Hot answers tagged

49

First of all, as the definition you cited states, The term empire does not have a precise definition. The Aztec Empire was large by the standards of their time in their part of the world. It dominated the Valley of Mexico and was a major power in Mesoamerica generally. Land size is not really a indicator of imperial status per se, but in context, the ...


4

As "empires" go, the Aztec "empire" is pretty small. It ranks 212th among large empires, with 220,000 square miles. That's about the size of two large European countries, say Germany and France, or Germany and Poland. It was also larger than any other civilization in the Americas (pre Columbus), except for the Incas. An Emperor may be considered a "king of ...


3

There is a nice short summary of pre-Columbian trade in the Amreicas by David Carballo. It looks like Cahokian trade was focused on the North American landmass and did not extend to Mesoamerica in a significant way. From the text: Following the adoption of Mexican maize as a primary domesticate, a Mississippian trading system began to flourish within ...


3

I think it is called an empire by the following criterion: it is a multi-ethnic state where one ethnic group (or nation) rules over the other, usually conquered, ethnic groups. (This applies to the Russian, British, Osman, Austro-Hungarian, Roman, Persian, Mongol, Carolingian and many other empires. The size is secondary. This definition fits the Aztec ...


1

All these words refer to the hierarchical organization of the society. "Tlatoani" was the title of the ruler. The word derives from the local "nahuatl" language and denotes a spokesman. Huey tlatoani was the really highest one. "Altepetl" was the city state, a local ethnically based province. The word is a combination of words for "water" and "mountain". ...


1

Marina was an interpretor for Cortes. She translated from Nahul to Mayan so that a Spanish priest who had learnt some Mayan could translate to Spanish. Cortes conquered the Aztec empire because the native peoples in Mexico revolted against the Aztecs. So it was far more than 350 Spanish versus the Aztecs by themselves. Also, he brought with him European ...


1

Injecting subjective, modern-day judgements on ancient civilizations like calling them "bloodthirsty" is just bad-mouthing ancient civilizations and not objective historically. If your goal is to look at ancient civilizations and just insult them or consider them inferior because their customs are denounced by your own civilization, you will have a hard time ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible