The document discusses the military organization of the Aztec empire. It examines whether the Aztecs maintained standing forces or provincial garrisons. While the Aztec nobility could devote full time to military service, the common people were part-time soldiers as their primary role was farming. There is little evidence the Aztecs kept large standing armies, as forces were usually raised when needed. The document also notes two major colonies established by the Aztecs, one in Oaxaca consisting of 600 families sent to settle the region, though it is unclear if they maintained permanent military forces there.
The document discusses the military organization of the Aztec empire. It examines whether the Aztecs maintained standing forces or provincial garrisons. While the Aztec nobility could devote full time to military service, the common people were part-time soldiers as their primary role was farming. There is little evidence the Aztecs kept large standing armies, as forces were usually raised when needed. The document also notes two major colonies established by the Aztecs, one in Oaxaca consisting of 600 families sent to settle the region, though it is unclear if they maintained permanent military forces there.
The document discusses the military organization of the Aztec empire. It examines whether the Aztecs maintained standing forces or provincial garrisons. While the Aztec nobility could devote full time to military service, the common people were part-time soldiers as their primary role was farming. There is little evidence the Aztecs kept large standing armies, as forces were usually raised when needed. The document also notes two major colonies established by the Aztecs, one in Oaxaca consisting of 600 families sent to settle the region, though it is unclear if they maintained permanent military forces there.
Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale Degli Americanisti
Roma- Genova 3-10 Settembre 1972 page 213 to 221 Certain Spanish portions translated by myself in [italic brackets] The military organization of the Aztec empire 1 . General Problems We cannot understand the communications system of Mesoamerica, unless we first ask ourselves for what purposes such routes were used, and why people travelled upon them. Clearly Mesoamericans seldom journeyed simply to pay social calls, or in the guise of tourists, to see whose pyramid was tallest. As among other ancient peoples, travel, and therefore established land routes, were connected mainly with two activities, war and trade. In Mesoamerica, commerce often preceded conquest, and the old adage that trade follows the flag did not always apply. I intend to take as my subject one of these two activities, and will permit myself to talk in general terms of the Aztec military organization, but with particular emphasis on one specific question: did the Aztecs maintain provincial garrisons and the standing forces necessary to man them? This point, often the subject of misunderstandings, is fundamental to their whole system of territorial domination. I am therefore grateful to be allowed to include in this symposium some remarks on a subject that at least partly affects the general problem of communications and routes. For it is surely fair to say that only if we first determine what kind of provincial military organization the Aztecs possessed, can we then seek out the nature of any communications system that would be required. If the existence of real garrisons can be established, together with their location, we should then be able to identify the main imperial thoroughfares, involving perhaps even storehouses and staging posts, on the Inca model. Moreover, a knowledge of such an overall picture would offer a basis for a more detailed mapping of regional routes. For it requires to be clearly stated that, while the historical sources write copiously on other aspects of Aztec conquests, they are laconic in the extreme in their descriptions of the itinerary of their victorious armies. 2. The central military organization We must first take a look at the central military organization of the Triple Alliance and ask ourselves: what kind of forces were deployed by Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tacuba, and the subject cities who also provided contingents? Was there any standing force available for any task at any time, or were the required levies simply raised for specific campaigns, according to the needs of the moment? Leaving aside the deep religious motivations, and the need for sacrificial victims, war in Mesoamerica, as in Mediaeval Europe, was rather the sport of kings, and an occasion for members of the aristocracy to show their mettle. For this exercise, the bulk of the manpower came, as might be expected, from the lower ranks of society, rather than from the middle, or artisan class. Most of our information comes from Tenochtitlan, and while we cannot here discuss every facet of the complicated problem of social structure and land tenure, a few words are necessary on such aspects as affect military organization. In more precise terms, we must ask ourselves whether full-time soldiers existed among either patricians or plebeians, or whether the bearing of arms was more normally a part-time calling. As regards the ruling classes, among otherwise contradictory accounts, a certain consensus of opinion is to be found as to the existence of two main categories of people; Katz has made this distinction very clear (Katz: 29-32). Firstly, we have the hereditary nobles, the pipiltzin por linaje, or tlazopipiltzin, and secondly, the tetecuhtzin or segundos seores, as Zurita calls them (Zurita: 142). The land of the pipiltzin, many of whom were related to the tlatoani, was hereditary property, cultivated by mayeques, serfs tied to the fields they tilled; the owners were thus freed from all tasks but those of general supervision, and were able to devote themselves to the service of the state. The same is virtually true of the second category, the tetecuhtzin. They were perhaps more to be compared to English life peers, honoured for their own lifetime for their services to the community, but with the difference that they were also provided by the ruler with lands, and with people to cultivate them (tecallec). The seor virtually maintained them, and they could even eat in the palace (Zurita: 143). Thus, the two divisions of the lay ruling establishment had this in common: they were in a position to give the tiatoani virtually full-time service, but not necessarily of a military nature. Zurita. makes it clear that they served the seor both in wars and in other public offices (Zurita: 145). When we turn to the lower classes, it becomes self-evident on the other hand that their everyday calling was the cultivation of the calpulli lands; the bulk of the armies was clearly recruited from these macehuales or freeholders; the mayeques on the other hand did not normally serve. Pomar emphasises the dual role of the macehual: he explains that the common people sent their sons to the telpochcalli; they and their fathers were occupied with the cultivation of their land, which constituted their principal calling, after the bearing of arms (Pomar: 29). In other words, the latter activity, while it perhaps offered greater honour and glory, did not constitute a full- time profession. It seems that the macehuales were organized for war on the basis of the land-holding unit, the calpulli. While great emphasis was placed on military valour, it would appear most unlikely that any of them were permanently under arms. The available evidence points the other way. The Anonymous Conqueror, while insisting that Moctezuma had a guarnicin of ten thousand men to guard his person, states that in the case of provincial uprisings: se reclutaba pronto en la ciudad y en sus confines. [they were recruited in a short time within his towns and boundary] Before departing for war, the men all went to the Great Temple and collected their arms, apparently stored above the main entrances (Anonymous Conqueror: 65). To take another instance: when preparations for war against Soconusco were on foot, the bulk of the forces had to be rapidly trained: Los mexicanos a gran prisa comenzaron a aderezar sus armas fuertes y cotaras y a prevenir los mancebos (Tezozmoc: 371). [The Mexicans in great haste began to prepare their arms, forts and cotaras (boundary posts?) and to warn the youths] The recruits received daily training in the telpochcalli at the hands of the Achcauhtzin. The very nature of Mesoamerican warfare, with its emphasis on ritual exchanges before hostilities, rather than upon surprise attack, gave time for such preparations, and reduced the necessity to maintain forces constantly on the alert. Mobilization when enforced was thorough., and at times included the whole male population, except for elders and boys under the age of ten. All would presumably have received some previous military training in the telpochcalli, prior to this last-minute refresher course. It is indeed hard to see what category of citizens could have manned the lower ranks of any standing army, without which such a force could hardly have existed on any scale. Even the upper classes, whose duties to the state were of a more full-time nature, appear to have given their service in a dual capacity, civil and military. Again, as in the Middle Ages, such functions were more readily interchangeable than nowadays. An exception may perhaps be made for those referred to as tequihuaque or achcauhtzin Among the different categories of people who served, these might possibly be regarded as career, or even drill sergeants, according to the account of the Anonymous Conqueror. In addition, the possibility exists, but not any certainty, that the orders of knights, in particular the Eagles and Ocelots, might, like the Knights Templar, have constituted a kind of established corps dlite. But even if anything approaching a permanent officer class existed, this select band could not possibly have been used for garrison duty. 3 . Provincial organization The Aztecs normally left civil power in the conquered provinces in the hands of the existing seores, with the additional presence in key centres of calpixques as representatives of the central power, whose main duty was to supervise the payment of tribute to the Triple Alliance. As to any more numerous standing presence, we possess in the first instance evidence of two major colonies, sent from the Valley of Mexico and nearby cities, rather after the pattern of the Inca mitimaes. Oaxaca. During the reign of Moctezuma I, that indefatigable alter ego of the tlatoani, Tlacalel,. made the proposal that a colony should be settled in Oaxaca. As a result, six hundred married men, with their wives and children were gathered together; families from Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco and Cuernavaca were included. A cousin of Tlacalel was put In charge of the new settlement (Durn, 11:23 8-239). During subsequent accounts of campaigns in that area, Durn and Tezozmoc refer on various occasions to these people who had been settled in Oaxaca. Probably their military organization was not dissimilar to that of Tenohtitlan. Thus they would have provided levies for local wars, but the existence of any standing force among them must remain in doubt. Equally, on various occasions, the Relaciones Geogrficas of the Sixteenth Century mention a guarnicin at Oaxaca, and write of contacts between its personnel and the local peoples (Relacin de Iztepexi: 16, Relacin de Amatlan: 120-121, Relacin de Cuicatlan 185). It will be later explained what is the probable significance of the word guarnicin in such contexts. As to the route taken by Aztec forces going to Oaxaca, information is imprecise; Tezozmoc and Durn merely imply that the armies on various occasions passed by Izucar and Chalco, which was indeed their most natural itinerary. Oztuma and Alahuiztla. After Ahuitzotl had laid waste these two places, situated on the Tarascan border beyond Teloloapan (Gro), with even more than his wonted ruthlessness, putting most of the inhabitants to the sword, it was proposed that they should be repopulated with a colony from Central Mexico, numbering two thousand. Four hundred people were to be sent from Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tacuba respectively , and twenty each from thirty subject cities (Durn, II : 3 5 1). Nezahualpilli, who was apt to drag his feet where Ahuitzotls proposals were concerned, suggested that two hundred colonists from Texcoco would be sufficient. The net was certainly widely cast to obtain settlers, to include such places as Toluca and Jiotepec probably however, bearing in mind the reduction of the Texcoco quota, the number fell short of the stipulated two thousand. The people were given a consolatory talk; it thus becomes clear that they were not particularly eager to set off into the wilds. The objectives of the operation were clearly economic as well as military , since the settlers were instructed that they should cultivate cacao plantations for Ahuftzotl. In addition, they were charged to be constantly on the alert, due to their proximity to the Tarascan border. Some confirmation of the existence of such a colony also comes from the Relaciones Geogrficas. Oztuma is mentioned as a place where Moctezuma II had a guarnicin; the people of AlahuIztlan provided arms and other help for this fortress (Relacin de AlahuIztlan: 102). The Relacin of Oztuma itself attributes to Axaycatl, not Ahuftzotl, the establishment of this strongpoint, and the sending of people to man it, as a guarnicin to oppose those of Michuacan (Relacjn de Oztoma: 1 10). The Relacin de Acapetlayuca confirms that AhuItzotl sent many people to Oztuma, apparently as a colony rather than as guarnicin. These settlers guarded the fortress (Relacin de Acapetlayuca: 1 16). As to the route followed by the Aztecs to reach this region, we are told that Ahuftzotl, on his return from Oztuma, passed Teloloapan, Zumpahuacan, Malinalco, Atlapulco and Acaxochic (Tezozmoc: 345-347). Even this account lacks precision; Zumpahuacan is only a few miles south-west of Malinalco, and from there to Teloloapan the route is not described. The question of any additional permanent Aztec presence in the provinces of empire, apart from these two colonies, is much more problematical. In contrast to the relatively frequent mentions of the Oztuma and Oaxaca settlements, where other places are concerned references occur in isolation, and usually once only. Zantwijk, for instance, draws attention to a mention in the Codex Mendoza to Citlaltepec and Zumpango as fulfilling certain functions related to garrison service. The author rightly suggests that such garrisons had some connection with colonies (Zantwijk: I 52). In addition, the Relaciones Geogrficas refer to other forces or garrisons in the provinces. In connection with Tototepec (not the independent principality, but the town in Guerrero some fifty miles east of Acapulco for location, see Davies: 1 75), Mexicans are mentioned: que quedaron all por guarnicin que sola tener Moctezuma (Suma de Visitas: 29). [that they were left there for garrison (duties) that was done by Moctezuma] This place lay on the borders of Yopitzingo, but the phraseology leaves uncertain the permanent nature of such a force. Teozacualco is reported as being subject to Moctezuma, who maintained a guarnicin there, on the border of the independant seorio of Tototepec, on the coast of Oaxaca (Descripcin de Teozacualco and Amoltepeque: 306). Coixtlahuaca is reported as a place where Moctezuma: tenia puesta su frontera de gente de guerra [He was having on his frontier men of war] (Relacin de Atlatlauhca y Malinaltepec: 1 65). However, due to the relative proximity of Oaxaca, any standing force would probably have emanated from that centre. Landa also incidentally mentions Mexican garrisons in Tabasco and Xicalango. But while armed pochteca might conceivably have made an appearance in this area, garrisons in the. stricter sense of the word can hardly be sought outside the territory that paid tribute to the Triple Alliance. In actual fact, all such mentions to garrisons, etc. lack precision, and it would seem more probable that any Aztec forces to be found in such places simply went there from time to time, as we will come to show in greater detail. Two important centres however remain to be discussed as possible headquarters of some type of standing force. Tuxtepec: The Relacin de Chinantla writes: Los indios mexicanos que presidan en el pueblo de Tuchtepeque donde Moteuma tena una guarnicin de gente muy grande. . . [The indian Mexicans were presiding in the town of Tuchtepeque where Moteuma was having very large garrison of men] (Relacin de Chinantla: 61). Now Tuxtepec, situated in the extreme north-east of Oaxaca, was of course par excellence the great merchant centre and Sahagn actually tells how the traders of the principal cities of the Valley of Mexico maintained their own establishments there, where they could reside (Florentine Codex, Book 9:48). This fact in itself implies some kind of settlement or colony, or at least permanent defences, provided by the pochteca, who were warriors as much as traders. They could scarcely have abandoned their property in Tuxtepec for part of the time to the depredations of the local inhabitants. Even in this instance however, it has to be stated that the calpixque of Tuxtepec visited Corts on his arrival, apparently unaccompanied by warriors (Bernal Diaz: 59). The Xiuhcoac region. While there is little evidence of a colony or garrison, ample testimony survives as the primordial military importance of Xiuhcoac as the bastion of the north-east, situated between the Gulf coast and the still independant principality of Meztitlan (for probable location of Xiuhcoac, see Davies: 34-3 5). In this respect it is significant that Bernal Diaz writes of a total of four guarniciones y capitanias: one in Soconusco, one in Coatzacoalcos, one in Michoacan, and lastly one raya de Pnuco (Bernal DIaz: 167). He describes the latter as lying between Tuzapan and Tuxpan, i.e. precisely where Xiuhcoac was probably located. Now any forces in the direction of Soconusco and Coatzacoalcos may well be regarded as offshoots of the colonists of Oaxaca and the Pochteca of Tuxtepec, and Michoacan may well be taken to imply the Tarascan frontier, or Oztoma, thus conforming with our previous information. However it is most interesting that it is only on the presence of some permanent force in the Pnuco area that Bernal Diaz gives any precise information: he tells how the garrison stationed near Tuzapan exacted tribute and supplies from villages nearby, and from others in the neighbourhood, who were friendly with the Spaniards allies of Cempoala. His information thus seems to rest on reasonably solid foundations, since he was concerned with people who actually knew of this force from personal experience. The distance from Tuxpan to Cempoala is sufficient to account for the failure of such a contingent to put in an appearance on Corts landing. 4. Fortresses and strongpoints The function fulfilled by Oztuma, already mentioned, brings us to the general question of fortresses. Of their existence we have ample evidence, and in accounts of Aztec campaigns, the storming of bullwarks and barricades is often a prelude to victory. Oztuma itself was one of a whole series of strongpoints on the Tarascan border, as part of a general defensive system in the area. It was so well situated as to be almost impregnable (Armillas: 168-171). To mention only two other fortified places, Corts writes of Ixtamacaxtitln, near the Tiaxcalan border, as equal if not superior to Spanish fortresses (Corts: 39). Bernal Diaz describes Quiahuiztlan on the coast as a formidable strongpoint, difficult to attack (Bernal Diaz: 65). But a fortress is one thing and a garrison another. The former appear usually to have been built and defended by local levies, perhaps reinforced by a contingent from the central power in times of emergency. If any defensive positions were permanently manned, this certainly did not apply to the famous wall on the Tlaxcalan border, deserted when Corts appeared, notwithstanding the strong resistance which he subsequently had to face. In general, the Aztec Empire, a term we use for lack of an apter expression, was a mosaic of small senorios which had been subdued and forced to pay tribute. It is striking that in numerous instances of border peoples, the Relaciones Geogrficas relate that such tribute was paid, not in the conventional form, but in contributions to the Triple Alliance of arms and actual military service. And, quite apart from such frontier zones, people who lay on the line of march of the Aztec armies were expected to provide not only food and arms, but auxiliary forces. The main army set out well provided with supplies, but supplemented these by living off the land, and the people thus stood in great fear when they passed (Durn, II: 180). The recruitment of manpower for the principal campaigns was certainly not confined to the three capitals of the Alliance, reinforced by tribes situated actually on the frontier. Not only did the Aztecs cast their net wide among nearby subject peoples, but exacted service also from those situated nearer to the proposed objective of the campaign. For instance, Ixmiquilpan and Atotonilco provided levies for Tfzocs abortive attack on Metztitlan: Tehuantepec produced forces for Ahuftzotls wars against Soconusco. The Empire in fact seems to have been held together, not only by the fear of massive retaliation from the centre in case of rebellion, but also by a certain reliance on specific and selected allies in the provinces, such as those mentioned above. Once conquered, they could on the whole be relied upon to remain loyal. 5. What the Conquerors saw From accounts of purely native derivation, backed by one passage from Bernal DIaz, we have been able to postulate the existence of three, and possibly four places where some permanent Aztec presence was to be found, probably in the form of established colonists, rather than of metropolitan troops. It is now necessary to examine briefly what the conquerors themselves observed. Of these, the fullest and most precise accounts are of course those of Bernal DIaz del Castillo, on whom we shall mainly rely. The key problem of the whole discussion lies in the question: supposing that the Triple Alliance maintained an elaborate system of local garrisons, just where were they when the Spaniards landed, and later marched across the country? In the first place, they encountered no kind of garrison, or for that matter any force at all on the whole stretch of coast between S. Juan de Ulua and Quiahuiztlan, though the inhabitants were of doubtful loyalty and resented the payment of tribute. When Alvarado was sent to explore inland, he found the villages deserted. Equally, on his march to Tlaxcala, Corts met no Mexican soldiers; it was the local seores who, at Moctezumas bidding, extended facilities to the Spaniards. Even if Moctezuma did not wish to oppose their march, surely any troops stationed near the route would have made an appearance. On the contrary, the calpixques of Cotaxtla and Tuxtepec had come to see Corts on his first landing, but had apparently brought no military escort, notwithstanding reports already quoted of Aztec forces stationed in the latter place. They came accompanied merely by Indians bearing gifts (Bernal Diaz : 5 9). An even more striking example is afforded by the five tax gatherers who arrived at Quiahuiztlan; they came surprisingly unprotected, and Corts had absolutely no difficulty in arresting them. They appeared, muy acompaado de principales de otros pueblos de la lengua totonaca (Bernal Diaz: 73). [accompanied by the principals of the other towns of the language of the totonacs] Dressed in the height of fashion, their armament consisted of bunches of flowers and fans. It is clear that they normally thought personal protection to be unnecessary, and relied for safety on the remorseless retaliatory power of the central authority. The local chiefs were horror struck at Corts audacity! Equally, in Tenochtitlan itself the position is most nebulous, as far as any standing forces are concerned. According to Bernal Diaz, who was present, Corts, and only six other Spaniards, apart from the two interpreters, were sufficient to march Moctezuma off to their quarters. This occurred without the smallest show of resistance, notwithstanding various vague references to los de la guardia, etc. The latter certainly made up by their appetites for whatever they lacked in military effectiveness, and are reported to have eaten a thousand dishes daily in the palace. It is most probable that these were not really a fixed and permanent bodyguard, but a number of nobles and their sons, in attendance upon the ruler on a rotating basis, as has already been pointed out; their duties would have been of a both civil and military nature, and no account is given of any arms that they might have carried. Moreover the ability to kidnap rulers was not solely to be ascribed to Spanish guile or ruthlessness. Six of Moctezumas captains were able to sequester an apparently unguarded Cacama, ruler of Texcoco and bring him to Tenochtitlan (Bernal Diaz : 181). 6. Garrisons and Guarniciones The real crux of the whole matter involves questions of semantics. Much confusion has been created by the use in conquerors accounts and in Relaciones Geogrficas of the word guarnicin. But one has only to read such reports carefully to realize by the sense of the text that garrisons, in the modern sense of the word, are not intended by such statements. Shirley Gorenstein stresses this point most effectively, quoting a seventeenth century Spanish dictionary which defines a guarnicin as simply soldiers guarding or protecting a place where they were (Gorenstein: 56). Now, quite apart from the older Spanish usage, if we examine the question from the Nahuatl point of view, the difference between old and new meanings becomes even more conclusive. Molina does not list guarnicin by itself, but translates guarnicin de gente (a phrase often used by Bernal Dfaz) as centlamantin yaoquizque, that is to say warriors gathered together; no question is implied of a standing or permanent. force. Now, if in Nahuatl there was no precise word for a standing garrison, and if equally in Spanish of that time, the only word, guarnicin, had a different sense, it is difficult to see how informants could possibly have reported the existence of an intensive network of fixed garrisons, without incurring grave risk of confusion. Surely they were mainly speaking simply of warriors on military expeditions, and this was translated into Spanish as guarnicin. To conclude this argument, let us take a look at some of Bernal Diaz various mentions of this word, to see what he actually appears to mean. a) At Cingapacinga, a fortress two days march inland from Cempoala, a force was reported of muchos indios de guerra de los culas, [many indians of war of the culhuas] who had come to destroy their crops (Bernal DIaz: 77). But this self-same force is described in the chapter heading as guarniciones de mexicanos. When the Spaniards arrived at the place, the Mexicans had departed, but Bernal Diaz again refers to Mexicans who solan estar en guarnicin en aquel pueblo. [They used to be in garrison at that town] It is surely clear that periodical visits, rather than a standing force is intended. b) Various mentions are made of the word guarnicin in connection with Corts forays from Tlaxcala when he had returned thither after the Noche Triste, but in the same context the word sent is invariably used or implied; that is to say the Aztec force had been dispatched to the place in question to fulfil a particular task, and was not permanent. For instance, to Tepeaca Moctezuma mandaba ir muy grandes capitanias y . guarniciones de gente de guerra para que mirasen no les entrsemos en sus tierras. . . (Bernal Diaz: 249); [He was commanding to march very large captainships and garrisons of men of war in order that they did not look to enter his lands]or in the vicinity of Ixtapalapa los mexicanos siempre tenan velas y guarniciones contra nosotros, cuando saban que bamos a la guerra. . . (Bernal Diaz: 268). [The Mexican always were having vigils and garrisons against us, when they were knowing that we were going for war] c) If the matter is not by now abundantly clear, the siege of Tenochtitlan gives added confirmation. In the heading of chapter CL, Bernal Diaz tells how Corts mando que fuesen tres guarniciones de soldados. . . a poner cerco a la gran ciudad de Mexico. . . [command that belonged to three garrisons of soldiers. . to put an enclosure/boundary/picket around the great city of Mexico]. By guarnicin he clearly means simply a force. Sandovals contingent is subsequently also referred to as a guarnicion. Moreover Cortes himself speaks of one of his three forces into which he divided his army as la guarnicion de Coyoacan (Cortes 52) The Relaciones Geograficas on occasions use the same language the Relacion de Coatlan (Oaxaca) tells how Moctezuma sent to Miahuatlan captains and soldiers it adds y tenya quidado denbialles sienpre gente de guarnyion (Relacion de Coatlan 1 33) Teotitlan del Valle had wars with Mexican forces que a este provincia ynbiava y tenia en guarnicion Montecuma (Relacion de Teotitlan 106) 7. Some conclusions It has often been taken for granted that the Aztecs maintained a network of imperial garrisons such a view has been supported by vague mentions of guarniciones referred to above, but which in reality mean something quite different. We are normally tempted to survey the Mesoamerican scene with minds attuned to Old World concepts we think of Roman legions maintaining eternal vigil against the perils of barbarian incursions; or we read of the valiant Sikhs and Ghurkas protecting the confines of the British Raj on the Northwest Frontier of India We then automatically ask ourselves but how could any empire possibly exist without numerous garrisons How could the frontiers be protected and the conquered peoples be disciplined But it is necessary to remind ourselves firstly that the Aztec domain was hardly an empire in the true sense of the word, but an area loosely dominated for the purpose of gathering tribute. . Secondly there is ample evidence of a continual process of conquest rebellion and reconquest that is to say no proper, was maintained by local Aztec forces and the people were apt to stage risings Conquest lists for succeeding reigns often repeat the same names, and even Moctezuma II faced widespread. revolts in the early part of his reign The real weapon of control as far as any existed reposed in the f of savage reprisals against uprisings Nor when we come to examine the question should it for one moment be assumed that all Old World empires were held together by standing forces The Athenians short lived empire relied more on colonies Perhaps the closest parallel to the Aztecs may be sought in the early Assyrian Empire. In the ninth and eighth centuries BC this was also a kind of tribute gathering organization and the king annually made raids far and wide into provinces where he maintained no standing forces It was only m the later empire in the seventh century that an imperial system complete with garrisons was set up Furthermore, it has to be realized that, at the time of the Conquest, a standing army in Europe was something of a luxury Charles V would have indeed maintained such a force recruited from his Spanish but not his Netherlands subjects Ever a century later opposition to the sovereigns determination to maintain a standing army added fuel to the flames which ignited the English Civil War In the early days of Colonial Mexico the ex conquerors busy with their duties as encomenderos and with other remunerative tasks could hardly have been defined as a force permanently under arms even if they were available for emergencies They maintained the country in subjection without established garrisons which they would not have been able to man We conclude therefore by maintaining that in the Aztec Empire any standing presence m the provinces manned by per of the central power was the exception rather than the rule moreover any such forces tended to be levied from colonists resident in the area. Given the probable ubication of such settlements, the routes to Teleloapan-Oztoma, Oaxaca, Tuxtepec and Tuxpan-Xiuhcoac would seemingly have constituted the main lifelines of empire. Many secondary routes would have branched out from these main ones, in order to give access to the territories of the far-flung and frequently insubordinate tributaries. Bibliography Armillas P., Oztuma, Gro., Fortaleza de los Mexicanos en la Frontera de Michoacn, Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos Vol VI pp 165 175 1942 44 Diaz del Castillo B.,Hi de la Conquista de la Nueva Espafla, Mexico, 1 969. Conquistador Annimo, Relacin de Algnas Cosas de la Nueva Espafia y de la Gran Ciudad de Ternestitlan Mexico, Mexico , 1 961. Corts H. Marques del Valle, Carter y Documentos, Mexico, 1 963. Davies N., Los Seorios Independientes del Imperio Azteca, Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, Mexico, 1968. Descripcin de Teozcualco y Amoltepec: Relaciones Histricas EstadIsticas, Vol. I, pp. 304-3 11. Durn Fr. P., Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espafla, Mexico, 1967. Florentine Codex, Transi. and comm. from Fray Bernardino de Sahagns Manuscript by JO. Andersen and Charles E. Dibble, Santa Fe, 1 950. Gorenstem S , The differential Development of New World Empires Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolgicos Vol. XX, pp. 41-67, 1 966. Katz F , Situacion Social y Economica de los Aztecas durante los Siglos XV y XVI Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas, Universidad Nacional de Mexico, 1 966. Landa Fr. D. de, Relacin de las Cosas de Yucatan, Mexico, 1 959. Pomar J.B., Relacin de Tezcoco, Nuva Coleccin de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, pp. 1-65, Mexico, 1941. Relacin de Acapetlayuca, Papeles de Nueva Espafia, Vol. VI, pp. 115-117. Pub!. by F. del Paso y Troncoso, Madrid, 1905-06. . Relacin deAlahui ibidern, Vol. VI, pp. 100-105. Relacin de Amatlan, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 119423. Relacin de Atlatlauhca y Malinaltepec, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 1 6 3-176. Relacin de Coatldn, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 131-137. Relacin de Cuicatlan, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 1 83-1 89. Relacin de Chinantla, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 58-68. Relacin de Iztepexi, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 9-23. Relacin de Oztoma, ibidem, Vol. VI, pp. 105-115. Relacin de Teotitlan del Valle, ibidem, Vol. IV, pp. 104-108. La Suma de Visitas, ibidem, Vol. I. Tezozmoc H.A., Crnica Mexicana, Mexico, 1944. Zantwijk R. van, La Estructura Gubernamental del Estado de Tlacupan (1430-1520), Estudios de Cultura Nahuati, Vol. VIII, pp. 123-157, Mexico, 1969. Zurita A de, Breve y Sumaria Relacion de los Seores y Maneras y Diferencias que habia de Ellos en la Nueva Espafla, NuevaColeccin de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, Mexico, 1941.