Aztec+Government

Aztec Empire? **Phil Eastridge** The Mexica people are most commonly remembered as the Aztec, those which presided over the Aztec empire. The purpose of this essay is to describe the structure of this “empire”, particularly focusing on the similarities and differences between the Aztec’s empirical structure and that of more classically defined empires such as the Roman and Incan, and modern non-empirical nations such as the United States. The goal of this comparison is to change the way we think about the Aztec empire. Was it an empire at all? What fundamental differences make the distinction between an empire and a powerful nation? By the end of this essay, you will hesitate to refer to the Aztec an empire.

In class we named the criteria that define an empire. The defining aspect of any empire is **expansion**. The most important part of maintaining an empire is **consolidation** of //political administration, economy,// and overall //ideology//. Finally, all empires will suffer an inevitable **collapse**. During the course of this article we will delve into each of these criteria in great detail, examining the finer points that distinguish an empire from a modern national government. By the end you will be able to decide for yourself whether the Mexica people built the Aztec empire or Aztec nation.

The first aspect of an empire up for consideration is expansion. How did the Mexica people build the foundation? How did they grow it to arguably the most economically powerful kingdom in Mexico? The Mexica were undoubtedly renowned for their military conquests and political expansion. But before a people can expand their influence into new territories, they must first settle their own. There are many legends that explain the origin of the Aztec. Since I am unable to say which, for sure, is most accurate, I will discuss some vague but accepted truths about their origins. The Nahua people settled near //Aztlán//, a legendary “Eden-like” land, where they were subject to everything from paradise to tyrannical subjection, depending on what you read. The important part is that they left Aztlán, under advisement and leadership of their patron god, Huitzilopochtli. Calling themselves the Mexica, they settled in the Mexican Basin. They sought to develop an economy based on lacustrine fishing, hunting, and gathering; due to their limited land resources, farming was hardly an option until years later when they began using “Chinampa agriculture”. On this site they founded the settlement //Tenochtitlan.// Disputes over land distribution caused some dissidents to leave and settle a smaller island, which became //Tlatelcolco//. (Austin 2001:68)//.// The Mexica territory was divided into four segments and a center occupied by the temple of Huitzilopochtli, among other religious buildings. In each segment, land was distributed by //calpultin,// small groups of families which were supposedly united by a common deified ancestor. These calpultin formed the organizational foundation of the societies of that period. These families preferred living among the others in their calpulli, thus essentially forming a kind of neighborhood. In each neighborhood, land was divided up among the constituent families to be used at their discretion (Austin 2001:68).

I want to look now at the parallels between the establishment of the Mexica people and that of the British colonists. According to our history books, the greatest initial influx of British immigrants into the Americas was that in pursuit of religious freedom. The Mexica left Aztlán under advisement from their god. Both colonized small plots of land and where farming and agriculture weren’t an option due to limited resources or lack of farming knowledge until long after they had settled. The difference between the two colonial groups was that the Mexica had come to settle small islands which were heretofore unspoken for. The British colonized land which was currently inhabited by millions of people. Also, the Mexica were not claiming land in the name of their mother nation, rather just settling a new residence all their own. As you are probably beginning to notice, our beloved nation began under much more empirical circumstances than the Aztec. I realize that is a generally accepted fact, but this is only the very beginning of our re-thinking.

After settling, the Mexica sought political recognition. In order to interact as peers with their neighbors, they must be constituted into //tlatocayotl//, or kingdoms. Due to their geographic location, they were subject to the rule of the //Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco//, to whom they periodically paid tribute. Their military alliance with Azcapotzalco afforded them tribute for their conquests. But, never to miss out on a chance to better their stead, they seized an opportunity to turn and attack Tepanecs as auxiliaries of their former opponents, the Tetzcoco. Fortunately, they succeeded in their efforts and the Azcapotzalco was destroyed in 1430, making the Mexica- Tenochtitlan one of the prominent powers in the Mexican Basin. Their enemy destroyed, the Tetzcoco took the opportunity to reinstate a traditional form of government known as the //Exan Tlatoloyan,// a three-king system (Austin 2001:69).

There are certain parallels to the American Revolution here. The Mexica were under the rule of a greater nation which could call on them for use in battle or demand tribute at any time. They took an opportunity to break that tie using alliances with former enemies. In similar fashion the American rebels used fighting tactics learned from Native Americans to defeat the British loyalist soldiers, and hired Natives Americans as mercenaries to fight the redcoats. After the fighting, in both cases, the victors settled down to implement their own government. Although it was not their war, and they were not yet in position to begin their own empire, the Mexica now held claim to one third of the Exan Tlatoloyan. This institution was not your average judicial system, though.

In true empirical fashion, the Exan Tlatoloyan was focused primarily on militaristic expansion. It is important to realize that this new policy neither belonged to, nor afforded any spoils of war to the Mexica- Tlatelcolca. Rather, the Mexica-Tenochtitlan were given a position as one of the three kingships, taking the place of Culhuacan. As Exan Tlatoloyan began its military conquest, it was up to each member nation to organize and direct its own military campaign, much to the advantage of Mexica- Tenochtitlan. After many years of feverish military expansion, Mexica- Tenochtitlan seized an opportunity to defeat, and thereby absorb Mexica- Tlatelcolco (2001a: 70-71). Through the years, the strength of the Mexica grew until their political and military power eclipsed that of the other two member nations of the Exan Tlatoloyan. The Mexica now had their empire, which from this point forward in the article will be referred to as the Aztec empire.

The militaristic expansion displayed by the Aztec is the most clearly identifiable characteristic when categorizing their established territory as an empire, yet they maintain some fundamental differences from other empires. The Aztec did not expand in the tradition of empires. Most empires use their military to expand their territory. Instead, the Aztec used military force to beat their enemies into submission and force them to pay tribute to Tenochtitlan. They did not expand their empire in the traditional sense because they did not focus on ruling the peoples they defeated.

In order to maintain their rule over conquered regions, an emperor must consolidate the political administration into one that can be controlled from the capital. The Aztec empire failed to do this with any vigor. In the Aztec circles, political structure and social structure were very much entwined. The basic unit of government was the //calpulli//. As we discussed earlier, the calpultin were clan-like organizations of families, traditionally united by a common deified ancestor. As they were established in cities, calpultin were defined mostly by region more than ancestry. Young men in each calpulli were trained by their own elders, and each group had its own government building, called //ateocalli// (Bunson 1996:28). Each calpulli was subject to two types of government. The first type handled internal affairs such as distribution of land, establishment of temples and schools, defense of the calpulli, the census, and distribution of tributary obligations. This position was occupied by a //teachcauh//, which was something of a traditional governor. The second form of government dealt with matters pertaining to the central government. This //tecuhtli// had the role of judge, military chief, tax collector, and mediator between the calpulli and the palace. The calpultin served as tributary units and military squadrons to the central government, and were to participate in the group in general religious obligations. (Austin2001:68)

There were two main social groups within the calpultin in Aztec culture. The //pipiltin// were the hereditary nobles that controlled Aztec affairs, and the //macehualtin// were the working class farmers, soldiers, and craftsmen. Of the pipiltin, nobles were selected to serve the //tlatoani// (or Huey Tlatcani)//,// who was chosen by a council to act as emperor (Bunson 1996:28). From areas of least to most influence, the chain of power is as follows: Family, Calpulli, City Council, Executive Council, Huey Tlatcani. (//See illustration//) (http://Aztec-history.com) The City Council was constituted of a single elected noble from each calpulli. The Executive Council was elected in a similar manner; only it was in the city of Tenochtitlan- the capital of the empire. The Aztec Executive Council has been compared to the Roman Senate, and the Huey Tlatoani- who had every bit as much power as Roman dictators- was elected by the council, in much the same way as a Roman dictator (Cóttrill 2009).

While the Aztec emperor’s absolute power more closely resembles an empirical dictator, the calpulli system and did allow the majority of conquered peoples the ability to govern themselves- at least at the community and city levels. And, for matters of a greater magnitude, each calpulli had a tecuhtli who dealt directly with the central government. The Executive Council’s interest //did// lay in the prosperity of each city and calpulli, because they were each a source of tributary goods. For this reason, the preferred method of government was similar to what later European societies would call //laissez fair,// or simply allowing each municipality to govern itself, calling on them only for tributary payment and military use//.// This principle is where the Aztec really distinguished themselves from the ranks of empire. During the Roman Empire, the most popular and valuable investment was land, as their economy was based on farming (Crystal 2009). To the Aztec, raw materials were the spoils of war. I think this made the difference between the Romans, who took land from weaker nations and claimed it for Rome; and the Aztecs, who spread their influence over weaker governments in order to collect portions of their trade goods, but left the land to be distributed by the calpultin. In fact, in most cases the conquered nations retained their own government, and were required only to pay tribute to the central government. The Aztec Tlatoani had more immediate economic concerns- such as widening their influence and collecting more tributary profits. Consolidation of power was put on the back burner, since they were confident in the military efficacy of their armies (Austin 2001:70-71). This map shows the area where the Aztec held major influence. The dark line outlines the Aztec heartland-location of Tenochtitlan, and the surrounding area where the Aztec originally began their empire. The larger outline shows the general areas of influence of the Aztecs. (Aztec-history.com)

This system of management presents a strong argument for declassifying the Aztec empire as an empire. Consolidation, as was enumerated for us in class consisted of three parts: **political structure**- consisting of a bureaucracy that acted as the arm of the central government, **economy-** all the resources are funneled back to capital, and **ideology**- a way of legitimizing the inequality in terms of resource distribution. The Aztec had very little bureaucracy, and thereby hardly any control of the cities in their empire. Their “ideology” legitimized the superiority of Tenochtitlan with military force and threat of destruction, not religious or political reasoning. The only thing they consolidated was the economy. They did that well, funneling resources from a very large region into the capital.

This is **//not//** empirical consolidation. This is **piracy**. The Aztecs were a very large, very powerful mafia. They invaded their neighbors and countrymen and demanded ransom for that regions safety. When they encountered an entity that would not comply, they defeated them in battle and demanded ransom so that it wouldn’t happen again. They did not waste their time and resources controlling how these entities govern themselves, because they didn’t care. As long as they got their tributes, they stayed out of the way. The Aztec Tlatoani //did// have political control over the members of the empire, but without //exercising// that control, he was not acting as emperor, rather the leader of an organized crime ring. The only difference between the Aztec influence and organized crime in the modern world is scale.

Today, governments make and enforce the laws because they have access to powerful and organized forces which are dedicated to justice and serving the laws of the country. But if all the gangs in North America organized under one elected ruler, they could easily overthrow the American justice system one state at a time until it was they who made the laws. This is the case in the Aztec empire. One entity, the Mexica, controlled a force more powerful than any other. They went from one neighbor to the next, accumulating strength as they went, until they had military control of the entire Mexican Basin. This allowed them to collect from everybody, but that was as far as their interests were concerned.

Their operation allowed the Aztec to grow very wealthy and Tenochtitlan became a fabulous center of commerce. But as with all pirates, they were hated by everyone who was not enjoying the luxurious spoils of their conquests. When opportunity presented itself, the enemies of Tenochtitlan allied with the Spanish and the Aztec empire met its glorious destruction. The destruction suffered by the Aztec was anything but an empirical collapse. When looked at vaguely, the story is of Spanish conquistadores who rode in and destroyed the Aztec empire with magic weapons and disease. That constitutes the fall of an empire. But examined more closely, the story goes a little differently.

The Spaniards came and wanted the land and treasures of the Aztecs. Eager to escape the clutches of Aztec greed, the conquered nations joined forces with the Spanish and wiped out Tenochtitlan (Austin 2001:72). This was not the destruction of an empire or even a governing body, but rather the eradication of a band of pirates and the destruction of a city.

( mariner.org/exploration/mm_images/F1230CBA1_p93Cortez ) When the Spanish turned against their native allies, the resulting decimation of the rest of the cities in the Mexican Basin was another collapse altogether in the same region in the same time period. To the Spanish, whose history books we read, it was probably all the same. But when observed closely from a perspective which empathizes with the natives, we see that the Aztec city collapsed, followed by the rest of the cities in the region. The Aztecs were defeated by the combined force of all who had been victimized by them before. Their reign was over. Unfortunately for the victors, their freedom walked hand-in-hand with their doom. With their common enemy vanquished, the remaining entities self-destructed under the Spanish pressure. Neighbors clashed in the basin, eventually leading to the collapse of the Native Mexican societies that had //formerly// been deemed members of the Aztec empire.

In my opinion, though, the “empire” did not suffer this collapse because it never existed. The Mexica people had certainly accumulated a large amount of wealth, and had influence over a vast amount of territory. They had some qualities characteristic of an empire. But it lacked the most important, fundamental aspects right from the beginning. The Mexica colonized an uninhabited island, which they named Tenochtitlan, and started a subsistence-based lifestyle. They came to power by allying with powerful nations, during which time they slowly built up their military force and became the most powerful force in Central America. Their expansion was hardly of the empirical kind. They sought to expand their profits rather than their borders and culture. They conquered neighboring territories in pursuit of riches, but the conquered territories were rarely subject to Aztec judicial rule. Rather they were left to govern themselves except for the regular payment of tribute to Tenochtitlan. **They were a powerful nation reaching out to neighboring entities and pulling in treasures, not an empire pulling in neighboring entities.**

Finally, the basin did not fall as an empire. After Tenochtitlan was destroyed, the rest of the peoples in the basin would have carried on just as they had before, //not// as if their nation’s capital had been destroyed. When the Spaniard-fueled destruction of the other peoples in the Mexican Basin ensued, they were not destroying an empire; they only destroyed the sovereign territories whose resources had been exploited by the Aztec for centuries. In America, we don’t usually think of ourselves as an empire. Our influence stretches to regions across the world and we own territory in every hemisphere, but we are ruled by a democracy. The voice of the people is heard and is the basis for drafting legislation and selecting our leaders. These leaders decide how much we pay in taxes and employ a variety of systems to make the nation money that will be reinvested into the communities. The Roman Empire covered vast territory as well. The actions of Roman government affected people throughout the Mediterranean. Their dictators had absolute power over the entire empire to decide taxes, land distribution, etc. In this system, most of the money was funneled up to the capital city, Rome. A national budget paid for road construction and bureaucrats that maintained central authority throughout the empire. In Mexico, the Mexica built a nation, the Aztec nation of Tenochtitlan. They sent their military out to collect payment from neighboring cities and bring it back to Tenochtitlan. They collected from many people whose opinions had not been counted, and who were not subjects of the Aztec government. Rather, they were just nearby cities that were scared into paying tribute. The Aztec did not have an empire like the Romans. They did not have a democracy like Americans. They did not have a powerful government at all. They had an army and a city. They had a very successful economy, certainly, but I don’t feel that it can be fairly classified among the ranks of empires.
 * __Bibliography__**

Austin, Alfredo L. 2001 Aztec. Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures 3(1): 68-72

Bunson, Margaret R. & Bunson, Stephen M. 1996 Aztec Government. Encyclopedia of Ancient Mesoamerica 2(1):28-29

Bunson, Margaret R. & Bunson, Stephen M. 1996 Aztec Law. Encyclopedia of Ancient Mesoamerica 2(1): 29-31

Cóttrill, Jaime 2006-2009 Ancient Aztec Government. Electronic Document, [], accessed April 18, 2009.

Crystal, Ellie 2009 Roman Empire. Electronic Document, [], accessed April 18, 2009.