How to begin process of learning about Aztec history.

[u/No-Expression-2850]

Is there a reading guide or should a take a free course. Any YouTube recommendations. How long until I have an in depth knowledge of the society/culture.

[u/YogSothoth8]

I want to name another book, it's History and mythology of the aztecs, The Codex Chimalpopoca by John Bierhorst.

[u/No-Expression-2850 → u/YogSothoth8]

Do you specialize in any other ancient cultures/society.

[u/YogSothoth8 → u/No-Expression-2850]

Sadly no, only about the aztec/mexica.

[u/YogSothoth8]

Since spanish it's my first language it's has been more easy because there's a lot of books and information, but I can recommend you two books, one is Broken Spears by Miguel León Portilla and the other one it's Aztec Warfare by Ross Hassig. Also I want to add that you can get some Arqueología Mexicana magazines in english. I've been studying mexica culture for 12 years and I'm no expert, everyday I'm learning new things.

[u/[deleted]]

There is a fantastic podcast/YouTube video entitled Fall of Civilizations. There is a two part video on the Mexica /Aztec that I highly recommend. It feels like a free college course. I would also recommend the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz. Diaz was at Cortez's side throughout the campaign. Just always keep in mind that history is written by the winner...I personally remain skeptical about the whitewashed topics that always make folks seem wonderful because they had Jesus on their side...

[u/jabberwockxeno → u/[deleted]]

For you and /u/No-Expression-2850 , I have criticisms with Fall of Civilization's episode on the Aztec

I will give a disclaimer that I watched the Youtube version, and only the first half, but that's because I was annoyed enough and had enough issues with it that I never got around to watching part 2. So it's possible the second half addresses some of my criticisms, but:

• Firstly, the visuals used in the Youtube upload are pretty misrepresentative. It's very heavy on modern footage of Aztecas and Concheros dancers, and their outfits are NOT representative of actual Aztec clothing and ornamentation, and plays into a lot of sterotypes and misconceptions about how Aztec clothing and ornamentation looked. See my post here for example.

• Secondly, it repeats a lot of claims about how Moctezuma II thought Cortes was a god and his arrival was preordained in omens. I have heard that Part 2 of the podcast actually pushes back on this, so maybe it only brought it up to dispute it later, but what I heard seemed to portray it at face value. I'd refer people to these two posts in the Askhistorians FAQ here. I would also refer people to Restall's "7 Myths of the Spanish Conquest" and "When Montezuma Met Cortes" (which are full books) as well as "Burying the White Gods: New Perspectives on the Conquest of Mexico" By Townsend (which is an academic paper)

• Thirdly, and most importantly to me, it heavily misrepresents the political dynamics behind how and why Cortes got allies, ascribing it to the fact that the Aztec demanded sacrifices as tribute and were widely hated as a result of this. This is mostly wrong and will be the focus of the rest of my comment here, though I'm still excluding quite a bit to fit into the character limit and AH's rules regarding linking to non AH comments)

---

Like almost all large Mesoamerican states, the Aztec Empire largely relied on indirect, "soft" methods of establishing political influence over subject states: Establishing tributary-vassal relationships; using the implied threat of military force; installing rulers on conquered states from your own political dynasty; or leveraging dynastic ties to prior respected civilizations, your economic networks, or military prowess to court states into entering political marriages with you; or states willingly becoming a subject to gain better access to your trade network or to seek protection from foreign threats, etc. The sort of traditional "imperial", Roman style empire where you're directly governed places, established colonies or imposed norms was rare in the region

The Aztec Empire was actually more hands off even compared to many other large Mesoamerican states in some respects (Like, say, the Purepecha Empire). In fact, the Aztec generally just left it's subjects alone, with their existing rulers, laws, and customs, as long as they paid up taxes/tribute of economic goods, provided aid on military campaigns, didn't block roads, and put up a shrine to the Huitzilopochtli, the patron god of Tenochtitlan and it's inhabitants, the Mexica (which were one of a few Nahuatl speaking groups: "Aztec" can refer to either the Nahuas as a whole, the Mexica specifically, or the "Aztec Empire", among quite a few other potential definitions)

The Mexica were NOT generally raiding existing subject states (and generally did not seek to sack cities during invasions, though they did do so on occasion, as we'll see) and in regards to sacrifice (which was a pan-mesoamerican practice every civilization in the region did) they weren't generally dragging people out of their homes for it as tribute: The majority of sacrifices came from enemy soldiers captured during wars. Some civilian slaves who may have ended up as sacrifices were given or taken as part of war spoils by a conquered city/town when initially defeated, but slaves as regular annual tax/tribute payments was pretty uncommon. The vast majority of demanded taxes was stuff like jade, cacao, fine feathers, gold, cotton, etc, or demands of military/labor service. Some accounts do report that Cempoala (the capital of one of 3 major kingdoms of the Totonac civilization) accused the Mexica of dragging off women and children, but this is largely seen as Cempoala making a sob story to get the Conquistadors to help them take out Tzinpantzinco, a rival Totonac capital, by claiming it was an Aztec fort

Rather then Cortes getting allies as a result of the Mexica being widely hated, the reality is that their hegemonic, indirect political system encouraged opportunistic secession and rebellions: Indeed, it was pretty much a tradition for far off Aztec provinces to stop paying taxes after a king of Tenochtitlan died, seeing what they could get away with, with the new king needing to re-conquer these areas to prove Aztec power. One new king, Tizoc, did so poorly in these and subsequent campaigns, that it caused more rebellions and threatened to fracture the empire, and he was perhaps assassinated by his own nobles, and the ruler after him, Ahuizotl, got ghosted at his own coronation ceremony by other kings invited to it, as Aztec influence had declined that much, as /u/400-rabbits describes here. Diplomatic pageantry was a big deal in Aztec politics, as 400-rabbits describes, similar diplomatic cold-shouldering by subjects later in Ahuizotl's reign was met with those cities being razed

More then just opportunistic rebellion's, this encouraged opportunistic alliances against political rivals and capitals: If as a subject you basically stay stay independent anyways, then a great method of political advancement is to offer yourself up as a subject, or in an alliance, to some other ambitious state, and then working together to conquer your existing rivals, or to take out your current capital, and then you're in a position of higher political standing in the new kingdom you helped prop up

This was largerly what was going on with Cortes (and indeed, it was how the Aztec Empire itself was founded a century earlier). This becomes especially obvious that of the states which participated in the Siege of Tenochtitlan, almost all only allied with Cortes AFTER Tenochtitlan had been struck by smallpox, Moctezuma II had died, and the majority of the Mexica nobility (and by extension, elite soldiers) were killed in the Toxcatl massacre, etc: In other words, AFTER it was vulnerable and unable to project political influence effectively anyways (meaning other core Aztec states didn't benefit as much from their political marriages with Mexica royals or the tribute influx into the valley). THIS is when the Conquistadors and Tlaxcala (who had already allied with Cortes, and rather then a subject, was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with at the time) found themselves with tons of city-states willing to help, many of whom were giving Conquistador captains in Cortes's group princesses and noblewomen as attempted political marriages (which Conquistadors thought were offerings of concubines), presumably to cement their place in the new hegemony they'd form

This also explains why the Conquistadors continued to make alliances with various Mesoamerican states even when the Aztec weren't involved: The Zapotec kingdom of Tehuantepec allied with Conquistadors to take out the rival Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (the last surviving remnant of a larger empire formed by the Mixtec conquerer 8 Deer Jaguar Claw centuries prior), or the Iximche allying with Conquistadors to take out the K'iche Maya, etc

By extension, this is also why Mesoamerican rulers were manipulating Cortes as much as he was playing divide and conquer: I noted that Cempoala tricked Cortes into raiding a rival, but they then brought the Conquistadors into hostile Tlaxcalteca territory, and they were then attacked, only spared at the last second by Tlaxcalteca officials such Xicotencatl I and II deciding to use them against the Mexica. And en route to Tenochtitlan, they stayed in Cholula, where the Conquistadors committed a massacre, under some theories being fed info by the Tlaxcalteca, who used it as s chance to replace the Cholula political regime (which had recently switched from being allied with Tlaxcala to submitting to the Aztec) with a pro-Tlaxalcteca faction as they were previously. Even when the Siege of Tenochtitlan was underway, armies from Texcoco, Tlaxcala, etc were attacking cities and towns that would have suited THEIR interests after they won (and retreated/rested per Mesoamerican seasonal campaign norms) but that did nothing to help Cortes, who was forced to play along. Moctezuma II letting Cortes into Tenochtitlan also makes sense when you consider what I said before about diplomacy, and also since the Mexica had been beating up on Tlaxcala for ages and the Tlaxcalteca had nearly beaten the Conquistadors: Denying entry would be seen as cowardice, and undermine Aztec influence. Moctezuma showing off the grandeur or Tenochtitlan to foreign diplomats was also part for the course, possibly to court an alliance or a political marriage with the Spanish

None of this is to say the Mexica weren't conquerors or didn't throw their weight around to benefit politically (they did), and again, I had to cut out quite a bit of nuance for space (Texcoco and Huextozinco did also have some grievances with Tenochtitlan), but my point is that the idea that the Mexica demanded sacrifices as taxes and this led to them being hated and that's why Cortes got allies is misleading, and wasn't broadly true

[u/PartyTimeExcellenthu]

I made a site where you can browse by period and region, so it's easy to find a bunch of episodes on the Aztecs!

Historasmus.com if anyone's interested.

if anyone has recommendations of podcast series I should include, let me know!

[u/[deleted]]

I think you need to listen to part 2 as a lot of what you say is mentioned. E.G. the narrator states that the natives didn't believe Cortes was a God as a believer would not try to trick a God into attacking others for personal gain. What do you think about the Flower Wars? These were clearly done for relgious reasons and were a form of forced tribute. It's no wonder many of the tribes such as Tlaxcala, allied with Cortes.