History questions not worth their own thread

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think they didn't have a whole lot of military or other presence in the cities they had conquered; they just demanded tribute, including warriors for sacrifice. And of course, they managed to so annoy their subjects that a lot of them allied with the Spanish when they showed up.

 

[Verbose]

Hmm, since nobody likes the involved question much (), I got a new one: how did the Aztec Empire actually work? I've heard them described variously as a "confederacy of city-states" and a "Delian League of Tenochtitlan", but without much more detail than that. Any pointers?

From what I've gleaned it was tribute that fuelled expansion. Conquest in the sense of overtaking actual cities wasn't the order of the day, but to make them send their goods as tribute to Tenochtitlan. So the Aztec part of the empire was their city. Which also made it kind of vulnerable; no city, no problem, as the Spaniards and Tlaxcalans could agree.

The "Delian league" thing would be the original alliance between the Aztec and the neighbouring cities of Texcoco and Tacuba, where the Aztec pretty soon eclipsed their allies, relegating them to second tier junior partners.

But the Aztecs also seem to have practised a kind of "the flag follows trade" where Aztec merchants scouted out new lands, and eventually the army followed.

The weakness seems to have been expanding further. All Aztec rulers added tributaries, but at a declining rate. The imperial system presupposed new rich lands to add to the empire, but by the time the Spaniards arrived the machine was starting to run on empty, since the Aztecs were pushing against the borders of political economy and geography alike. Moving out of the central valley they were encountering gradually less wealthy societies, and the Mayans to the south were too far away for easy approach.

I guess without the Spaniards the Aztecs might either have done like the Romans, and consciuously put a stop to expansion, and started seeing to the internal workings of the empire, or they would have had to reinvent themselves as a nation capable of sustained military effort much farther from their home base than ever before.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And sustained military effort far from home was, I think, much harder in Mesoamerica than in Eurasia because of the different agricultural products that made feeding an army much harder.

 

[Verbose]

And sustained military effort far from home was, I think, much harder in Mesoamerica than in Eurasia because of the different agricultural products that made feeding an army much harder.

Probably. It would have required some serious rethinking and planning to do.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It would be a lot harder without pack animals, for one thing. And I recall that maize is a lot bulkier than Eurasian cereals (so said my History of Mexico professor, but that was years ago.)

 

[Dachs]

Hmm, okay, thanks guys. Kind of a screwy way to run an empire. Are there any thoughts as to why they did that?

But the Aztecs also seem to have practised a kind of "the flag follows trade" where Aztec merchants scouted out new lands, and eventually the army followed.

You mean, like Xoconochco?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hmm, okay, thanks guys. Kind of a screwy way to run an empire. Are there any thoughts as to why they did that?

I would imagine that given geography and technological development, that was the most optimal for them.

 

[Eskel]

Got a question: the conflicts around the Baltic in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had vastly different social and political effects on the countries that took part in them. Poland-Lithuania first formed a Commonwealth at Lublin, and then began decentralization, marked by the oh-so-devastating liberum veto. Muscovy had a somewhat dissimilar feudal system based on servitors, which was rather tumultuous (due to the nature of the autocracy), allowing first the depredations of the Oprichnina and then the Time of Troubles, but also some very notable military successes. Denmark-Norway had a slow decentralization during this time, begun by the strengthening of the Council during the Nordic Seven Years' War and continued to the end of the period. Sweden, however, used war as an excuse to grant the sovereign extraordinary powers in the 1540s and from then on established other centralizing institutions like that of the universal militia, the precursor to the levee en masse.

So the question is, why did each of these develop in its own way? This is part discussion, part question, and I have my own (half-formed) opinions but would definitely like to hear from others.

In fact it seems that question deserves separate thread, because the fight for dominium Mare Balticii (or Northern Wars) had the same impact on Europe's history as the War of Spanish Succession or Thirty Years War.

Why each country developed in its own way? There are many factors: in Poland it was relatively weak position of king bloodline because of continuous lack of male successors throughout ages. The whole process started with the rule of Casimir the Great(1333–1370), who left no successor. To claim a crown, his nephew Louis of Hungary made several agreements with noblemen that restricted the King's prerogatives in exchange for right of succession. The same situation happened after Louis death, and again later with the Sigismund II Augustus. In 1572, aristocratic families from Rus and Lithuania were extremely powerful. It was very easy for them to encourage the development of noblemen democracy, at the cost of country institutions and King's power.
Very poorly developed vast areas of Lithuania and Rus , and travel times (travel from side to side of Commonwealth took almost 1 year) made any resistance against legitimate ruler very easy.
The situation was very similar to Russian Time of Troubles, but Russian were in better position, because: they have not such strong nobility as in Poland and were less sensitive for foreign intervention, while Poland could be invaded from all directions.

 

[Verbose]

Got a question: the conflicts around the Baltic in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had vastly different social and political effects on the countries that took part in them. Poland-Lithuania first formed a Commonwealth at Lublin, and then began decentralization, marked by the oh-so-devastating liberum veto. Muscovy had a somewhat dissimilar feudal system based on servitors, which was rather tumultuous (due to the nature of the autocracy), allowing first the depredations of the Oprichnina and then the Time of Troubles, but also some very notable military successes. Denmark-Norway had a slow decentralization during this time, begun by the strengthening of the Council during the Nordic Seven Years' War and continued to the end of the period. Sweden, however, used war as an excuse to grant the sovereign extraordinary powers in the 1540s and from then on established other centralizing institutions like that of the universal militia, the precursor to the levee en masse.

So the question is, why did each of these develop in its own way? This is part discussion, part question, and I have my own (half-formed) opinions but would definitely like to hear from others.

I'd be really interested to see you develop this.

About Sweden-Finland, I would think the most salient feature of politics at the time was the triangulation of power between king-nobles-commoners. The usual link-up was for the commoners, who never actually lost politcal clout, to hand the king extraordinary powers to protect them from noble exploitation, something the king could then use to centralise power to himself.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmm, okay, thanks guys. Kind of a screwy way to run an empire. Are there any thoughts as to why they did that?

You mean, like Xoconochco?

Well the Aztecs weren't really a tight-knit empire, although IIRC Xoconoco was a colony run from Tenochtitlan rather than a tributary.

 

[Dachs]

IIRC Xoconoco was a colony run from Tenochtitlan rather than a tributary.

That's very interesting. Analogy with Roman coloniae in Italy, compared with socii (which would be represented by the majority of the Aztec 'Empire'): valid or invalid?

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm not familiar with the Roman colony system but I think that's a similar system to those of the Aztecs.

I was mistaken about Soconusco. It wasn't a colony settled by Mexica but it does have an Aztec garrison, ostensibly to ensure the flow of precious cocoa to Tenochtitlan. (This website has some good info on Soconusco) Aztec colonies did existed though.

From this website:

The Aztecs normally left civil power in the conquered provinces in the hands of the
existing señores, with the additional presence in key centres of calpixques as
representatives of the central power, whose main duty was to supervise the payment
of tribute to the Triple Alliance.
As to any more numerous standing presence, we possess in the first instance evidence
of two major colonies, sent from the Valley of Mexico and nearby cities, rather after
the pattern of the Inca mitimaes.
Oaxaca. During the reign of Moctezuma I, that indefatigable alter ego of the tlatoani,
Tlacaélel,. made the proposal that a colony should be settled in Oaxaca. As a result,
six hundred married men, with their wives and children were gathered together;’
families from Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco and Cuernavaca were included. A cousin
of Tlacaélel was put In charge of the new settlement (Durán, 11:23 8-239).
During subsequent accounts of campaigns in that area, Durán and Tezozômoc refer on
various occasions to these people who had been settled in Oaxaca. Probably their
military organization was not dissimilar to that of Tenoçhtitlan. Thus they would have
provided levies for local wars, but the existence of any standing force among them
must remain in doubt.

Oztuma and Alahuiztla. After Ahuitzotl had laid waste these two places, situated on ‘
the Tarascan border beyond Teloloapan (Gro), with even more than his wonted
ruthlessness, putting most of the inhabitants to the sword, it was proposed that they
should be repopulated with a colony from Central Mexico, numbering two thousand.
Four hundred people were to be sent from Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tacuba
respectively , and twenty each from thirty subject cities (Durân, II : 3 5 1).
Nezahualpilli, who was apt to drag his feet where Ahuitzotl’s proposals were
concerned, suggested that two hundred colonists from Texcoco would be sufficient.
The net was certainly widely cast to obtain settlers, to include such places as Toluca
and Jiotepec probably however, bearing in mind the reduction of the Texcoco quota,
the number fell short of the stipulated two thousand.
The people were given a consolatory talk; it thus becomes clear that they were not
particularly eager to set off into the wilds. The objectives of the operation were
clearly economic as well as military , since the settlers were instructed that they
should cultivate cacao plantations for Ahuftzotl. In addition, they were charged to be
constantly on the alert, due to their proximity to the Tarascan border.
Some confirmation of the existence of such a colony also comes from the Relaciones
Geográficas. Oztuma is mentioned as a place where Moctezuma II had a
“guarnición”; the people of AlahuIztlan provided arms and other help for this fortress
(Relaciôn de AlahuIztlan: 102).
The Relación of Oztuma itself attributes to Axayácatl, not Ahuftzotl, the
establishment of this strongpoint, and the sending of people to man it, as a
“guarnición” to oppose those of Michuacan (Relacjôn de Oztoma: 1 10).
The Relación de Acapetlayuca confirms that AhuItzotl sent many people to Oztuma,
apparently as a colony rather than as “guarnición”. These settlers guarded the fortress
(Relación de Acapetlayuca: 1 16).

 

[Dachs]

Thanks for that link.

Why didn't the Ticino canton join the Sonderbund revolt?

 

[Sharwood]

For some good info on the Aztecs, read: The Aztecs of Mexico, G.C. Vaillant. It's an archaeology book, but full of fantastic into. Most of it has already been mentioned here, but it's far more detailed. Probably been superceded somewhat by newer books - it was published in 1944 I believe - but it's still quality.

What possessed Yugoslavia to be so stupid as to not capitulate to the Nazis, considering they were surrounded?

 

[Dachs]

What possessed Yugoslavia to be so stupid as to not capitulate to the Nazis, considering they were surrounded?

The government surrendered on April 17, 1941.

...oh, I see. Uh, sheer bloodymindedness?

 

[philippe]

i got a question: can someone give me some coherent source on homosexuality in venice and it's link with the "hot summer months".

I know, i stumbled upon it after seeing something of, some kind of not getting punished for sodomy because it was "the time of the season" or something.

 

[Atticus]

Wikipedia article about the flag of England claims that it was taken to use so that English ships would go as Genovese in Mediterranean. I thought that it's coincidence that they look alike. Which one is right, me or the wiki?

 

[LightSpectra]

Why is it that in the Thirty Years' War, most armies were only around 20 or 30,000 strong, but the 18th century's wars (Spanish Succession, Quadruple Alliance, Austrian Succession, Seven Years'), armies were up to 100,000 strong? Surely the population in Europe didn't change that drastically in 50 years.

 

[Dachs]

Why is it that in the Thirty Years' War, most armies were only around 20 or 30,000 strong, but the 18th century's wars (Spanish Succession, Quadruple Alliance, Austrian Succession, Seven Years'), armies were up to 100,000 strong? Surely the population in Europe didn't change that drastically in 50 years.

Methods of supplying troops in Western Europe changed. States began to develop more effective commissary systems for their militaries. Most states also began to turn from a system of noble-supplied levies (which were actually rather common in the 16th century, from Sweden to France) to a more centrally raised army (in France, later expanded to Britain, this was the system of state commissions; in Sweden, it was the indelning), which could be coordinated better and could have greater intakes. So yeah: natural development of supply systems plus the creation of new, large state bureaucracies.

 

[Dachs]

I hate doubleposts, but:

Why the hell is Eukratides I called "the Great"? I mean, what did he do that was so great?