Actually Cempoal formed their alliance with Cortez not out of any great trust in the Spanish but out of fear of the Aztecs. One way or the other Cempoal would be conquered by someone. Until Cortez landed with his free booters the most likely canidates were the Aztec, the most powerful Nation in the region.

The Aztecs had caused a great deal of discontent thru taxations and war on other people and that not the " Gee these Spanish fellas are really nice guys." attitude paved the way for the alliances against the Aztecs. These same people would latter be put into serfdom by the Catholic Missions and the Spanish Landowners to follow.

During the Siege of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) small pox did breakout in the latter stages. Whether or not it was purposeful or not, it did much to shorten the siege .

As far as cannibalism all research has shown that what was practiced was ritual cannibalism as opposed to sustanice cannibalism. That is to say the consumption of human flesh was done in conjunction with religious ceremonies.

It's important to understand what the aztecs were doing by cutting hearts out all day, so they could replenish the sun god, i believe. But it's hard to justify the deaths of thousands for rituals seeing how none of the other tribes at the time were noted for doing it. I think the aztecs were a well organized and advanced indian civilization, but wouldn't those practices be considered mass murder in any logic?

no no no no no, white man is always bad.

90s revisionist history.


As with most things in history, and human nature, there are very few wars that are a 100% good guy against a 100% bad guy. If not for the holocaust even WW2 wouldn't be a white hat black hat ordeal, and that wasn't discovered until the end of the war. The point is, Cortez was after gold and glory and Montezuma spent his time "harvesting" humans from rival tribes and executing astrologers and civic leaders that give him an answer he disagreed with.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

As far as cannibalism all research has shown that what was practiced was ritual cannibalism as opposed to sustanice cannibalism. That is to say the consumption of human flesh was done in conjunction with religious ceremonies.

I agree with everything you say except with the canibalism issue.

I think that fatting people,sacrifice them,remove their heart,cut up the body in pieces and eat it is not something that a "civilizated"empire does. At least from my point of view.
Bernal Diaz Del Catillo( a Corte´s soldier) wrote a book about the conqueor of Mexico. He tells how they founded prisions full of prisioners, the aztecs were fatting them in order to have a succulent lunch, I really do not care in what context was it done, religious, magical or whatever...They could sacrifice thousands of prisioners each day(I have readen that once up to 30.000), just to be sure that Bichilobo was happy

Through cannibalism, the Aztecs appear to have been attempting to reduce very particular nutritional deficiencies.
Bernal Díaz described when his companions were sacrificed before his eyes in Tenochtitlán:

"Then they kicked the bodies down the steps, and the Indian butchers who were waiting below cut off their arms and legs and flayed their faces, which they afterwards prepared like glove leather, with their beards on, and kept for their drunken festivals. Then they ate their flesh with a sauce of peppers and tomatoes."

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/.../sacrifice.htm

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

I agree with everything you say except with the canibalism issue.

I think that fatting people,sacrifice them,remove their heart,cut up the body in pieces and eat it is not something that a "civilizated"empire does. At least from my point of view.
Bernal Diaz Del Catillo( a Corte´s soldier) wrote a book about the conqueor of Mexico. He tells how they founded prisions full of prisioners, the aztecs were fatting them in order to have a succulent lunch, I really do not care in what context was it done, religious, magical or whatever...They could sacrifice thousands of prisioners each day(I have readen that once up to 30.000), just to be sure that Bichilobo was happy

Never said it was civilized, but there is a distinct difference between ritualized canibilism and canibilism done to support life. For my part I would look at the total information available not just the Del Catillo book. You need to remember that his manuscript had to pass the litmus test of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown. Their goal was colonies in Latin America and they needed public support.

Whispering Death, It's not revisionist history it's looking at events from both angles. I never said "Spanish Bad. Aztec Good." IMO both sides were brutal towards their enemies.

I sincerely do not believe that people at that time knew how to transmit a virus on purpose.

They were still giving viral names to bacterial diseases in the early 1900's.

Nobody asked about the viral outbreak. It happened in the Korean War. Around 3,500 US troops died of it - quickly.

what abouut sieges that flung dead bodies into towns that would cause disease, didn't they have that during the medieval ages? Couldn't the same concpet have been used on the natives.

I'd have to strongly disagree with the presumption that the people of Europe did not know how to intentionally spread deadly diseases. Sure, they didn't know why things worked the way they did, but catapulting disease infested corpses as well as dead lifestock, is an age-old practice going back to well before Spain was ever a nation. It would not be surprising if we were to find that the Spanish used such methods. I do not have any sources to offer to confirm or deny whether such methods were used by the Spanish Conquistadors. War Machine is quite correct, Europeans had used primative biological warfare.

Still, more importantly, they were blessed to come across an Empire that was bitterly hated by the peoples that it had conquered. Bear in mind, they were the ones being "volunteered" for human sacrifice and cannibalism. Much of the ritual practice of such things predates the Aztecs, but it seems that the Aztecs were ... overzealous in their practice of it. And if you belonged to a nation full of potential human sacrifices, its seems that you'd jump at the opportunity to change matters. Cortez was masterful at playing the conquered against the conquerers, throwing the Aztec Empire into chaos and then coming out on top in the end.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Never said it was civilized, but there is a distinct difference between ritualized canibilism and canibilism done to support life. For my part I would look at the total information available not just the Del Catillo book. You need to remember that his manuscript had to pass the litmus test of the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown. Their goal was colonies in Latin America and they needed public support.

Whispering Death, It's not revisionist history it's looking at events from both angles. I never said "Spanish Bad. Aztec Good." IMO both sides were brutal towards their enemies.

You have to remember that the Catholic church(De las Casas,the monk), were the biggest defensor of indians. He strongly critized the way indians were treated.
I do not see any difference btw eating people because of the religion or due to being hungry... Actually, many people think thay had to practice canibalism due to nutritional reasons, so probably the religon was just the perfect excuse