The Wikipedia article does go on to list some of the areas reconquered by Motecuhzoma Ilhuicamina as well as his grandson Ahuitzotl, if in a somewhat disjointed way. However, I am the last person to ever suggest anyone take Wikipedia at face value, so let’s explore the question of how Aztec conquest, rebellion, and reconquest worked.

What Even Is An Empire?

The phrase typically used to describe the Aztec Triple Alliance is that they were a “hegemonic” empire. Hegemonic empires are contrasted with “territorial” empires in that the latter exerts more direct control over conquered areas through the replacement of local leaders, a permanent military presence, displacement/replacement of population, imposition of centralized legal codes and standards, infrastructure projects, etc. Basically a high investment strategy with expected high returns.

Hegemonic empires, in contrast, tend to leave the political and social structures of their conquered areas intact, and generally only interfere with whatever goals the empire had in mind when it conquered the region. In the Aztec case, the major goals were the regular supply of tribute goods, free passage for merchants and the military, and the occasional provision of the army as it passed through. This is, in the simplest sense, a low investment strategy which can tolerate low returns, although another way of looking at it is as outsourcing imperialism to local contractors.

Ross Hassig is the scholar who primarily developed this concept with regards to the Aztecs. However, he was drawing on earlier work on Roman Imperial hegemony and the term can be applied to a number of states in various time periods, ranging from the Assyrians to the United States. Imperial states also do not hold a meeting to decide whether they are going to be hegemonic or territorial; these are porous styles of exerting control based on expediency.

Alconini (2008) in her study of Inka imperialism notes that, even within the hegemonic/territorial framework, the exercise of power tends to show variance along temporal and spatial lines. Empires, as they mature and their legitimacy solidifies, may have a tendency to exert increasingly direct control over their subjects. Luttwak, who wrote about Roman hegemony, sees the Roman Empire as an example of a state that evolved from an early hegemonic state to a later territorial state. This is not to propose a Whiggish view of imperial progression, just to show some of the details of this particular mental framework and highlight how ideal states of being are inevitably corrupted by the unceasing details of reality.

Empires can also vary spatially in how they manifest their presence to subject peoples. DIfferent parts of one empire may be subjected to different methods of surveillance and control. The Aztecs are actually a great example of this multimodal form of imperialism. Within the actual Valley of Mexico, the members exercised much more direct territorial control individually within their respective spheres of influence and presented an integrated system of rule through strengthening ties between the members of the Triple Alliance and eliminating rivals outside that pact. For instance, Xaltocan, an Otomi city-state in the northern part of the Valley, was conquered and essentially repopulated with Nahua settlers (Mata-Miguez et al 2012). In addition, the ruling dynasties of the Triple Alliance intermarried each other and into local elite lineages to form a network of familial political control (see this previous comment of mine. They also directly removed and replaced local rulers. The combination of marriage and usurpation is how the Mexica “royal family” ended up in charge of not just Tenochtitlan, but also other polities such as Cuitlahuac, Ixtapalapa, and Ecatepec.

Outside the Valley of Mexico, however, local dynasties were largely left in place, in true hegemonic style. The Aztecs also, however, established garrisons and even built fortresses in strategic areas (Smith 1996). Oztuma/Oztoman, on the Tarascan border, is a famous example, but there were also fortresses in other trouble spots, such as in the province of Quauhtochco on the eastern border of Tlaxcala. Huaxyacac, modern day Oaxaca City, did not have a fortress, but was conquered and re-established as a garrison town from which the Aztecs could launch future campaigns in the Zapotec and Mixtec territory. Then there are a few cases where a city or town incurred the wrath of the Aztecs to such an extent that the entire polity was wiped out and resettled with families from the Triple Alliance, as happened at Alahuiztlan.

All of this is to say that Aztec imperial control was a complicated dance of trying to extract as much wealth and strategic advantage from a conquered as possible, but doing so with the lowest commitment of resources. The largely hegemonic system of the Aztecs did, however, lend itself to recently conquered polities, or those on the fringes of the state, to think that maybe a change in management meant they could slip from their bonds of vassalage. In one sense this was less a bug and more of a feature of Aztec domination, because it did allow for convenient targets of reconquest during “coronation campaigns” which also reaped captives for sacrifice. For now though, let’s focus on some examples of rebellious tributaries and what they can tell us about imperial power in the late Postclassic.