The text wrongly claims that the Spanish defeated the Aztecs because of their iron weapons. Actually, the Spanish were vastly outnumbered, so their weapons alone were irrelevant in the battle. The Spanish had alliances with Indigenous peoples who opposed the Aztec Empire, giving them a much larger army. That defeated the Aztecs.
There's no mystery here. The Aztecs ruled brutally over dozens of other indigenous groups, they practised slavery and human sacrifice. When the Spanish showed impressive military equipment and the implication (when reinforcements arrived, albeit in small numbers) that they represented a powerful external military force, ancestral opponents who'd been subjugated by the Aztec empire were quick to throw in their lot.
It wasn't just the captive slaves and human sacrifice either (though that was a big deal), the Aztecs imposed crushing economic tribute burdens on subjugated city-states, and when payments fell short, they'd go in and raid. Tribute wasn't just gold and tradeable goods, it was also food, and the Aztecs didn't care if they drove a place into famine.
There were also rival indigenous states (Tlaxcala, etc.) that were never conquered by the Aztecs but had been trapped in continuous low-intensity war with them for years.
Though it is worth saying the Aztecs weren't universally despised. Some regional dynasties were allies. Some of those were also unpopular.
Spanish granted citizenship and protection from the crown to everybody playing under their rules. Spanish crown and Christianity promises should look shocking and also as 'best deal in my life' compared to the previous situation.
And as most military based societies, Aztecs had also a big problem with management of ecology and natural resources, caused with their own development, big cities with a less than optimum management of fecal waters, and never ending wars.
Deforestation came with dry spells and agriculture suffered while they were trying to negotiate a solution with the stars. All the social structure was supported by a lot of drugs abuse, probably.
You have to make the evil claim: that the Spanish invaders were seen as a better alternative to the indigenous Aztecs by at least a decent majority of the population (and then, later, the Inca) (maybe this even explains the final end of the Maya)
Which is both likely true and morally against what we currently seem to believe.
Was there a concept of "ingenuousness" for the natives? Even the Aztecs were relative newcomers to the area. They came from the north and enslaved the area. Why prefer their terror to the unknown future with the new people that appeared?
Maybe I should not have used the word foreigner, but my comment/question is not why did they prefer ally with the spanish on a moral point of view but why did they believe the spanish were strong enough to be followed against the aztecs if not for their military superiority.
I don't think there's a single and simple answer. One thing that Cortez managed to do was "demystify" the mighty Aztecs in the eyes of the people conquered and supressed by the Aztecs.
There was unrest and violence in the region long before Cortez arrived on the scene, when he did he was the external catalyst to ignite the powder keg. When reading accounts of the conquest, information gathering, political scheming and negotiations were often more "decisive" than the actual fighting.
Divide and conquer is as old as time. Any major power usually got there by unsavoury means, making a lot of enemies along the way. The same thing happened in the US and Canada, where tribes that had fought for centuries -- quite contrary to the noble tropes, it wasn't some big love-in, and the continent was littered with raping, pillaging, slavery, and so on -- so they were more than happy to faction off to opposing sides if it gave them more of an ability to exterminate their nemesis.
bugake · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
dbspin · · focus · HN ↗
AlanYx · · focus · HN ↗
There were also rival indigenous states (Tlaxcala, etc.) that were never conquered by the Aztecs but had been trapped in continuous low-intensity war with them for years.
Though it is worth saying the Aztecs weren't universally despised. Some regional dynasties were allies. Some of those were also unpopular.
pvaldes · · focus · HN ↗
And as most military based societies, Aztecs had also a big problem with management of ecology and natural resources, caused with their own development, big cities with a less than optimum management of fecal waters, and never ending wars.
Deforestation came with dry spells and agriculture suffered while they were trying to negotiate a solution with the stars. All the social structure was supported by a lot of drugs abuse, probably.
spwa4 · · focus · HN ↗
Which is both likely true and morally against what we currently seem to believe.
dragandj · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
There was unrest and violence in the region long before Cortez arrived on the scene, when he did he was the external catalyst to ignite the powder keg. When reading accounts of the conquest, information gathering, political scheming and negotiations were often more "decisive" than the actual fighting.
dragandj · · focus · HN ↗
llm_nerd · · focus · HN ↗