Which of these was the best Ancient Native American Tribe the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Tlaxcans and why? What would happen if all 3 of these were around at the same time and they got into a war?
Ancient Native Americans
- Thread starter ConfederateFly
- Start date
I think that the best were probably the Inca. Their religion, while it demanded some sacrafices, didn't demand the thousands of deaths that the Aztec (Nahuatl) gave to their 'butterfly' god. (That's a little weird, this board is kind of dedicated to butterflies too).
There is a great mural in the National Museum on Mexico City of the time before Cortez, showing human flesh being sold in the market.
The Mayan had great potential as practical scientists and astronomers, but they were also pretty bloody.
I don't know enough about the Tlaxcan to make a judgement.
There is a great mural in the National Museum on Mexico City of the time before Cortez, showing human flesh being sold in the market.
The Mayan had great potential as practical scientists and astronomers, but they were also pretty bloody.
I don't know enough about the Tlaxcan to make a judgement.
What do you mean by "best"?
The Classic period Maya (c. AD200-900) had the only true written script in the New World, the most sophisticated numbering system, calendrics, and astronomical recording, and possibly the most striking and sophisticated public architecture, sculpture, and graphic arts (although that's debatable). They were also divided into lots of warring city states ruled by brutal warlike and murderous self-mutilating egotistical royal dynasties, practicing some of the most bizarre sadomasochistic rituals known for a civilized people. They were less urbanized than the central Mexicans. Read "Forest of Kings". A stone age technology.
The Central Mexican Post-Classic (AD 1000-1520) civilizations (Toltec, Aztec, Tlascalan, and others) were all basically similar culturally and lingusitically. At the time of the Spanish conquest, Toltec civilization had collapsed and the Aztecs (Mexica) were dominant, so I'll use them. The Aztec Empire appears to have been more centralized and tightly organized than the Maya area. Their civilization was more urbanized and their architecture was also quite sophisticated. At the time of conquest, the Aztec "Empire" was undergoing transformation from a tribute state into a conquest empire. The Aztec rulers were not a pure heriditary monarchy, but were chosen from a among the noble class and don't seem to have been as "weird" as the Maya kings. On the other hand, Aztec writing systems were primitive, their calendar less sophisticated than the Maya, and they were noted for practicing human sacrifice (including ritual torture and canibalism) on a near industrial scale. Spanish conquest was made possible because everybody else in Mexico hated them. A stone age technology.
The Inca Empire (1300-1520) was by most normal criterla, a less advanced area than the Mesoamerica. Architecture, while massive, was much less sophisticated (no concrete, just dry laid stonework - a lot more adobe), cities were not as big or well-planned as in Mexico and architecture not as "artistic" as among the Maya. They completely lacked a writing system, which makes it hard to place them at the same cultural evel as the other civilizations. On the other hand, they were an early bronze-age culture with domestic beasts of burden and their political system was far more sophisticated and thoroughly organized than anything in Mexico. The Inca (king) was an absolute heriditary monarch who (like the Pharoahs) was often expected to marry his sister. They also had a very efficient system of tribute, full-time bureauocracy, state ownership of lands, and taxation which provided for some degree of wealth distribution among the common classes, but the degree to which the Inca empire was "socialistic" in the modern sense is debatable. They also practiced human sacrifice, but at a much less pathological level than the Mesoamericans.
If I had to live anywhere as a "common person", it would probably be Peru. As for most advanced all things considered, I'd go with the central Mexicans.
As to "Who'd win a war if they all fought", it would probably be the Incas. If you believe the Spanish choniclers, their Army was a permanent national conscript army with a formal structure and it fought more for conquest and statecraft without the whole "lets spend most of our time catching people to torture and kill back home" ethic that dominated Mayan and Aztec warfare. They also had bronze maces and knives to go with all the stone tools.
The Classic period Maya (c. AD200-900) had the only true written script in the New World, the most sophisticated numbering system, calendrics, and astronomical recording, and possibly the most striking and sophisticated public architecture, sculpture, and graphic arts (although that's debatable). They were also divided into lots of warring city states ruled by brutal warlike and murderous self-mutilating egotistical royal dynasties, practicing some of the most bizarre sadomasochistic rituals known for a civilized people. They were less urbanized than the central Mexicans. Read "Forest of Kings". A stone age technology.
The Central Mexican Post-Classic (AD 1000-1520) civilizations (Toltec, Aztec, Tlascalan, and others) were all basically similar culturally and lingusitically. At the time of the Spanish conquest, Toltec civilization had collapsed and the Aztecs (Mexica) were dominant, so I'll use them. The Aztec Empire appears to have been more centralized and tightly organized than the Maya area. Their civilization was more urbanized and their architecture was also quite sophisticated. At the time of conquest, the Aztec "Empire" was undergoing transformation from a tribute state into a conquest empire. The Aztec rulers were not a pure heriditary monarchy, but were chosen from a among the noble class and don't seem to have been as "weird" as the Maya kings. On the other hand, Aztec writing systems were primitive, their calendar less sophisticated than the Maya, and they were noted for practicing human sacrifice (including ritual torture and canibalism) on a near industrial scale. Spanish conquest was made possible because everybody else in Mexico hated them. A stone age technology.
The Inca Empire (1300-1520) was by most normal criterla, a less advanced area than the Mesoamerica. Architecture, while massive, was much less sophisticated (no concrete, just dry laid stonework - a lot more adobe), cities were not as big or well-planned as in Mexico and architecture not as "artistic" as among the Maya. They completely lacked a writing system, which makes it hard to place them at the same cultural evel as the other civilizations. On the other hand, they were an early bronze-age culture with domestic beasts of burden and their political system was far more sophisticated and thoroughly organized than anything in Mexico. The Inca (king) was an absolute heriditary monarch who (like the Pharoahs) was often expected to marry his sister. They also had a very efficient system of tribute, full-time bureauocracy, state ownership of lands, and taxation which provided for some degree of wealth distribution among the common classes, but the degree to which the Inca empire was "socialistic" in the modern sense is debatable. They also practiced human sacrifice, but at a much less pathological level than the Mesoamericans.
If I had to live anywhere as a "common person", it would probably be Peru. As for most advanced all things considered, I'd go with the central Mexicans.
As to "Who'd win a war if they all fought", it would probably be the Incas. If you believe the Spanish choniclers, their Army was a permanent national conscript army with a formal structure and it fought more for conquest and statecraft without the whole "lets spend most of our time catching people to torture and kill back home" ethic that dominated Mayan and Aztec warfare. They also had bronze maces and knives to go with all the stone tools.
What about North American tribes? Were there any particularly strong and unified?
Weren't the Cahokia moundbuilders in the midwest and the Anasazi in the southwest some of the contemporaneously most advanced north American nations at the time ?
I'll cast a vote for the Tarascans, their metallurgy and administration were significantly more advanced than the Aztecs.
Anyone know much about teh Chimu?
Anyone know much about teh Chimu?
Norman said:
actually all that you would have to do here is take out the preist...damn i forgot his name who started the mass sacrifices and the flowery wars to get them. not too hard. its not in their ideology to sacrifice thousands, all they need is one. this crazy ass guy led a group that believed that more would be better, perhaps bring in a preist who would try to limit the number of sacrifices.
Norman said:
i have heard that this was pretty popular in the roman empire also. quite the delicassy (sp?) in fact.
zoomar said:
I agree...the Inca were much more formidable, militarily, than the Meso-americans. They not only had bronze maces...they had some rather nasty bronze halberd-like weapons (combined axe and spear), and a large force of slingers. The Meso-Americans had nothing to compare. They were also much better organized.
Pass the Gaulish ham, Brutus!
OK, by now I'm getting pissed off. Who's been telling all that nonsense about the Romans?! Own up!
Right, let's address the culinary side:
- most Romans subsisted on an almost completely grain-based diet: bread and pulses. Not only was this dictated by necessity, it was considered the appropriate food of civilised people
- the Roman upper classes did eat some weird things, but not necessarily bad ones. Dormice in honey batter - why not? Milk-fed snails - I've seen stranger thing in Chinese takeaways. And if you've ever had sliced beetroot in mustard-vinegar dressing with rue, you won't want to go back
- They were every bit as prejudiced about their food as most modern Westerners are, though they had different preferences. In factt, any diet heavy on meat, beer and butter would have struck them as unappealing. A Roman emperor of sober habits is quoted as dismissing beer as 'from the billygoat' (yes, in Latin that renders as "goatpiss". Few Romans had linguistic inhibitions about coarseness). Vespasian is said to have refused a military officer promotion because he didn't smell of garlic.
- Eating people was the height of bad form and a standard topos of barbarism in Hellenistic and Roman novels. Some historians also use it to describe safely distant tribes, and for some reason many Romans seem to have believed it common practice in Egypt. Oddly enough, ritual cannibalism (though probably not culinary cannibalism) may have existed in Celtic and Germanic Europe until the first century AD, though our Roman sources do not mention it.
- Human sacrifice in the context of a Greco-Roman rite might include eating the victim as animal sacrifices were usually eaten rather than destroyed entirely. However, the only human sacrifices recorded for Rome all involve the complete destruction of the body. From the 1st century BC onwards, human sacrifice is forbidden by senatusconsultum, though it is likely the habit never died entirely in the wider reaches of the Empire. There are reports of a sacrificial rite on the Isle of Anglesey that may have included cannibalism and may have continued into Roman times, but the evidence is hardly sufficient.
- The eating habits of the Roman upper classes are known to us mostly through the writings of a number of authorstaking a rather dim view of culinary luxury. Think, perhaps, of rather pointedly 'not decadent' real-man Western populist politicians making snide remarks about quiche and French wines. Cato even thought eating bread every day was flirting with moral dissolution. Porridge did fine for our brave, virtuous forefathers
- With that for added perspective it should come as less of a surprise that the food habits of Rome's leading citizens during the Empire were remarkably healthy, with a limited meat intake, plenty of vegetable fats and fiber, mucho fruit and vegetables, both cooked and raw, fresh seafood (the #1 status item), and moderate (occasionally less than moderate) wine drinking. I'm in fact working on a Roman wedding banquet for a colleague and I have yet to find anything in the sources that she won't eat - though on occasion only after trying it sight unseen.
The only story I know that alleges second-order cannibalism in Rome is Suetonius' tale of Trebellius Pollio feeding his fish with slaves to improve their taste - which, if you read it, turns out a cloying moral fable highlighting the goodness of Augustus who is, naturally, horrified at such depravity.
cow defender said:
OK, by now I'm getting pissed off. Who's been telling all that nonsense about the Romans?! Own up!
Right, let's address the culinary side:
- most Romans subsisted on an almost completely grain-based diet: bread and pulses. Not only was this dictated by necessity, it was considered the appropriate food of civilised people
- the Roman upper classes did eat some weird things, but not necessarily bad ones. Dormice in honey batter - why not? Milk-fed snails - I've seen stranger thing in Chinese takeaways. And if you've ever had sliced beetroot in mustard-vinegar dressing with rue, you won't want to go back
- They were every bit as prejudiced about their food as most modern Westerners are, though they had different preferences. In factt, any diet heavy on meat, beer and butter would have struck them as unappealing. A Roman emperor of sober habits is quoted as dismissing beer as 'from the billygoat' (yes, in Latin that renders as "goatpiss". Few Romans had linguistic inhibitions about coarseness). Vespasian is said to have refused a military officer promotion because he didn't smell of garlic.
- Eating people was the height of bad form and a standard topos of barbarism in Hellenistic and Roman novels. Some historians also use it to describe safely distant tribes, and for some reason many Romans seem to have believed it common practice in Egypt. Oddly enough, ritual cannibalism (though probably not culinary cannibalism) may have existed in Celtic and Germanic Europe until the first century AD, though our Roman sources do not mention it.
- Human sacrifice in the context of a Greco-Roman rite might include eating the victim as animal sacrifices were usually eaten rather than destroyed entirely. However, the only human sacrifices recorded for Rome all involve the complete destruction of the body. From the 1st century BC onwards, human sacrifice is forbidden by senatusconsultum, though it is likely the habit never died entirely in the wider reaches of the Empire. There are reports of a sacrificial rite on the Isle of Anglesey that may have included cannibalism and may have continued into Roman times, but the evidence is hardly sufficient.
- The eating habits of the Roman upper classes are known to us mostly through the writings of a number of authorstaking a rather dim view of culinary luxury. Think, perhaps, of rather pointedly 'not decadent' real-man Western populist politicians making snide remarks about quiche and French wines. Cato even thought eating bread every day was flirting with moral dissolution. Porridge did fine for our brave, virtuous forefathers
- With that for added perspective it should come as less of a surprise that the food habits of Rome's leading citizens during the Empire were remarkably healthy, with a limited meat intake, plenty of vegetable fats and fiber, mucho fruit and vegetables, both cooked and raw, fresh seafood (the #1 status item), and moderate (occasionally less than moderate) wine drinking. I'm in fact working on a Roman wedding banquet for a colleague and I have yet to find anything in the sources that she won't eat - though on occasion only after trying it sight unseen.
The only story I know that alleges second-order cannibalism in Rome is Suetonius' tale of Trebellius Pollio feeding his fish with slaves to improve their taste - which, if you read it, turns out a cloying moral fable highlighting the goodness of Augustus who is, naturally, horrified at such depravity.
Ever hear of the Tezcucans? They have been called the Greeks of MesoAmerica. They were the Aztecs first allies. Then barbarians invaded and the Aztecs came to the rescue, also taking the dominant role in the alliance. BTW they have a leader in the 1400's who hated human sacrifice and believed in one unseen god. He burned incense for him in a temple he had built. He apparently thought his god would be revealed some day. Ive always liked the idea of having the Tezcucans unite mesoamerica and for a muslim or christian trader to get in contact with this leader.
I think it would take a visit from the Old World to make any kind of new religion permament. It would probably be popular among subject people. Perhaps the Aztecs revolt and are put down in a very through way? Thats the only way I see them stopping from killing people.
That is disturbing on more levels then one.
Then again... Perhaps a bloody "Crusade" or "Jihad" would decrease the population so that this isnt need.
Then again... Perhaps a bloody "Crusade" or "Jihad" would decrease the population so that this isnt need.
Actually it's pretty well attested to. There is a fresco in the National Museum of Mexico (I believe it's there) by Diego Rivera that shows the sale in the market place.
It's just part of a large number of images so you don't notice it that much, but it's there. BTW, he hated Cortez, so he painted him with a greenish color to his skin.
It's just part of a large number of images so you don't notice it that much, but it's there. BTW, he hated Cortez, so he painted him with a greenish color to his skin.
The fact that the Aztecs practiced cannibalism is well attested to, primarily from contemporary Spanish and native chroniclers. The traditional view has been that it was only a ceremonial, limited practice. Many modern US archaeologists argue from circumstantial evidence (the scope of the human sacrifices as documented in the chronicles, iconography,the general absence of large animals surviving in the valley of Mexico by the 15th century) that cannibalism was practiced on a very large scale and, yes, that one of the major reasons for the "flower wars" (the ceremonial battles fought between citys in and outside the Aztec Empire to capture sacrificial victims) was to obtain protein-rich meat - meat which was parcelled out among the clans of the victorius warriors and to the public at large. For obvious reasons, some Mexican archaeologists are uncomfortable with this interpretation and disagree. No one really knows.
I would argue, though, that the principle reason for human sacrifice throughout Mexico is its role in religion. It also needs to be mentioned that capturing victims for torture and sacrifice (and not infrequently cannibalism) was common throughout many north american tribes and may indicate the widespread survival of an old pan-american sadomasochistic cultural trait. The Aztecs simply had the social organization and population to carry it out on an industrial scale (20,000 people for the dedication of the Templo Mayor in the late 1400's).
BTW, Norman, I've seen the Rivera mural and am not so sure it depicts the sale of human meat in the market. Since Rivera was a nativist and hated not only cortez but most things Spanish in Mexican History, I'd be surprised that he would depict his proud Aztecs as grocery-store cannibals. But I could be wrong.
I would argue, though, that the principle reason for human sacrifice throughout Mexico is its role in religion. It also needs to be mentioned that capturing victims for torture and sacrifice (and not infrequently cannibalism) was common throughout many north american tribes and may indicate the widespread survival of an old pan-american sadomasochistic cultural trait. The Aztecs simply had the social organization and population to carry it out on an industrial scale (20,000 people for the dedication of the Templo Mayor in the late 1400's).
BTW, Norman, I've seen the Rivera mural and am not so sure it depicts the sale of human meat in the market. Since Rivera was a nativist and hated not only cortez but most things Spanish in Mexican History, I'd be surprised that he would depict his proud Aztecs as grocery-store cannibals. But I could be wrong.
carlton_bach said:
OK, by now I'm getting pissed off. Who's been telling all that nonsense about the Romans?! Own up!
i stand corrected, this mind got a bit dusty after i stopped going to a real university and a lot of memories mix together (latinamericanhistory class and medieval studies).