William B. Fawcett
Only in the loosest sense, was the
pre-conquest Aztec nation a nation in the European meaning of the word. The
very concept of nation would have been virtually inconceivable to the average
Aztec. He was a Texcocan or a Tlaxcalan. The Aztec nation was, in fact, a
patchwork of city states with varying degrees of independence and mutual
animosity. An individual’s allegiance was to his clan and tribe. (Most cities
were inhabited by one tribe which was determined by customs and deities
worshipped more often than common ancestry.)
The Aztec “empire” was in fact a
conglomeration of city states that formed rather fluid coalitions which were
normally centered on the most powerful cities found in the area of present day
Mexico City. In these coalitions there were normally one or two major powers
who, by their size and military strength, were able to compel the lesser cities
to join in their efforts. When a city was ‘conquered’ the result was the
imposition of tribute and economic sanctions rather than social or political
absorption, as occurred in Europe or China. This tribute was reluctantly paid
to the victorious city only until some way to avoid it was found (such as an
alliance to an even more powerful city). Any political or military alliance was
then ruled entirely by expedience, and quickly and easily dissolved.
This constant shifting was demonstrated by
the actions of Texcoco when Tenochtitlan, then the chief power, was attacked by
Cortes. Texcoca joined with several other cities in aiding the Spanish. Just a
few years earlier Texcoco had been the reluctant ally of Tenochtitlan in her
unsuccessful war with Tlaxcalans. (During which the Tenochtitlans arranged to
have the Tlaccalans ambush a part of the Texcocans involved. Such treacheries
were not uncommon.) Later the Spanish were able to play these former allies
against each other.
The citizen of an Aztec city was imbued
from birth with the concept that the city and tribe were important and the
individual should act only in ways that benefited the whole. The concept of
individualism we value would have been considered anti-social and obscene to
the Aztecs. Though they amassed individual wealth and possessions most of the
land was considered to either belong to the tribe outright or to be held in
trust for the city by the individual. Anyone dying without an heir (male, son)
automatically left his land and possessions to the city or clan for
redistribution. Material wealth was considered less important than value to the
tribe, as reflected by the positions held and honors received. If you do not
realize how deeply this selfless spirit was ingrained in every citizen, it will
be difficult to accept the attitudes demonstrated by captured warriors.
War itself was viewed by the Aztecs as a
part of the natural rhythms. These rhythms were felt to permeate every level of
existence and only by keeping in step to them could an individual and (more
importantly) a tribe or city survive and prosper. Each day was seen as a battle
between the sun and the earth. The sun losing every sunset and gladly sacrificing
himself to the earth, so that men could prosper. Many of the workings of nature
were viewed as being reflections of the rhythm of the war between the opposing
natural and spiritual forces. War then took on a religious and ritual nature
that both limited it in extent and made it part of the spiritual life of the
community with strong metaphysical overtones. Rituals arose around the
conducting of wars and to vary from them would have caused the war to lose its
very reason for existing. On the more mundane level wars were fought for
Revenge, Defense, or Economic reasons. A common cause for the formal
declaration of war was that a city’s merchants were being discriminated against
or attacked. (These merchants normally doubled as each city’s intelligence
force and so were often harassed in times of high tensions.) Behind all
political and economic justifications was always the strong force of the
religious nature of war, and a never ending need for captives to sacrifice.
A common proximate cause for war was the
failure of a vassal state to pay the tribute demanded. It is surprising to
discover, but true, that in a system where tribute was one of the key
ingredients, no system (such as hostages) was ever devised to guarantee the
payment of tribute from a previously conquered area. If tribute was refused the
only alternative was to go to war again.
The process of declaring war was long and
elaborate. Followed in most cases, it left no room for the deviousness common
in Aztec wars. The procedure to be followed was set in a series of real, but
ritually required, actions. The actual declaration of war involved three State
visits, often by three allied cities planning to attack. The first delegation
called on the chief and nobles of the city. They boasted of their strength and
warned that they would demand some of the nobles as sacrifices if the war
ensued. The group would then retire outside the city gate and camp for one
Aztec month (20 days) awaiting a reply. This was normally given on the last day
and if the city or coalition did not accept their terms, token weapons were
distributed to the nobles. (This was so that no one could say they defeated an
unarmed foe.)
The second delegation would then approach
the city’s leading merchants. This second delegation would describe the
economic “horrors” of a defeat, comparing them badly to the terms
offered, and generally trying to persuade the merchants to get the chiefs to
surrender. This delegation then also retired for a month to await a reply.
Should this also be negative a third and final delegation would arrive. This
group was to talk to the warriors themselves. They would harangue a mass
meeting with reasons why they should not fight and tales of the horrors of
battle. Once more they would ask for the city to meet their terms (normally a
virtual surrender or the loss of some territory) and then retire to a camp for
the ritual one month wait. Finally, after all of this, the armies (having had
plenty of time to assemble) would meet in a battle. Here any deception was
acceptable and a cunning general as valuable as a courageous one.
The leadership of the Aztecs was the same
in times of peace and war. Between wars the officers served as the
administration, judiciary, and civil service of the city. Heading this organization
was the Supreme War chief or Tlacatecuhtli. This was the position held by the
unfortunate Montezuma in Tenochtitlan when Cortes arrived. Each clan was
assigned to one of four phratries each having its own leader called a Tlaxcola
who served as their divisional commander in wartime, and on a council with the
other three that ran the actual administration of the city in times of peace.
The head of each clan served as a regimental commander and was known as a
Tlochcautin. In peace he would serve in a role similar to the English Sheriff.
Below the clan level was a unit of approximately 200 to 400 men. This was the
equivalent of our company and was really the largest unit over which any
tactical control could be held once a battle began. The smallest regular unit
was the platoon of 20 men. This organization was rigidly observed by the major
cities and was such an integral part of Aztec culture that the symbol for ’20’
was a flag such as each platoon had.
The military techniques of the Aztecs were
inferior to those of Europe or China at that time. This is probably due
primarily to the fact that while ritually involved and religiously important,
war was less developed as a social solution in pre-conquest Mexico. This was
caused by several factors, the major one being that the population density of
the area was much less than in other parts of the world. In the period
immediately preceding the Spanish only one area had really felt the pinch of
overpopulation. This was the area around Lake Titicocca occupied today by
Mexico city. Here is where the powerful and most warlike cities developed. Even
then their tradition of war (as opposed to individual combat) was only a few
hundred years old as opposed to thousands in other lands. The result was that
while having a warrior attitude and with war deeply ritually ingrained in their
culture, the techniques of battle were still quite unsophisticated and basic.
One reflection, of the undeveloped nature
of Aztec wars was the absence of any sort of drills. Units acted as a group
only during civil duties, or during the several religious ceremonies that they
assembled for each year. The tactics of a battle then most often resembled the
mass or swarm tactics of biblical times.
Another factor mitigated in favor of only
limited military activities. This was the fact that it was extremely difficult
for an army to engage in an extended campaign. Since the army was also the work
force, a campaign during the planting and harvest seasons was prohibited. This
is especially true since the agriculture was not so efficient as to be able to
support the massive priests hierarchy and a standing army of any size. Nor
could an army live off of the country, since it was likely that the area they
would travel through would be inhabited by several city states that were not
involved in the war and were independent of those involved. This meant that it
was necessary not only to set up supply depots along any proposed route, but
also to negotiate permission to trespass on other cities’ lands.
The marginal nature of the agriculture was
also such, that sieges that lasted any length of time were virtually
impossible. The besieging army would as likely starve as the besiegers. The
result of this was that formal walls and other fortifications were rare. In
their place canals (useful in trade also) were often used with portable
bridges. Many cities were also located in easily defensible terrain such as on
a mountainside or on the end of a narrow isthmus. There has also been no
evidence that siege weapons of any sort were developed or used to any extent.
Despite all of the problems listed the Aztecs were able to wage campaigns over
a wide area of Mexico. Most often these were fought with armies made up chiefly
of local allies with a contingent of Aztecs to stiffen them. In some cases it
is recorded that the Aztecs were forced to engage in the laborious technique of
having to subdue each of the towns and cities on their route.
The weapons and tools of the Aztecs were
basic and simple in nature. Rather than developing new variations of weapons
the efforts of the Aztecs went into elaborate decorations on them. There were
four main weapons used by the Aztec warrior. A wooden club with sharp obsidian
blades was used. Javelins were common and often used with a throwing stick
called an atl-atl. The bow and arrow was also found in most armies as was a
heavy javelin or lance for in-fighting. Occasionally a clan would have a
tradition that caused some of them to employ the sling or spears. Axes were
used as tools, but do not seem to have been a regularly used weapon.
The bulk of the weapons in a city was kept
in an arsenal called the Tlacochcalco or roughly the “house of
darts.” One of these was found in each quarter of a city and held the
weapons for five clans (one phratrie). These arsenals were always located near
the chief temples and were designed with sloping walls that enabled them to
serve as a fort. The Tlacochcalcos served as the headquarters, assembly points
and rallying points for the defenders of a city. Religious ceremonies were also
held there by the military leaders and “Knights.”
The shields of the Aztecs were wickerwork
covered with hide. Most were circular and elaborately painted and decorated.
Skins and feathers were also often attached to augment their beauty. The
warriors who used the clubs carried shields, but those using the large javelin
or lance were unable to as they needed both hands to employ their weapon. Body
armor was made of quilted cotton hardened in brine. This was quite successful
against the weapons used by other Aztecs, (and useless against crossbows and
steel swords). This cotton armor was in fact quickly adopted by the
conquistedores as being effective enough and much cooler than their own metal
armor. The quilted armor was often dyed bright colors, brocaded and embroidered
with intricate designs and symbols.
Wooden helmets were worn by some warriors
and the chiefs, (who rose to chief by being outstanding warriors). These
quickly became elaborate and bulky. It was often necessary for them to be
supported by shoulder harnesses. Most headdresses or helmets were stylized
animals or protecting deities. The more elaborate the helmet the more renown
the warrior in battle. There is mention of copper helmets in a few codexs, but
none have been found and in any case would have been extremely rare. Metal
working for tools and weapons was not advanced and obsidian was the basic (and
effective) material.
As during comparable periods on other
continents the Aztecs wore no uniforms. Each side would identify itself with a
prominently worn badge or insignia. This often would be elaborated to show also
the rank of the wearer. With the myriad of colors in the cotton armor and the
elaborate helmets an Aztec battle was a kaleidoscope of swirling colors. A
young warrior was taught the use of weapons as part of his schooling. (All males
were soldiers.) All boys were required to either be tutored or to attend the
Telpuchcalli or public school. Later, in lieu of unit training and drills, a
new warrior was attached to veteran for his first battles. This program was
actually quite similar to the apprenticeship or squire systems developed for
the same purpose in medieval Europe.
The tactics and weapons of the Aztecs were
greatly influenced by the goal of their wars, captives and whatever tribute or
land demanded. It was the ultimate sign of ability in a warrior to bring back
from a battle a live enemy suitable for sacrifice. Warriors then often strived
not to kill their enemy, but to knock him out or deliver a non-fatal, but
disabling wound. A victory was valued then by the number of enemies captured,
not killed. To this end warriors were trained rigorously in individual combat,
with little emphasis on formations or teamwork. The best warriors were admitted
to select societies of “knights.” Only the most skillful
(as judged purely by the number of captives
taken) were allowed to enter. These were known as the Knights of the Eagle, the
Knights of the Ocelot (Tiger), and a less common group the Knights of the
Arrow. Helmets depicting their namesakes were often worn and ceremonial
costumes that copied their coloration were worn in ceremonies and into battle.
These orders performed dances and participated in rituals at the Tlacochcalco.
They also participated in the mock battles of sacrifice. These Knights received
large shares of land when conquered territories were divided between the
warriors. (This practice gave an occupation force a way to support itself.)
A warrior who was slain in battle or
sacrificed after a defeat was guaranteed entry into a special warriors heaven.
This was to be found in the East and a special heaven for women who died in
childbirth was in the West (they were felt to have sacrificed themselves for a
potential new warrior). To die in these ways was the greatest honor a defeated
warrior could receive. (Non-warriors and cowards were sold into slavery.) To
some it was the culmination rather than the ruin of the lives. There is
recorded the story of Tlahuicol who was a Tlaxclan chief. Having been captured
in battle he was given the honor of the mockgladitorial sacrificial combat.
This meant that he was chained to a large round stone representing the sun and
given wooden weapons, (no obsidian points or edges), and attacked one at a time
by members of the Knights of the Eagle. In single combat he managed to kill a
few and wound several more. The combat was stopped and Tlahuicol was offered
the choice of the generalship of the Tlaxclan army or to be the sacrifice in
their highest ritual. He choose to be the sacrifice, viewing it probably as the
greater honor.
These sacrifices were viewed then not as a
punishment (criminals were killed or enslaved, but never sacrificed), but as an
opportunity to give their final great contribution to their communities. It was
believed that the sacrifices were needed to prevent the wrath of the gods and
bring anything needed such as the rain or spring. Perhaps the only close honor
was to obtain a prisoner in battle.
A typical Aztec battle consisted of both
sides coming upon each other, quickly forming up to charge and then rushing at
each other amid fierce cries. Quickly this would break down into many combats
between individuals and small groups. Both sides would contend, until one
seemed to be gaining an advantage. The other would then break and run, avoiding
capture to minimize their enemy’s victory. Often the defeat and capture of a
major chief was enough to cause the morale of one side to break.
Many stratagems were used. Feints and
deception were common, especially in the battles between the major cities. It
was a common maneuver for one side to fake a route and then lead their pursuers
past a second force in hiding. This force would then fall on the rear of their
pursuers while the routing force rallied. A cunning war chief was considered as
valuable as a courageous one. Whoever won, sacrifices were assured and the gods
appeased.
If there was no war occurring, then an
artificial war was instituted to assure sacrifices and give the warriors an
opportunity to prove their skills. This was incongruously named the “War
of Flowers.” Though it was an artificial war those participating in it
fought a very real battle. Many died and many more were captured for sacrifice
before one group would concede defeat.
Invited to participate were the best
Knights and warriors of two or more rival states. The best warriors contended
to be able to participate. If he won, a warrior would gain in renown throughout
the cities. If he was killed, the warrior was given the honor of cremation.
Reserved only for warriors, cremation guaranteed entrance to the special
warriors’ heaven. Finally, if defeated and captured a warrior was given the
supreme honor of being sacrificed. So popular were these Wars of Flowers that
some were repeated annually for years.
The institution of war among the Aztecs
evolved into something quite different from that which we perceive. It was
foremost a means by which an individual could serve the all important tribe or
city. It was an inherently ritualized and mystic event of deep-meaning and
necessity. It was the only means by which captives needed to appease their
bloodthirsty gods (actually it was the hearts they tore out and offered still
throbbing). In a truly collective, military society it was the one area where
an individual could gain renown and prestige.
Aztec Command Structure
Tlacatecuhtli -War chief, C in C
Tlaxcola – Phratry Commander (4)
Tlochcautin – Clan Commander
