why Tlaxcala?

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

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.

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.

Edited by Yaomitl - 03-Nov-2007 at 18:33

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.

 

 

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.

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

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

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.

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?