Was is the truth about Montzuma and aztec religion?

Plotinus said:

The Spanish didn't conquer the Aztecs and convert them because the Aztecs had a hideous religion.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but let's say the Spanish arrive to the new world, and find that the Aztecs are Christian. Let's ignore for a second how that might be possible.

It seems to me that the Spaniards would be far more hesitant to conquer the Aztecs, but maybe I am overestimating how much they'd venerate a Christian culture vs a "pagan/barbaric" one.

I don't know, I think Christians in late medieval and early modern times were just as happy to slaughter each other and steal their lands as they were to do it to people of other religions. It's not like there was perfect peace between all Europeans from the end of the first millennium onwards...

True, some of the most devoted Indian-killers honed their craft on fellow Christians in Germany and Ireland. It would depend on exactly what kind of Christians the Americans were and how early relations unfolded.

Can you give me a bit more information on that? I had known about the development of tactics that would later be used by the English in America in Ireland, but I've yet to find any specific biographic links, so that would be super helpful.

Also, I don't know anything about Germany there, so that would be super informative.

In fact the debate about if spaniards had the right to bring war to indigenous kingdoms, conquer them and enslave its inhabitants was a hot one along 16th century Spain.

Since the early Laws of Burgos through the famous Valladolid debate with Bartolome de las Casas (the good guy) vs Gines de Sepulveda (the bad guy), the question spinned around the true nature of indians and his religion. Human sacrifices, cannibalism and such aided Sepulveda's view about indians being inferiors so they could be freely conquered, enslaved and forcefully converted against las Casas views of indians having human rights so his lives, lands and culture should be respected.

Finally las Casas somewhat won the debate so the New Laws of the Indies for the Good Treatment and Preservation of the Indians were promulgated. However a thing is to promulgate laws and another one is to enforce them. In fact the attempt to enforce the "New Laws" at the Americas led to an open war against the encomenderos (land owners) who commanded by Gonzalo Pizarro (Francisco's brother) even killed the spanish viceroy who tried to apply the laws (later Gonzalo was captured and executed) so from that point on the New Laws were rarely enforced.

So, if indian original religion had been some sort of christianism the whole scenery had been very different. At least from a legal point of view.

so then was the conquest of the aztecs justified? What is the definition of just war?

By the Catholic definition of a just war, at least, there's no way the conquest of the Aztecs was justified irrespective of their religion. It's a very stringent definition (Benedict XVI raised the question whether, at least today with modern technology, any wars at all can be just).

ubergeneral said:

so then was the conquest of the aztecs justified? What is the definition of just war?

Click to expand...

The most authoritative opinion on such matter was Francisco de Vitoria, who was usually consulted by emperor Carlos V. He is considered one of the fathers (or the grandfather) of international laws.

Vitoria's views on just war which rooted in Thomas Aquina and scholassticism, was one of the main points used by Bartolome de las Casas to defend the indians, since Vitoria rejected religious differences as a valid casus belli

dp...

oceloxochitl said:

thing is, though, -- very often the people being sacrificed were compliant and willing, which makes sense considering that
1) everyone believed that a steady stream of sacrifices (and not just human sacrifices, animals or possessions were often sacrificed as well) was what kept the universe running. that if nothing were sacrificed, nothing new could be born.
2) per aztec mythology, those being sacrificed (along with those who died at war) would be reincarnated as hummingbirds, butterflies, etc while those who died a "natural death" went to a hell battered by obsidian-laden winds.

imo the blanket condemnation for aztec religion that i see everywhere is based on ignorance and cultural imperialism.

Click to expand...

This is the most interesting post i've seen. I haven't heard anyone say anything like this. Can you give me a source?

actully i've been finding blogs by people that still worship old relgions, anyone have a source by someone that still worships the aztec gods?

warpus said:

I don't disagree, but let's say the Spanish arrive to the new world, and find that the Aztecs are Christian. Let's ignore for a second how that might be possible.

It seems to me that the Spaniards would be far more hesitant to conquer the Aztecs, but maybe I am overestimating how much they'd venerate a Christian culture vs a "pagan/barbaric" one.

Click to expand...

What kind of Christian are the Aztecs in this scenario ? If they're not Catholics they are heretics and worse than pagans. If the are Catholic they obviously don't have any contact with Rome and have their own pope which makes them even worse than normal heretics.

I agree. In general catholics (and others of course) have seen people of not abrahamic religions more indulgently than people of others religions "of the book" (christians, muslims and jews) since they didnt received "the word" so didnt have the chance to accept Jesuchrist and such. Muslims, jews and protestants were much worse since they received the message and rejected it, or even worse twisted and perverted it!

ParkCungHee said:

Can you give me a bit more information on that? I had known about the development of tactics that would later be used by the English in America in Ireland, but I've yet to find any specific biographic links, so that would be super helpful.

Also, I don't know anything about Germany there, so that would be super informative.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't bring many specific examples to mind. John Smith of Virginia fame had fought in the Netherlands for both the French and the Dutch against the Spanish, and most of the other adventurers involved in the early English colonisation had similar backgrounds. A lot of the Scots and German settlers that arrived in the early 18th century came from frontier regions like Ulster and the Palatine, and a lot of them had seen at least some conflict. I also know that some of the Redcoats that were shipped over during the French & Indian War were veterans of conflicts in Germany, Ireland and Scotland, mostly the older NCOs and officers by that point, although again I can only bring a couple of specific examples to mind, the 44th and 48th Regiments of Foot which had participated in the suppression of the '45 Rising and aftermath. (They're notable because they were sent to the North-Western Frontier on the basis that they knew how to fight guerillas, which was true-ish, but it turns out that experience doesn't count for much if your General marches you into and ambush and then gets himself shot.)

I'm one of these people who is quite good at picking up general information but really, really bad at keeping notes or references, so I'm afraid that I'm probably not much use here.

John Smith of Virginia fame told so many lies about his background that I don't know that you can say with certainty anything he is said to have done, which wasn't directly witnessed by multiple others, is true.

True, but this particular claim is pretty uncontroversial. There was nothing terribly unusual about Britons fighting as mercenaries on the Continent, and his memoirs don't embellish that period of his life overmuch, presumably because there was the possibility that somebody would contradict him. Most of the really ridiculous stuff comes a little later, when he was fighting Turks in Hungary, far enough away from most literate English-speakers to claim pretty much whatever he pleased.

My understanding is the biggest thing the English learned from fighting the Irish was the plantation style of colonization - the idea of settling to exclude those who are already living there.

I've also heard Spanish colonization of the Canary Islands were used as their lesson for colonizing the Caribbean (which involved utilizing the native population for labor, growing a single cash crop). Spanish colonization of mainland America didn't quite seem to follow that model, though. Not sure if there was an analogy there.

Pretty accurate. The Spanish did gradually introduce plantation-style agriculture in mainland South America, but it took about a century to really get going, and tended to be focused on producing foodstuffs for the New World market rather than luxury goods for Europe.

Louis XXIV said:

My understanding is the biggest thing the English learned from fighting the Irish was the plantation style of colonization - the idea of settling to exclude those who are already living there.

I've also heard Spanish colonization of the Canary Islands were used as their lesson for colonizing the Caribbean (which involved utilizing the native population for labor, growing a single cash crop). Spanish colonization of mainland America didn't quite seem to follow that model, though. Not sure if there was an analogy there.

Click to expand...

Spanish colonization of the islands actually usually resulted in the deaths of the entire local indigenous populations. And then the Spanish would ship in more slaves from the continent and Africa. Plantation agriculture on islands was fairly easy, because there was no place for the workforce to run off to. On the continent, runaway slaves, both Indian and African, was an endemic problem. More native Indians survived on the continent. But the first priority was mining, not plantations.

ubergeneral said:

Such terrible logic here.

religion is notorious for evolving as time goes on. I'd also say that the the method of sacrifice is immoral. But Aztec religion could have changed to fit into modern times, just because one part of the religion is bad doesn't mean the whole culture had to be wiped out through a combination of war and disease! What the Christian is indirectly trying to argue was the what happened to the Aztec was the will of god. This of course is impossible because god doesn't exist.

Besides Christianity was just as bad at the time. If I were to go up to a priest and say that Christians are bad because of the inquisition and crusades they would just say that the religion has changed. It's too easy to turn that argument around and say the same about Aztec Religion.

Click to expand...

fair point, though I'll ignore the "LoL GoD R FaKe" because it's pointless to argue. As for the rest of your argument it's not like today's Jews still bring sacrifices (though some would if they actually had the right temple for it). And Christians don't use religion as an excuse to go to war anymore (the current Pope has even realized that nobody's going to switch their denomination just because and it's better to just accept that Christians are Christians, regardless of denomination).
So, yes, the Aztec religion could have definitely evolved, I agree. But, the question of how much still exists. Would they just sacrifice less people? Would they start sacrificing just animals? Would they stop sacrificing period? We'll never know.

ubergeneral said:

and this is also a problem. People usually see WW2 and us beating the "evil" nazis because they were killing jews. I truely think the americans had no business going to war with hitler. When I said this all of a sudden I magically am painted as an anti-semite. People make up their own version of history.

Click to expand...

Your first point, about the perceptions of the war, is true. However, your second one is wrong. At first, we had no right to join the war, so we were fairly neutral before Pearl Harbor. I say "fairly," because we were involved indirectly, but we weren't officially part of the war at the time.
Then we got sneak attacked and brought into it. After that, Japan went to their buddy Germany and said, "Hey, so we bombed America and now it's time to hold up your end of the deal and fight them with us, like you said you would. Hitler said so." We'd eventually bomb Japan back later and scare them enough that they started making Godzilla movies...but that's a different story for a different thread.
So, anyway, Germany's Foreign Minister Ribbentrop basically looked for loopholes and said that the Tripartite Pact said that they had Japan's back if they got attacked, but didn't say anything about Japan making the first strike, but Hitler deaded that argument and said, "Nah, Japan, I got you. They've been provoking me anyway."
So, after Germany declared war on us, we declared war back on them. And that's how we got into both theaters of WWII. We totally had a reason for war with Germany, even if our buddies the English being at war with them already isn't enough reason for you.
And then some dude named John became an Austronesian god, or something.

warpus said:

I don't disagree, but let's say the Spanish arrive to the new world, and find that the Aztecs are Christian. Let's ignore for a second how that might be possible.

Click to expand...

well, my joke answer is that the mormons are right:
"While the Bible is written by and about the people in the land of Israel and surrounding areas, and takes place from the creation of the world until shortly after the death of Jesus Christ, The Book of Mormon contains the history and God's dealings with the people who lived in the Americas between approximately 600 BC and 400 AD...[a]nd in the Bible, Jesus told His apostles, 'Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd' (John 10:16). Christ visited these 'other sheep' in the Americas after He was resurrected, teaching the same message to the Nephites that He taught to the people of Israel." (source)

It seems to me that the Spaniards would be far more hesitant to conquer the Aztecs, but maybe I am overestimating how much they'd venerate a Christian culture vs a "pagan/barbaric" one.

Click to expand...

while this has already been answered, it's definitely doubtful that they'd care if these guys were christian. they'd slaughter them a little bit less at the very most.

The bigger issue is probably how Christianity would influence the Aztec response to European intrusion. The Spanish "conquest", and in 1521 that's not even really the right word, was achieved through a luck, savvy and sheer bloody-mindedness rather than actual military superiority, and if Cortés & Co. hadn't blundered into just the right set of political circumstances, it's quite possible that he'd be remembered as nothing more than another glorified mobster who wandered into the interior and got himself killed.