forgotten."
- Chimalpahin Quautlehuanitzin
<a href="http://www.theotherconquest.com
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 03:38 |
Originally posted by Justinian
Thats true, unless the spaniards had come in tanks, I don't see how 500 men can conquer an empire the size of the aztecs, or later the incas. |
That's true the Aztecs as we have said numerous times on this forum were defeated by a both disease and a massive alliance of hostile powers.
However the Inca litereral were destroyed by a few hundred Spanish unlike the Aztec something we haven't addressed on this forum. Why did the Inca go out with a pop to the Aztec's bang?
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 10:14 |
Originally posted by Paul
...
That's true the Aztecs as we have said numerous times on this forum were defeated by a both disease and a massive alliance of hostile powers.
However the Inca litereral were destroyed by a few hundred Spanish unlike the Aztec something we haven't addressed on this forum. Why did the Inca go out with a pop to the Aztec's bang? |
Inca authority was weak because of the civil war just going on. As the matter of fact the conquest of Peru is weird because there natives fought against natives and spaniards against spaniards. It was just a chaos that doesn't make much rational sense and started BEFORE Spaniards arrived.
|
|