This article again brings us a new perspective on the ever enthralling topic of the Flowery Wars. The author, Frederic Hicks, explores the motives of these wars. Were they truly just for bringing back sacrifices? The author elaborates that Chimalpahin, one of our greatest primary sources for information on the so called Flowery Wars, explains that the difference between a "flowery war" and a serious "mortal war" were the deaths of nobles. When the flowery-wars began "they were like a game" everyone was released "and only some commoners got killed." However, after many years of this the Flowery Wars deteriorated and it became a war "based on anger." The nobles captured were not given back, but instead were also sacrificed.
The author instead proposes that the "flowery wars" were actually exercises in military training. When Andres de Tapia, one of Cortes's captains, asks Moctezuma II, ruler of Tenochtitlan, why the Triple Alliance (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, Tacuba) doesn't just conquer the Tlaxcalans, Moctezuma replies "there would be no place where our youth could train themselves, except far away, and also, we desire that there should always be people to sacrifice to our gods."
For the Aztecs, military training was essential in gaining social recognition and the most skillful warriors were awarded with jewels and were able to occupy high supervisory and leadership posts. Moctezuma would have needed a well-trained army to quell the numerous local rebellions that would frequently occur. The author suggests that the best training is combat, and that emperors would simply attack when there weren't any actual wars going on. Thus, there was a strong incentive for warriors to capture and bring back their opponents for sacrifice. For an explanation of the sacrifices Hicks hypothesizes that they were political, a way of showing military might, as well as providing a way to showcase the power of individual captors. The author says that it is a generalization to assume that wars were waged just for sacrificial victims.
I thought this article was really amazing and I would recommend it to anyone who wanted to read up on the Aztecs. It offers a valuable different perspective from the most commonly accepted theory on "Flowery Wars." I am more inclined to believe this theory. It seems more realistic than immaculate ritual battles where everybody goes home happy.
"Flowery War" in Aztec History by Frederic Hicks
This article again brings us a new perspective on the ever enthralling topic of the Flowery Wars. The author, Frederic Hicks, explores the motives of these wars. Were they truly just for bringing back sacrifices? The author elaborates that Chimalpahin, one of our greatest primary sources for information on the so called Flowery Wars, explains that the difference between a "flowery war" and a serious "mortal war" were the deaths of nobles. When the flowery-wars began "they were like a game" everyone was released "and only some commoners got killed." However, after many years of this the Flowery Wars deteriorated and it became a war "based on anger." The nobles captured were not given back, but instead were also sacrificed.
The author instead proposes that the "flowery wars" were actually exercises in military training. When Andres de Tapia, one of Cortes's captains, asks Moctezuma II, ruler of Tenochtitlan, why the Triple Alliance (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, Tacuba) doesn't just conquer the Tlaxcalans, Moctezuma replies "there would be no place where our youth could train themselves, except far away, and also, we desire that there should always be people to sacrifice to our gods."
For the Aztecs, military training was essential in gaining social recognition and the most skillful warriors were awarded with jewels and were able to occupy high supervisory and leadership posts. Moctezuma would have needed a well-trained army to quell the numerous local rebellions that would frequently occur. The author suggests that the best training is combat, and that emperors would simply attack when there weren't any actual wars going on. Thus, there was a strong incentive for warriors to capture and bring back their opponents for sacrifice. For an explanation of the sacrifices Hicks hypothesizes that they were political, a way of showing military might, as well as providing a way to showcase the power of individual captors. The author says that it is a generalization to assume that wars were waged just for sacrificial victims.
I thought this article was really amazing and I would recommend it to anyone who wanted to read up on the Aztecs. It offers a valuable different perspective from the most commonly accepted theory on "Flowery Wars." I am more inclined to believe this theory. It seems more realistic than immaculate ritual battles where everybody goes home happy.