After the defeat of the Aztecs, the Spanish converted some of the local kingdoms like Tlaxcala into semi-autonomous provinces; what was life like in these former kingdoms?
Did they retain a separate political identity with their own king/nobility/army/culture or was their special status just a token gesture?
Thanks.
Great question ! I've been reading about this topic recently, and will look at it from three angles : I) Pre-hispanic political organisation (short overview), 2) local administration in early colonial times, and III) the example of Tlaxcala. It seems more interesting to go into the background, in order to understand the Tlaxcalan case better which was quite special.
I)
The Nahua's (aka "Aztec") organisation before and for a long time after the Spanish conquest was built on altepetl, which could be stranslated as ethnic city-states. They were made up of various relatively autonomous parts of a whole. Their unity was connected to the symmetrical organisation of the parts, which had a common reference point. Different tasks were tied to a rotational principle that was hierarchically ordered. Each altepetl had clearly defined borders, a social hierarchy, and an ethnic identity, tied to the belief in a common origin and history. The Nahua had no concept of city that was independent of the altepetl – rather most larger cities had the same name as their altepetl.
II)
Following the wars of conquest the Spaniards rapidly started introducing encomiendas and church parishes. Encomiendas were official grands of rights for tribute of a native socio-political unit (e.g. A community). However, these new relations were laid over existing structures, the native altepetl, and at first depended strongly on the local dynastic rulers or tlatoque. The imperial structures of the Aztec Triple Alliance quickly fell apart, so that the Spanish had to deal directly with the various altepetl. This end of a subalternate position vis-a-vis the Aztec alliance and their tributes had acutally been a major reason that many population groups had sided with the Spaniards – including Tlaxcala.
Soon afterwards the authorities starting rearranging the altepelt at communal level, following hispanic examples (as in many other areas). At first the position of non-hereditary ruler was created, the gobernador. At least in the beginning this position was taken up by the tlatoani (dynastic ruler) for life. By the late 16th c. we have deeper transformations taking place : A city council or cabildo following iberian precedents was created, with judges (alcaldes) and councilmen (regidores). These officials were usually voted annually by and from the local indigenous nobility and accepted by the Spanish goverment. The cabildo took over many former tasks of the tlatoani. These included tax collection, and calling in the work of citizens. It also represented the community for the outside, and defended its interests. For Tlaxcala as for many other altepetl the cabildo came to be the main governing institution, headed by the gobernador.
Another important official was the corregidor or alcalde mayor, who was appointed by the New Spanish Viceroy. For most communities he was the Crown's main representant. In powerful altepetl like Tlaxcala orders by the corregidor were for the most part carried out. On the other hand, the cabildo also strongly advocated for Tlaxcala's autonomy and the traditional rights of its native nobility, often successfully. Thus in the cabildo's minutes (cf. sources below) we see much interaction with the first corregidor, who still had to teach the nobility much about Spaish administration ; but later corregidors seldom feature in the minutes.
From the Spanish perspective such restructuring and building of hispanic on indigenous structures meant a very complex form of organisation as well. Some altepetl were divided, and local native groups were later on brought into more compact settlements on a large scale. Nonetheless, the altepetl strucures with their local administration would continue to be adapted, and large parts survive the colonial period.
III)
The larger altepetl of pre-hispanic Talxcala had four sub-altepetl : Tepeticpac, Ocotelulco, Tizatlan and Quiahuixtlan. These would continue into colonial times. Although the order of the traditional altepetl rotation was changed and sometimes skipped early on, rotation would coninue into the late 17th c. What is more, the Spanish authorities brought together some of the sub-altepetl's former capitals in one new capital city, named Tlaxcala as well.
It's important to note here Tlaxcala's special status which you mentioned. This was connected to the Tlaxcalans being very early and important allies of Cortés. But it also had much to do with colonial machinations of the Tlaxcalan native elite and its cabildo. Peter Villella has stressed how a narrative of Tlaxcalan 'exceptionalism' was strongly pushed by its nobility. This included regular travels by its members to the royal Spanish court (e.g. By the historian Munoz Camargo and consorts) ; funding for religious institutions ; and the financing of chronicling of the Tlaxcalan « conquistadors » via (graphic) mapas and (written) chronicles. Following conquest the major rôle of Tlaxcalans in the conquest or Northern Mexican regions was also increasingly highlighted. Villella also shows some interesting parallels with another region, where the Otomí 'conquistadors' were highlighted and granted privileges as a consequence.
All such endeavors paid off : Tlaxcala was the first city to be officially awarded the status of city with its own sigil. Even more importantly, Tlaxcala was not made into an encomienda, and received royal assurances that Spaniards should not move to its territory. This accounts for the comparatively smaller rôle Spanish or creole people played there in the first 100 years following conquest; connected with this we see a tradition of annals writings over centuries in Tlaxcala, when these writings had already « died out » in Mexico city. It also meant that the new city Puebla that was open for Spaniards and others had to be founded outside of Tlaxcala.
To give you another example from the later 17th century, the writing from Don Juan Buenaventura de Zapata y Mendoza are an interesting source on this. Zapata y Mendoza came from an important noble familiy and held held posts in the cabildo over decades. Here we can still see the practice of « rotating » the major council positions between a specific group of native nobles. In his annals he underlined the special status of Tlaxcala as an altepetl that was never conquered (neither by the Aztec alliance nor by the Spanish).
He also highlights the continuing importance of the altepetl structure for Tlaxcalan society and culture. So he described the traditional rotation between the four sub-altepetl, and mentions many Catholic processions, that however showed respect to the altepetl's four corners (as in pre-hispanic traditions). What is more, Zapata also shows how other non-native groups like Spaniards or mestizos play increasingly bigger roles in cabildo affairs. This includes Spanish gobernadores who change traditional customs – and disrupting the traditional major influence of native nobility so central to an altepetl's continuation. In this light we can maybe understand the ire of the noble Zapata y Mendoza when a 'mestizo' was elected governor for the first time:
« […] the infernal mestizo governor don Nicolás Méndez […] : at his hands were destroyed the inherited privileges of the pipiltin, the right to show appreciation to the viceroy when he came here.That one, he destroyed everything, the right to go on procession on the altepetl's feast day, or major holidays, or at the proclamation of bulls in Puebla. It was his fault, and that of the [Spanish] tlatoani who used to be here, don Juan de Echeverría and his wife doña Francisca de Sosa. […] He asked to get in so that he would be governor here in Tlaxcala forever, that mestizo from hell. »
To sum up
With the example of Tlaxcala I've tried to show a few different developments. First, the continuing importance of the altepetl structure and the native nobility for Tlaxcala and other regions. These were tied very much to a population group's ethnic idenity and culture, and though transformed continued to play a major role throughout colonial times, esp. in the areas more remote from major cities (like Mexico City).
Second, I looked at the formation of local administration with the cabildo and its members. While these go back to Iberian precedents, native nobles continued to be the most important group there as well, at least in Tlaxcala. In other regions indigenous nobles quickly lost ground (literally) to Spaniards and other groups, as their traditional lands and rights were taken over.
And third, in the end even in the 'exceptional' Tlaxcala with its successful petitions tied to its native conquistador narrative, we see increasingly such influence by other groups (incl. Spaniards and creoles) in the altepetl's government, and more generally its society. Such developments would lead to a wave of writing highlighting native communities' histories from the late 17th c. onwards (e.g. with the títulos primordiales).
. Edit: Sources