What kept striking me throughout was the similarity between Aztec metaphysics, which conceptualize the world as energy and motion with no moral dimension, and contemporary physics which at the most basic level shares this outlook on the world. That such a subtle and sophisticated worldview could spiral off into institutionalized ritual torture and mass human sacrifice is a cautionary example of what can happen when the conception of fundamental reality is separated from morality. As indeed we see unfolding around us in our own world in its own way.
An interesting aspect of this, which can be highlighted via comparative study, is how Aztec metaphysics affected Aztec warfare. European warfare generally aimed to kill enemies on the battlefield in order to force submission and thereby take territory or achieve other political ends. Aztec warfare by contrast was aimed primarily at taking captives for torture and sacrifice. This proved to be an advantage to the conquistadores, who faced opponents who were not accustomed to battlefield slaughter, and who were therefore using tactics optimized for capture rather than killing. It's an interesting example that, contra Clausewitz, warfare is not the extension of politics, but the extension of culture; warfare as a primarily political tool is rather a reflection of European culture.
So glad you enjoyed it. I agree with you, the western and perhaps eurasian concept of war is v different to other places and the aims of the conflict almost at odds with what we would see as standard military objectives. Where western and other forms of warfare clashed, generally the western prevailed, with some exceptions.
I read a fascinating book about this when I was a teenager. I think it was just called 'War' or something, can't remember the author. The basic thesis was that culture, not politics, was the primary determinant of warfare, since that was what regulated e.g. the objectives and governing mores.
I'd like to understand better how that warfare worked. Were these massive battles in which the warriors were always reaching across the line, trying to isolate and pull out individuals for capture? Did the two sides then go home, with both sides having taken captives? Or were these more in the nature of champion battles, with rings forming around two tough warriors who agreed to grapple and each try to take the other back to their own side?
For champion battles, we do have precedents in Europe and the Middle East, including the Norse berserks, pre-Roman Celtic warriors who fought naked, probably Beowulf and Grendel, David and Goliath, perhaps the Homeric heroes of the Iliad, and the whole duelling complex that lasted down to the twentieth century.
If they're not fighting for territory, perhaps the fight is more for individual or small-gang dominance on a terrain that is not divided, because all of them have equal right on it anyway. In that case, the warfare might still be very much an extension of politics, but of a very different socio-political configuration than what we usually think of in modern times.
Hm. Interesting. Opinions are divided on whether it was used to terrify the enemy with a thousand death screams, or to soothe troubled souls by putting them into a trance.
Psychological warfare seems to be the most obvious interpretation. Soothing people sounds like a retcon by academics determined to insist that the pre-Colombian world was all sweetness and light.
Retcon - there's a new word that seems to have popped up in the last few days.
But, yeah. Although I didn't find the sound as scary as advertized, I wouldn't think of it as soothing either. Sort of the annoying sound of blowing into a wind instrument and failing to hit the note. But I can see how a few thousand foemen all around you blowing those things in a taunting way might be intimidating. Also, the fact that they're made to look like skulls is more suggestive of malice than of sweetness.
I left my own reply to John Carter here (https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/p/the-metaphysics-of-aztec-violence/comment/16700972) which explains why the idea of Aztec warfare being focused on captive taking is itself not really correct (tho captive taking WAS certainly a part of it), but i'll also copy over a Twitter reply I made (with some edits here) on Aztec warfare here for you: It discusses both it's organization, equipment, etc and not just how battles played out, mind you!:
Firstly, "Aztec" can refer to a number of different ethnic groups, political states, and political networks: The Mexica of Tenochtitlan specifically, one of a number of Nahuatl speaking groups, are often tied to the term, but some use it to describe the Nahuas in general, or the "Aztec Empire" which the Mexica headed and included both Nahua and non-Nahua states (and some Nahua states existed outside of it!). I'll talk about the Mexica here, primarily, though parts of it may be applicable to other groups/states.
The Mexica military was a formally organized military, with both a normal traditional rank hierarchy, as well as elite knightly orders open to soldiers who met specific conditions; an order of Warrior-priests (which we sadly don't know much about), as well as command/general offices. There's also a great deal of specific titles and offices granted to specific soldiers on an individual basis by the king, which could then go on to become permanent offices at times. Specific military ranks and offices also often conferred nonmartial responsibilities/titles, such as in schools, the city's judicial system, or as constables. An example of this is the title of Cihuacoatl ("Snake Woman" not to be confused with the deity of the same name), which was created for Tlacaelel I and continued to be a permanent office (variously described as acting as the king/Tlatoani's advisor, being a head general, but mostly as acting as a grand vizer, managing internal domestic affairs administratively, it's judicial system/court of laws, and it's priests on the level directly below the king, especially as he was concerned with warfare and external diplomacy: Note how the feminine quality of the name mirrors the domestic-martial duality of women vs men here)
While it was a formal organized military, there was not a standing army outside of arguably the knightly orders (who had barracks and are described as also acting as a royal guard) and by some of the other special titles/offices I mentioned (which included overseeing armories, etc). In wartime, men would be called on to act as porters or soldiers, sort of like a European peasant levy, though there were also career soldiers, and military renown, success, etc could lead to land grants, titles/offices (as mentioned), luxury gifts, etc for nobles and at times commoners who could get honorary nobility through military success. If garrisons and forts outside of Tenochtitlan were a thing is sort of a contentious topic there is disagreement on, and I'm feeling lazy so I'll just say "sort of" in general, and "probably" in specific response to conflict with the Purepecha Empire alongside their border.
Tenochtitlan, by most estimates, had 200,000 denizens (not quite as large as the largest cities in Europe at the time, but not far behind), though some researchers go lower. Hassig, in "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control", argues that it could support a offensive army of 40,000. However, this is just the Mexica/Tenochtitlan: The Azec Empire contained hundreds of different states, which each could have a few to dozens of cities, towns, and villages. The Aztec Empire was NOT an imperial centralized empire like the Romans, subject states were mostly still independent polities that ran themselves (and had their own interests, and could even have their own subjects and wage wars against OTHER Aztec subjects in certain conditions) and merely were politically subservient to Tenochtitlan and paid taxes and other basic obligations, but one of those obligations was providing military aid on request: So the Mexica could call upon those subjects to provide additional armies, supplies, etc.
The largest combined army size reported in historical accounts is 700,000, but this is very likely an exaggeration. Hassig calculates the logistical maximum would be 200,000 (though assuming each called on city launched it's own army I assume there's no inherent maximum?). Obviously, different cities and towns would have their own military structure and equipment, but Nahua (the broader "Aztec culture" the Mexica were one subgroup of, sort of in the same way that Athens, Sparta, etc had their own ethnic labels, but they were all still Greek) states seem to mostly share equipment, and to a lesser extent Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Huastec, Otomi etc states had some similar armor, arms, etc as well (though they also had a variety of unique types as well)
To speak for the Mexica, with armor (see this image https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxIq70kX0AEMyMl?format=jpg&name=orig as a reference): Porters and junior soldiers who hadn't taken captives (by extension, this would likely also include most farmers, masons, etc called upon as "peasant levy" who weren't career soldiers) likely would have been mostly unarmored. Soldiers who had taken at least 1 captive in battle seemed able to wear ichcahuipilli, which was a padded textile vest or tunic , essentially gambeson (though some sources assert it was more limited or even more widespread then 1 captive soldiers). Higher status soldiers also had tlahuiztli or ehuatl warsuits: both were made from a thick cotton base, and then had a mosiac of feathers on it, the patterns and colors indicating rank, unit division, etc (officers/commanders also had back mounted banners/flags), but the former was a full body suit, wheras the latter was a tunic, both would have been worn over the ichcahuipilli (The mMxica seemed to exclusively use ehuatl for rulers and very high command position, other Nahuas like the Tlaxcalteca used it more liberally). There were also some warsuits made from human skins, less prestigious tlazhuiztli for honorary nobles were made from jaguar pelts instead of feather mosaics (not clear if the jaguar ones also had a padded base layer), and some jackets/tunics were made of gold/copper/bronze mail. (Some other civilizations also had unique armor the Mexica didn't, like what seem to be barrel shaped wood/bamboo breastplates/torso armor?)
Helmets, namely the animal head shaped ones, were made of thick hardwood covered in feather mosaics, as well as inlaid precious stones or gold/silver/copper/bronze pieces. I'm not sure what the conical helmets (adopted from the Huastec civilization) and others clearly not made from wood would have been made from, but I suspect they had a Bamboo frame and padding with then feather mosaic. Shields were generally made from either a hardwood or bamboo backing, with additional wood supports, and some also described as having layers of gambeson padding in them too, and these were covered in either pelt, feather mosaic, and/or gold, copper, or bronze sheets/ornaments, and these too had patterns/emblems indicating rank, division, etc.
As for weapons, you had "swords" (made of sharpened wood, or the famous macuahuitl, which was lined with obsidian blades: These ranged from one handed to two handed, and there's variation in blade arrangement, spacing, shape, etc, as well as the shape and size of the wood core), clubs (simple wooden clubs, to ball headed maces, morning star like weapons, as well as clubs with stone flanges), axes (either made with stone blades or copper/bronze axeheads), and polearms (the Mexica seemed to mostly use Tepoztopilli, which had a broad spade shaped head lined with obsidian blades, used for slashing as well as thrusting; but they likely also used simple spears, and there's one depiction of a "glaive" with a macuahuitl like weapon mounted on a pole length shaft, though I believe this is from another Nahua group rather then the Mexica). The Atlatl was the primary ranged weapon, but bows and slings were used too. Other civilizations/cultures had some unique clubs, swords, polearms, etc too: Maces with stone ring/torus heads, some of which had flanges; clubs and polearms with many long spikes (think like Hidan's Scythe from Naruto, but with straight blades!), boomerang shaped bladed clubs or swords, what seem to be almost pole-axes, wierd serrated spears, long 12ft+ pikes, etc.
The base unit in army organization was a division of 8000 soldiers (xiquipilli), with smaller 400 and 200 man units (allegedly each of Tenochtitlan's 20 capulli wards produced 400 men to form a xiquipilli, but it could obviously supply more then that, and there's some weird inconsistencies around the amount of capulli the city had) also being a thing, but these could vary further as needed.
May 30, 2023·edited May 30, 2023Liked by Stone Age Herbalist
Continued from above:
Sources describe armies variously as either having higher ranked soldiers to the front of divisions in battles, with lower ranked soldiers the further back you go, or having higher ranked soldiers mixed in alongside junior soldiers to ensure they could keep newcomers/inexperienced soldiers in check. We know projectile barrages opened combat as they met before troops switched to melee weapons (though some troops stuck to projectile weapons and hung back). Hassig thinks units in combat formed a wide, linear front, and maximize the area they were able to engage with the enemy, and it's described that combat units attempted to surround enemy divisions. In terms of tactics, we have examples of feigned retreats to lead armies into ambushes/pincer attacks. Hassig also believes that troops would cycle front to back, and in the back would receive medical treatment, as well as repairs/replacements for weapons. He also argues that captive taking would primarily occur when an enemy soldier was isolated from the rest of their unit, or more often, after enemy lines broke and they surrendered or were attempting to flee. Again, the idea that captive taking happened INSTEAD of killing is sort of a myth: Captive taking was seen as an impressive feat: it happened, but was inherently seen as an accomplishment above the norm.
Obviously, they had no Calvary, and we don't have records of siege weapons by the Mexica AFAIK, but the Maya seemingly had siege towers judging by a mural at Chichen Itza so that and battering rams aren't out of the question, but permanent walls in Mesoamerica were uncommon to begin with (fittingly given that mural, the Maya did use them the most) : This is largely seen as a consequence of warfare in Mesoamerica (or at least Central Mexico) needing to be seasonal (so men could return for harvests), and that without draft animals, porters also had to carry their own supplies, not just of soldiers, and by extension this placed additional logistical hurdles on extended campaigns where resupplying was necessary. For Flower Wars, I'll refer you to the other comment I linked before.
Lastly, It's not directly tied to warfare, but the Aztec Empire also had a wide reaching spy network: This included both full formal spies, as well as merchants the Mexica employed as spies on occasion: A known practice was sending in merchants to spy ahead of an invasion, or even to make a scene or disruption in places, leading to their arrest or injury or death, to then give the Mexica a justification to invade.
Some suggested sources/people for more info:
- All publications/Books by Ross Hassig
- All publications/Books by Marco Antonio Cervera Obregón (though I have a few issues with his Macuahuitl paper)
- Indian Clothing before Cortes
- Insignia of Rank in the Nahua World
- Has some errors, but Armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, Other Native Peoples of The Americas, and the Conquistadores (Armies of the Sixteenth Century)
- Daniel Parada/Zotz/Zotzcomic; Rafael Mena, and OHS688 as online artists
- TheGhostHero
- "Seeking Conflict in Mesoamerica: Operational, Cognitive, and Experiential Approaches" seems solid
And on shields in particular, since we have 4 surviving ones and therefore more research:
- Various publications by Dr. Laura Filoy Nadal (EX: Sept-Oct 2019 Arqueología Mexicana issue, anything on her http://academia.edu, researchgate, book chapters she's published like "Feathered Objects in the Codex Mendoza and Their Extant Representatives", and so on)
Lastly, I will probably leave my own reply to this, but keep in mind Stone Age Herbalist's post here is specifically describing Maffie's interpretation of Aztec cosmology and theology: Maffie's work is well regarded by some Mesoamericanists, but it's also seen as contentious by others (same with Leon Portilla's work which he builds on, to an extent). I'm personally not comfortable throwing my own hat into the ring as being a critic or a supporter of Maffie's work, but I feel it's important to just be aware others dispute the idea of Teotl as a monist force and Aztec gods not actually being animate entities, or have a more in-the-middle stance between the two extremes of Maffie's approach and a more traditional polytheistic religion (though even the supporters of the latter would agree that "Teotl" correlates more to something like Japanese "Kami" then gods in a greco-roman sense, as it included things like lesser spirits too).
That's a wonderful mass of information about the subject. Thank you for sharing!
I guess the takeaway for the discussion above is that the captive-taking aspect was only an occasional sideshow to the main battle campaign, and a chance for honors to the individual soldier who succeeded in doing it. It sounds somewhat comparable to Plains warriors "counting coup" by simply touching an enemy who is trying to kill them.
I wonder how this system compares to that of the Incas (broadly speaking), or for that matter to such Old World complexes as Yamato-Nara-Heian Japan, Shang China, the Hittites, the Mycenaeans, or the Merovingian and Carolingian Franks?
As somebody who follows Mesoamerican history and archeology pretty closely, and spends most of their time keeping up with the literature and doing research, I feel it's important to point out that the concept of Aztec warfare being particularly ritualistic and exclusively capturing enemy soldiers rather then killing them or tactical objectives is pretty outdated.
Ross Hassig's "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control" is pretty much the gold standard work on Aztec warfare, militarism, and campaigns, and it quite clearly points out how over time the ritualism in Aztec warfare has been a subject of disproportionate focus: Obviously it did play a role in things (ritualism is even a part of Medieval Eurasian warfare, and to an extent even modern wars today) and the capture of enemy soldiers was an important part of war, but it's not accurate to say that Aztec warfare was "primarily aimed at taking captives for torture and sacrifice", on multiple levels.
Firstly, captive taking was seen as an exceptional, atypical thing: This is pretty plainly laid out in that we have actual Nahuatl language historical sources written by Aztec people which discuss that different points in history, different rulers decreed that captives from specific cities or geographic areas would be "worth" more or less in terms of how much it would advance the captor's rank: Captive taking was tied to rank and status precisely because it was an impressive achievement rather then the expected status quo of how a battle would be handled. Obviously, it was something that soldiers sought to do and wouldn't have been extremely rare, but it's not like soldiers would go out of their way to capture enemies in battle instead of killing them (Consider also the distinction between normal wars, and the more ritualistic Flower Wars... and even Flower Wars had more pragmatic utility then often claimed!): Hassig argues that captive taking would only generally be done to a soldier who was already isolated from the rest of their unit or was incapacitated, or more likely, after the enemy army was overtaken and they started to flee.
Secondly, captive taking for sacrifices wasn't the primary point of actual campaigns and conquests either: This logically follows from the above point (after all, if it wasn't the primary objective in battle, it probably wasn't the impetus for the invasion to begin with!) but it's best to clarify on this separately too: The primary goal in expansionism by the Mexica of the Aztec capital was gathering tax paying subject states: They specifically targeted city-states and kingdoms which were rich in economic resources that the Mexica wanted to extract, without spending the time or effort to gather themselves. The Mexica didn't generally make colonies, nor did they directly administer the places they conquered, usually. To make an old world comparison, the Mexica were almost like the Mongols (mind you, I don't know a ton about the mongols): They would stroll up, demand you to enter a tax paying relationship: If you said yes, you'd pay up every year but otherwise got mostly left alone, and if you refused, you got invaded. The main difference is that the Mexica were an actual sedentary urban society themselves, and that the Mexica didn't (necessarily, sometimes they did) massacre and raze places to the ground who initially refused (a demolished city can't exactly pay up, can it?): It was actually not uncommon for the Mexica to have to re-invade places to get them to submit again for example, especially after a Mexica king/Aztec emperor died. (By extension, this is also why the idea that Cortes got allies with local states because the Mexica were disliked and oppressive is a misunderstanding: The Aztec Empire was actually a very hands off political network, and it was precisely BECAUSE of that that it's subjects and vassals often opportunistically switched sides or seceded. This sort of thing was pretty common in Mesoamerica in general, the Aztec Empire was even founded under similar circumstances)
I suppose I should also note how Flower Wars play into this: Flower Wars were, firstly, when launched against an existing subject or allied state, prearranged and mutually agreed upon conflicts. There's even some sources which suggest this fact was kept hidden from the general populace, so soldiers didn't realize their lives were basically being used in political-ceremonial pageantry. When launched against enemy states, they served a few functions: The most obvious is the ritualistic purpose of gaining captives for sacrifice. But they also served as a way for states to dip their toes into the water of conflict without committing to full warfare: states could gradually ramp up the scale and seriousness of war and then back off if they lost the will, or continue to escalate: We see this happen with the wars between the Mexica/Tenochtitlan vs Chalco, for example. They were also leveraged as a tool to wear down enemy states for full conquest, since the smaller scale of Flower Wars permitted them to be waged year round when generally warfare was constrained seasonally needing men back home for harvests; and in general the Mexica were fond of wearing down tough enemy states with Flower Wars or other conflicts while also conquering the areas around them to box them in (We see this against Tlaxcala, see below). Flower Wars also served as a way to keep soldiers invested in a military career (since captive taking was tied to rank and status, which could also confer land grants, luxury gifts, special titles and military/political/judicial/priestly offices, and class mobility, tho the latter got limited over time) and to keep soldiers practiced and fit. (since, again, they could be waged any time of year)
Moctezuma II did actually claim to Cortes that they left Tlaxcala (which was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with, not a subject: I think people mistake it for a subject and that's party of where the aforementioned misunderstanding comes from) unconquered so they could regularly invade it with Flower Wars and take captives, but Hassig and many other researchers argue that in reality, the Mexica were actually having a hard time conquering Tlaxcala: Some go as far as to say that the Flower Wars against it and nearby states like Cholula and Huextozinco was simply Mexica revionism to excuse their inability to conquer it! I'm not sure i'd go that far, but certainly the Mexica did launch some For-Real-Non-Flower-Wars against Tlaxcala shortly before the Spanish arrived, suggesting it was a ramp up to full conquest as I described above.
Also, "Torture" was not a thing here: Captives according to most sources and supported by archeological remains were integrated into the Mexica society, often in the captor's family, and would have lived as a slave for weeks, months, or years, maybe eventually buying their freedom (since Slaves could do that and had a fair bit of rights in Aztec society: They could own property, had to be paid, had to be cared for, could marry, their children's didn't inherit slave status, etc) or would have eventually been sacrificed, allegedly mourned by the family... some sacrifice ceremonies did involve "Torture", such as child victims to Tlaloc were the amount of crying was said to correlate to rainfall, but that's not applicable to captive soldiers, generally. I guess you could argue some of the gladiatorial sacrifice ceremonies captive soldiers could be placed in qualifies as torture? They'd be stripped naked, drugged, tied to a large platform stone, and given a macahuitl lined with feathers, and forced to fight an entourage of fully armed soldiers till their death. (There is at least 1 person, Tlahuicole, a soldier from Tlaxcala, who nearly beat all of his assailants during this!)
Lastly, I will probably leave my own reply to this, but keep in mind Stone Age Herbalist's post here is specifically describing Maffie's interpretation of Aztec cosmology and theology: Maffie's work is well regarded by some Mesoamericanists, but it's also seen as contentious by others (same with Leon Portilla's work which he builds on, to an extent). I'm personally not comfortable throwing my own hat into the ring as being a critic or a supporter of Maffie's work, but I feel it's important to just be aware others dispute the idea of Teotl as a monist force and Aztec gods not actually being animate entities, or have a more in-the-middle stance between the two extremes of Maffie's approach and a more traditional polytheistic religion (though even the supporters of the latter would agree that "Teotl" correlates more to something like Japanese "Kami" then gods in a greco-roman sense, as it included things like lesser spirits too).
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022Liked by Stone Age Herbalist
Impressive synthesis. Will take me another reading to complete. Thank you very much for doing this.
I'd never thought about non-newtonian (maybe non-western is more accurate) philosophical conceptions of motion. Though it's obvious in retrospect, your framing of Aztec philosophy has cracked my brain a bit, in a good way. Realised how much of my perception is constrained by western schema. The basic building blocks of how I make sense of things. Something about meso-american culture seems especially alien to my priors. Going to sit and think about some of these implications. Opened up new avenues for thought.
All I could have hoped for, many thanks! Similarly I found the entire philosophical world totally alien which is why I've focused on the absolute basic concepts. Maffie's book is truly excellent if you want to dig further into this world, I only skimmed the surface really.
Should say that this does sound a bit like physicist Dave Bohm's concept of wholeness or unity. Apparently he was deeply influenced by his time working with Einstein.
Incredible work. I’ve been wondering about Aztec philosophy/theology for some time now, and I’m glad to have this essay as both an introduction and a reference for which sources to read once I fond the time.
As a small point, however, I’m fascinating by the apparent similarities between Nahau ‘teotl’ and Schopenhauer’s ‘will’. Obviously, Schopenhauer is influenced more by questionable translations of Zen Buddhism than by any New World philosophy, and thus his concept of will as a the animating force of reality carries the same baggage of mind-over-body as those traditions, as well as of Western/Christian dualism. However, when Schopenhauer’s ideas are to some extent taken up by Nietzsche, Nietzsche affirms the universality of will while decrying the over-emphasis of the mind. For Nietzsche, philosophy is about the body, and all of society is about power. He too, has a deeply anxious and unstable view of the future.
Perhaps, given Nietzsche’s self-title as the “the antiChrist,” the horror of Europeans at Aztec society becomes more apparent. There does seem to be a sense in which this philosophy is more diametrically opposed to Christian teachings than any philosophy or religion of the Old World.
The Aztecs and the Europeans were both literalising metaphor as part of the great human experiment. One could argue the Aztecs were able to envision metaphor more powerfully and perhaps that is why it was literalised so powerfully. Then again, religions have often committed great violence in the name of a quest which should have remained metaphor. Perhaps that is our human journey.
Fascinating. When the word hierarchal appeared in the essay I immediately thought those at the top produced the system to keep their humans in line, serving them, in siphoning the surplus of nature. Being an enemy of those in power, or someone within who wouldn't comply, would be sacrificed as a show of force. Anyone seeing and understanding their position in the hierarchy would be drawn closer into the hierarchal net for less risk.
Might even be an element of those at the top understood carrying capacity with these schemes lowering the population.
Nothing new here, people fighting to be at the top, and staying there even to risk total collapse of their system. Everything moves except them, until their system collapses because of them! Hahahaha!
your interpretation is grounded on the idea (quite hegelian and marxian, but not gramscian) that the ideal is rational, i.e. that culture is downstream of the pursuit and retain of power.
I think that Covid and Ukraine, i.e. these close and YUGE examples of Twitter-overcharged mass formation psychosis, demonstrate without any doubt that ideas shape people as kuch as the opposite.
E.g.: the Spartans developed a complex system "to keep their humans in line, serving them, in siphoning the surplus of nature", integrated with warfare, "show of force" and population control, without developing any Slaanesh-y ritual.
Aztecs' Slaanesh-y blood rituals are downstream of their "Philosophy", not their power structure.
No, not with that. These people who design the hierarchal system are fully conscious of what they have done, and now what they are doi9ng. They designed the system and view all those forces they produce as a correcting mechanism.
It almost appears you are being off handedly apologetic. Shift the blame to nobody!
Fascinating stuff. Some of your bibliography has been on my “to read” list for a while and I will move them up. Clearly such a complex belief system as you describe didn't just fall out of the sky but evolved, my guess is probably in tandem with the process of human sacrifice, both providing justification for it and creating demand for further sacrifices, and it would be interesting to be able to trace it backwards but I don't know if that's possible without a large corpus of literature to examine. If you do your piece on animism, do you plan to include Shinto? I would be interested in seeing that.
Teotl is almost identical to Schopenhauer's notion of will - a blind, purposeless, striving, which lies noumenally behind all the phenomena of the world.
I wonder whether the alienness commenters here attribute to Aztec thought relates to the very reluctant acceptance of evolutionary theory in the West - an acceptance even today characterized by numerous misunderstandings. (For example "survival of the fittest" does not mean strongest, nor is survival per se what is selected; rather alleles which are a good fit for their environment survive and spread.)
Deep down, ordinary Westerners think of a McDonalds as artificial, but a beehive as natural. They allow killing in the animal kingdom or in wartime but agonize about abortion and the death penalty. They struggle philosophically to find the source of human rights, to choose between moral systems, or to reconcile political platforms of all kinds - Libertarianism, Meritocracy, Democracy, Equity, and so forth - with the basic fact that they all began life as children and must produce children for their society to continue. This is a mode of existence I understand well; even atheists seem somehow caught up in its stickiness.
But since becoming an evolutionist some decades ago I found my entire worldview radically shifting. At first my understanding of a dualistic universe filled with categories, judgment, and intelligence as the source of order, shifted into a worldview characterized by attention to variation and situation, where a surprising richness of complexity arises spontaneously, without regard to human appraisal of its seemingly opposite qualities: Flowers, maggots, dolphins, altriusm, parasitism, sight, pain, consciousness - all things flowing from a single, unitary Mother whose Divine Essence is Mutation and Selection.
How similar was teol to the Egyptian concept of maat?
Your essay inspired me to post on my Substack a revised version of a paper on the social utility of ritual I presented to the Melbourne University Medieval Roundtable. The paper discusses the dynamics of ritual in general and why mass human sacrifice was such a feature of Mesoamerican urban civilisation and how ritual was used to enable the eating of other humans in way that, far from corroding the social order, helped support it. https://lorenzofromoz.substack.com/p/why-ritual?sd=pf
Well, the Egyptian concept of Ma'at most certainly had a moral basis, implying order and justice, with its opposite being Isfet, or disorder, lawlessness and chaos. It doesn't sound like the Teotl concept has this implication of justice, although all that I know about Aztec world view I just learned in the last fifteen minutes!
This was deeply fascinating. Bravo.
What kept striking me throughout was the similarity between Aztec metaphysics, which conceptualize the world as energy and motion with no moral dimension, and contemporary physics which at the most basic level shares this outlook on the world. That such a subtle and sophisticated worldview could spiral off into institutionalized ritual torture and mass human sacrifice is a cautionary example of what can happen when the conception of fundamental reality is separated from morality. As indeed we see unfolding around us in our own world in its own way.
An interesting aspect of this, which can be highlighted via comparative study, is how Aztec metaphysics affected Aztec warfare. European warfare generally aimed to kill enemies on the battlefield in order to force submission and thereby take territory or achieve other political ends. Aztec warfare by contrast was aimed primarily at taking captives for torture and sacrifice. This proved to be an advantage to the conquistadores, who faced opponents who were not accustomed to battlefield slaughter, and who were therefore using tactics optimized for capture rather than killing. It's an interesting example that, contra Clausewitz, warfare is not the extension of politics, but the extension of culture; warfare as a primarily political tool is rather a reflection of European culture.
So glad you enjoyed it. I agree with you, the western and perhaps eurasian concept of war is v different to other places and the aims of the conflict almost at odds with what we would see as standard military objectives. Where western and other forms of warfare clashed, generally the western prevailed, with some exceptions.
I read a fascinating book about this when I was a teenager. I think it was just called 'War' or something, can't remember the author. The basic thesis was that culture, not politics, was the primary determinant of warfare, since that was what regulated e.g. the objectives and governing mores.
I'd like to understand better how that warfare worked. Were these massive battles in which the warriors were always reaching across the line, trying to isolate and pull out individuals for capture? Did the two sides then go home, with both sides having taken captives? Or were these more in the nature of champion battles, with rings forming around two tough warriors who agreed to grapple and each try to take the other back to their own side?
For champion battles, we do have precedents in Europe and the Middle East, including the Norse berserks, pre-Roman Celtic warriors who fought naked, probably Beowulf and Grendel, David and Goliath, perhaps the Homeric heroes of the Iliad, and the whole duelling complex that lasted down to the twentieth century.
If they're not fighting for territory, perhaps the fight is more for individual or small-gang dominance on a terrain that is not divided, because all of them have equal right on it anyway. In that case, the warfare might still be very much an extension of politics, but of a very different socio-political configuration than what we usually think of in modern times.
But yes, very good article!
It's been a long, long time since I read about Aztec tactics. All I really remember is that they made extensive use of clubs and nets.
Given the tech level I wouldn't be surprised if there were champion fights, but I don't know specifically what role if any that played in combat.
One nugget I do recall is the death whistle. Look it up on YouTube.
Hm. Interesting. Opinions are divided on whether it was used to terrify the enemy with a thousand death screams, or to soothe troubled souls by putting them into a trance.
Psychological warfare seems to be the most obvious interpretation. Soothing people sounds like a retcon by academics determined to insist that the pre-Colombian world was all sweetness and light.
Retcon - there's a new word that seems to have popped up in the last few days.
But, yeah. Although I didn't find the sound as scary as advertized, I wouldn't think of it as soothing either. Sort of the annoying sound of blowing into a wind instrument and failing to hit the note. But I can see how a few thousand foemen all around you blowing those things in a taunting way might be intimidating. Also, the fact that they're made to look like skulls is more suggestive of malice than of sweetness.
I left my own reply to John Carter here (https://stoneageherbalist.substack.com/p/the-metaphysics-of-aztec-violence/comment/16700972) which explains why the idea of Aztec warfare being focused on captive taking is itself not really correct (tho captive taking WAS certainly a part of it), but i'll also copy over a Twitter reply I made (with some edits here) on Aztec warfare here for you: It discusses both it's organization, equipment, etc and not just how battles played out, mind you!:
Firstly, "Aztec" can refer to a number of different ethnic groups, political states, and political networks: The Mexica of Tenochtitlan specifically, one of a number of Nahuatl speaking groups, are often tied to the term, but some use it to describe the Nahuas in general, or the "Aztec Empire" which the Mexica headed and included both Nahua and non-Nahua states (and some Nahua states existed outside of it!). I'll talk about the Mexica here, primarily, though parts of it may be applicable to other groups/states.
The Mexica military was a formally organized military, with both a normal traditional rank hierarchy, as well as elite knightly orders open to soldiers who met specific conditions; an order of Warrior-priests (which we sadly don't know much about), as well as command/general offices. There's also a great deal of specific titles and offices granted to specific soldiers on an individual basis by the king, which could then go on to become permanent offices at times. Specific military ranks and offices also often conferred nonmartial responsibilities/titles, such as in schools, the city's judicial system, or as constables. An example of this is the title of Cihuacoatl ("Snake Woman" not to be confused with the deity of the same name), which was created for Tlacaelel I and continued to be a permanent office (variously described as acting as the king/Tlatoani's advisor, being a head general, but mostly as acting as a grand vizer, managing internal domestic affairs administratively, it's judicial system/court of laws, and it's priests on the level directly below the king, especially as he was concerned with warfare and external diplomacy: Note how the feminine quality of the name mirrors the domestic-martial duality of women vs men here)
While it was a formal organized military, there was not a standing army outside of arguably the knightly orders (who had barracks and are described as also acting as a royal guard) and by some of the other special titles/offices I mentioned (which included overseeing armories, etc). In wartime, men would be called on to act as porters or soldiers, sort of like a European peasant levy, though there were also career soldiers, and military renown, success, etc could lead to land grants, titles/offices (as mentioned), luxury gifts, etc for nobles and at times commoners who could get honorary nobility through military success. If garrisons and forts outside of Tenochtitlan were a thing is sort of a contentious topic there is disagreement on, and I'm feeling lazy so I'll just say "sort of" in general, and "probably" in specific response to conflict with the Purepecha Empire alongside their border.
Tenochtitlan, by most estimates, had 200,000 denizens (not quite as large as the largest cities in Europe at the time, but not far behind), though some researchers go lower. Hassig, in "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control", argues that it could support a offensive army of 40,000. However, this is just the Mexica/Tenochtitlan: The Azec Empire contained hundreds of different states, which each could have a few to dozens of cities, towns, and villages. The Aztec Empire was NOT an imperial centralized empire like the Romans, subject states were mostly still independent polities that ran themselves (and had their own interests, and could even have their own subjects and wage wars against OTHER Aztec subjects in certain conditions) and merely were politically subservient to Tenochtitlan and paid taxes and other basic obligations, but one of those obligations was providing military aid on request: So the Mexica could call upon those subjects to provide additional armies, supplies, etc.
The largest combined army size reported in historical accounts is 700,000, but this is very likely an exaggeration. Hassig calculates the logistical maximum would be 200,000 (though assuming each called on city launched it's own army I assume there's no inherent maximum?). Obviously, different cities and towns would have their own military structure and equipment, but Nahua (the broader "Aztec culture" the Mexica were one subgroup of, sort of in the same way that Athens, Sparta, etc had their own ethnic labels, but they were all still Greek) states seem to mostly share equipment, and to a lesser extent Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Huastec, Otomi etc states had some similar armor, arms, etc as well (though they also had a variety of unique types as well)
To speak for the Mexica, with armor (see this image https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxIq70kX0AEMyMl?format=jpg&name=orig as a reference): Porters and junior soldiers who hadn't taken captives (by extension, this would likely also include most farmers, masons, etc called upon as "peasant levy" who weren't career soldiers) likely would have been mostly unarmored. Soldiers who had taken at least 1 captive in battle seemed able to wear ichcahuipilli, which was a padded textile vest or tunic , essentially gambeson (though some sources assert it was more limited or even more widespread then 1 captive soldiers). Higher status soldiers also had tlahuiztli or ehuatl warsuits: both were made from a thick cotton base, and then had a mosiac of feathers on it, the patterns and colors indicating rank, unit division, etc (officers/commanders also had back mounted banners/flags), but the former was a full body suit, wheras the latter was a tunic, both would have been worn over the ichcahuipilli (The mMxica seemed to exclusively use ehuatl for rulers and very high command position, other Nahuas like the Tlaxcalteca used it more liberally). There were also some warsuits made from human skins, less prestigious tlazhuiztli for honorary nobles were made from jaguar pelts instead of feather mosaics (not clear if the jaguar ones also had a padded base layer), and some jackets/tunics were made of gold/copper/bronze mail. (Some other civilizations also had unique armor the Mexica didn't, like what seem to be barrel shaped wood/bamboo breastplates/torso armor?)
Helmets, namely the animal head shaped ones, were made of thick hardwood covered in feather mosaics, as well as inlaid precious stones or gold/silver/copper/bronze pieces. I'm not sure what the conical helmets (adopted from the Huastec civilization) and others clearly not made from wood would have been made from, but I suspect they had a Bamboo frame and padding with then feather mosaic. Shields were generally made from either a hardwood or bamboo backing, with additional wood supports, and some also described as having layers of gambeson padding in them too, and these were covered in either pelt, feather mosaic, and/or gold, copper, or bronze sheets/ornaments, and these too had patterns/emblems indicating rank, division, etc.
As for weapons, you had "swords" (made of sharpened wood, or the famous macuahuitl, which was lined with obsidian blades: These ranged from one handed to two handed, and there's variation in blade arrangement, spacing, shape, etc, as well as the shape and size of the wood core), clubs (simple wooden clubs, to ball headed maces, morning star like weapons, as well as clubs with stone flanges), axes (either made with stone blades or copper/bronze axeheads), and polearms (the Mexica seemed to mostly use Tepoztopilli, which had a broad spade shaped head lined with obsidian blades, used for slashing as well as thrusting; but they likely also used simple spears, and there's one depiction of a "glaive" with a macuahuitl like weapon mounted on a pole length shaft, though I believe this is from another Nahua group rather then the Mexica). The Atlatl was the primary ranged weapon, but bows and slings were used too. Other civilizations/cultures had some unique clubs, swords, polearms, etc too: Maces with stone ring/torus heads, some of which had flanges; clubs and polearms with many long spikes (think like Hidan's Scythe from Naruto, but with straight blades!), boomerang shaped bladed clubs or swords, what seem to be almost pole-axes, wierd serrated spears, long 12ft+ pikes, etc.
The base unit in army organization was a division of 8000 soldiers (xiquipilli), with smaller 400 and 200 man units (allegedly each of Tenochtitlan's 20 capulli wards produced 400 men to form a xiquipilli, but it could obviously supply more then that, and there's some weird inconsistencies around the amount of capulli the city had) also being a thing, but these could vary further as needed.
Hit the character limit, so continued below!
Continued from above:
Sources describe armies variously as either having higher ranked soldiers to the front of divisions in battles, with lower ranked soldiers the further back you go, or having higher ranked soldiers mixed in alongside junior soldiers to ensure they could keep newcomers/inexperienced soldiers in check. We know projectile barrages opened combat as they met before troops switched to melee weapons (though some troops stuck to projectile weapons and hung back). Hassig thinks units in combat formed a wide, linear front, and maximize the area they were able to engage with the enemy, and it's described that combat units attempted to surround enemy divisions. In terms of tactics, we have examples of feigned retreats to lead armies into ambushes/pincer attacks. Hassig also believes that troops would cycle front to back, and in the back would receive medical treatment, as well as repairs/replacements for weapons. He also argues that captive taking would primarily occur when an enemy soldier was isolated from the rest of their unit, or more often, after enemy lines broke and they surrendered or were attempting to flee. Again, the idea that captive taking happened INSTEAD of killing is sort of a myth: Captive taking was seen as an impressive feat: it happened, but was inherently seen as an accomplishment above the norm.
Obviously, they had no Calvary, and we don't have records of siege weapons by the Mexica AFAIK, but the Maya seemingly had siege towers judging by a mural at Chichen Itza so that and battering rams aren't out of the question, but permanent walls in Mesoamerica were uncommon to begin with (fittingly given that mural, the Maya did use them the most) : This is largely seen as a consequence of warfare in Mesoamerica (or at least Central Mexico) needing to be seasonal (so men could return for harvests), and that without draft animals, porters also had to carry their own supplies, not just of soldiers, and by extension this placed additional logistical hurdles on extended campaigns where resupplying was necessary. For Flower Wars, I'll refer you to the other comment I linked before.
Lastly, It's not directly tied to warfare, but the Aztec Empire also had a wide reaching spy network: This included both full formal spies, as well as merchants the Mexica employed as spies on occasion: A known practice was sending in merchants to spy ahead of an invasion, or even to make a scene or disruption in places, leading to their arrest or injury or death, to then give the Mexica a justification to invade.
Some suggested sources/people for more info:
- All publications/Books by Ross Hassig
- All publications/Books by Marco Antonio Cervera Obregón (though I have a few issues with his Macuahuitl paper)
- Indian Clothing before Cortes
- Insignia of Rank in the Nahua World
- Has some errors, but Armies of the Aztec and Inca Empires, Other Native Peoples of The Americas, and the Conquistadores (Armies of the Sixteenth Century)
- Daniel Parada/Zotz/Zotzcomic; Rafael Mena, and OHS688 as online artists
- TheGhostHero
- "Seeking Conflict in Mesoamerica: Operational, Cognitive, and Experiential Approaches" seems solid
- https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/repositorio/islandora/object/articulo:10724
- http://researchgate.net/publication/283093155_THE_AZTEC_ATLATL_IN_THE_BRITISH_MUSEUM
- http://academia.edu/12873658/Annotated_Atlatl_Bibliography- Ekholm 1962 doi:10.2307/278375
- http://mna.inah.gob.mx/docs/anales/625.pdf
And on shields in particular, since we have 4 surviving ones and therefore more research:
- Various publications by Dr. Laura Filoy Nadal (EX: Sept-Oct 2019 Arqueología Mexicana issue, anything on her http://academia.edu, researchgate, book chapters she's published like "Feathered Objects in the Codex Mendoza and Their Extant Representatives", and so on)
- http://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/1447
- http://vistasgallery.ace.fordham.edu/items/show/1721
- http://vistasgallery.ace.fordham.edu/items/show/1722
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=NgUw8JEnb5U
- http://Youtube.com/watch?v=BwvxzXv=BwvxzX7S1iM
- http://Youtube.com/watch?v=DO9_lfv=DO9_lfrxLes
- https://arqueologiamexicana.mx/mexico-antiguo/el-cuexyo-chimalli-del-castillo-de-chapultepec
- https://arqueologiamexicana.mx/mexico-antiguo/chimalli-escudos-mexicas-emplumados
- http://noticonquista.unam.mx/amoxtli/2860/2860
- http://americae.fr/en/special-section/technologies-en/cadenas-operatorias-production-objetos-emplumados-mexicas/
- https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6148cc814957ab5ff0e98e85/t/619565a4f79a303b0d3c80fb/1637180838659/FILLOY+-+CUEXYO+CHIMALLI.pdf
Lastly, I will probably leave my own reply to this, but keep in mind Stone Age Herbalist's post here is specifically describing Maffie's interpretation of Aztec cosmology and theology: Maffie's work is well regarded by some Mesoamericanists, but it's also seen as contentious by others (same with Leon Portilla's work which he builds on, to an extent). I'm personally not comfortable throwing my own hat into the ring as being a critic or a supporter of Maffie's work, but I feel it's important to just be aware others dispute the idea of Teotl as a monist force and Aztec gods not actually being animate entities, or have a more in-the-middle stance between the two extremes of Maffie's approach and a more traditional polytheistic religion (though even the supporters of the latter would agree that "Teotl" correlates more to something like Japanese "Kami" then gods in a greco-roman sense, as it included things like lesser spirits too).
That's a wonderful mass of information about the subject. Thank you for sharing!
I guess the takeaway for the discussion above is that the captive-taking aspect was only an occasional sideshow to the main battle campaign, and a chance for honors to the individual soldier who succeeded in doing it. It sounds somewhat comparable to Plains warriors "counting coup" by simply touching an enemy who is trying to kill them.
I wonder how this system compares to that of the Incas (broadly speaking), or for that matter to such Old World complexes as Yamato-Nara-Heian Japan, Shang China, the Hittites, the Mycenaeans, or the Merovingian and Carolingian Franks?
You inspired me:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/tlalocs-revenge
This was an excellent piece, I've subscribed. Thanks for posting
Glad you liked it! High praise, man!
He mutters in deadpan way under breath:
TLĀLOC
TLĀLOC
https://youtu.be/K51czl2su4k
As somebody who follows Mesoamerican history and archeology pretty closely, and spends most of their time keeping up with the literature and doing research, I feel it's important to point out that the concept of Aztec warfare being particularly ritualistic and exclusively capturing enemy soldiers rather then killing them or tactical objectives is pretty outdated.
Ross Hassig's "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control" is pretty much the gold standard work on Aztec warfare, militarism, and campaigns, and it quite clearly points out how over time the ritualism in Aztec warfare has been a subject of disproportionate focus: Obviously it did play a role in things (ritualism is even a part of Medieval Eurasian warfare, and to an extent even modern wars today) and the capture of enemy soldiers was an important part of war, but it's not accurate to say that Aztec warfare was "primarily aimed at taking captives for torture and sacrifice", on multiple levels.
Firstly, captive taking was seen as an exceptional, atypical thing: This is pretty plainly laid out in that we have actual Nahuatl language historical sources written by Aztec people which discuss that different points in history, different rulers decreed that captives from specific cities or geographic areas would be "worth" more or less in terms of how much it would advance the captor's rank: Captive taking was tied to rank and status precisely because it was an impressive achievement rather then the expected status quo of how a battle would be handled. Obviously, it was something that soldiers sought to do and wouldn't have been extremely rare, but it's not like soldiers would go out of their way to capture enemies in battle instead of killing them (Consider also the distinction between normal wars, and the more ritualistic Flower Wars... and even Flower Wars had more pragmatic utility then often claimed!): Hassig argues that captive taking would only generally be done to a soldier who was already isolated from the rest of their unit or was incapacitated, or more likely, after the enemy army was overtaken and they started to flee.
Secondly, captive taking for sacrifices wasn't the primary point of actual campaigns and conquests either: This logically follows from the above point (after all, if it wasn't the primary objective in battle, it probably wasn't the impetus for the invasion to begin with!) but it's best to clarify on this separately too: The primary goal in expansionism by the Mexica of the Aztec capital was gathering tax paying subject states: They specifically targeted city-states and kingdoms which were rich in economic resources that the Mexica wanted to extract, without spending the time or effort to gather themselves. The Mexica didn't generally make colonies, nor did they directly administer the places they conquered, usually. To make an old world comparison, the Mexica were almost like the Mongols (mind you, I don't know a ton about the mongols): They would stroll up, demand you to enter a tax paying relationship: If you said yes, you'd pay up every year but otherwise got mostly left alone, and if you refused, you got invaded. The main difference is that the Mexica were an actual sedentary urban society themselves, and that the Mexica didn't (necessarily, sometimes they did) massacre and raze places to the ground who initially refused (a demolished city can't exactly pay up, can it?): It was actually not uncommon for the Mexica to have to re-invade places to get them to submit again for example, especially after a Mexica king/Aztec emperor died. (By extension, this is also why the idea that Cortes got allies with local states because the Mexica were disliked and oppressive is a misunderstanding: The Aztec Empire was actually a very hands off political network, and it was precisely BECAUSE of that that it's subjects and vassals often opportunistically switched sides or seceded. This sort of thing was pretty common in Mesoamerica in general, the Aztec Empire was even founded under similar circumstances)
I suppose I should also note how Flower Wars play into this: Flower Wars were, firstly, when launched against an existing subject or allied state, prearranged and mutually agreed upon conflicts. There's even some sources which suggest this fact was kept hidden from the general populace, so soldiers didn't realize their lives were basically being used in political-ceremonial pageantry. When launched against enemy states, they served a few functions: The most obvious is the ritualistic purpose of gaining captives for sacrifice. But they also served as a way for states to dip their toes into the water of conflict without committing to full warfare: states could gradually ramp up the scale and seriousness of war and then back off if they lost the will, or continue to escalate: We see this happen with the wars between the Mexica/Tenochtitlan vs Chalco, for example. They were also leveraged as a tool to wear down enemy states for full conquest, since the smaller scale of Flower Wars permitted them to be waged year round when generally warfare was constrained seasonally needing men back home for harvests; and in general the Mexica were fond of wearing down tough enemy states with Flower Wars or other conflicts while also conquering the areas around them to box them in (We see this against Tlaxcala, see below). Flower Wars also served as a way to keep soldiers invested in a military career (since captive taking was tied to rank and status, which could also confer land grants, luxury gifts, special titles and military/political/judicial/priestly offices, and class mobility, tho the latter got limited over time) and to keep soldiers practiced and fit. (since, again, they could be waged any time of year)
Moctezuma II did actually claim to Cortes that they left Tlaxcala (which was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with, not a subject: I think people mistake it for a subject and that's party of where the aforementioned misunderstanding comes from) unconquered so they could regularly invade it with Flower Wars and take captives, but Hassig and many other researchers argue that in reality, the Mexica were actually having a hard time conquering Tlaxcala: Some go as far as to say that the Flower Wars against it and nearby states like Cholula and Huextozinco was simply Mexica revionism to excuse their inability to conquer it! I'm not sure i'd go that far, but certainly the Mexica did launch some For-Real-Non-Flower-Wars against Tlaxcala shortly before the Spanish arrived, suggesting it was a ramp up to full conquest as I described above.
Also, "Torture" was not a thing here: Captives according to most sources and supported by archeological remains were integrated into the Mexica society, often in the captor's family, and would have lived as a slave for weeks, months, or years, maybe eventually buying their freedom (since Slaves could do that and had a fair bit of rights in Aztec society: They could own property, had to be paid, had to be cared for, could marry, their children's didn't inherit slave status, etc) or would have eventually been sacrificed, allegedly mourned by the family... some sacrifice ceremonies did involve "Torture", such as child victims to Tlaloc were the amount of crying was said to correlate to rainfall, but that's not applicable to captive soldiers, generally. I guess you could argue some of the gladiatorial sacrifice ceremonies captive soldiers could be placed in qualifies as torture? They'd be stripped naked, drugged, tied to a large platform stone, and given a macahuitl lined with feathers, and forced to fight an entourage of fully armed soldiers till their death. (There is at least 1 person, Tlahuicole, a soldier from Tlaxcala, who nearly beat all of his assailants during this!)
Lastly, I will probably leave my own reply to this, but keep in mind Stone Age Herbalist's post here is specifically describing Maffie's interpretation of Aztec cosmology and theology: Maffie's work is well regarded by some Mesoamericanists, but it's also seen as contentious by others (same with Leon Portilla's work which he builds on, to an extent). I'm personally not comfortable throwing my own hat into the ring as being a critic or a supporter of Maffie's work, but I feel it's important to just be aware others dispute the idea of Teotl as a monist force and Aztec gods not actually being animate entities, or have a more in-the-middle stance between the two extremes of Maffie's approach and a more traditional polytheistic religion (though even the supporters of the latter would agree that "Teotl" correlates more to something like Japanese "Kami" then gods in a greco-roman sense, as it included things like lesser spirits too).
Impressive synthesis. Will take me another reading to complete. Thank you very much for doing this.
I'd never thought about non-newtonian (maybe non-western is more accurate) philosophical conceptions of motion. Though it's obvious in retrospect, your framing of Aztec philosophy has cracked my brain a bit, in a good way. Realised how much of my perception is constrained by western schema. The basic building blocks of how I make sense of things. Something about meso-american culture seems especially alien to my priors. Going to sit and think about some of these implications. Opened up new avenues for thought.
Thanks!
All I could have hoped for, many thanks! Similarly I found the entire philosophical world totally alien which is why I've focused on the absolute basic concepts. Maffie's book is truly excellent if you want to dig further into this world, I only skimmed the surface really.
Should say that this does sound a bit like physicist Dave Bohm's concept of wholeness or unity. Apparently he was deeply influenced by his time working with Einstein.
https://besharamagazine.org/metaphysics-spirituality/david-bohm-wholeness-timelessness-and-unfolding-meaning/
Incredible work. I’ve been wondering about Aztec philosophy/theology for some time now, and I’m glad to have this essay as both an introduction and a reference for which sources to read once I fond the time.
As a small point, however, I’m fascinating by the apparent similarities between Nahau ‘teotl’ and Schopenhauer’s ‘will’. Obviously, Schopenhauer is influenced more by questionable translations of Zen Buddhism than by any New World philosophy, and thus his concept of will as a the animating force of reality carries the same baggage of mind-over-body as those traditions, as well as of Western/Christian dualism. However, when Schopenhauer’s ideas are to some extent taken up by Nietzsche, Nietzsche affirms the universality of will while decrying the over-emphasis of the mind. For Nietzsche, philosophy is about the body, and all of society is about power. He too, has a deeply anxious and unstable view of the future.
Perhaps, given Nietzsche’s self-title as the “the antiChrist,” the horror of Europeans at Aztec society becomes more apparent. There does seem to be a sense in which this philosophy is more diametrically opposed to Christian teachings than any philosophy or religion of the Old World.
A good point, and resonates with my own thoughts about how vitalism and animism differ from a manichean world view
The Aztecs and the Europeans were both literalising metaphor as part of the great human experiment. One could argue the Aztecs were able to envision metaphor more powerfully and perhaps that is why it was literalised so powerfully. Then again, religions have often committed great violence in the name of a quest which should have remained metaphor. Perhaps that is our human journey.
Fascinating. When the word hierarchal appeared in the essay I immediately thought those at the top produced the system to keep their humans in line, serving them, in siphoning the surplus of nature. Being an enemy of those in power, or someone within who wouldn't comply, would be sacrificed as a show of force. Anyone seeing and understanding their position in the hierarchy would be drawn closer into the hierarchal net for less risk.
Might even be an element of those at the top understood carrying capacity with these schemes lowering the population.
Nothing new here, people fighting to be at the top, and staying there even to risk total collapse of their system. Everything moves except them, until their system collapses because of them! Hahahaha!
Hi,
your interpretation is grounded on the idea (quite hegelian and marxian, but not gramscian) that the ideal is rational, i.e. that culture is downstream of the pursuit and retain of power.
I think that Covid and Ukraine, i.e. these close and YUGE examples of Twitter-overcharged mass formation psychosis, demonstrate without any doubt that ideas shape people as kuch as the opposite.
E.g.: the Spartans developed a complex system "to keep their humans in line, serving them, in siphoning the surplus of nature", integrated with warfare, "show of force" and population control, without developing any Slaanesh-y ritual.
Aztecs' Slaanesh-y blood rituals are downstream of their "Philosophy", not their power structure.
No, not with that. These people who design the hierarchal system are fully conscious of what they have done, and now what they are doi9ng. They designed the system and view all those forces they produce as a correcting mechanism.
It almost appears you are being off handedly apologetic. Shift the blame to nobody!
Fascinating stuff. Some of your bibliography has been on my “to read” list for a while and I will move them up. Clearly such a complex belief system as you describe didn't just fall out of the sky but evolved, my guess is probably in tandem with the process of human sacrifice, both providing justification for it and creating demand for further sacrifices, and it would be interesting to be able to trace it backwards but I don't know if that's possible without a large corpus of literature to examine. If you do your piece on animism, do you plan to include Shinto? I would be interested in seeing that.
Fascinating read.
Energy, frequency, consciousness - same thing.
And the concepts are akin to the etymological definition of Sin - an archery term for 'missing the mark'or being off-balance, out of sync, disordered.
And any reading of mythology makes it clear that at source, these stories and beliefs are human and not the specific of any culture or people.
A fascinating article. Many thanks.
Teotl is almost identical to Schopenhauer's notion of will - a blind, purposeless, striving, which lies noumenally behind all the phenomena of the world.
It would be interesting if you commented on how accurate the events in Gary Jennings’s historical novel “Aztec” might have been.
I wonder whether the alienness commenters here attribute to Aztec thought relates to the very reluctant acceptance of evolutionary theory in the West - an acceptance even today characterized by numerous misunderstandings. (For example "survival of the fittest" does not mean strongest, nor is survival per se what is selected; rather alleles which are a good fit for their environment survive and spread.)
Deep down, ordinary Westerners think of a McDonalds as artificial, but a beehive as natural. They allow killing in the animal kingdom or in wartime but agonize about abortion and the death penalty. They struggle philosophically to find the source of human rights, to choose between moral systems, or to reconcile political platforms of all kinds - Libertarianism, Meritocracy, Democracy, Equity, and so forth - with the basic fact that they all began life as children and must produce children for their society to continue. This is a mode of existence I understand well; even atheists seem somehow caught up in its stickiness.
But since becoming an evolutionist some decades ago I found my entire worldview radically shifting. At first my understanding of a dualistic universe filled with categories, judgment, and intelligence as the source of order, shifted into a worldview characterized by attention to variation and situation, where a surprising richness of complexity arises spontaneously, without regard to human appraisal of its seemingly opposite qualities: Flowers, maggots, dolphins, altriusm, parasitism, sight, pain, consciousness - all things flowing from a single, unitary Mother whose Divine Essence is Mutation and Selection.
Great and enriching read. Thank you!
How similar was teol to the Egyptian concept of maat?
Your essay inspired me to post on my Substack a revised version of a paper on the social utility of ritual I presented to the Melbourne University Medieval Roundtable. The paper discusses the dynamics of ritual in general and why mass human sacrifice was such a feature of Mesoamerican urban civilisation and how ritual was used to enable the eating of other humans in way that, far from corroding the social order, helped support it. https://lorenzofromoz.substack.com/p/why-ritual?sd=pf
Well, the Egyptian concept of Ma'at most certainly had a moral basis, implying order and justice, with its opposite being Isfet, or disorder, lawlessness and chaos. It doesn't sound like the Teotl concept has this implication of justice, although all that I know about Aztec world view I just learned in the last fifteen minutes!