Montezuma for Aztec Leader again

KIEJ.MANIK

KIEJ.MANIK

Tlaneloli
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
139
Location
El Sereno
Why does Montezuma keep on being the leader of the aztecs, sure he was the most famous but he wasn't a good leader, if he was a good leader he would have taken on the spaniards instead of letting them have everything, the aztecs could have beaten the spaniards, they almost did on noche triste, but that was more of an uprising than an actual organized military attack while Montezuma lay dead because one of his countrymen killed him, surely there are much more worthy leaders like Itzcoatl who moved his civilization from subservience to dominance. What do you guys think
 
Are there better leaders for the Aztecs? Yes, most certainly.

Does the average casual gamer know them? No.

There's your reason. Personally, I would prefer Itzcoatl, Ahuitzol, or even Tlacaelel. But most people would not.
 
Just as it's nice to change from Julius Ceasar to Augustus, and from Louis to Napoleon, it's also nice to go from Monty to another Aztec leader. We can learn a different name.
 
KIEJ.MANIK said:
Why does Montezuma keep on being the leader of the aztecs, sure he was the most famous but he wasn't a good leader, if he was a good leader he would have taken on the spaniards instead of letting them have everything, the aztecs could have beaten the spaniards, they almost did on noche triste, but that was more of an uprising than an actual organized military attack while Montezuma lay dead because one of his countrymen killed him, surely there are much more worthy leaders like Itzcoatl who moved his civilization from subservience to dominance. What do you guys think
Click to expand...

The only reason they did that was because of their religion. Quetzacoatl was supposed to return to them in the form of a pale-skinned, bearded man.
 
Interesting topic, so thanks for the post.

You know, we'll never really know what happened in regards to the Aztecs and their decision-making. Most of our sources are Spanish, and they, to my knowledge, aren't that conclusive regarding Aztec decision-making. And obviously, we don't really have the Aztec voice saved in historical record.

Frankly, the Spanish had 3 things in their favor. The ironic pale skined-religious connection with Quetzacoatl was one, but maybe not as much as the diseases they brought with them. Smallpox decimated the population, and as you can imagine, lethal plauges killing tens of thousands of people undoubtedly paralyzes and confuses a regime.

Lastly, the Aztec Empire was never truly unified via any common bonds or interests, and so there were plenty of factions ready to utilize the Spanish influence to further destabilize the Aztec empire, which crumbled

Oh, and in regards to Montezuma... I always assumed he was Montezuma I. Given his role in the violent expansion and the massive increase in human sacrifice, probably leading to an expansion of the Aztec political sphere of influence and regional fear, he's the memorable leader, in my opinion.
 
Mango Elephant said:
The what now :confused:
Click to expand...

Excuse me, that was my short hand for the pale skin/White God connection, stated above by an earlier poster. I'll go back and make that more clear.

Obviously, absent the religious coincidence, skin color would not be an advantage.
 
Mango Elephant said:
The what now :confused:
Click to expand...

In the Aztec mythos, one of their gods left them eons ago in a wooden "house" across the sea. He was prophesised to return much later as a pale skinned, bearded man.

So, naturally, when all these Spaniards sporting magnificent facial hair turned up in giant wooden Galleons, the Aztecs were fairly divided over what to do about them.
 
Nicolas10 said:
You know, we'll never really know what happened in regards to the Aztecs and their decision-making. Most of our sources are Spanish, and they, to my knowledge, aren't that conclusive regarding Aztec decision-making. And obviously, we don't really have the Aztec voice saved in historical record.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not exactly true. After they took over, the Spanish educated the noble classes in Western literature, intermarried with them and so forth. They had them write bilingual documents outlining their history and worldview, such as the Codex Mendoza.

These were not produced for the purpose of distorting their history or to be used as propaganda; they were in fact unknown to most scholars and the general public until the mid-1800s, when they were discovered in various archives. Their purpose was to relate the Aztec point of view in order that Spanish authorities and the church could better understand the Nahuatl mind, so that they might superimpose their religion and government on Aztec elements rather than replacing it wholesale. They transformed, rather than replaced, many Aztec institutions (for instance, converting Tonantzin into the Virgin Mary and so on).
 
Nice reply, and thank you for reminding me of the Codex and the emphasis on the Spanish-education policies. Quick google search, but I do think the Codex is still pretty limited in terms of actual insight in to contemporary Aztec thought.

http://posthegemony.blogspot.com/2005/10/codex-mendoza.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Mendoza

We certainly got a fair amount of information via Spanish preserved sources, but I surmise that there really isn't a work we can classify as truly Aztec-produced (i.e. independent of Spanish creation/facilitation) that analyzes/presents Aztec society and thinking.
 
Nicolas10 said:
Nice reply, and thank you for reminding me of the Codex and the emphasis on the Spanish-education policies. Quick google search, but I do think the Codex is still pretty limited in terms of actual insight in to contemporary Aztec thought.
Click to expand...


No, the Mendoza Codex does not discuss the Spanish Conquest, but it is just one of several native-produced, post-Columbian accounts. The Florentine Codex, for instance, details the Aztec account of the Conquest; in fact, until 1979, it was censored, because of the Aztec bias in the text which portrayed the Conquest in a poor light.
 
frekk said:
No, the Mendoza Codex does not discuss the Spanish Conquest, but it is just one of several native-produced, post-Columbian accounts. The Florentine Codex, for instance, details the Aztec account of the Conquest; in fact, until 1979, it was censored, because of the Aztec bias in the text which portrayed the Conquest in a poor light.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I did not know that. Thanks for adding. Do you have any good links/books you'd recommend on this topic or original sources/authentic Aztec voices?
 
dinofs said:
Are there better leaders for the Aztecs? Yes, most certainly.

Does the average casual gamer know them? No.
Click to expand...

Is civ educative? Yes.
Look at Civ5 china e.g.
Nobody here knew Wu Zetian, now everybody does (at least the name).
If there's a better leader to choose (okay, what is better can be discussed), they should do it.
 
MrBanana said:
That website...is not a credible source of information.
Click to expand...

The writer quotes all sources at the bottom of the page. I'm not say what is written is truth, but with this subject not much can be proved 100%. However it does seem pretty credible to me, was it the revolution part that threw you off?
 
Montezuma was a great leader, who ruled 1440–1469. The last Aztec emperor was Montezuma II who ruled 1502 – 1520.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 372: Montezuma of the Aztecs
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
jorissimo
jorissimo
King Phaedron
Cortez the Conqueror
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
leif erikson
leif erikson
Skojardu
v96 Montezuma
Replies
7
Views
483
Skojardu
Skojardu
H
Frida Kahlo as curveball leader for Mexico
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
5K
RedCourtJester
RedCourtJester
El Castellano
Napoleon, the leader with the most "troll" personality of the civilization VII.
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Atlas627
Atlas627
Back
Top Bottom