How did Hernán Cortés and his conquistador’s, who were in now Mexico, have enough ammunition to fight the natives while staying for years 1519–1521
In: Other
A lot of the replies here are wrong
Firstly, For OP,: Cortes got reinforcements with additional men and supplies, including ammo, at many times across his expedition. Most notably when he convinced Narvaez’s Conquistadors to join him.
It is also true that Cortes allied with many local city-states and kingdoms (not “tribes”, the region had [cities, writing, etc for millennia](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh3s50/) ), and armies from those states using local weaponry and armor made up the vast majority of the forces against the Aztec capital.
But those alliances didn’t happen because the Aztec were resented for collecting sacrifices: The Aztec DIDN’T usually demand captives as taxes/tributes, and sacrifice was also a widespread practice everybody in the region did, not just the Aztec
The actual reason Cortes got most allies is ironically that Aztec rule (and what most other states in Mesoamerica also did) was hands off, and that looseness left their subject states with their own interests, and the ability to secede or opportunistically switch sides, which was a common tactic to gain power or take out rivals. Only a small % of the Aztec’s subjects switched sides, too.
The reason behind the misconception is because Tlaxcala was one of Cortes’s main allied states, and it was at war with the Aztec at the time and did hold a grudge. But other states had other motives, and even Tlaxcala was also trying to gain political power
For a non ELI5, longer explanation, see below
——-
The Aztec Empire largely relied on indirect, “soft” methods of establishing political influence over subject states, like most large Mesoamerican powers (likely from lacking draft animals): Stuff like conquering a subject and establishing a tax-paying relationship or installing rulers from their own political dynasty (and hoped they stayed loyal); or leveraging succession claims to prior acclaimed figures/cultures, your economic network, or military prowess; to court states into political marriages as allies and/or being voluntary vassals to get better trade access or protection from foreign threats. The sort of traditional “imperial”, Roman style empire where you’re directly governing subjects, establishing colonies or imposing customs or a national identity was rare in Mesoamerica
The Aztec Empire was actually more hands off in some ways vs large Classic Maya dynasties, the Zapotec kingdom headed by Monte Alban, or the [Purepecha Empire](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/uo13po/the_tarascanpurepecha_empire_mexicos_forgotten/i8bdvhx/): In contrast, **the Aztec generally just left it’s subjects alone, with their existing rulers, laws, and customs**: Subjects did have to pay taxes of economic goods, provide military aid, not block roads, and put up a shrine to the Huitzilopochtli, the patron god of Tenochtitlan and it’s inhabitants, the Mexica (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/ko04hn/looks_like_a_good_spot_to_me/gho206l/) for Mexica vs Aztec etc as terms), but that was usually it
When conquering a city, the Mexica were not usually razing the whole city or enslaving/sacrificing everybody (tho they did sometimes): In general, sacrifices were done by EVERYBODY in Mesoamerica, not just the Mexica, and most victims were enemy soldiers captured in wars, or were slaves given as spoils by a surrendering city. Captives as regular tax payments (which were mostly goods like cotton, cacao, gold etc) were rare, and even those few times were usually a subject sending captured soldiers taken from enemy states, not of their own people. Some Conquistadors do report that Cempoala (one of 3 capitals of the Totonac civilization) accused the Mexica of dragging off women and children, but this seems to be a sob story to get the Conquistadors to help them take out Tzinpantzinco, a rival Totonac capital, which they lied was an Aztec fort
This indirect hegemonic system left subjects with agency to act independently + with their own ambitions & interests, encouraging opportunistic secession: Indeed, it was pretty much a tradition for far off Aztec provinces to stop paying taxes after a Mexica king died so unloyal ones could try to get away without paying, and for those more invested in Aztec power, to test the new emperor’s worth, as the successor would have to reconquer these areas. Tizoc did so poorly in these initial & subsequent campaigns, it just caused more rebellions and threatened to fracture the empire, and he was assassinated by his own nobles. His successor, Ahuizotl, got *ghosted* at his own coronation ceremony by other kings invited to it, as Aztec influence had declined that much:
> The sovereign of Tlaxcala …was unwilling to attend the feasts in Tenochtitlan [as he] could make a festival… whenever… The ruler of Tliliuhquitepec [said] the same… The king of Huexotzinco promised to go but never appeared. The ruler of Cholula…asked to be excused… The lord of Metztitlan angrily expelled the Aztec messengers and warned them…the people of his province might kill them…
Keep in mind rulers from cities at war still visited the other for festivals even when their own captured soldiers were being sacrificed, blowing off a diplomatic summon like this is a big deal
A great method in this system to advance politically is to offer yourself as a subject(since subjects mostly got left alone anyways) or ally to some other ambitious state, and then working together to conquer your existing rivals or current capital, and then you’re in a position of higher political standing in the new kingdom you helped prop up
This is what was going on with the Conquistadors (and how the Aztec Empire itself was founded Texcoco and Tlacopan joined forces with Tenochtitlan to overthrow their capital of Azcapotzalco, after it’s king dying caused a succession crisis). Consider that of the states which supplied troops and armies for the Siege of Tenochtitlan (most of whom, like Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco etc shared a valley with Tenochtitlan, and BENEFITTED from the taxes Mexica conquests brought and their political marriages with it), almost all allied with Cortes only after Tenochtitlan had been struck by smallpox, Moctezuma II had died, the Toxcatl massacre etc: so AFTER it was vulnerable and unable to project influence much (which meant Texcoco, Chalco now had less to lose by switching sides): Prior to then, the only siege-participant already allied with Cortes was Tlaxcala, wasn’t a subject but an enemy state the Mexica were actively at war with (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/18gc53q/whats_the_least_immoral_empire_when_compared_to/kd5seg7/) for more info on that/”Flower Wars” being misunderstood), and even it allied with Cortes in part to further its own influence (see below). And even Xochimilco, parts of Texcoco’s realm, etc DID initially side with Tenochtitlan in the siege, and only switched after being defeated and forced to by the Conquistadors and Tlaxcalteca etc (and when they did, gave various Conquistadors princesses as attempted political marriages, showing the same opportunistic alliance building was at play, tho the Spanish mistook this as gifts of concubines)
This also explains why the Conquistadors *continued* to make alliances with various Mesoamerican states even when the Aztec weren’t involved: The Zapotec kingdom of Tehuantepec allied with Conquistadors to take out the rival [Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/ccxz7l/what_is_the_mostly_unknown_but_great_empire_in/etqw9gc/)), or the Iximche allying with Conquistadors to take out the K’iche Maya etc
This also illustrates how it was really as much or more the Mesoamericans manipulating the Spanish as the other way around: as noted, Cempoala tricked Cortes into raiding a rival, but then led the Conquistadors into getting attacked by the Tlaxcalteca; whom the Spanish only survived due to Tlaxcalteca officials deciding to use them against the Mexica. And while in Cholula en route to Tenochtitlan, the Tlaxcalteca seemingly fed Cortes info about an ambush which led them sacking it, which allowed the Tlaxcalteca to install a puppet government after Cholula had just switched from being a Tlaxcaltec to a Mexica ally. Even when the Siege of Tenochtitlan was underway, armies from Texcoco, Tlaxcala, etc were attacking cities and towns that would have suited THEIR interests after they won but that did nothing to help Cortes in his ambitions, with Cortes forced to play along. Rulers like Ixtlilxochitl II (a king/prince of Texcoco, who actually did have beef with Tenochtitlan since they supported a different prince during a succession dispute: HE sided with Cortes early in the siege, unlike the rest of Texcoco), Xicotencatl I and II, etc probably were calling the shots as much as Cortes
Moctezuma II letting Cortes into Tenochtitlan also makes sense when you consider what I said above about Mesoamerican diplomatic norms, and also since the Mexica had been beating up on Tlaxcala (who nearly beat Cortes) for ages: [denying their entry would be seen as cowardly and perhaps incite secessions. Moctezuma was probably trying to court the Conquistadors into becoming a subject by showing off the glory of Tenochtitlan](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/1bdaydq/what_are_some_of_the_most_misunderstood/kux7qem/)
To be clear, the Mexica were absolutely conquerors and could still pressure subjects into complying via indirect means or launching an invasion if necessary, but they weren’t particularly hands on, or resented more then any big military power was
—–
For more info about Mesoamerica, see my 3 comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh1756/); the first mentions accomplishments, the second info about sources, and the third with a summarized timeline
Latest Answers