Not my fault when this bloody Montezuma shows up in turn 10 on my doorstep with his overpowered warriors because I dared to start digging amber near my capital.
That dude was an ass. Declared war on my guys and then asked for forgiveness when I whooped his ass. Then immediately declared war again... It was at this point that forgiveness had ended.
I haven't play Civilization lV in quite sometime but I vaguely remember a slavery mechanic. You could sacrifice some of the population to finish a unit or something?
You can sacrifice population to finish production of anything, from units, to buildings, to wonders. Actual necessary mechanic to beat higher difficulties (Monarch+).
I’m quite literally in a game rn, and Slavery is the single Civic that’s saving my ass from getting invaded lol
Those mfers have never used the strategy of speaking softly (declaring war on all of the world) and carrying a big stick (5 hydrogen bombs for every city in the world)
Otherwise known as "becoming the end-game crisis"
There's no shame in deterrence, having a weapon is very different from actually using it
"But Ghandi you have built hundrends of bombs when the other empires have barely discovered what a plane is-"
"As i said, deterrence"
> Otherwise known as "becoming the end-game crisis"
Stellaris and Civilization, aka my main two favourite games, are leaking into /r/historymemes.
What is this, a crossover episode?
Reddit has a disproportionate number of gamer nerds, and in video games the conquerors are always romanticized because the 'fun' in a game is being the one with agency (the conqueror) rather than the one getting destroyed and constrained in their options (the conquered). So no you're almost never playing as Christian Anglo-Saxons getting raided in the 10th century. 9/10 times you're playing as Vikings instead. You're not playing the Chinese or Persian kingdoms holding on for dear life vs. Mongol invasions. You're playing as the Mongols.
This in turn translates to unconscious biases toward favoring the conquering side in history. This extends to any era of conflict. I find this is even the reason there's so many fans of Nazi Germany in the Hearts of Iron 4 community. They are one of the countries with the most agency in WW2, so they are the most fun in the game, gathering the largest fanbase.
> in video games the conquerors are always romanticized because the 'fun' in a game is being the one with agency (the conqueror) rather than the one getting destroyed and constrained in their options (the conquered)
This applies to a *vast* amount of media throughout all ages of history. Every culture I can think of has glorified its great warriors, people (and characters) taking on and overcoming challenges (often of violence), its conquests, and etc. as far back in history as you want to go, and in any form of media you want to name. (Including painting it on vases.) We've been collectively doing this for millenia.
Videogames and redditors are in no way unique in this regard.
Try Victoria III. You can absolutely play a peaceful game where you never expand and focus on trade and internal development. It's pretty fun, too. I turned Haiti into the highest GDP-per-capita country on the globe, basically a Caribbean Singapore.
You can also play the turtle economic game with bigger countries if you also want to participate in wars. Like if you play as Ottoman Empire or Mexico, you'll never need to start any wars or gain any territory to be powerful and relevant. The wars will happen to you because you border stronger countries that want to gobble you up.
Honestly 99% of the times I win on civ vi it's by playing for cultural or science victories.
I might have to take one capital along the way but you can't make an omelette without invading some cities
That’s why you intentionally do things to piss off AI or players so they’ll declare war on you, you can damage their city enough with no defenses and pillage the absolute fuck out of everything they own.
Pulling hearts out: barbaric, uncivilized.
Nailing hundreds of enslaved foes to 2x4s to dry in the sun: refined, classical, pairs well with a good wine seasoned with fish sauce.
To be fair the Romans tended to crucify criminals and rebels to dissuade people from trying it again.
The Aztecs sacrificed hundreds of thousands for religious reasons.
One had a legal reason that while barbaric, makes sense. The other is religion.
The Aztecs had absolute belief in their religion, same as the Romans did. The only real difference is that in lieu of having their law enforcement and killing of wartime enemies be separate ‘secular’ systems (relatively speaking), they incorporated them into their religious systems.
Did you know the Mexica didn’t fight to the death during wars? They always fought to capture prisoners, since they preferred to sacrifice them rather than spill their blood unceremoniously on fields of battle. Correcting for that, they didn’t kill any more people than most other contemporary empires.
Not that it’s any more morally palatable that way, it simply bothers me to parse brutality as more ‘civilized’ because it’s secular.
Also the Atzecs were going through a political collapse when the Conquistadores arrived.
The plagues and the costant rebellions* had driven Moctezuma into a religious frenzy, which led to a massive increase in human sacrifices
Imagine if the only thing we knew about Christianity were the anti-semitic purges that happened during the Black Death
*The Emperor had dismantled the merithocratic sistem, increasing the divide between the nobles and the lower classes
I’m genuinely fascinated to what could have been if the Aztecs and the new world had been found during a more politically stable period in their history
Like without as much native in fighting to exploit for political power and influence over the continent I don’t think the conquistadors would have made as much ground as they did even with the technological advantage they had with guns, horses and disease and the Aztecs might have held out a while
Imagine how much more information about their culture and accrued scientific knowledge might have survived if that was the case or even the empire itself might have gone on a bit longer
It's so hard to think about the loss of all those ancient artifacts. Centuries of history, sculptures, religious relics, literally a whole room of history all melted down into bars.
Yes but we know much more about the Incas and they were integrated much more seamlessly into the Spanish empire which preserved much more of their culture compared to the total obliteration that the Aztecs faced
And it basically was just the Aztecs. Other Nahua peoples like the Tlaxcalans preserved their culture afaik
And yeah, what you described goes as far as having the kings of Spain using the title of Inca using [translatio imperii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii)
Thanks for the link, didnt know that the spanish kings considered themselves as director succesors of the incas emperors, but also that by doing this they made some incas be part of the spanish nobility
Some people say the Spanish Empire was the last of the empires of old and the first of the new because of things like these.
In some aspects they were the typical colonial plantation empire, while in others they acted like the Achaemenids, Alexander or Rome
Mostly because it was a vast territory and laws were difficult to enforce from the capital. Still the spanish envoys collected and registered some of the local languages, they cared enough to learn their languages (even if it was to convert them to christianity)
I was in Peru recently, and it's crazy how much modern Inka culture survived.
Sure, there's probably some internal prejudice I didn't see, but it's basically two parallel cultures co-existing side-by-side, with neither culture having clear superiority.
People still speak Quechua, many choose to wear traditional clothes (and not just for tourists, but to do so in daily life), there is a two-way cultural osmosis (i.e. Chicha is by far the most popular drink and Spanish Peruvians wear a lot of typical Inka jewelery).
Interestingly enough, it happened because when the Spanish first settled, they couldn't live in the highlands because they weren't adjusted to the altitude, and the Inka were content to live in the mountains.
Since the Andes were so far away, there was also a lot less mass population transfer like there was in North America, and slavery didn't make its way there because there were no cash crops like cotton or sugar to farm.
The Incas had just concluded a devastating 3 year civil war when the Spanish showed up, with Atahualpa usurping the throne from his half-brother Huascar. When Atahualpa was captured by the Spanish, there was celebrations in Cuzco, who had supported Huascar. There was also a plague that killed an estimated 30% of the Inca Empire, prophecies about the end of the world, and rampant rebellions by ethnic minorities, who generally supported the Spanish.
The Inca had only been an empire for really 50 years, and were still attempting to consolidate their control and manage a system for succession. They were far from their peak.
They were an empire for closer to 100 years by that point, so it was enough time to establish a pretty robust administration system.
However, some newly conquered tribes weren't super happy to be conquered.
Big thing with them is that when an Inkan king died, all their property (including territory) was still technically theirs after death. The new emperor technically didn't own anything, just presided over the administration. So they had to go out and conquer their own demesne.
On the one hand, this is how the empire grew. On the other, mummies of dead kings having chicha ceremonies and an active social life didn't contribute well to clearly established succession the same way Salic Law did in Europe. It was closer to an Ottoman free for all each time.
I wouldn't say they had dozens of conquered peoples, but the rest is correct.
If I recall correctly they had a civil war because the Inca died from smallpox, and in the empire the Inca was everything. I suppose that's why the conquistadors kidnapped the emperor, to basically gain a quick grip over the empire
They actually did have dozens of conquered peoples. Well, on sheer numbers at least, not in total number of cultures and whatnot. They did take somewhat of a mongol approach to conquering, as in, “Pay tribute to us and integrate peacefully and be treated well, or be conquered and lose your autonomy”. Some, mainly those who took a chance on fighting them, were… At least a little pleased when the Spanish came and they had a chance to overthrow their conquerors. And yes, the previous emperor, Huayna Capac, had died in an epidemic and so did his eldest son, so the two younger sons fought it out. The Spanish just so happened to arrive as soon as the civil war was over and the empire’s resource were heavily depleted. When they arrived, they initially tried to establish contact through diplomacy, but after hearing of Cortes’ exploits, they thought “kill the head and the body will fall”. Pizarro was actually fond of Atahualpa, and it’s a well-known tale that he offered a massive ransom in exchange for being released from captivity, but the more hawkish conquistadors decided to have him killed anyway. One of the key characters in all this was Felipillo, the expedition’s translator, who at least in popular retelling is thought to have intentionally mistranslated the dialogue between both the Spanish and Atahualpa that led to his capture, since he was from one of the peoples conquered by the Incas
The Inca's had literally ended a massive empire wide civil war days before the conquistadors arrived. The victorious emperor hadn't even made it back to the capitol and that is why he was able to meet the conquistadors so quickly at the north end of the empire. And the conquistadors allied with the losing side of the civil war which greatly added their conquest
They barely fell to the Spanish Empire. Honestly it's something of a historical accident that they did, a fluke; in most similar 'timelines' I'd expect an independent Inca state, or a similarly indigenous successor. Pizarro got extremely lucky and the conquest was in large part a theater of the Incan civil war. Even for centuries after, much of the administration and political class in Peru was Incan, and there was even still an emperor subordinate to the Spanish crown. The Incan Empire was not so much conquered as it was absorbed and integrated, as opposed to the Aztec Empire which was certainly conquered, dismantled, and replaced
I'm also hesitant to say they were at their peak, they were certainly still in the ascendant. We don't know what their peak would've been absent the Spanish
IMO without the resources of the former Atzec Empire, the Spanish wouldn't have been able to invade the Incas
The region gave Madrid the ports and roads to further expand its empire in South America
Yeah people don't ever focus on this but human sacrifice in Aztec society got really really bad like right when the Spanish came, never in history was there a sacrifice of 48 children at the end of the dry season before or since the one time it happened it just happened to be right when the white folk showed up so it looked really really bad
>The plagues and the costant rebellions*
I'm glad someone has finally pointed this out. The Aztec Empire was already in a weakened state when the Spanish arrived both politically and medically. There'd been a fairly massive plague (possibly several) that had tainted the waterways, before the Spanish came. Then there was the ongoing political strife, which Cortez took advantage of.
I think both can be true at the same time. Ancient cultures shouldn't be judged through the lens of modern beliefs and morality, but ancient cultures were also brutal as hell and frequently did horrifying things. You can recognize the evils of the Roman Empire without needing to condemn the entire society for not practicing modern moral beliefs. Same with the Aztecs. It's important to recognize the time they existed it, and it's important to recognize the aspects of that culture that were brutal when compared to other societies of that time.
I personally never say that the Aztecs "deserved" to be destroyed, but rather that you can't call them poor bastards in front of the Spanish, when they themselves were just as cruel. It is common here in the Americas to treat all natives as peacefull and innocent before the arrival of "the evil white man", when not everyone simply lived in peace in their territory, and many did terrible things.
Respect and appreciation for culture, in addition to reparations for what happened to them, is one thing. Ignoring historical facts for the sake of your own Europhobia is another.
A year or so ago some outlet (pretty sure it was the Atlantic or Slate) tried to claim that it was evil white people who started scalping peaceful natives, before they were forced to edit and admit that yes it was the natives who did scalping long before white people showed up
I had a friend in college 2012 to be exact, that claimed "Natice Americans never scalped until Europeans taught them." I was dumbfounded. I asked him about the Crow Creek Massacre in South Dakota dated to the 14th century. Nearly 500 men, women and children were murdered. According to archeologists, "Most of these remains showed signs of ritual mutilation, particularly scalping. Other examples were tongues being removed, teeth broken, beheading, hands and feet being cut off, and other forms of dismemberment."
I asked him what Europeans were colonizing South Dakota in the 1300s and he flat out denied that it happened. We didn't talk for a couple of months after that. Which made some of our classes together awkward.
Link for the wiki page in case anyone wants to read up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
I read a source (war of a thousand deserts) that indicated that it was the governor of Chihuahua, who would pay for the bodies of dead Indians during the Mexican-Indian wars, that started the scalping; so many were killed and the distances were so great that a scalp could be used as proof for payment. The southern plains and Apache/Navajo returned the favor to the Mexicans, and that practice then transferred over to northern plains Indians, who then faced the US army with "scalping" as a tradition.
> that practice then transferred over to northern plains Indians, who then faced the US army with "scalping" as a tradition
As I understand it, colonial governments/armies also used scalps to verify the work of Native American auxiliaries (in conflicts like the French And Indian Wars), the same way the governor of Chihuahua did, so they were partially responsible for perpetuating the practice.
It's very interesting how many cultures throughout history and across the world have used body part amputation to prove defeat of a foe, and the seeming randomness with which those cultures seemed to have chosen what body part to use as a "kill counter".
My tribe and our brother nations, Kickapoos, Shawnees and Delawares, all first took up their first scalphunting contract in the 1790s against the Osage on behalf of the Spanish. It was just business, but it created great animosity among the tribes. So much so that when all four tribes fought for the Union during the Civil War, the Kickapoos would still steal horses from the Osage and would trample their corn fields as a way of saying "screw you".
My tribe and our brothers all worked in Mexico too. Kickapoos in Coahuila, and Shawnees and Delawares in Chihuahua. The Kickapoos were so successful at hunting scalps, they were granted a large plot of land in Coahuila, where they still live today.
I remember reading another outlet saying that before the white man came, the concept of rape did not exist among native Americans. The native American propaganda has been going hard this past century.
It’s always an overcorrection and overreaction to appeal to emotion. People on both sides of the spectrum do it. White nationalists and europhobes alike argue that the other side was vicious, oppressive, and evil, while their side were harbingers of peace. People need to quit trying to make a claim that one side was better and instead first learn the full history and gain a firm understanding, then you can make an argument after you truly know everything ranging from evidence of events to ethics in history.
The “peaceful native” myth is prevalent and detrimental to actual Native American history. This has been said by actual Native Americans who are scholars.
Also, pretty sure the people the Aztecs subjugated would agree that they were bastards and pieces of shit too.
True. Not only does it dehumanize indigenous peoples, it also detracts attention from their actual historical conflicts.
But the "Aztec empire" was more of an alliance of city states who held an hegemony over the region and extracted tribute (which was nothing unusual for the region). They didn't directly rule much.
You can not say "poor bastards" because they were innocent, but you can *certainly* lament the loss of culture, history, language, religion, self determination (which we still see the artifacts of today) and general civilization that the Spanish tried to eradicate (intentionally and otherwise).
There are much more people who are defendants of Euro centric history because there is so much more about Euro centric history preserved, protected, and studied. Sure there's Europhobia, but there's also many of those who are neutral on the topic or some even pro Europe. Just because the Spanish and Aztecs both were morally grey (ay best) by modern standards does not mean that the systematic oppression (pillage and rape to start) of one by the other isn't morally abhorrent.
I really do not get where this perception that the dominant narrative from Indigenous advocates is just the noble savage trope comes from. The noble savage is used far more often by people who seek to erase or appropriate Indigenous history and culture rather than by people actually interested in countering Eurocentrism in history and advocating for decolonization. It really feels like a strawman and like people on the right are disingenuously using the fact that the noble savage trope is a real trope to shut down any discussion of Indigenous culture or reparations by saying "Look how terrible they were, why should we owe them anything for what we did to them?"
The issue of reparations is, well it's a double standard first of all, it's only ever directed in one way western countries and secondly everybody would be owed reparations, all the victims of the Aztecs would have claim.
The aztecs were barbaric by their own contemporary neighbours' standards. That's why everyone and their mother joined against them the literal first chance they got.
Not really.
The Triple Alliance (the "Aztec empire" never existed) was embroiled in series of pre-existent geopolitical conflicts by the time the Spanish arrived, but it is more due to the usual reasons (land, resources, economy, dynastic politics, etc...) than due to them being particularly hated.
That’s not true, the Mexica were not considered barbaric by their neighbors, the only ones who particularly hated them were the Tlaxcalteca but this was due to them being long time enemies not for their practices, the reason city states turned on the Mexica was due to political gain, some saw a chance to intermarry with the new power of the region and gave their daughters to marry (which some Cortes took as concubines). It should be noted a lot of city states did not join until after Montezuma was killed and after the city was plagued with small pox(essentially why support a dying power when you can support the new one)
Matthew Restall a modern historian has a good book on this subject called when Montezuma met Cortes
Important facts about the Aztecs:
-Had some of the most sophisticating irrigation and plumbing in the Americans, with aqueducts, dikes, and levees to bring clean water to Tenochtitlan.
-Also just casually building one of the largest, planned cities in human history in a marshland in the middle of a lake.
-Compulsory education for all Aztec citizens, albeit varied between boys and girls, nobility and commoners.
-A meritocratic system where peasants could ascend to become nobles, generals, and officials through military service (at least until Moctezuma dismantled it.)
-Was at the threshold of developing a full-fledged written language, one of the few known in the Americas.
-Surprisingly solid understanding of medicine and surgery, at least until they were exposed to smallpox.
-A sophisticated astrological and calendar system inherited and built upon from the Toltecs, with an extensive mythological system we're just only able to scratch the surface on.
-Had a trade and cultural network with formalized markets and a tribute system that went well past and outside the Valley of Mexico.
Does this excuse the blood sacrifices and rampant imperialism? Fuck no, but I do think a lot of the positive/achievements of the Aztecs really get overshadowed, kind of like how the Mongols are demonized despite enabling a massive period of peace and cultural-economic exchange across all of Eurasia that's really only exceeded by the Colombian Exchange.
Precisely. With what they were dealing with, their system of steam baths, herbalism, and some degree of dentistry and surgery worked with what they had available.
The Mongols are topping the list of most genocidal civilizations. Like if you gonna make a list of who's the worst it's the Mongols.
The Mongols always win.
As a Mexican American this is more complicated than most think. In fact if you to the Mexico subreddit every time they mention the Aztecs they are hated and called evil. This is despite the fact that the Mexico subreddit is LEFTIST as fuck.
But know what about me you may ask, I also don’t like them I tried to read about them, I tried to love them but in the end they are just so alien, with a weird religion, and human sacrifices, not to mention that they were imperialist as fuck.
And just to clarify not every Mexican is a descendant of the Mexica(Aztec) tribe. A lot of Mexican probably myself are descendants of the tribes that the Aztecs oppressed.
Probably is the operative word. You’ll never know, right? I am a MA who has lived on both sides of the border. I’m not proud of either the Spanish or indigenous blood running through my veins. It just is a fact of my existence that has no bearing to my own beliefs. Horrific acts towards humanity is a fact of life for nearly every ethnic group on earth. My alliance lies with a future where these atrocities aren’t tolerated any longer—irregardless of who is behind them. The color of the skin is less Important than the spirit that moves it
My family is from Mexico City, and unless your ancestors are from there, they were probably terrorized by the Aztecs.
I find the Aztec culture interesting but I don’t have any real pride towards them.
The thing is that Spanish recognize valor and importance of their enemies after being conquered, They did not erased the Mexico name but instead created the kingdom of Mexico within New Spain viceroyalty
Actually I believe you are misunderstanding that subreddit, they only hate MORENA to the point that they were willing to vote for the center right party in the election.
Just to clarify I’m personally a social democrat, but whatever you do pls don’t trust MORENA, they are populist.
In fact MORENA is also hated by the social democracy subreddit.
Well the aztecs where brutal they where no worse then other cultures in Mesoamerica,and had many great accompaniments like Tenochtitlan a marvel that amazed the Spaniards who saw it'
''When we saw all those cities and villages built on water; and the other great towns on dry land, and that straight and level causeway leading to Mexico, we were astounded. These great towns and shrines and buildings rising from the water, all made of stone, seemed like an enchanted vision from the tale of Amadis. Indeed some of our soldiers asked whether it was not all a dream. It is not surprising therefore that I should write in this vein. It was all so wonderful that I do not know how to describe this first glimpse of things never heard or, never seen, and never dreamed of before.''
#
"WERE" EXISTS! AAAAARRRRGGGHHH *dies of rage*
"They WERE nice to me." vs. "WHERE are my meds, martha?" Notice the difference in use.
I'd love to give better examples, but I'm a german and can't think of a way to explain it on a deeper level, I'm still learning.
You did fine, it always bothers me when they mess the two up too. Thought it might have just been a typo in the meme but then I saw the comment and realized they actually might not know the difference. And they might be esl, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t hurt them to learn the difference. Gives more credibility.
And not by a little bit.
The surrounding cultures still practiced blood sacrifice, but they did it consensually or to themselves.
The Aztec's had a ritual where they would sacrifice a child and they believed that the more the child cried and suffered the more rain there would be.
We don’t necessarily know that be true, the only source we have is the Florentine Codex which was written after and by a Spanish Friar which could have been biased to make them appear worse, unfortunately and truly we have no way to know if this is true
Sources on them "doing that to themselves?
Most of the Triple Alliance's human sacrifices came from the same circumstances as most other polities in the region as far as we can tell (either war prisoners, slaves or citizens).
The Roman Empire was gone, but there were still free Roman Greeks in the Mani Peninsula, what was officially known as the Toparchy of Maina or Deme of Maniots in the Despotate of Morea. The Ottoman Turks never managed to conquer the place, despite invading and failing in 1480-1493 AD. When Hernán Cortés overthrew the Aztecs in 1519-1521, the free Romans were generally raiding the Southern Peloponnese and trying to recapture the Mystra and Monemvasia / Malvasia.
We (Reddit as a culturally western platform) are more familiar with Rome and how it evolved into... well... us. Less so with the Aztecs. Of course we will be more forgiving toward a group we identify with.
Eh, I mean everything else aside, wouldn't this be more on the Neo-Babylonians for destroying it the first time? Like I understand the 2nd temple is viewed as equal in stature, but it seems to me that's a bit foolish to claim it's a direct continuity with the first beyond location. The original central and vast temples of Judah were razed and had to be built in new ways.
Not to mention, that's not a Roman trait exclusively. Groups that attempted to destroy Jerusalem and it's local faith (whatever that was at the time):
Egyptians (Possibly, early Egyptian imperialism is sparse in record of how conquests went down and if local faiths were tolerated everywhere), the Assyrians (Several attempts, most notably by Sîn-aḥḥē-erība [Sennacherib]), the Arameans (Aram Damascus under ḥzʾl [Hazel]), the Philistines (seems likely given biblical accounts, but not verifiable archeologically at this time), the Neo-Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, the Hellenes under the varying Diadochi, various Islamic dynasties since the Caliphate, the Frank's and other western groups during the crusades.
The only notable exceptions I can think of are *both* Persian in origin, and are the Achaemenids under Kūruš (Cyrus the Great) and the Sassanids under Khosrau, both of whom sided *with* local Jewish peoples to a degree.
I guess the point is don't act like the Romans are the only ones being assholes with regards to the Temple Mount. Neo-Babylonians were just as bad if not worse, and if Assyria had taken Jerusalem it would've been apocalyptic in its ramifications. At least the Romans kept the city in tact.
Carthage sailed to Ireland and beyond in unprecedented journeys of trade and discovery while the Romans were still busy doing their degenerate bestiality, kidnapping their neighbour's women and getting trounced by Gauls on holidays from their homes 500km away
Ehh that’s hardly a straw man, considering the amount of people you can see in various online history related spaces.
Who obsess and glorify the Roman Empire and at the same time often give justifications why Aztec’s deserved to be destroyed due to how evil and brutal they were
just browse this sub. There multiple post saying that aztecs where pure evil and the spanish where based libarators. Mean while you dont see people applying those same modren morals to rome, who killed more people then the aztecs ever did
Bruh, on pretty much every Atzek post I click on the comments are full of people talking how the Spanish people had support by the vasalls/ enemies of the Atzeks but you basicly see no people claiming the Atzeks were pure evil.
Meanwhile on Roman posts I personally cant remember people defending Rome because "You cant judge by modern morals".
I wouldn't call the Spanish saviors, but the Aztec systems of power were truly pure evil, even if the Spanish never showed up, the Aztec empire would not have lasted much longer.
Even without Cortez, there was so much unrest that a coalition to overthrow the aztecs would've formed anyway.
Both the Roman empire and Aztec empire were barbaric and did horrific things.
That being said they both also did brilliant and amazing things and had very interesting culture and the Spanish were just a bunch of tossers looking for gold in the name of god who took advantage of the Aztecs unpopularity though again have a unique and interesting culture and achieved great things
The Spanish did not take advantage of the Aztec unpopularity, it was not the fact that city states disliked Mexica rule, they found it politically convenient to ally with the Spanish, it’s a lot more complicated than just simply dislike. It’s a really interesting topic and makes you view the event a whole different when you look deeper into it, if you are truly interested When Montezuma met Cortes is a good book on the subject, or DJ peach cobbler has a good video series albeit a little edgy but still educational
The Spanish Inquisition was ongoing during the early colonization of America. While the conquistadors were decrying the Aztecs for killing people to please their gods, their countrymen back home were killing people to please theirs.
I read the Aztec Myths a long time ago and this one sticks out. Some of the minor details might be inaccurate, but I promise the spirit of the myth has not been altered.
When the Aztecs were homelessly wandering because they had been kicked out of their home, they eventually came to a city that took them in.
The City’s chief threw them a huge feast and even gave his virgin daughter to the Aztec leaders to have intimate fun with before the feast began. At the feast she was going to perform a sexy dance for everyone.
Anyways, she got to the Aztec leader’s room and they killed her, skinned her, and then one of the Aztec guys wore her skin and went to the feast and danced around until her father realized that it wasn’t his daughter and she had been killed. Then the Aztecs killed everyone.
Keep in mind, this wasn’t a myth made up about the Aztecs, this was part of the Aztec mythology about themselves.
Reminds me of the mythological origin of Rome. When Rome was first built, it was a small settlement that desperately needed a population increase. The rules of Rome sought to attract citizens by proclaiming that any individual, no matter what crimes they committed in the past, would be granted amnesty if they settled in Rome. This drastically increased the population but only the male population. See, women weren't exactly lining up to live in a city full of thieves, rapists and murders and thus Rome was a complete sausagefest incapable of sustaining growth.
Instead of trying to clean up its image, expel the most troublesome aspects and work to attract families and single working women, the Romans devised an alternative strategy. The Romans invited the neighboring Sabine people to attend a religious festival. Specifically, they invited old men and young women. Once the Sabines arrived, the Romans beat the shit out of the old men and kidnapped/raped the women, creating the first native Roman generation.
That is how the Romans chose to portray themselves: the descendants of thieves and murderers who founded their civilization via trickery, elder abuse and rape.
The Aztecs were considered evil for that time though. Whether you use moral standards from today or back then doesn't matter. And they used the death penalty rather...liberally.
Rome also was fucked up.
I have never seen anyone say both of these statements. Typically you either have someone with a decent understanding of history saying we can’t judge by today’s morals or you have some dipshit saying that people back then were pure evil.
Nah, Romans were not sacrificing people in human sacrifices.
It was Carthage that was sacrificing thier children to the Baal for rain.
That's why Rome is based - no more children sacrifices !
Well, uh...actually, yes, they did.
Nowhere near as frequent as the Aztecs, but Rome DID practice Human Sacrifice at least in some capacity. Augustus/Octavian once sacrificed one of his opponents.
Nah, Romans were not sacrificing people in human sacrifices.
It was Carthage that was sacrificing thier children to the Baal for rain.
That's why Rome is based - no more children sacrifices
the romans pretty much did human sacrifice. They would parade defeated enemies in trimpus then have them executed in the temple of jupiter. Also why is "human sacrifice'' worse then killing or enslaving millions of people like the romans did?
Also if your gonna hate the aztecs for killing kids then you gotta hate the romans to. Infantice was practiced on a massive scale in rome. With roman fathers having the right to have there baby left to die
> why is "human sacrifice'' worse then killing or enslaving millions of people like the romans did?
I don't know, but there are a lot of cultures throughout human history, many of which could be described as violent and barbaric, where human sacrifice became *the line you never cross* - and that happened before Christian Europe and the Muslims started shaking other cultures down and destroying their religions in the service of 'the one true god'.
Even in the works related to the Trojan War (and we have no idea how long those existed merely as oral traditions), things like sacrificing Iphigenia and Achilles deciding to throw a few slaves on Patroclus' funeral pyre are treated as abominations compared to the other sacrifices described. Then there's that myth about the time Tantalus served up his son as a meal to the gods, and once they realized what they had eaten, they condemned him to a pretty brutal punishment forever.
Blatant human sacrifice became, over time, a taboo even in cultures that had very little contact with each other - or wouldn't bother listening to anyone else's advice about their religion, even in ancient times.
Like I said, *I don't know how this happened*, because human sacrifice has at least appeared as a topic in cultures/religions across the globe - but sort of disappeared from a lot of cultures/religions around the world at a relatively ancient date. I am making a distinction here between a *public execution*, as a legal thing that is still practiced today, and a *human sacrifice* as an explicitly religious ritual. (The Romans really blurred that line, because they blurred the line between civic matters and religious matters *hard*.)
Nah, they just did it and called something else.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20726130/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20726130/)
Not to mention that they executed people without even blushing. You know, they invented crucifixion?
They insisted they didn't do human sacrifice (that was something only barbaric sorcerers did), but had no issues about parading their enemies though the Sacred Street before executing them in front of the Temple of Jupiter or burying vestal virgins who broke their vows alive.
Nah, people don't disparage the Incas or the various north Americain tribes even the militaristic ones like the Comanche.
Aztecs get brought up because they were amongst the more brutal civilizations in history.
Aztecs ripping the hearts out of sacrifice victims is seen as immoral because the Aztecs didn’t build our modern civilization. we are external to Aztec civilization and can only look at it from an observer perspective
On the other hand, Roman civilization is still *OUR* civilization. Rome may be long gone but we still live in Roman civilization (Roman religion (Christianity) Roman Language (Latin languages and Latin script) and Roman law (corpus Juris civilis)
So any look at Roman civilization necessarily comes with caveats because of that, because if we conclude that the Romans were just as barbaric and immoral as everyone else, then we naturally have to admit that our current civilization is just as barbaric and immoral, with just a few, more modern differences. Which brings up a whole bunch of other far more complex questions that many are not prepared to answer.
That’s at least how I see it
Most of the people on this sub carry over a negative attitude to the Aztecs from repeatedly getting their asses handed to them in Civilization.
_Purépecha Empire has entered the chat_
"You have much that I do not! Do you want to see your people taken as slaves?!" Every freaking time. 😑
Settle on MY FIRST unity of luxury resource: *Montezuma jupmscare*
True jumpscare for me is Hammurabi demanding that I do what he tells me to do. Like damn I just met you
Oh yeah, it’s courser beeline time
Catapults for me, and, unlike those of the Spanish, mine actually work. 😂
Not my fault when this bloody Montezuma shows up in turn 10 on my doorstep with his overpowered warriors because I dared to start digging amber near my capital.
Watch out for that prick Montezumaaaaaaaaaa He's aaaaaaaa doucebaaaaaaaaaaaag
That dude was an ass. Declared war on my guys and then asked for forgiveness when I whooped his ass. Then immediately declared war again... It was at this point that forgiveness had ended.
Jokes on you, I play Stellaris. I can religiously sacrifice people for my cause and still beat the game
I wonder if the Lathe has unemployed pops migrate to it. And if it doesn't, I wonder how I can make it so...
I see you never played Civilization IV and abused the shit out of whip/Slavery
I haven't play Civilization lV in quite sometime but I vaguely remember a slavery mechanic. You could sacrifice some of the population to finish a unit or something?
You can sacrifice population to finish production of anything, from units, to buildings, to wonders. Actual necessary mechanic to beat higher difficulties (Monarch+). I’m quite literally in a game rn, and Slavery is the single Civic that’s saving my ass from getting invaded lol
Those mfers have never used the strategy of speaking softly (declaring war on all of the world) and carrying a big stick (5 hydrogen bombs for every city in the world) Otherwise known as "becoming the end-game crisis"
The Gandhi strategy
There's no shame in deterrence, having a weapon is very different from actually using it "But Ghandi you have built hundrends of bombs when the other empires have barely discovered what a plane is-" "As i said, deterrence"
> Otherwise known as "becoming the end-game crisis" Stellaris and Civilization, aka my main two favourite games, are leaking into /r/historymemes. What is this, a crossover episode?
Civ 4 Montezuma lives rent free in my head, hated that mf
That's odd, because he lives rent free in your capital.
In Reddit is mostly the opposite, they are all fine with the Aztecs butchering their neighbors. The same with the mongols and Vikings.
Reddit has a disproportionate number of gamer nerds, and in video games the conquerors are always romanticized because the 'fun' in a game is being the one with agency (the conqueror) rather than the one getting destroyed and constrained in their options (the conquered). So no you're almost never playing as Christian Anglo-Saxons getting raided in the 10th century. 9/10 times you're playing as Vikings instead. You're not playing the Chinese or Persian kingdoms holding on for dear life vs. Mongol invasions. You're playing as the Mongols. This in turn translates to unconscious biases toward favoring the conquering side in history. This extends to any era of conflict. I find this is even the reason there's so many fans of Nazi Germany in the Hearts of Iron 4 community. They are one of the countries with the most agency in WW2, so they are the most fun in the game, gathering the largest fanbase.
> in video games the conquerors are always romanticized because the 'fun' in a game is being the one with agency (the conqueror) rather than the one getting destroyed and constrained in their options (the conquered) This applies to a *vast* amount of media throughout all ages of history. Every culture I can think of has glorified its great warriors, people (and characters) taking on and overcoming challenges (often of violence), its conquests, and etc. as far back in history as you want to go, and in any form of media you want to name. (Including painting it on vases.) We've been collectively doing this for millenia. Videogames and redditors are in no way unique in this regard.
I have noticed the older i get, the lesser i enjoy global strategy games cause i dont Like expanding my territory by conquest
Try Victoria III. You can absolutely play a peaceful game where you never expand and focus on trade and internal development. It's pretty fun, too. I turned Haiti into the highest GDP-per-capita country on the globe, basically a Caribbean Singapore. You can also play the turtle economic game with bigger countries if you also want to participate in wars. Like if you play as Ottoman Empire or Mexico, you'll never need to start any wars or gain any territory to be powerful and relevant. The wars will happen to you because you border stronger countries that want to gobble you up.
Fellow Haitian Miracle Worker, I see
Try vic3
Honestly 99% of the times I win on civ vi it's by playing for cultural or science victories. I might have to take one capital along the way but you can't make an omelette without invading some cities
That’s why you intentionally do things to piss off AI or players so they’ll declare war on you, you can damage their city enough with no defenses and pillage the absolute fuck out of everything they own.
I found playing toll in imperator quite fun, especially in the British isles, although it implies a certain amount of conquest to make it viable.
Venice (Civ V) was made for you.
I'm the opposite
That's just not true. A lot off us are hardcore irredentists who try to rewrite history with cumsaving.
Source?
7 years of experience in browsing reddit.
Absolutely incorrect! ... It was in Age of Empires. Wololo!
Also because of racist colonial propaganda.
I carry over a positive attitude towards the Aztecs from repeatedly using them to sacrifice my neighbors.
Just send them a delegation and trade them a luxury and they'll be your bros for the rest of the game.
Pulling hearts out: barbaric, uncivilized. Nailing hundreds of enslaved foes to 2x4s to dry in the sun: refined, classical, pairs well with a good wine seasoned with fish sauce.
To be fair the Romans tended to crucify criminals and rebels to dissuade people from trying it again. The Aztecs sacrificed hundreds of thousands for religious reasons. One had a legal reason that while barbaric, makes sense. The other is religion.
Crucifixion? Goood. First door on the left, one cross each.
What a scene that was
r/unexpectedmontypython
The Aztecs had absolute belief in their religion, same as the Romans did. The only real difference is that in lieu of having their law enforcement and killing of wartime enemies be separate ‘secular’ systems (relatively speaking), they incorporated them into their religious systems. Did you know the Mexica didn’t fight to the death during wars? They always fought to capture prisoners, since they preferred to sacrifice them rather than spill their blood unceremoniously on fields of battle. Correcting for that, they didn’t kill any more people than most other contemporary empires. Not that it’s any more morally palatable that way, it simply bothers me to parse brutality as more ‘civilized’ because it’s secular.
Never tell this guy about Roman triumphs.
Both barbaric
Honestly, that fish sauce ... pure evil, barbaric and no redeeming qualities [Garum - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum)
Both barbaric also one happened over 1500 years before by the standards of unwashed European peasants in the 1400s-1500s they were uncivilized
Also the Atzecs were going through a political collapse when the Conquistadores arrived. The plagues and the costant rebellions* had driven Moctezuma into a religious frenzy, which led to a massive increase in human sacrifices Imagine if the only thing we knew about Christianity were the anti-semitic purges that happened during the Black Death *The Emperor had dismantled the merithocratic sistem, increasing the divide between the nobles and the lower classes
I’m genuinely fascinated to what could have been if the Aztecs and the new world had been found during a more politically stable period in their history Like without as much native in fighting to exploit for political power and influence over the continent I don’t think the conquistadors would have made as much ground as they did even with the technological advantage they had with guns, horses and disease and the Aztecs might have held out a while Imagine how much more information about their culture and accrued scientific knowledge might have survived if that was the case or even the empire itself might have gone on a bit longer
It's so hard to think about the loss of all those ancient artifacts. Centuries of history, sculptures, religious relics, literally a whole room of history all melted down into bars.
Forget the gold, I wanna know how cool the books and the dresses made out of feathers really were
Or their mythos, we're missing massive chunks of it. Like, we know almost nothing about one of their biggest gods.
Same with the Norse gods. For example, we don't know much about Tyr, who may have been one of the most important gods in the pantheon
The Incas were on its peak and they still fell to the conquistadors
Yes but we know much more about the Incas and they were integrated much more seamlessly into the Spanish empire which preserved much more of their culture compared to the total obliteration that the Aztecs faced
And it basically was just the Aztecs. Other Nahua peoples like the Tlaxcalans preserved their culture afaik And yeah, what you described goes as far as having the kings of Spain using the title of Inca using [translatio imperii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii)
Thanks for the link, didnt know that the spanish kings considered themselves as director succesors of the incas emperors, but also that by doing this they made some incas be part of the spanish nobility
Some people say the Spanish Empire was the last of the empires of old and the first of the new because of things like these. In some aspects they were the typical colonial plantation empire, while in others they acted like the Achaemenids, Alexander or Rome
Mostly because it was a vast territory and laws were difficult to enforce from the capital. Still the spanish envoys collected and registered some of the local languages, they cared enough to learn their languages (even if it was to convert them to christianity)
I was in Peru recently, and it's crazy how much modern Inka culture survived. Sure, there's probably some internal prejudice I didn't see, but it's basically two parallel cultures co-existing side-by-side, with neither culture having clear superiority. People still speak Quechua, many choose to wear traditional clothes (and not just for tourists, but to do so in daily life), there is a two-way cultural osmosis (i.e. Chicha is by far the most popular drink and Spanish Peruvians wear a lot of typical Inka jewelery). Interestingly enough, it happened because when the Spanish first settled, they couldn't live in the highlands because they weren't adjusted to the altitude, and the Inka were content to live in the mountains. Since the Andes were so far away, there was also a lot less mass population transfer like there was in North America, and slavery didn't make its way there because there were no cash crops like cotton or sugar to farm.
The Incas had just concluded a devastating 3 year civil war when the Spanish showed up, with Atahualpa usurping the throne from his half-brother Huascar. When Atahualpa was captured by the Spanish, there was celebrations in Cuzco, who had supported Huascar. There was also a plague that killed an estimated 30% of the Inca Empire, prophecies about the end of the world, and rampant rebellions by ethnic minorities, who generally supported the Spanish. The Inca had only been an empire for really 50 years, and were still attempting to consolidate their control and manage a system for succession. They were far from their peak.
They were an empire for closer to 100 years by that point, so it was enough time to establish a pretty robust administration system. However, some newly conquered tribes weren't super happy to be conquered. Big thing with them is that when an Inkan king died, all their property (including territory) was still technically theirs after death. The new emperor technically didn't own anything, just presided over the administration. So they had to go out and conquer their own demesne. On the one hand, this is how the empire grew. On the other, mummies of dead kings having chicha ceremonies and an active social life didn't contribute well to clearly established succession the same way Salic Law did in Europe. It was closer to an Ottoman free for all each time.
Because they had been hit heavily by diseases, were in the middle of a civil war, and had dozens of conquered peoples ready to help the Spaniards
I wouldn't say they had dozens of conquered peoples, but the rest is correct. If I recall correctly they had a civil war because the Inca died from smallpox, and in the empire the Inca was everything. I suppose that's why the conquistadors kidnapped the emperor, to basically gain a quick grip over the empire
They actually did have dozens of conquered peoples. Well, on sheer numbers at least, not in total number of cultures and whatnot. They did take somewhat of a mongol approach to conquering, as in, “Pay tribute to us and integrate peacefully and be treated well, or be conquered and lose your autonomy”. Some, mainly those who took a chance on fighting them, were… At least a little pleased when the Spanish came and they had a chance to overthrow their conquerors. And yes, the previous emperor, Huayna Capac, had died in an epidemic and so did his eldest son, so the two younger sons fought it out. The Spanish just so happened to arrive as soon as the civil war was over and the empire’s resource were heavily depleted. When they arrived, they initially tried to establish contact through diplomacy, but after hearing of Cortes’ exploits, they thought “kill the head and the body will fall”. Pizarro was actually fond of Atahualpa, and it’s a well-known tale that he offered a massive ransom in exchange for being released from captivity, but the more hawkish conquistadors decided to have him killed anyway. One of the key characters in all this was Felipillo, the expedition’s translator, who at least in popular retelling is thought to have intentionally mistranslated the dialogue between both the Spanish and Atahualpa that led to his capture, since he was from one of the peoples conquered by the Incas
The Inca's had literally ended a massive empire wide civil war days before the conquistadors arrived. The victorious emperor hadn't even made it back to the capitol and that is why he was able to meet the conquistadors so quickly at the north end of the empire. And the conquistadors allied with the losing side of the civil war which greatly added their conquest
They barely fell to the Spanish Empire. Honestly it's something of a historical accident that they did, a fluke; in most similar 'timelines' I'd expect an independent Inca state, or a similarly indigenous successor. Pizarro got extremely lucky and the conquest was in large part a theater of the Incan civil war. Even for centuries after, much of the administration and political class in Peru was Incan, and there was even still an emperor subordinate to the Spanish crown. The Incan Empire was not so much conquered as it was absorbed and integrated, as opposed to the Aztec Empire which was certainly conquered, dismantled, and replaced I'm also hesitant to say they were at their peak, they were certainly still in the ascendant. We don't know what their peak would've been absent the Spanish
IMO without the resources of the former Atzec Empire, the Spanish wouldn't have been able to invade the Incas The region gave Madrid the ports and roads to further expand its empire in South America
While it would certainly be interesting to see the now lost cultural artifacts, I'm not sure what scientific knowledge would there be.
Can I see a source for this? I’m not doubting you, I would just like to look into it for myself.
Yeah people don't ever focus on this but human sacrifice in Aztec society got really really bad like right when the Spanish came, never in history was there a sacrifice of 48 children at the end of the dry season before or since the one time it happened it just happened to be right when the white folk showed up so it looked really really bad
>The plagues and the costant rebellions* I'm glad someone has finally pointed this out. The Aztec Empire was already in a weakened state when the Spanish arrived both politically and medically. There'd been a fairly massive plague (possibly several) that had tainted the waterways, before the Spanish came. Then there was the ongoing political strife, which Cortez took advantage of.
I think both can be true at the same time. Ancient cultures shouldn't be judged through the lens of modern beliefs and morality, but ancient cultures were also brutal as hell and frequently did horrifying things. You can recognize the evils of the Roman Empire without needing to condemn the entire society for not practicing modern moral beliefs. Same with the Aztecs. It's important to recognize the time they existed it, and it's important to recognize the aspects of that culture that were brutal when compared to other societies of that time.
I personally never say that the Aztecs "deserved" to be destroyed, but rather that you can't call them poor bastards in front of the Spanish, when they themselves were just as cruel. It is common here in the Americas to treat all natives as peacefull and innocent before the arrival of "the evil white man", when not everyone simply lived in peace in their territory, and many did terrible things. Respect and appreciation for culture, in addition to reparations for what happened to them, is one thing. Ignoring historical facts for the sake of your own Europhobia is another.
A year or so ago some outlet (pretty sure it was the Atlantic or Slate) tried to claim that it was evil white people who started scalping peaceful natives, before they were forced to edit and admit that yes it was the natives who did scalping long before white people showed up
I had a friend in college 2012 to be exact, that claimed "Natice Americans never scalped until Europeans taught them." I was dumbfounded. I asked him about the Crow Creek Massacre in South Dakota dated to the 14th century. Nearly 500 men, women and children were murdered. According to archeologists, "Most of these remains showed signs of ritual mutilation, particularly scalping. Other examples were tongues being removed, teeth broken, beheading, hands and feet being cut off, and other forms of dismemberment." I asked him what Europeans were colonizing South Dakota in the 1300s and he flat out denied that it happened. We didn't talk for a couple of months after that. Which made some of our classes together awkward. Link for the wiki page in case anyone wants to read up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Creek_massacre
I read a source (war of a thousand deserts) that indicated that it was the governor of Chihuahua, who would pay for the bodies of dead Indians during the Mexican-Indian wars, that started the scalping; so many were killed and the distances were so great that a scalp could be used as proof for payment. The southern plains and Apache/Navajo returned the favor to the Mexicans, and that practice then transferred over to northern plains Indians, who then faced the US army with "scalping" as a tradition.
> that practice then transferred over to northern plains Indians, who then faced the US army with "scalping" as a tradition As I understand it, colonial governments/armies also used scalps to verify the work of Native American auxiliaries (in conflicts like the French And Indian Wars), the same way the governor of Chihuahua did, so they were partially responsible for perpetuating the practice. It's very interesting how many cultures throughout history and across the world have used body part amputation to prove defeat of a foe, and the seeming randomness with which those cultures seemed to have chosen what body part to use as a "kill counter".
My tribe and our brother nations, Kickapoos, Shawnees and Delawares, all first took up their first scalphunting contract in the 1790s against the Osage on behalf of the Spanish. It was just business, but it created great animosity among the tribes. So much so that when all four tribes fought for the Union during the Civil War, the Kickapoos would still steal horses from the Osage and would trample their corn fields as a way of saying "screw you". My tribe and our brothers all worked in Mexico too. Kickapoos in Coahuila, and Shawnees and Delawares in Chihuahua. The Kickapoos were so successful at hunting scalps, they were granted a large plot of land in Coahuila, where they still live today.
I remember reading another outlet saying that before the white man came, the concept of rape did not exist among native Americans. The native American propaganda has been going hard this past century.
It’s always an overcorrection and overreaction to appeal to emotion. People on both sides of the spectrum do it. White nationalists and europhobes alike argue that the other side was vicious, oppressive, and evil, while their side were harbingers of peace. People need to quit trying to make a claim that one side was better and instead first learn the full history and gain a firm understanding, then you can make an argument after you truly know everything ranging from evidence of events to ethics in history.
In summary, every single civilization both sucked and did cool things as interpreted by our current culture.
The “peaceful native” myth is prevalent and detrimental to actual Native American history. This has been said by actual Native Americans who are scholars. Also, pretty sure the people the Aztecs subjugated would agree that they were bastards and pieces of shit too.
True. Not only does it dehumanize indigenous peoples, it also detracts attention from their actual historical conflicts. But the "Aztec empire" was more of an alliance of city states who held an hegemony over the region and extracted tribute (which was nothing unusual for the region). They didn't directly rule much.
You can not say "poor bastards" because they were innocent, but you can *certainly* lament the loss of culture, history, language, religion, self determination (which we still see the artifacts of today) and general civilization that the Spanish tried to eradicate (intentionally and otherwise). There are much more people who are defendants of Euro centric history because there is so much more about Euro centric history preserved, protected, and studied. Sure there's Europhobia, but there's also many of those who are neutral on the topic or some even pro Europe. Just because the Spanish and Aztecs both were morally grey (ay best) by modern standards does not mean that the systematic oppression (pillage and rape to start) of one by the other isn't morally abhorrent.
I really do not get where this perception that the dominant narrative from Indigenous advocates is just the noble savage trope comes from. The noble savage is used far more often by people who seek to erase or appropriate Indigenous history and culture rather than by people actually interested in countering Eurocentrism in history and advocating for decolonization. It really feels like a strawman and like people on the right are disingenuously using the fact that the noble savage trope is a real trope to shut down any discussion of Indigenous culture or reparations by saying "Look how terrible they were, why should we owe them anything for what we did to them?"
The issue of reparations is, well it's a double standard first of all, it's only ever directed in one way western countries and secondly everybody would be owed reparations, all the victims of the Aztecs would have claim.
I see El Chavo I upvote
For the record, the Aztecs were a very recent thing in the 1400s. They’re a lot later than one would think.
Which makes Tenochtitlan quite amazing in just how fast was built, flourished and stablished hegemony over the Altiplano and the Gulf Coast
The aztecs were barbaric by their own contemporary neighbours' standards. That's why everyone and their mother joined against them the literal first chance they got.
Not really. The Triple Alliance (the "Aztec empire" never existed) was embroiled in series of pre-existent geopolitical conflicts by the time the Spanish arrived, but it is more due to the usual reasons (land, resources, economy, dynastic politics, etc...) than due to them being particularly hated.
That’s not true, the Mexica were not considered barbaric by their neighbors, the only ones who particularly hated them were the Tlaxcalteca but this was due to them being long time enemies not for their practices, the reason city states turned on the Mexica was due to political gain, some saw a chance to intermarry with the new power of the region and gave their daughters to marry (which some Cortes took as concubines). It should be noted a lot of city states did not join until after Montezuma was killed and after the city was plagued with small pox(essentially why support a dying power when you can support the new one) Matthew Restall a modern historian has a good book on this subject called when Montezuma met Cortes
Important facts about the Aztecs: -Had some of the most sophisticating irrigation and plumbing in the Americans, with aqueducts, dikes, and levees to bring clean water to Tenochtitlan. -Also just casually building one of the largest, planned cities in human history in a marshland in the middle of a lake. -Compulsory education for all Aztec citizens, albeit varied between boys and girls, nobility and commoners. -A meritocratic system where peasants could ascend to become nobles, generals, and officials through military service (at least until Moctezuma dismantled it.) -Was at the threshold of developing a full-fledged written language, one of the few known in the Americas. -Surprisingly solid understanding of medicine and surgery, at least until they were exposed to smallpox. -A sophisticated astrological and calendar system inherited and built upon from the Toltecs, with an extensive mythological system we're just only able to scratch the surface on. -Had a trade and cultural network with formalized markets and a tribute system that went well past and outside the Valley of Mexico. Does this excuse the blood sacrifices and rampant imperialism? Fuck no, but I do think a lot of the positive/achievements of the Aztecs really get overshadowed, kind of like how the Mongols are demonized despite enabling a massive period of peace and cultural-economic exchange across all of Eurasia that's really only exceeded by the Colombian Exchange.
To be fair small pox was alien to them It be like if aliens came to Earth and we caught a disease they have and vice versa
Precisely. With what they were dealing with, their system of steam baths, herbalism, and some degree of dentistry and surgery worked with what they had available.
The Mongols are topping the list of most genocidal civilizations. Like if you gonna make a list of who's the worst it's the Mongols. The Mongols always win.
As a Mexican American this is more complicated than most think. In fact if you to the Mexico subreddit every time they mention the Aztecs they are hated and called evil. This is despite the fact that the Mexico subreddit is LEFTIST as fuck. But know what about me you may ask, I also don’t like them I tried to read about them, I tried to love them but in the end they are just so alien, with a weird religion, and human sacrifices, not to mention that they were imperialist as fuck. And just to clarify not every Mexican is a descendant of the Mexica(Aztec) tribe. A lot of Mexican probably myself are descendants of the tribes that the Aztecs oppressed.
Probably is the operative word. You’ll never know, right? I am a MA who has lived on both sides of the border. I’m not proud of either the Spanish or indigenous blood running through my veins. It just is a fact of my existence that has no bearing to my own beliefs. Horrific acts towards humanity is a fact of life for nearly every ethnic group on earth. My alliance lies with a future where these atrocities aren’t tolerated any longer—irregardless of who is behind them. The color of the skin is less Important than the spirit that moves it
A future where irregardless is a word is one we should strive to have indeed.
My family is from Mexico City, and unless your ancestors are from there, they were probably terrorized by the Aztecs. I find the Aztec culture interesting but I don’t have any real pride towards them.
The thing is that Spanish recognize valor and importance of their enemies after being conquered, They did not erased the Mexico name but instead created the kingdom of Mexico within New Spain viceroyalty
The Mexico subreddit is not leftist as fuck lol, it’s more center-right if anything
Actually I believe you are misunderstanding that subreddit, they only hate MORENA to the point that they were willing to vote for the center right party in the election. Just to clarify I’m personally a social democrat, but whatever you do pls don’t trust MORENA, they are populist. In fact MORENA is also hated by the social democracy subreddit.
The Aztecs invented precursors to hot chocolate and tamales, so that's a positive contribution.
Well the aztecs where brutal they where no worse then other cultures in Mesoamerica,and had many great accompaniments like Tenochtitlan a marvel that amazed the Spaniards who saw it' ''When we saw all those cities and villages built on water; and the other great towns on dry land, and that straight and level causeway leading to Mexico, we were astounded. These great towns and shrines and buildings rising from the water, all made of stone, seemed like an enchanted vision from the tale of Amadis. Indeed some of our soldiers asked whether it was not all a dream. It is not surprising therefore that I should write in this vein. It was all so wonderful that I do not know how to describe this first glimpse of things never heard or, never seen, and never dreamed of before.'' #
"WERE" EXISTS! AAAAARRRRGGGHHH *dies of rage* "They WERE nice to me." vs. "WHERE are my meds, martha?" Notice the difference in use. I'd love to give better examples, but I'm a german and can't think of a way to explain it on a deeper level, I'm still learning.
You did fine, it always bothers me when they mess the two up too. Thought it might have just been a typo in the meme but then I saw the comment and realized they actually might not know the difference. And they might be esl, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t hurt them to learn the difference. Gives more credibility.
also then vs than
Tbf they were legitimately worse than most other nations around them
And not by a little bit. The surrounding cultures still practiced blood sacrifice, but they did it consensually or to themselves. The Aztec's had a ritual where they would sacrifice a child and they believed that the more the child cried and suffered the more rain there would be.
We don’t necessarily know that be true, the only source we have is the Florentine Codex which was written after and by a Spanish Friar which could have been biased to make them appear worse, unfortunately and truly we have no way to know if this is true
Sources on them "doing that to themselves? Most of the Triple Alliance's human sacrifices came from the same circumstances as most other polities in the region as far as we can tell (either war prisoners, slaves or citizens).
Where were the Romans during Aztec times
The ERE was holding on by a thread and getting its ass beat by the Ottomans. The WRE was long dead and gone.
The ERE was gone for over forty years by the time Europeans made contact with the Aztecs.
He is still in our hearts
The Roman Empire was gone, but there were still free Roman Greeks in the Mani Peninsula, what was officially known as the Toparchy of Maina or Deme of Maniots in the Despotate of Morea. The Ottoman Turks never managed to conquer the place, despite invading and failing in 1480-1493 AD. When Hernán Cortés overthrew the Aztecs in 1519-1521, the free Romans were generally raiding the Southern Peloponnese and trying to recapture the Mystra and Monemvasia / Malvasia.
https://tenochtitlan.thomaskole.nl/
jfc fix your grammar And afaik they absolutely were bad guys even by mesoamerican standards
We (Reddit as a culturally western platform) are more familiar with Rome and how it evolved into... well... us. Less so with the Aztecs. Of course we will be more forgiving toward a group we identify with.
Fuck Rome , I want my temple mount back
Single issue voter
Eh, I mean everything else aside, wouldn't this be more on the Neo-Babylonians for destroying it the first time? Like I understand the 2nd temple is viewed as equal in stature, but it seems to me that's a bit foolish to claim it's a direct continuity with the first beyond location. The original central and vast temples of Judah were razed and had to be built in new ways. Not to mention, that's not a Roman trait exclusively. Groups that attempted to destroy Jerusalem and it's local faith (whatever that was at the time): Egyptians (Possibly, early Egyptian imperialism is sparse in record of how conquests went down and if local faiths were tolerated everywhere), the Assyrians (Several attempts, most notably by Sîn-aḥḥē-erība [Sennacherib]), the Arameans (Aram Damascus under ḥzʾl [Hazel]), the Philistines (seems likely given biblical accounts, but not verifiable archeologically at this time), the Neo-Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, the Hellenes under the varying Diadochi, various Islamic dynasties since the Caliphate, the Frank's and other western groups during the crusades. The only notable exceptions I can think of are *both* Persian in origin, and are the Achaemenids under Kūruš (Cyrus the Great) and the Sassanids under Khosrau, both of whom sided *with* local Jewish peoples to a degree. I guess the point is don't act like the Romans are the only ones being assholes with regards to the Temple Mount. Neo-Babylonians were just as bad if not worse, and if Assyria had taken Jerusalem it would've been apocalyptic in its ramifications. At least the Romans kept the city in tact.
…right into the arena with you
Please no !
Most definitely, but also v important to examine the hypocrisy
who says that?
As an admirer of both empires. I agree. Folks with this view are ridonculous
I noticed that as well, and I'm a big fan of Rome. It's very strange to see people defending the genocide of the Aztecs.
Nah, fuck the Romans. Carthago servanda est.
Bait.
Carthage sailed to Ireland and beyond in unprecedented journeys of trade and discovery while the Romans were still busy doing their degenerate bestiality, kidnapping their neighbour's women and getting trounced by Gauls on holidays from their homes 500km away
You can never trust Rome fans
Its almost like r/Historymemes is populated by a bunch of children, Fascists, and racists or something
Double standards are common
Me when I make a strawnman claiming other people are making strawmans.
Ehh that’s hardly a straw man, considering the amount of people you can see in various online history related spaces. Who obsess and glorify the Roman Empire and at the same time often give justifications why Aztec’s deserved to be destroyed due to how evil and brutal they were
just browse this sub. There multiple post saying that aztecs where pure evil and the spanish where based libarators. Mean while you dont see people applying those same modren morals to rome, who killed more people then the aztecs ever did
That is a reaction to people claiming that the conquistadores were evil Then, both are evil or neither are
Both were evil by our moral standards
Bruh, on pretty much every Atzek post I click on the comments are full of people talking how the Spanish people had support by the vasalls/ enemies of the Atzeks but you basicly see no people claiming the Atzeks were pure evil. Meanwhile on Roman posts I personally cant remember people defending Rome because "You cant judge by modern morals".
>There multiple post saying that aztecs where pure evil and the spanish where based libarators. You sure they're not just saying it for lolz
Reddit and taking thing at face value is an inseparable duo
I wouldn't call the Spanish saviors, but the Aztec systems of power were truly pure evil, even if the Spanish never showed up, the Aztec empire would not have lasted much longer. Even without Cortez, there was so much unrest that a coalition to overthrow the aztecs would've formed anyway.
Downvoted for pointing out common knowledge
I’ve never heard anybody say that about either
Don't get me started on the CREATORS OF CHOCOLATE. THEY ARE TRULY GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE
Curious how the “no, the human sacrifice will stop” crowd only ever posts those memes with regards to Native American cultures
Both the Roman empire and Aztec empire were barbaric and did horrific things. That being said they both also did brilliant and amazing things and had very interesting culture and the Spanish were just a bunch of tossers looking for gold in the name of god who took advantage of the Aztecs unpopularity though again have a unique and interesting culture and achieved great things
The irony of calling the Romans barbaric
Barbarian is a greek term, right? So romans were by definition barbarians :)
The Spanish did not take advantage of the Aztec unpopularity, it was not the fact that city states disliked Mexica rule, they found it politically convenient to ally with the Spanish, it’s a lot more complicated than just simply dislike. It’s a really interesting topic and makes you view the event a whole different when you look deeper into it, if you are truly interested When Montezuma met Cortes is a good book on the subject, or DJ peach cobbler has a good video series albeit a little edgy but still educational
Cobbler is peak
The spanish did the same the romans did but later. Aztecs died as carthage. Its the same story all over again.
The Spanish Inquisition was ongoing during the early colonization of America. While the conquistadors were decrying the Aztecs for killing people to please their gods, their countrymen back home were killing people to please theirs.
I read the Aztec Myths a long time ago and this one sticks out. Some of the minor details might be inaccurate, but I promise the spirit of the myth has not been altered. When the Aztecs were homelessly wandering because they had been kicked out of their home, they eventually came to a city that took them in. The City’s chief threw them a huge feast and even gave his virgin daughter to the Aztec leaders to have intimate fun with before the feast began. At the feast she was going to perform a sexy dance for everyone. Anyways, she got to the Aztec leader’s room and they killed her, skinned her, and then one of the Aztec guys wore her skin and went to the feast and danced around until her father realized that it wasn’t his daughter and she had been killed. Then the Aztecs killed everyone. Keep in mind, this wasn’t a myth made up about the Aztecs, this was part of the Aztec mythology about themselves.
Reminds me of the mythological origin of Rome. When Rome was first built, it was a small settlement that desperately needed a population increase. The rules of Rome sought to attract citizens by proclaiming that any individual, no matter what crimes they committed in the past, would be granted amnesty if they settled in Rome. This drastically increased the population but only the male population. See, women weren't exactly lining up to live in a city full of thieves, rapists and murders and thus Rome was a complete sausagefest incapable of sustaining growth. Instead of trying to clean up its image, expel the most troublesome aspects and work to attract families and single working women, the Romans devised an alternative strategy. The Romans invited the neighboring Sabine people to attend a religious festival. Specifically, they invited old men and young women. Once the Sabines arrived, the Romans beat the shit out of the old men and kidnapped/raped the women, creating the first native Roman generation. That is how the Romans chose to portray themselves: the descendants of thieves and murderers who founded their civilization via trickery, elder abuse and rape.
Aztecs ≈ Carthaginians Carthago delenda est, boys and girls
Least based SPQR take be like
Only bc people seem to think the Romans were white.
Nb. Vbb
I see the aztecs like the Romans above.
I honestly don't see much of the former.
Aztecs made the forerunners to Mexican food. In my book that is a redeeming value
I've never heard anyone say that about the Aztecs
People say they…deserved it???
Celebrate the nice, condemn the yikes. Every historical thing has good and bad.
You’re god damned right I’ll judge all civilizations by my modern standards.
It's a reactionary take for sure.
The Aztecs were considered evil for that time though. Whether you use moral standards from today or back then doesn't matter. And they used the death penalty rather...liberally. Rome also was fucked up.
I both were founded and ran by a conglomerate of mostly awful, just awful people. enough of them were awful even by standards of the time
Lets just ignore the 1500 year difference between the two.
Tacitus criticized Roman imperialism so I shall as well
It’s racism thats all it is just racism
Nice noticing.
I have never seen anyone say both of these statements. Typically you either have someone with a decent understanding of history saying we can’t judge by today’s morals or you have some dipshit saying that people back then were pure evil.
The famous daily human sacrifices by the Romans.. Oh wait
Nah, Romans were not sacrificing people in human sacrifices. It was Carthage that was sacrificing thier children to the Baal for rain. That's why Rome is based - no more children sacrifices !
Well, uh...actually, yes, they did. Nowhere near as frequent as the Aztecs, but Rome DID practice Human Sacrifice at least in some capacity. Augustus/Octavian once sacrificed one of his opponents.
The Vestal Virgins who broke their vows can also attest that.
Nah, Romans were not sacrificing people in human sacrifices. It was Carthage that was sacrificing thier children to the Baal for rain. That's why Rome is based - no more children sacrifices the romans pretty much did human sacrifice. They would parade defeated enemies in trimpus then have them executed in the temple of jupiter. Also why is "human sacrifice'' worse then killing or enslaving millions of people like the romans did? Also if your gonna hate the aztecs for killing kids then you gotta hate the romans to. Infantice was practiced on a massive scale in rome. With roman fathers having the right to have there baby left to die
> why is "human sacrifice'' worse then killing or enslaving millions of people like the romans did? I don't know, but there are a lot of cultures throughout human history, many of which could be described as violent and barbaric, where human sacrifice became *the line you never cross* - and that happened before Christian Europe and the Muslims started shaking other cultures down and destroying their religions in the service of 'the one true god'. Even in the works related to the Trojan War (and we have no idea how long those existed merely as oral traditions), things like sacrificing Iphigenia and Achilles deciding to throw a few slaves on Patroclus' funeral pyre are treated as abominations compared to the other sacrifices described. Then there's that myth about the time Tantalus served up his son as a meal to the gods, and once they realized what they had eaten, they condemned him to a pretty brutal punishment forever. Blatant human sacrifice became, over time, a taboo even in cultures that had very little contact with each other - or wouldn't bother listening to anyone else's advice about their religion, even in ancient times. Like I said, *I don't know how this happened*, because human sacrifice has at least appeared as a topic in cultures/religions across the globe - but sort of disappeared from a lot of cultures/religions around the world at a relatively ancient date. I am making a distinction here between a *public execution*, as a legal thing that is still practiced today, and a *human sacrifice* as an explicitly religious ritual. (The Romans really blurred that line, because they blurred the line between civic matters and religious matters *hard*.)
Nah, they just did it and called something else. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20726130/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20726130/) Not to mention that they executed people without even blushing. You know, they invented crucifixion?
They insisted they didn't do human sacrifice (that was something only barbaric sorcerers did), but had no issues about parading their enemies though the Sacred Street before executing them in front of the Temple of Jupiter or burying vestal virgins who broke their vows alive.
Ask the Tlaxcallans if they were happy to be devoured by Aztecs.
Ask the Gauls how they felt about the Romans
Ask the Romans how they felt about the Gauls
Except for that one especially indomitable village.
Ask Carthage or greece or Gaul or eygpt or judea or Britain or hell even Italians outside rome how they felt about rome
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Brigabor: *Ask the Tlazcalans* *If they were happy to be* *Devoured by Aztecs.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Nazis see Rome: "Muh western civilization!!!" Nazis see Tenochtitlan: "Shit, too far west, go back!!!"
one was white (citation needed) and the other wasnt
Comes down to "brown people bad" mentality. Racists gonna racist
Nah, people don't disparage the Incas or the various north Americain tribes even the militaristic ones like the Comanche. Aztecs get brought up because they were amongst the more brutal civilizations in history.
Aztecs ripping the hearts out of sacrifice victims is seen as immoral because the Aztecs didn’t build our modern civilization. we are external to Aztec civilization and can only look at it from an observer perspective On the other hand, Roman civilization is still *OUR* civilization. Rome may be long gone but we still live in Roman civilization (Roman religion (Christianity) Roman Language (Latin languages and Latin script) and Roman law (corpus Juris civilis) So any look at Roman civilization necessarily comes with caveats because of that, because if we conclude that the Romans were just as barbaric and immoral as everyone else, then we naturally have to admit that our current civilization is just as barbaric and immoral, with just a few, more modern differences. Which brings up a whole bunch of other far more complex questions that many are not prepared to answer. That’s at least how I see it
Its because they were way more violent. Evidence: https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths