ROSS HASSIG -- Ph.D. Stanford University –  Professor at University of Oklahoma

As you note, there was no Thucydides for the Aztecs.  In fact, there are no first-hand accounts at all. With the exception of at least one codex that predates the Conquest and adds nothing to your question, all the sources are colonial ones, and most were written many decades after, and usually by Spaniards or mestizos.   In any case, the give and take of politics is largely absent, and a seemless  picture is presented.  So there are a lot of questions that can’t be satisfactorily answered.

But of those that can, there was absolutely factionalism in Aztec politics.  Indeed in all Central Mexican politics.  The pre-Aztec empire of the Tepanecs was brought down largely as a result of factional divisions.  Cortes gained the Tlaxcaltecs as allies as a result of factional politics, as he did the Tetzcocans, and Aztec history is riven with it.  For instance, of the twelve Aztec kings/emperors (of whom only eight are relevant as the last three died after the Spaniards arrived), two were definitely assassinated, presumably by alienated factions, and I would say at least one, and possibly three more, were as well.  There was a lot of jockeying for power.

There is no evidence that I can think of that suggests other sorts of factions – religious, class, occupation – in the political realm. All the players seem to be various kings and nobles, all of whom saw themselves as potential emperors or kings.  As on example, after the arrival of Grijalva in 1518, the Aztecs knew about the Spaniards and Montezuma and his counselors debated what course of action they should take.  At least one group wanted to launch an army lest the Spaniards return, but Montezuma and his group argued otherwise.  One of the pro-military people was Cuitlahua, Montezuma’s brother and eventual successor, who had to flee the city to avoid arrest and perhaps worse.

As for the decisions to go to war, the king had counselors who advised him and they doubtlessly had various agendas, he also had to consult with the knightly orders and they could say no.  If he persisted, on the fourth request, they would accede, but if things went wrong, the king was then deemed solely responsible.  But I know of no information that indicates one factions interests could trigger war except for the king, whose interests did not include everyone’s.  But it is certainly plausible that one group might push for war.  For instance, we do know that if merchants were attacked, the Aztecs might launch armies against their attackers, and the merchants’ interests were not always the states....

But good luck,

Ross Hassig 

------------------------------

FRANCES BERDAN -- Ph.D.  University of Texas – Professor at California State University, San Bernardino

Actually, while we lack the Classic observer, you are nonetheless in luck.  There are indeed several indications in the documentary record that suggest political factions. For instance, the death of the rather inept Mexica ruler Tizoc was most likely not an accident, and the circumstances surrounding Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin’s imprisonment and death (during the Spanish ‘occupation’ of Tenochtitlan) see to be strongly indicative of differing political factions vying for power in an uncertain situation.  That same Motecuhzoma’s political policies also suggest that he was trying to consolidate various elements of Aztec society in solidifying his power base.  In general, it’s safe to say that in the Aztec city-states there was fragmentation and uncertainty especially whenever a ruler died, as there was intense competition for his position, and unusually a number of possible “candidates.”

The second part of your question is a little more difficult: the role of political divisions in triggering wars.  As you know, Aztec society was consistently war-like in any event.  Tizoc may well have been eliminated because he just wasn’t up to snuff in that realm of life.  Certainly it was very important that each new ruler solidify his position with a hearty conquest and a goodly display of sacrificial victims from that conquest, so warfare and succession were interlinked in that way.  Divisions also occurred along other lines.  There are cases where the enmity between city-states resulted in one of them (an Aztec subject) calling upon the Aztecs to help them fight their old enemy (resulting in another Aztec conquest – pretty handy).  And the case of a conquered city-state rebelling, and the commoners (perhaps not only commoners) of that province turning against their own local ruler and his cronies.

All of this may have some time depth.  There is some suggestion that the myth or history (there was a very fine line here) of the conflict between the gods (or high priests) Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca in Tula was a “playing out” of a dispute between factions (see Nicholson’s book on Quetzalcoatl).  The same may be said about the tiff between Huitzilopochtli and his sister goddess on their trek to the Basin of Mexico....

I hope this is helpful to you.  If I think of more examples.  I’ll let you know.

Best of luck.  You have a terrific (and enormous!) Project – I will be eager to see it appear!

Best wishes,

Frannie Berden   
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOYCE MARCUS -- Ph.D. Harvard University – Professor at University of Michigan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELIZABETH BRUMFIEL -- Ph.D. University of Michigan – Professor at Northwestern University

Dear Dr. Kolkey,

Good question and an interesting thesis! 

Good luck!....

Best,

Liz Brumfiel  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL SCHOLARLY CONFIRMATIONS WILL BE POSTED AS SOON AS THEY ARE RECEIVED