So, lets say that the Aztec Empire never manages to unite the region. What are some other peoples that might have been able to secure domination of the area, and how would developments be different?
Azcapotzalco was the un-disputed hegemon in the Valley of Mexico prior to the rise of the Triple Alliance. Had they crushed the combined forces of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan, they would have opportunity to spread their influence beyond it. They were related to the Teotihuacan civilization and spoke the Otomi language in contrast to the Nahuatl language spoken by recent arrivals like the Aztecs and became the lingua franca in the region. Nahuatl is likely to still be adopted by an Azcapotzalco-led hegemony as the Aztecs were not the only people speaking it: Nahua peoples have been invading and settling in central Mexico for centuries. Of course Otomi would NOT have the maligned and ridiculed social status that it would have under Aztec and later colonial rule under an linguistically Otomi-dominant empire. Blood sacrifice would not have as much emphasis in Acapotzalcan culture as it would in the scale it had under the Aztecs.
The Tarascans are another option.
Thanks! It's a time period I don't know much about, but which I fine fascinating. that was a great response!
"Aztec" is a post-colonial appellation, the term originally referred to anyone who came from the possibly mythical Aztlan and after Mexico's independence the term was used by scholars to distinguish pre-colonial Mexicans from modern Mexicans. The people most commonly referred to as the "Aztecs" would've mostly referred to themselves as "Mexica", though there were other tribes in the Triple Alliance as well, the Mexica were just the largest and most influential.Wouldn't a Nahua state still dominate and gain the name "Aztec" anyway, even if they didn't originate from the same part of the Valley of Mexico? Based on the amount of Nahua peoples in the Valley of Mexico?
The Tarascans look to be a bit too distant by their geographical position.
Sorry if I sound a bit ignorant on this subject, I think I'm more seeking clarification here.
"Aztec" is a post-colonial appellation, the term originally referred to anyone who came from the possibly mythical Aztlan and after Mexico's independence the term was used by scholars to distinguish pre-colonial Mexicans from modern Mexicans. The people most commonly referred to as the "Aztecs" would've mostly referred to themselves as "Mexica", though there were other tribes in the Triple Alliance as well, the Mexica were just the largest and most influential.
The Mexica were a specific group of Nahua. A Tlaxcalan empire for example certainly wouldn't have named themselves after their enemies. Even the people in the Triple Alliance wouldn't have all called themselves Mexica, there were the Acolhua and Tepaneca who were equal partners in the alliance with the Mexica. And butterflies would quite possibly obviate the idea of calling pre-colonial Mexicans or Acolhua or Otomis or whomever "Aztecs".Yes, but wouldn't any Nahua empire in Mesoamerica gain the name Aztec as a result? As far as Mexica, wouldn't any Nahua empire call themselves Mexica as well? I guess unless a non-Nahua group manages to assert themselves in the Valley of Mexico?
The Mexica were a specific group of Nahua. A Tlaxcalan empire for example certainly wouldn't have named themselves after their enemies. Even the people in the Triple Alliance wouldn't have all called themselves Mexica, there were the Acolhua and Tepaneca who were equal partners in the alliance with the Mexica. And butterflies would quite possibly obviate the idea of calling pre-colonial Mexicans or Acolhua or Otomis or whomever "Aztecs".