Was is the truth about Montzuma and aztec religion?

Ok so i'm reading a book about the vision of guadelupe and since the book is about a christian event, its really taking a big crap all over aztec religion

First chapter focuses on how "bad" the religion was by focusing on the human sacrifice and cannabalism

I sorta think that the book has really skewed facts to make aztec relgion look evil so what is the truth?

It claims that in one year the aztecs sacrificed over 200,000 people. I sorta think this is high

is also insisted that they were cannabals but other sources I see dispute this saying it's not clear

last it says that they went to war just to get more people to sacrifice. I don't think that was the only reason

another thing is the myth about Quetzalcoatl. According to the book Montizuma believed in a leagend involving white bearded men and thought the spanish were the prophacy comming true. I think this story is an outright lie made up by the spanish, but I have no proof. The winners write history.

What really happened? Is the book right, or is this just a religious radical trying to make pagans look evil?

ubergeneral said:

It claims that in one year the aztecs sacrificed over 200,000 people. I sorta think this is high

Click to expand...

Two hundred thousand is certainly an extreme estimate, but nobody's quite sure what the numbers are, and some scholars have suggested figures of twenty thousand a year, while others say as few as maybe four hundred. Most sacrificial victims were captured enemy warriors, so in part it probably depends on how many wars the Aztecs were fighting and how successful they were. It was also dependent on the ritual peculiarities of the calendar, so in certain months of certain years large numbers of captives would be killed, while at other times only a handful of specially-selected sacrifices would be made.

is also insisted that they were cannabals but other sources I see dispute this saying it's not clear

Click to expand...

The warrior elite did seem to engage in some sort of ritual cannibalism of slain enemies, but it wasn't a regular occurrence. It seemed to function as a sort of edible trophy and was really about the absorption of the spiritual power of the slain enemy than about the flesh itself; some sources claim that the flesh was prepared as food but then replaced with turkey before actually being consumed, which suggests that the actual physical act of ingesting the meat was secondary to the ritual surrounding it.

last it says that they went to war just to get more people to sacrifice. I don't think that was the only reason

Click to expand...

Sort of. The "Flower wars" were a form of ritualised warfare which allowed city-states to acquire sacrificial captives, but it was also a way of affirming or adjusting diplomatic relations and of giving warriors a chance to gain/maintain martial honour during peace-time. It was more like a lethal version of a Medieval European tourney, which served could serve a similar ceremonial and diplomatic function, than a more conventional war slave-raid.

another thing is the myth about Quetzalcoatl. According to the book Montizuma believed in a leagend involving white bearded men and thought the spanish were the prophacy comming true. I think this story is an outright lie made up by the spanish, but I have no proof. The winners write history.

Click to expand...

Not an outright lie, but a huge exaggeration. The Aztecs did seem to attribute some magical or otherworldly significance to the Spaniards because of their exotic appearance and perhaps the date of their arrival, but the Aztecs attached that sort of significance to a lot of stuff, and there's no real evidence that they saw the Spaniards as gods rather than just as vaguely magical foreigners. (Which is quite reasonable, when you think about it from the Aztecs' point of view: these pale, shaggy humanoids come clattering about in exotic metals, riding giant deer-pigs and waving around staffs that shoot fire. If they're not at least a little magical, then what the hell are they?) Initially I think it was genuine misapprehension on the part of the Spaniards, who being orthodox Catholics couldn't really grasp the idea of otherwordly but non-divine beings and so mistook the attribution of magical powers for an attribution of godhood. It was certainly exaggerated by later chroniclers and historians, though, as a way of emphasising the alleged "primitiveness" of the Aztecs and contrasting it with the "rationality" of the Spaniards.


Basically, the author of your book doesn't seem to be telling outright lies, but he's leaning on traditional exaggerations or misrepresentations that serve to depict pre-Christian Americans as, if not evil then at least "barbarous", and to emphasis the relative benevolence of Europeans.

Traitorfish said:

Two hundred thousand is certainly an extreme estimate, but nobody's quite sure what the numbers are, and some scholars have suggested figures of twenty thousand a year, while others say as few as maybe four hundred. Most sacrificial victims were captured enemy warriors, so in part it probably depends on how many wars the Aztecs were fighting and how successful they were. It was also dependent on the ritual peculiarities of the calendar, so in certain months of certain years large numbers of captives would be killed, while at other times only a handful of specially-selected sacrifices would be made.


The warrior elite did seem to engage in some sort of ritual cannibalism of slain enemies, but it wasn't a regular occurrence. It seemed to function as a sort of edible trophy and was really about the absorption of the spiritual power of the slain enemy than about the flesh itself; some sources claim that the flesh was prepared as food but then replaced with turkey before actually being consumed, which suggests that the actual physical act of ingesting the meat was secondary to the ritual surrounding it.


Sort of. The "Flower wars" were a form of ritualised warfare which allowed city-states to acquire sacrificial captives, but it was also a way of affirming or adjusting diplomatic relations and of giving warriors a chance to gain/maintain martial honour during peace-time. It was more like a lethal version of a Medieval European tourney, which served could serve a similar ceremonial and diplomatic function, than a more conventional war slave-raid.


Not an outright lie, but a huge exaggeration. The Aztecs did seem to attribute some magical or otherworldly significance to the Spaniards because of their exotic appearance and perhaps the date of their arrival, but the Aztecs attached that sort of significance to a lot of stuff, and there's no real evidence that they saw the Spaniards as gods rather than just as vaguely magical foreigners. (Which is quite reasonable, when you think about it from the Aztecs' point of view: these pale, shaggy humanoids come clattering about in exotic metals, riding giant deer-pigs and waving around staffs that shoot fire. If they're not at least a little magical, then what the hell are they?) Initially I think it was genuine misapprehension on the part of the Spaniards, who being orthodox Catholics couldn't really grasp the idea of otherwordly but non-divine beings and so mistook the attribution of magical powers for an attribution of godhood. It was certainly exaggerated by later chroniclers and historians, though, as a way of emphasising the alleged "primitiveness" of the Aztecs and contrasting it with the "rationality" of the Spaniards.


Basically, the author of your book doesn't seem to be telling outright lies, but he's leaning on traditional exaggerations or misrepresentations that serve to depict pre-Christian Americans as, if not evil then at least "barbarous", and to emphasis the relative benevolence of Europeans.

Click to expand...

very impressive knowledge, dear sir.

I've read that the conquistadores were in an absolute awe when they first saw Tenochtitlan. The city was huge and riddled with canals, most buildings and pyramids(temples) were quite new, the city was about 200 years old. The architectural style was totally different from the European one (wish I could see it!). Later the Spanish re built the city in a European fashion.
Aztecs believed that by performing the human sacrifices they were doing their deities, themselves and the world a whole bunch of good/favor.

Wellll... yes, they did built impressive stuff, and had their rituals which were foreigner to the spaniards. But they also had one of the most singularly bloodthirsty religions in the world at the time (the most, probably). you can argue as much as you want that opther religious caused a lot of death in the form of religious wars and persecutions, but the aztec one demanded human sacrifices as part of their rituals.

Honestly: what I say is good riddance, they had it coming. And if they hadn't been such murderous, oppressive bastards the spaniards probably wouldn't have had all the neighboring tribes joining in to crush and wipe out the Aztecs.

Claims of cannibalism were very often used in latin america to justify offensive wars against natives (unlike, you know, north America where no excuse was necessary). It doesn't mean they weren't true.

Questions:

When was the book written? Who wrote the book? Is the author a professor at a university/which university? Which publisher was it published under?

These are the first questions you should be asking any time you buy/read a history book.

innonimatu said:

Honestly: what I say is good riddance, they had it coming. And if they hadn't been such murderous, oppressive bastards the spaniards probably wouldn't have had all the neighboring tribes joining in to crush and wipe out the Aztecs.

Claims of cannibalism were very often used in latin america to justify offensive wars against natives (unlike, you know, north America where no excuse was necessary). It doesn't mean they weren't true.

Click to expand...

....

and this is the problem. The whole book basically takes what traitorfish says and uses it as a means to conquer the Aztecs and convert them. The Spanish came to conquer the Aztecs and walked away with the pockets full of gold. But hey, I guess Genocide is ok as long as it's in the name of god, right?

the story of Juan de ego and the visions of Guadeloupe is just a pious tale using symbolism that the Aztecs understood on convert them Christianity. I don't feel that religious conversion is just, and that the Aztec religion could have had a place in today's world, instead the Spanish came and systematically deconstructed their culture.

I'm not ok with that.

The Spanish didn't conquer the Aztecs and convert them because the Aztecs had a hideous religion. However, the Aztecs did have a hideous religion, and other considerations aside, the world is a better place without it. Just as one might say that the Allies didn't fight the Nazis because they were genocidal antisemites, but the world is a better place without them.

That still leaves open the question whether what was done to the Aztecs was right or justified, of course. But I don't think it helps to romanticise what was a really brutal culture.

What are we defining as a brutal though? Christian Europe had plenty of ritual slaughter as well.

daft said:

I've read that the conquistadores were in an absolute awe when they first saw Tenochtitlan.

Click to expand...

All things aside, Tenochtitlan was an AMAZING city. Do a Google image search for it, it's totally worth it. It was very cleverly engineered too. While it didn't have any technology that the Europeans didn't possess (it probably didn't have any tech that the Sumerians didn't possess, really), it was still very well made in ways that were a bit lost to the Europeans at the time. Grid layout, an axis making sure the pyramids were properly emphasized visually, canals, causeways linking the island to the mainland in all directions, a sewer system, drinking water provided by an aqueduct from an artificial lake... Lots of very well thought out decisions, and it was also darned pretty. The only city that resembles it in the type of beauty, but is more chaotic, is Venice.

Joecoolyo said:

What are we defining as a brutal though?

Click to expand...

The only argument that can be made in this direction is if the Spanish were less brutal with the other peoples in the region. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make that assessment, personally. Much of the death in the wake of the Spanish arrival was disease based, so we can't blame the Spanish for it, but they weren't gentle either. Their treatment of the locals was sometimes quite brutal - see their use of local workers in Cerro de Potosi.

Joecoolyo said:

What are we defining as a brutal though? Christian Europe had plenty of ritual slaughter as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would consider that ritual slaughter. Slaughter, yes, but not ritual.

Plotinus said:

The Spanish didn't conquer the Aztecs and convert them because the Aztecs had a hideous religion. However, the Aztecs did have a hideous religion, and other considerations aside, the world is a better place without it.

Click to expand...

I'd contest this. The Aztec nobility and warrior elite engaged in some barbaric religious practices, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that the common classes of the Triple Alliance did. We know very little about their beliefs or practices, and it's not clear how they felt about practices like human sacrifice, let alone that their religion was dependent on such practices being carried out. The hill on which St. Juan witnessed the Virgin, for example, was known to be a place of great religious significance to local Nahuatl peasants, but there's no evidence that it was associated with human sacrifice. We shouldn't condemn the entire culture for the barbarism of its aristocracy.

Plotinus said:

The Spanish didn't conquer the Aztecs and convert them because the Aztecs had a hideous religion.
That still leaves open the question whether what was done to the Aztecs was right or justified, of course. But I don't think it helps to romanticise what was a really brutal culture.

Click to expand...

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.

Plotinus said:

However, the Aztecs did have a hideous religion, and other considerations aside, the world is a better place without it. Just as one might say that the Allies didn't fight the Nazis because they were genocidal antisemites, but the world is a better place without them.

Click to expand...

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.

I truly don't see a problem with Aztec religion. It's another world religion and the people that can't handle that need to get over it.

Owen Glyndwr said:

Questions:

When was the book written? Who wrote the book? Is the author a professor at a university/which university? Which publisher was it published under?

These are the first questions you should be asking any time you buy/read a history book.

Click to expand...

Still waiting on this information. Seems rather silly to get all knotted up in anger if the book is written by your garden-variety pop historian, which is kinda what it's sounding like.

Owen Glyndwr said:

Still waiting on this information. Seems rather silly to get all knotted up in anger if the book is written by your garden-variety pop historian, which is kinda what it's sounding like.

Click to expand...

Ah yes. I forgot. The book is more of a religion book than a history book since it's about the visions of our lady of Guadalupe. These visions of Mary played a large role in the Chirstanization of Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

Anyways the Book name is
"Guadalupe: What her eyes say"
by Francis Anson
http://www.amazon.com/Guadalupe-What-Her-Eyes-Say/dp/B0032K6OI2/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406099974&sr=1-2&keywords=Guadalupe%3A+What+Her+Eyes+Say

I can't seem to find any Credentials to what Anson's backround is, but it seems that he has done his research on the subject. The things he said about the Aztecs are the same was what Traitor Fish said above. However I feel that he's twisting the facts to make his point, when the actual truth or more foggy. This is more so on things like human sacrifice and cannibalism with has conflicting accounts. In both of those cases he picks the one that make them look the worst possible. At one point he says with certainty that the Aztecs after sacrificing the victims ate them, claiming "there are many documents and testimonies". He claims they invited their blood relatives to a ritiual banquet. They made talacatlaolli which is made of corn, beans and human flesh. Or they boiled the victems in pots with salt, chili, corn, beans, tomatoes and peppers.

One person he cites on particular was Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who's writings contains direct proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_Diaz_del_Castillo

seems shady to me.

Anyone else know more about this?

Traitorfish said:

I'd contest this. The Aztec nobility and warrior elite engaged in some barbaric religious practices, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that the common classes of the Triple Alliance did. We know very little about their beliefs or practices, and it's not clear how they felt about practices like human sacrifice, let alone that their religion was dependent on such practices being carried out. The hill on which St. Juan witnessed the Virgin, for example, was known to be a place of great religious significance to local Nahuatl peasants, but there's no evidence that it was associated with human sacrifice. We shouldn't condemn the entire culture for the barbarism of its aristocracy.

Click to expand...

This is fair enough. But I didn't seek to condemn the entire culture, only to say that their religion - to the extent that we know anything of it - was an abhorrent one. Maybe other aspects of the religion weren't abhorrent (it would be surprising if not), but as you say, we don't really know anything about it. We only know the bad bits, but those bits are very bad.

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...

But this is pure speculation. Aztec religion didn't evolve and improve. Of course, it didn't do so because it got wiped out; but why suppose that it would have? What evidence is there for this? And I'm not sure that Christianity was as bad at the time. It was pretty bad, but it wasn't actually based on the ideal and practice of killing people.

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...

I hardly think the Americans can be criticised for going to war with Hitler given that it was Hitler who declared war on America, not vice versa. But still, you're surely not saying that it would have been better, or no worse, if the Nazis had been left to their own devices, are you?

ubergeneral said:

Ah yes. I forgot. The book is more of a religion book than a history book since it's about the visions of our lady of Guadalupe. These visions of Mary played a large role in the Chirstanization of Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

Anyways the Book name is
"Guadalupe: What her eyes say"
by Francis Anson
http://www.amazon.com/Guadalupe-What-Her-Eyes-Say/dp/B0032K6OI2/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406099974&sr=1-2&keywords=Guadalupe%3A+What+Her+Eyes+Say

I can't seem to find any Credentials to what Anson's backround is, but it seems that he has done his research on the subject. The things he said about the Aztecs are the same was what Traitor Fish said above. However I feel that he's twisting the facts to make his point, when the actual truth or more foggy. This is more so on things like human sacrifice and cannibalism with has conflicting accounts. In both of those cases he picks the one that make them look the worst possible. At one point he says with certainty that the Aztecs after sacrificing the victims ate them, claiming "there are many documents and testimonies". He claims they invited their blood relatives to a ritiual banquet. They made talacatlaolli which is made of corn, beans and human flesh. Or they boiled the victems in pots with salt, chili, corn, beans, tomatoes and peppers.

One person he cites on particular was Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who's writings contains direct proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_Diaz_del_Castillo

seems shady to me.

Anyone else know more about this?

Click to expand...

This book isn't even available for regular sale online and there is no information on this author or his credentials. I'm going to suggest you dump the book in a fire pit and buy a better one.

Plotinus said:

The Spanish didn't conquer the Aztecs and convert them because the Aztecs had a hideous religion. However, the Aztecs did have a hideous religion, and other considerations aside, the world is a better place without it. Just as one might say that the Allies didn't fight the Nazis because they were genocidal antisemites, but the world is a better place without them.

That still leaves open the question whether what was done to the Aztecs was right or justified, of course. But I don't think it helps to romanticise what was a really brutal culture.

Click to expand...

Well written! Agree 100%

ubergeneral said:

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...

Just because God left the church when Constantine turned it into the local government, if not way before, does not prove that God ceased to exist. I would dare say that God was no where near either religion when they clashed, and had nothing to do with the historical outcome. It was just two cultures being mixed together and neither one gaining any new ground.

innonimatu said:

Wellll... yes, they did built impressive stuff, and had their rituals which were foreigner to the spaniards. But they also had one of the most singularly bloodthirsty religions in the world at the time (the most, probably). you can argue as much as you want that opther religious caused a lot of death in the form of religious wars and persecutions, but the aztec one demanded human sacrifices as part of their rituals.

Honestly: what I say is good riddance, they had it coming. And if they hadn't been such murderous, oppressive bastards the spaniards probably wouldn't have had all the neighboring tribes joining in to crush and wipe out the Aztecs.

Claims of cannibalism were very often used in latin america to justify offensive wars against natives (unlike, you know, north America where no excuse was necessary). It doesn't mean they weren't true.

Click to expand...

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.