The Aztecs are touted as an empire with all the conquests that suggests, but many more of their tributaries submitted “voluntarily” than actually fell by force of arms. The Aztecs frequently bypassed towns to reach other targets, and the mere passage of their victorious armies returning home was often sufficient to induce local rulers to submit to the empire, especially since the Aztec armies were usually larger than the towns through which they passed.
As for towns actually vanquished, they could surrender at any point. sometimes towns would be asked to provide a seemingly innocent commodity or service to the Aztecs, as they did when they asked Chalco for stone to expand the main temple in Tenochtitlan (Duran 1967: 2.135-38; Cronica mexicana 1975: 287-89). All such solicitations were de facto requests for subservience, and their rejection offered sufficient and justifiable grounds for declaring war. Other times, targeted towns would be visited by Aztec ambassadors requesting submission, the rejection of which was likewise adequate cause for war. Wars that were carried to their ultimate climax were publicly announced in Tenochtitlan, the levies were communicated to the commoner wards, and the needed men were raised, equipped, and retrained for five to eight days before departing. The armies would then march toward the target, often along parallel routes to speed their journey, until they reached the town, where they would build their camp. Once fully assembled, the attack would be signaled at dawn to maximize the daylight hours. The two sides would meet and fight until either the Aztecs were repulsed, in which case they would withdraw and return at a later time, or they prevailed, typically by breaking through the opposing lines or by turning the enemies’ flanks and encircling them. If the army withdrew to the city, or if the enemy leaders refused to submit after the defeat of their army, the Aztecs would enter the city and sack it (see Hassig 1988: 85-183 for fuller discussion).
At any point, however, the war could be stopped: after the enemy learned of the impending attack, after the army was raised, once it was on the march, when it reached the target, during the battle, after defeat, or after the sack of the city; and the earlier the submission, the lighter their tributary obligations. So while Aztec conquests did demonstrate their military power, they were not necessarily undertaken expressly for that purpose. Rather, they offered the targeted opponent a range of options; not independence, of course, but a wide gradient of conditions under which they would be subordinated.
While virtually all segments of Aztec society profited from the tributary empire, who benefited by combat and how differed by class. The tribute that flowed into the empire in regular payments went directly to the king and to those to whom he had given tributary lands, such as various lords and temples. The bulk of it, however, remained with the king who decided to whom it should be allocated or in what amounts, including additional meritorious nobles and the commoner wards. As they disproportionately benefited from war, it would seem obvious that the upper nobles would push for it, while the commoners would resist it. But such does not appear to have been the case.
From the perspective of the empire, any form of voluntary submission was preferable to conquest as it was less costly in men and material, and it was much better than sacking a city, as that crippled its ability to pay tribute. But from the perspective of the commoners, who made up the bulk of the army, only combat offered the prospect of rewards for feats of arms, including the possibility of rising into the noble ranks, and only by sacking a city were most of the commoners able to secure some immediate gain, including capturing townspeople, which was significantly easier than taking warriors on the battlefield. To be sure, nobles could participate in the sacking, but being a minority of the military, their shares would likewise be proportionately smaller and would ultimately mean a reduced share in later, diminished, tribute. Moreover, while feats ofarms would burnish their reputations and aid in securing political offices, the incentive of upward mobility was significantly smaller for them than for the commoners. As a result, the higher nobles who already had their status, had a far greater interest in the submission of cities before conquest while the commoners had a greater incentive to carry combat through to the bitter end, and so too did the lowest nobles who were in imminent danger of dropping into the commoner class.
World History
