[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




How "cruel" and "barbaric" were the native peoples of the Americas upon Spanish arrival? Were the stories of their brutal human sacrifice rituals exaggerated by the Spanish to justify their conquest? Or did the indians really sacrifice thousands of people a year for their blood gods? Any eyewitness records of such rituals etc.?
>>
There were witnesses, however the numbers may be inflated.
>>
not cruel, but they certainly killed a lot

europeans, arabs of the time were much crueller and more inventive with the ways they killed people but they reserved it for enemies in war or criminals. aztec sacrifices were treated well until death
>>
>>5470795
Not cruel, but had bizzare rituals and "savage" like practices. Aztecs had a good civilization, it was their religion and paranoia that causes the fucked up stuff like sacrifices and cannibalism.
>>
>>5470795
American Mongoloids were obsessed with death.

Sacrificing children and women or men was just the way things were done.
>>
>>5472248
They were also obsessed with the end times and inevitable chaos. A lot of their religions sound like Lovecraftian cosmic horror stories
>>
File: Tzompantli-tower-graph.jpg (239 KB, 900x883)
239 KB
239 KB JPG
If anything their cruelty and savagery have been vastly under reported

>>5470812
lmao imagine the retards that believe this
>>
>>5472417
>>
>>5472238
>mass cannibalism and human sacrifice isn't cruel

Is anything cruel then?
>>
>>5472421
mass? they did a sacrifices once a year and they killed one person (who got to live as a god for a year)
>>
aztecs ruled by terror
>>
>>5472421
Motolinia mentions cities would sacrifice around 20 and the # of sacrificed victims in Tenochtitlan itself over 100 hundred
>>
Anon who is making/made the detailed posts in the second half the other Mesoamerican thread (
>>5446429) chiming in

>>5470795
As you'll read below, human sacrifice and blood offerings were a universally important element of Mesoamerican religion, an often did involve pretty gorey ceremonies and rituals, but both the scale and cruelty of the practices are exaggerated and overstated.

I'll clarify more on the actual religious and philsiophical context behind the practices and the specifics of various rituals later but I want to start by replying to this retard and talking about raw numbers;

>>5472418
>>5472417
>their cruelty and savagery have been vastly under reported

Wrong, and your own fucking images prove it, you didn't even read the articles or research those images are from, you fell for a clickbait, inaccurate headline that runs counter to the actual fucking research it's citing.

The recent excavations of the skull rack only further proves that the scales at which sacrifice was practiced was very limited compared to most pop culture and Spanish accounts, it's only above what people thought if you are listening to SJWs or chicanos who were saying they DINDU NUFFIN.

If you actually look up the most detailed article discussing the current excavations, you will see that it states that the Skull Rack was built in phases and that for the phase that's excavated, which covers 1486 to 1502, "thousands" of skulls were found. Assuming that means between 2000 and 10,000 skulls, that would mean an annual sacrifice rate of between 125 and 625. Furthermore, 75% of them were males of warrior age, which is consistent with the previously known fact that the Mexica of Tenochtitlan only practiced large scale sacrifice of enemy soldiers, (Not that women and children weren't sacrificed, but not on large scales). Furthermore, you also need to consider that criminals could be sentenced to sacrifice as a legal punishment, so they might be disproportionately represented.

1/?
>>
>>5472238
>Aztecs had a good civilization
Aztecs literally force-relocated entire nations all the time to subdue them, used other methods of abuse too, that's why it was so easy to turn multiple nations against them, they saw whites as liberators.
>>
>>5470795
Considering the Aztecs managed to piss off all their neighbors so hard they teamed up with the Spaniards, they must have been doing something wrong.
>>
>>5472417
Most of those skull racks had skulls of warriors. Not saying sacrifice is good but in the long wrong it's about the same as deaths in war. I mean the aztec warrior ranking system was based on captives not kills and it was considered clumsy to kill someone during battle. Now compare that mentality to most of the rest of the world.
>>
>>5472652
>>5472417
>>5472418
>>5470795
cont:

Furthermore, the infamous re-consercration of the great temple where 80,000 people were said to have been sacrificed in 3 days happened in 1487, which would be inside that span of time: Assuming that that reconsecration happened at all, that would also mean that the average of 125 to 625 people being sacrificed annually is actually HIGHER then what would be normal, in a time span without such an important event. So, now, let's run the math

>Assume the high-ball estimate of 10,000 sacrifices across that time period rather then the low ball 2000, so an annual rate of 625.
>Assume that only 66.66% of these were enemy soldiers or criminals, rather then potentially over 75%, which brings it down to 208 civillian sacrifices annually for the main skull rack
>Assume that the rest of the citie's skull racks total as much as this main one, doubling the number to 416 civillian sacrifices.
>Tenochtitlan's population is said to be 200,000 to 250,000, so assuming an median of 225,000, 416 is 0.18488... of the total city's population
>The Aztec empire is commonly estimated to have a total population of 5 million people at it's maximum extent. Assuming that all the other cities had half the sacrifice rates of Tenochtitlan (in reality most probably had far less then that), then that's a total amount of 4930 civillian sacrifices annually across the empire

So, around 5000 sacrifices of innocent victims annually, across the entire empire: That's significantly lower then the VAST majority of estimates and claims by both the Spanish and pretty much any source in pop culture; and that's still IF you high ball the number at every fucking possible opportunity, by not considering the presences of criminals, applying the empire's maximum extent, ec; so in all likelyhood itt's probably half or even less then half this number.

2/?

>>5472829
>>5472849
>>5472957
All of these are wrong, i'll get to them later
>>
>>5472652
>>5472999
Thank m8 this is actually pretty informative.
>>
>>5472999
>>5472652
>>5472417
>>5472418
>>5470795
Cont:

So, with that out of the way, I can talk about sacrifice as a cultural practice.

To begin with, it needs to be stated that, contrary to what >>5472957 states, human sacrifice and a ritual importance on blood was universal: Like the construction of pyramids, ball courts, an emphasis on communal and outdoor focused urban design and lifestyles, and a high importance on sanitation (see my posts in >>5446429
for more info on that), it's a cultural element that was present from the very start of complex civilization in the region dating back to 1400 BC.

Obviously, the underlying views on WHY it was important and what the practices are varied from culture to culture and time period to time period. Among the classical maya, for example, blood letting (which was more common, iin general, human sacrifice, despite it's importance, was never the primary form of ritual offering) was mostly partaken by nobility or royalty, often in association with trying to briing rain. I'll admit I'm less informs on the maya then i'd like to be (other cultures even less so), so I can't go into specifics on the philosophy here, but they'd basically pierce themselves with hooks or stringray barbs and run barbed rope through the wound (pic related) Full on human sacrifice was rare, but was also, AFAIK, done by nobility, or to captured nobility in battles or if a city was conquered. I've also read that in droughts and such the king might tb sacrificed in an uprising for failing to guarantee rain for the populace

Again, though, I don't know a ton about the Maya, maybe Kamazotz is lurking and he can chime in

3/?

>>5473018
It's worth noting that I am making a lot of assumptions for those numbers: The point of me doing that was NOT tot give an accurate number, but rather to high-ball those guesses to inflate the number to show how even if you do that you still end up with an annual sacrifice rate far below what most people think.
>>
>>5472417
>there are people who approach history with this much idiocy
Political idiots deserve each other
>>
>>5470795
Considering modern Mexican cartels love to decapitate and rip out hearts out of their victims, I’m inclined to believe that the Aztecs did do it and their mutt ancestors carry their capacity to do it
>>
>>5472999
It's still a lot of people, you murder apologist. Certain of their ceremonies and celebrations required the sacrifice of innocent children. Even one child, having his heart ripped out and skin flayed while still alive, is horrific.

But in response to OP that doesn't mean everyday life was barbaric or dangerous, or that they didn't have laws against murder. War and human sacrifice were integral parts of Aztec and Mayan culture and violence was a little less abhorrent to them than it is to us but in general most people lived most of their lives in peace.
>>
>>5472999
Waiting for you to prove this wrong
>>5472849
>Considering the Aztecs managed to piss off all their neighbors so hard they teamed up with the Spaniards, they must have been doing something wrong
You said that's wrong, so let's hear why. You're going to need some good sources because there are plenty of sources, including from Cortez and Diaz and dozens of accounts from the native allies that that's exactly what happened.
>>
>>5473471
>It's still a lot of people

Of course, but my point is that it didn't happen on fucking absurd scales: The Spanish inquisition alone almost certainly prosecuted more people then the Aztec empire sacrificed (not including enemy soldiers) across it's entire history, going by the aforementioned math. It's naive and stupid to think of Mesoamerican safriicee as exceptionally barbaric or greater in scale then the religious killings and conflicts in Europe.

Anyways i'll be getting into examples of specific ceremonies, including the ones that involved children, when I get to it. I'm juggling trying tot formulate detailed replies both here and in the other Mesoamerica thread, so it might take a while.

>that doesn't mean everyday life was barbaric or dangerous....n general most people lived most of their lives in peace.

What was even the point in you calling me out when you are basically saying the same crap I was? Also, The Aztec and Maya are far from the only groups in the region: There's around 3000 years of complex civilization in the region prior to europan contact and it covers about as much geographic range as central europe: Other major ons are the Zapotec, Mixtec, Toltec, Purepecha, etc; almost the region was urban state societies. and had been for 1500 years.

>>5473492
I will, my plan is basically

>Talk a bit more about human sacrifice in general terms across the region
>transition iintto talking about Aztec sacriifice spffically
>give context for who the azttec are exactly
>talk about the specific cultural, religious, and philsophical context that undeerlineed their sacriifice practtices
>talk about how the mexica of th aztec captial in particular bcame so sacrifice happy (they were thee ONLY msoamerican group to do mass scale scarifices
>talk abooutt flower wars and how they used sacrifice as a geopolitical tool
>talk about how that played into the conquestt and it's geopolitical conquest

at which point that will be addressed.
>>
File: vdfnvidfvdivn.png (1.91 MB, 1032x1122)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB PNG
>>5472849
What they did 'wrong' was simply being an expansionist empire. When one state is rapidly expanding around you it's enough to make anyone willing to join a coalition against them.

The Tlaxcalans had no issue with sacrifice, they did plenty of it themselves. They had issue with being about to lose to the Mexica.
>>
>>5470795
Completely made up. Never happened.
>>
>>5473523
That's not quite true: The idea that ALL the states that joined Cortes did so out of hate/ill will with Tenochtitlan is assumptive, as I'll explain and as I was telling >>5473492, most did so just out of opportunism; but Tlaxcala in particular was like thee one specific state that hated the Aztec due to their sacrifice practices, since Tlaxcala had been the victims of flower wars for years.

Of course, as you note, Tlaxcala like all people practiced human sacrific themselves but the Mexica's mass scale sacrifice of enemy soldiers and the usage of flower wars to farm people for them/as a geopolitical and militaristic tool was unique to the Mexica
>>
>>5473542
I'm sure you know about the controversy behind the xochiyaoyotl. It's a very convenient excuse but it's probably only one part of why the Tlaxcalans were independent; they were actually very good fighters, in highly defensible mountainous terrain, and until recently had been friends with some strong allies. Despite being completely surrounded and worn down year after year by the vastly larger Mexica armies they were still a formidable fighting force.

But their allies were now deserting them and the iron grip was closing. They were quite desperate and willing to find allies anywhere they could.

The geopolitical motivations seem much more compelling to me than an explanation based on the sacrifice system.
>>
File: burning.jpg (230 KB, 1181x700)
230 KB
230 KB JPG
>>5470795
Wow those cruel savages!
>>
>>5473573
Good thing we brought them civilization. Europe in the 16th century was a bastion of morality
>>
>>5473559
Right, I wasn't implying that the flower wars against tlaxcala was being done solely human sacrifices, as you note that's botth an easy excuse to excuse the lack of victory, and flower wars played into a wider trend in Aztec expansion to try to surround and wear down formidable enemy states, and the whole mass sacrifice of enemy soldiers in general is a convenient justification for military expansion itself.

However, my understanding is that JUST looking at it through a realpolitik lense is probably not the whole story: As you and I both know, human sacrifice WAS an existing practice as far back in the region as pyramids, let alone Tlacaelel's reforms, and mexica views on human sacrifice AFAIK tie into their cultural views on dualism and things being cyclical and non-permanent (death being inevitable, death preserving/giving rise to new life, the duality between life and death, etc), so based on that it being both rather then purely geopolitical or purely religious seems more likely

anyways this is all stuff I was going to get into anyways so i'll save it for then, though i'd b grateful if yu could stck around to correct me and post additional info I might miss; though since it's 5:30 am I might wait tiill tommorow to resume
>>
>>5470795
>to justify their conquest
Spain needn't any excuses, just like britain
>>
>>5473595
>>5473559
In fact if you want to peak into the other thread and look over my posts on Mexica daily life i'm doing I'd appreciate it, I think you'd probably b able to clarify on a few things I wasn't able to delve into due to not knowing the specifics myself.
>>
>>5473593
europe only executed prisoners, they would never execute innocent people for religious motives
>>
>>5473605
forgot pic
>>
>>5473519
For my own reference, I also need to get into the concept of teotl and talk about specific ceremooniees, as well as discuss how the sacrifice would view the situation

>>5473165
>>5472999
>>5472652
cont:

So, before I get into sacrifice for the Aztec, it needs to be stated that "Aztec" isn't a single culture, I go into the Aztec empire's specific origins here: https://archived.moe/his/thread/5285820/#5290147

To summarize, though, the Aztec empire formed out of a specific alliance of 3 city-states in the valley of Mexico after a war resulting from a succession crisis in the then most dominant city in that valley. They, along with most others in the valley, belonged to various subgroups of Nahua people, who descended from Chichimeca (basically mesoamerica's germanic tribes, a label for the many different nomadic and non-urban groups living in northern mesoamerica (note mesoamerica doesn't include all of mexico, and that "northern mexico" or 'central mexico" in these disscusions often means "northern/central mesoamerica" rather then what you'd think northern or central mexico is based on just looking at a map of mexico) that were viewed as primitive by the rest of the region, since thee region was otherwise all urban states) after droughts in northern mesoamerica forced them further south, and then that triple alliance of city-states rapidly expanded to conquer much of central mesoamerica, from pacific to atlantic coasts all the way to the entrance of the Yucatan

The ruling triple alliance ruled over the others indirectly: other cities were either tributary cities that were required to send tribute, or were cities that did so voluntarily and weren't strictly given a demand to; each city retained it's own government, customs, and political arrangements, meaning they too might have their own tributaries. This sort of setup or other systems of indict rule and political influence is pretty normal in Mesoameerica, directly governed imperial states is rare

4/?
>>
>>5474071
>>5473165
>>5472999
>>5472652
cont:

The reason I bring this up is because with this in mind it does't even make sense to approach sacrifice totals from the perspective of "the empire", since each city, eeven the ones belonging to the same cultural group or even the same specific ethnicity, still were politically independent (to a degree) enities that had their own religious administration.

So, with that out of the way, from this point on, i'm going to say "Aztec" when talking about the actual empire, and Nahua to mean Nahua, and each city/subgroup. such as Mexica, being the Nahua group in Tenochtitlan; Other Nahua subgroups, such as the Tepanec, Acolhua, etc essentially shared the same culture, but there were some differences, even just among cities belonging to the same Nahua group. Unforantely most of our sources are very Mexica/Tenochtitlan centric, with also a fair amount from Texcoco, which is Acolhua, so it's hard to say the extent to which these differences extended. We know that, for example, the Mexia had a reputation of being fierce warriors, whereas the Acolhua of Texcoco were seen as more cultured and refined, though it bears noting that Texcoco's most esteemed king, Netzahualcoyotl, who was famed as a patron of the arts, a poet, and a philsopher, as well as an engineer of many of the aqueduct and dike systems around the valley, was taught in elite schools in Tenochtitlan, and a lott of Texcoco = cultured stuff comes from Acolhua writers, so how true this really was is hard to say. The nitty gritty specifics of religion would likely vary on a subgorup and city basis: like in Ancient greece, there was less an actual codified religion so much as a shared set of religious values whose specifics could vary, cults of specific gods, etc.

5/?
>>
>>5470795
Tghey dindu nuffin, they wuz just doin open heart surgery.
>>
>>5473206
what's political?
>>
Yes, specially the Aztecs. Remember that their patron god, Huitzilopochtli, was literallly the bad guy in their pantheon
>>
>>5474561
No he fucking wasn't, he was the steward of the current incarnation of the world, the entire idea why he needs sacrifices is because he needs the energy to keep it from endinf
>>
>>5470812
>>5472498
You're thinking of the Inca anon, completely different civilization
>>
>>5472421
It was (usually) an honour to be sacrificed
>>
>>5472829
I'm talking about their achievements in architecture, art, engineering, etc that kind of stuff. Every civilization can be cruel when it comes to military tactics and conquest. It's part of the job. And yeah the whites totally liberated them with diseases and the destruction of their literature and artifacts. Aztecs could be mean, but Spain ended up being way worse
>>
>>5473407
Modern Mexicans are majority European, the most violent states in Mexico (northern states) are the most European ones genetically while the safest ones (southern states) are the most native.
>>
>>5476372
>the safest ones (southern states) are the most native
Zapatista says hi
>>
>>5470795
Pretty much all the neighbors of the Aztecs hated their guts so there's that.
>>
>>5475316
t. Villanous Aztec.
>>
>>5476372
This is surprisingly true
>>
>>5473526
t. Yaotl Oceletol Molcajete
>>
File: Tzitzimitl.jpg (103 KB, 339x477)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>5474107
>>5474071
>>5473165
>>5472999
>>5472652
Cont:

With that in mind, you need to understand that most versions of the Nahua creation myths (to be honest I am unsure how common th following thms would b across all Nahua groups, but it was the case at least for the Mexica, Acolhua, so probably most) involved the world having been already created 4 times, each having been eventually destroyed, and that they lived in the 5th incarnation of the world. Each particular version of the world was overseen by a particular god rising up to fill the role of the sun (Not as the sun god, mind you. but as the sun itself). The specific circumstances of the creation of each world and why it fells varies depending on the specific version of the myth, but the core takeaway here is that in most, and in the primary version pushed by the Mexica/Tenochtitlan's goverment (more on that later), the current, 5th version of the world was made due to Quetzalcoatl needing to undergo trails and give his own blood to create humanity, though the god that would rise up to be the sun was Huitzilopotchli.

Huitzilopotchli was said to be under assault by demons known as Tzitzimimeh/Tzitzimime (Nahuatl words don't have consistent english spellings, singular was Tzitzimitl; these were hilariously futanari skeleton demons with rattlesnakes for pensises), who would attempt to devour him during the night/eclipses, and they were representative of stars in the sky; and Huitzilopotchli needed nourishment to keep the fight up

You can probably see where this is going between both Quetzalcoatl's trials/giving his blood and Huitzilopotchli fighting off the Tzitzimeme: To the Nahuas, sacrifice was giving the gods back the blood and life force it took them to create the universe and sustain it. Without it, the world would come to an end due to impossibly more powerful cosmic forces that not even the gods could stave off forever, even with humanity's blood

6/?

>>5476425
wrong, keep following along to see why
>>
>>5475650
No, he's right, being sacrificed was honorable and you were generally well cared for IIRC
>>
Only difference between the Aztecs and Europeans in violence was quantitative. The Aztecs killed more people but their cruelty in methods of execution was no worse and in some cases maybe less horrible than the shit Europeans did to each other all the time.
>>
>>5477703
>The Aztecs killed more people

They probably didn't, see >>5472652 and >>5472999; that's still with super high end inflated estimates
>>
>>5472294

Implying Lovecraft himself wasn't inspired to write about the ctulhu mythos from said mythology.
>>
>>5476814
>>5474107
>>5474071
>>5473165
>>5472999
>>5472652
I apologize this is taking me so long, I'm needing to double check a lot of my info and Aztec cosmology is confusing as fuck so wording it right is tricky, especially since i' getting into teotl, which is basically a cosmological concept that defines both what being divine is, the structure of all things, and reality itself, whiich has a lot of complex tie in tto other parts of aztec philosophy and wolrdviews, which all tie into human sacrifice, ettc.

I'm gooing to try to resume in tthee next hour or two, or, failing that, after I go to bed and wake up

>>5477937
>>5472294
Dude you guys have no fucking idea, my next few posts will get into that
>>
>>5476814
>>5474107
>>5474071
>>5473165
>>5472999
>>5472652
cont:

I'm talking about gods as specific animate entities, but in reality, viewing the gods as "people" is an abstraction: Gods WERE what they represented: Tlaloc, the god of rain, WAS rain as a process. The word for god in Nahuatl is "teotl", but that's misleading: Teotl didn't just man "god", or even "natural processes they represent", but all of the things and interactions s in the the world was thought to be interactions of teotl in different ways, sort of like subatomic particles making up atoms, though teotl is "motion", not "stuff". In fact, as https://archived.moe/lit/thread/11670156/#11674440 and other posts in that thread explains, all things were thought to be interactions of two types of teotl moving in certain specific ways, and there was literally separate words and concepts for different types of motion, such as gyration vs oscillation. It's literally like it's own anime power system

I've also seen comparisons to thermodynamics/entropy: the energy the gods needed from humanity was teotl, too. Human sacrifice rituals are therefore less offerings to gods as it is redirection of teotl: If Tlaloc isn't a god of rain, but IS rain, and humaans use rain for crops, then that creats an imbalance that needs to be corrected: So sacrificing kids and trying to get them to cry as much as possible in the cermeoniy to tlaloc, or, flaying the skin of sacrifice victims to Xipe Totec, the god of maize, so the consumers of corn are being "husked" like corn, reversing the natural process (indeed, in most ceremonies, the sacrifice is see as an incarnation of the god in question renaactiing the proceeds they represent in reverse) is redercting teotl-as-rain or as-maize back into the world, correcting an imbalance and preserving teotl existing in the state humanity wanted it to, vs the imbalance causing it to spiral out of control into teotl heat death of the universe.

7/?

gonna sleep, pls don't let thread 404
>>
>>5478715
This is so fucking cool, anon. Why were Aztecs so based? How does a worldview like this even develop?
>>
>>5472421
>text is in spanish

Nice fake drawings made by the spaniards to devilize the Aztecs
>>
>>5478715
>gonna sleep, pls don't let thread 404
Ok
>>
>>5473610
That was for pirates
>>
>>5473593
>heretics,thieves,murderers and witches
Nothing of value was lost
>>
>>5470795
they literally could have beat the spanish if they weren't constantly trying to capture them
>>
>>5480092
The idea that the Mexica of the capital fought battles with the goal of capturing enemies to the point of being detrimental to the overall tactical goal of a battle isn't the consensus, the most respected mesoamerican military historian, Ross Hassig, thinks that while capturing enemy soldiers was obviously important; that outside of flower wars, ibattles were still fought primarily to win and enemies were killed, soldiers would just also attempt to capture warriors when possible

Besides, even super early on in the conquest, the Spanish were like a mere 5% of their total fighting force, the rest being soldiers from native armies, and that % would drop to less then 1% over time as more and more joined for the siege on tenochtitlan,. almost all of whom were ethnically Nahuas as well and as such had the same practices of valuing taking captives in battle (it was also a broader mesoamerican thing to a lesser extent); even if not the specific religous justification the Mexica of the aztec captial in particular had which caused it to be more important for them
>>
>>5480992
>>5480092
Whoops, forgot some of my post; in any case the Spanish winning was a result of an insane set of coincidences and stupid luck

Had they not found translators, or had tlaxcala finished them off rather then spared and allied with them, or had montezuma decided to attack them rather then allow them to enter the city out of diplomatic etiquette, or had cortes been unable to convince the force that came to arrest him to join him instead/had one of them not had smallpox infected, or had ANY of Cortes's ally city-states decided to betray them in the aftermath of the siege, since they were less then 1% of the total force at the time, etc; they would have been screwed.
>>
>>5478715
>weeb
Dropped.
>>
>>5478715
Please come back anon, I need you to continue
>>
>>5482158
I';m still here I just thaven't had the time to continue yett
>>
>>5478715
>>5476814
>>5474107
>>5474071
>>5473165
>>5472999
cont:

To make a quick clarification/correction, the end of the world due to an imbalance of teotl/not making sacrifices is specifically with a concern with solar sacrifices: I previously mentioned how they beliveed that tthe world had been created and destroyed 4 times, and they lived in thee 5th world: The destruction/end of a sun was specifically seen as heralding the end of that age, so wheras the consequences of, say, not sacrificing kids to Tlaloc may cause an imbalance in rain teotl and cause a lack of rain, not doing so to the sun would be the literal end of reality as they knew it. I'm not certain on this (to be honest, teotl and itt's cosmology is something I am still in need of further reading on in general, but presumably the stuff about Huitzilopotchli fighting off the star demons and stuff, was, as the gods being animate beings, just an abstraction of the underlying ideas of teotl and it's interactions/natural processes

Now, i'll get back to the whole topic of the sun and Huitzilopotchli, because it's relevant to the Mexica's specific sacrifice practices + ties into what >>5472829, >>5472849, and >>5476425 are alluding to (albiiet erroneously); but something important to note was that time was viewed cyclically by the Mexica, Nahuas, and really, all Mesoamericans as a whole (which ties into the ritual context of their calendars, which were interlocking and overlapping wheels, but not gonna get into that) In Nahua philosophy, you can see this in the whole 5 Suns creation myth; The world was destined to b made and destroyed cyclically. This view of cycles also obviously organically fits around with gods as repeating, cyclically natural processes, but also 2 other key elements of the Nahua worldview: duality and impermanence

8/?

>>5478776
As I said, sacrifice/energy in blood was an existing, universal concept in Mesoamerican religion, so it probably gradually evolved out of existing ideas
>>
>>5482487
I'm still reading if you're still willing to write anon
>>
>>5478715
>>5476814
>>5474107
>>5474071
>>5473165
>>5482487
cont:

Duality was a key part of the Nahua worldview on multiple levels, they often saw through pairs of opposed, but also synergistic concepts; Quetzalcoatl, for example, is both a snake (slithers, earth, mortal) and has feathers (birds, sky, the divine). If you read my posts in the other thread (>>5446429), you'd have sen me talk about how steam bathes weren't just valued from a hygiene standpoint but also as places of spiritual ceasing: Tlazolteotl, the goddess of filth (again, both physically and spiritually) was also associated with steam bathes: Filth can't exist without purity. To tie things back to teottl and the balance of teotl, ALL teotl are these pairs pulling and tugging on another: again, teotl is motion: oen is always temporarily overtaking the other, and giving rise to the other (HOW they interact is what determines the motion type of teotl) balance is achieved not equilibrium (which wouldn't be moving), but the by cyclical (it all ties into each other!) nature of the concepts: they aren't "even" at any one moment, but over time, they average out to be. To go back to Quetzalcoatl, the gods gave rise to humanity and the mortal world, and humanity gives back to support them: they, too, are complementary.

When one side of a dualist pair overtook the other completely, that's when you have badness, spiritually, aesthetically, or for larger forces, socially, in terms of resources; and for thee sun, all of reality. In fact, "Tlazolli" filth,IS that imbalance: the imbalance of natural forces was seen and associated with dirt, filth, moral impurity, which makes back and ties into all of what I was saying in the last thread about how autistic the Nahua, especially the Mexica, were with public health, sanitation, and hygiene; as well as social order, morals, and traditional family roles: To be dirty or disruptive was to imbalance natural forces and cause problems. It's all logically connected.

9/?
>>
>>5483238
I am, I justt

>A: Am dealing with a lot of IRL issues so my time is limited
>B: want to makee sure i'm giving correct info, so am double checking sources, especially since teotl is confusing as fuck
>C: have shit time management skills

so it takes me a while per post.
>>
>>5473519
>According to modern estimates, around 150,000 were prosecuted for various offenses during the three centuries of duration of the Spanish Inquisition, out of which between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed.

500 cases a year with at most an average of 16 deaths a year, all of these deaths being from people who were given at least one chance to recant and save their lives.
>>
>>5476552
>wanting Earth and Sun to be swallowed by Space

You don't even deserve to be sacrificed.
>>
>>5483333
I said the Spanish Inquisition prosecuted more people then the Aztec empire sacrificed, not that they killed more people then them.

I get that prosecution isn't as bad as killing butt my point is that the idea there was this huge, massive scale of religiously motivated bad shiit going on in Mesoamerica relative to europee is unfounded.

Also, as pointed out in >>5474107, it doesn't even make sense to total stuff by the "entire empire", if you go just by Tenochtitlan alone, then 16 civilian sacrifices per year is actually a potential possibility given the findings,, albeit on the low-estimate end
>>
>>5480049
What? It was for heretics.
>>
File: aztec poetry.png (777 KB, 612x2286)
777 KB
777 KB PNG
>>5483247
>>5482487
>>5478715
>>5476814
cont:

One of these dualist concepts is life and death. To live, you must consume other things. In order for life as humans know it to exist, humans must be killed to sustain the world: death begets life, and life begets death. Life inherently tied to death, and inherently impermanent. Themes of the beauty in life in nature but also it's fleetingness is a big thing in Nahua poetry. Indeed, in many ways, all the gore, blood, skeletons you see in their art isn't preoccupation of death, but of life: Same for sacrifice as a whole: Recall also the communal and social emphasis in Mesoamerican and nahua society: It's giving up one's own life for the greater good and allowing others to enjoy life, cyclically

So: Dualism, Cycles and impermanence, Cleanliness. Social order/community, and balance: All of these elements of Nahua worldview are interconnected and dependent and form seamless, logical connections with each other, and tie into the logic behind human sacrifice

Also, before wrapping up teotl and it's relation to other philosophical themes, it is worth note that while I said "teotl" was the nahuatl word for god, and then explained how teotl was an underlying force that composed all things, "teotl" as a word in Nahuatl really just means "supernatural", or "ominous" (Imodern scholarship and I describe it in a way that has concrete concrete "physical" mechanics a la thermodynamics/particles, but it's important too remember that this is mysticism, & was viewed as otherworldly and immaterial) which is where the myth that they saw the conquistadors of gods came from. A big theme in addition to the impermanence of life, is also life's meaning and questioning how one can find it in an existence where impossible to comprehend supernatural forces are behind everything, or even if one's perception of reality is accurate: the arts was seen as the partaking in cosmic creation, getting as close as one could to the truth of teotl

10/?
>>
>>5483666
>>5483247
>>5482487
>>5478715
>>5476814
Cont:

Also, in addition to the /litt/ thread I linked, I also want to suggest http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/aztec-philosophy for further reading on teottl, which I think explains the different types of teotl motion a bit more, such as how the weaving-mixing type, "nepantla", is more cosmological foundational (it's responsible for the combining and locking of duelist concepts together in their cyclical relationship; though i;m unclear why as Olin was the motion type for cycles and pulsation); ettc.In regards to more resources in general, I gave a link to a good reddit post that had aa lott of links, as well.

Anyways, jumping back to the 5 suns stuff and Huitzilopotchli: I said that's just one version of th 5 suns myth: Another version had Nanahuatzin and Tecciztecatl jump intot a bonfire to give the current world it's sun, but Tecciztecatl hesitated, so he had a rabbiit thrown at him by the other goods, dimming his sun, becoming the moon (they associated the moon with rabbits) while the former was the sun, which may have been then called Tonatiuh (or maybe Tonatiuh was a separate god, not quite clear on this)

Now, before I said there was a particular state-sponsored/pushed version of these myths by the Mexica. The thing to know here is that shortly after the alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan; A man named Tlacaelel (see the other /his/ thread I linked in >>5474071) was given the newly created position of Cihuacoatl, and was basically the highest domestic administrative and religious official under the king (Tlatoani). As Cihuacoatl, Tlacaelel basically re-wrote Aztec religion (The then king, Itzcoatl had also ordered book burnings to re-write their own history) to push the Huitzilopotchli version to be the head of the pantheon

11/?

going to bed, I'll wrap up tomorrow, pls keep thread alive overnight
>>
>>
Interesting stuff in this thread. Thanks to anon for the insight.
>>
>massive walls of texts just to explain away some subhumans eating women and children

lol
>>
>it's a cuck defends monsters because they aren't white episode
>>
5484768 (you)
5484725 (you)
All cultures are beautiful, anon
>>
>>5470795
they were brutal and we have eyewitnesses but spaniards exaggerated it to some degree to justify their conquest while liberals/sjws downplay it. everyone has an agenda lololol
>>
>>5476170
No that's Alien Vs Predator.
Most sacrifices were basically criminals or war captives. So pretty much flashy executions.

>>5472498
Idk man I like the Aztecs but they were pretty fucking brutal. The one you're talking about was by a flute player and he wasn't the only sacrifice they did in a year by any measure. Most were enemies of weaker rival city states, and this was done by pre-arranged war, both to intimidate them into tribute and to wean the numbers of weaker cities down so they could maintain dominance. The Aztecs didn't keep garrisons in places they conquered... they just used an atmosphere of fear to keep subjugates in line. Sometimes when new temples were built they killed 5 to 10 thousand people in a day. Of course, in some ways they had to be brutal because their enemies like the tlaxacans and chichimec, were equally savage (look them up). The whole area was bloody but nevertheless the Aztecs were unrivalled and this helped their downfall when other natives sided with the Spanish (who enslaved and displaced the same Indians who helped them).

The Inca were a bit more diplomatic and didn't kill as many people, but Andean civilization is a whole other cradle of man from Mesoamerica.
>>
>>5470795
“Cruel” and “barbaric” are just code for “things I don’t like”. East asian treatment of missionaries went on well into the 19th century and was as barbaric as anything mesoamericans did
>>
>>5470795
Did the Aztecs genuinely believe that they were saving the world by sacrificing all these people or was it just a way to humiliate and weaken their neighbors? Unless I'm mistaken, weren't the sacrifices usually healthy young men, the same sort of person who might otherwise have become a warrior? This whole convention seems like a convenient way to pre-emptively eliminate young men who otherwise might serve as the backbone of a rebellion against the Aztecs.
>>
>>5485130
Are you saing that human sacrifices and canibalism aren't barbaric? What is worng with you?!
>>
>>5478715
I think your analysis of teotl is a bit off. It was not just equivalent to yin and yang or equivalent exchange, but likened to a dualistic mask that both concealed and revealed the fundamental nature of reality beneath reality in the platonic sense. The Aztecs saw the gods as a "middle layer" that mediated between the outer binary-creating source (ometeotl - who was NOT a god) of the spiritual world that was mediated through the "middle layer" gods and into the physical realm which was the lowest tier of existence. However, this was not a perfectly coherent set of philosophy itself, it developed like the Romans, by assimilating and creatively reinterpreting various tribes and nations the Aztecs contacted or conquered.

Saying that Tlaloc *was* the rain or that Tezcatlipoca *was* the wind and nothing anthropomorphic is a bit misleading because they took physical avatars several times, with Quetzalcoatl shaming himself by drinking in public and comitting suicide (the Aztec drinking age was thirty and being drunk in public was extremely dishonorable).

Gods had a force called "tonalli" just like humans, which was a life force that could manifest as an animal spirit (and was present in blood) and killing or injuring the tonal of a person in the dream world would harm them in real life. It was responsible for your personality and consciousness. Tezcatlipoca's was a jaguar iirc. There was also the teyolía, a part of the soul located in the heart, which represented wisdom and memory and the force that physically animated the body, and ihíyotl which was a part of the soul in the liver that represented your luck throughout life and gut instincts. A lot of knowledge was lost in addition to being syncretic to begin with, but your insertion of modern physics into it is also kinda reaching - they had real economic and military motives behind killing people, and a series of apocalyptic droughts + social control made these practices increasingly ritualized.
>>
>>5485140
Like today, there were varying levels of belief among different people.
On one hand, the Aztecs suffered bad famines and drought, which encourages superstition. But religion helps weld together order in times of chaos, and in areas with low animal protein and unreliable access to food it's not surprising cannibalism gained a certain mystique. As I said in >>5485124 they also didn't garrison guards, so showy killings helped them subdue both domestic potential rebels and outsider enemies in one swoop. Perhaps on a subconscious level there was some population control or eugenic motive involved, idk. But certainly the society, from citizens to nobles, did not just tolerate this activity because they thought it was arbitrary pragmatism and nothing else. Often religious belief reinforces necessary behaviors while not being true itself, but that matters little so long as the behavior in question helps perpetuate itself or systems that sustain it.

Were they barbaric? In the sense of not being civilized, no, in the sense of being brutal, hell yes.
>>
>>5485248
>and in areas with low animal protein and unreliable access to food it's not surprising cannibalism gained a certain mystique
they didn't lack proteins at all

>"Conservatively, we suppose that all the victims were males of 60kg with 16% of protein, a similar amount to the lean meat of pork and lamb (Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, 1963), and digestible in a 90%. A skillful butchering would provide 60% of this meat (Garn and Block, 1970). Thus, every victim would provide a total of 60kg*0.16*0.60*0.90= 5.18 kg. If we also consider many documents of this practice, only the limbs were eaten and the total of protein would be 5.18*0.35=1.81 kg. The same amount of protein can be found in four kilograms of fish."
>Aztecs had excelent sources of protein to compensate the lack of farm animals. For example, the lean meat of beef has 18.7% of protein and 18.2% of fat while lean meat of pork has 17.5% 13.2% respectively (Bresani 1972). In comparision the meat of the most common insect, the grasshopper, had up to 30% of protein while some other insects such as jumiles and the red mezcal worms had up to 70% (Ramos de Elurdoy, 1982).
- Bernardo Ortiz de Montellano, Aztec Medicine and Health, and Nutrition
>>
Bump
>>
>>5485154
Are you saying replacing superior beings with subhumans is not barbaric?

What is wrong with you?
>>
File: no.png (43 KB, 539x775)
43 KB
43 KB PNG
bump
>>
>>5485686
You're more sick then i tought
>>
File: Huitzilopochtli.jpg (984 KB, 2705x3965)
984 KB
984 KB JPG
>>5483849
>>5483666
>>5483247
>>5482487
>>5478715
cont:

Also to clarify by state pushed,it don't mean the Mexica pushed this creation myth on the whole empire (Hutipozttochli was actually a Mexica specific deity initially, even if he wasn't as central as he was after Tlacaelel's reforms), just that they did for Tenochtitlan/the Mexica. Also, more on Tlazollii: http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/home/nahua-moral-philosophy

The rationale for this emphasis on Huitzilopotchli is that he was a war god, and his sacrifices needed to be captured enemy warriors. By making his sacrifices the primary and most important ones, where more sacrifices were needed then for any other ceremony by any other Nahua or Mesoamerican group period, it essentially gave the Mexica a cosmological justification for militarism. Tlacaelel also ramped up use of Flower Wars, which were basically pre-arranged, smaller scale battles where the primary purpose was the collection of captives. These could actually be diplomatic, mutually agreed upon events to cement alliances and such between Nahua city-states, or more or less used as extended sieges to wear down enemy states for actual conquest (again, while also farming for sacrifices/using the need for them as a justification) Mesoamerican warfare was seasonal: wars were fought in the winter so during the summer men could be in the fields working crops, but due to being smaller scale conflicts, Flower Wars could b arranged year-round, applying constant pressure; and as the Mexica had th city's largest city, on top of troops and supplies given by other Aztec cities, constant Flower Wars would be far more logistically costly on the Mexica/Aztec's enemy then on them themselves.

12/?

>>5485140
Read my posts: there was an actual religious belief but was also used as an excuse for military expansion after a certain point; intimidation to scare tributaries from stepping out of line is also theorized by some historians as a factor
>>
>>5486087
>you are "x"
Great insight.
>>
File: aztec.jpg (412 KB, 839x626)
412 KB
412 KB JPG
>>5474561
>>
>>5487077
>>5483849
>>5483666
>>5483247
>>5482487
Cont


This is where the "everybody hates the Aztec due to sacrifices" myth comes from, I think: Tlaxcala, a republic of 4 Nahua cities in an adjacent valley, was one of the few states in central mesoamerica that was never conquered by the Aztec.. The Aztec instigated Flower Wars with them ostensibly initially mutually agreed on, before locking them in a state of perpetual flower wars, both farming them for sacrifices for cosmological reasons, and geopolitically, wearing them down and gradually ramping up the aggression of them to eventually weaken them enough to be conquered, since they had a hard to invade geographic position, basically only via a narrow pass

Tlaxcala, in particular, had issues with the Aztec abusing them in this way, and when Tlaxcala pushed Cortes's shit in (despite being wakened from years of this, that's how big the logistical disadvantage Cortes's men had), they decided to spare themto use against the Aztec. But Tlaxcala THEMSELVES also had the wider Nahua cultural views, took war captives of enemy soldiers (if not to the same extent) and like not even all Nahua, but all mesooamerican groups, did sacrifices.

13?

>>5485215
>>5485248
>>5485124
I realized I was going a little too hard in comparing teotl to an actual mechanical, specific concrete sort of forces making up the world, which is why in >>5483666 I noted that a lot of that is analysis from modern scholarship and it, as you noted, was probably thought of more explicitly as sort of mysticism about the nature of reality and perception by the Nahuas themselves.

That being said, the protein deficiency theory is debunked, and the Aztec did in fact install military governors (cuauhtlatoani) on unruly cities and made forts, albeit not commonly, and 5k to 10k people a day even for certain ceremonies is still a really fucking high ball estimate, even for the Mexica; and being sacrificed WAS seen as honorable, as I will explain later.
>>
>TLDR argument basically falls apart by the European accounts of sacrifice and immediate uprising against the Aztec society that wronged them.
Don't try to defend baby eating tyrants, it saves everyone time and energy.
>>
>>5487560
Thanks for bumping the thread so smarter people can post
>>
>>5487401
>>5487077
>>5483849
>>5483666
>>5483247
cont:

And this is where shit ike >>5487560 falls apart (on top of the fact that even the smallest europan accounts/estimates of the scale of sacrifices is incompatible with archeological evidence, per my prior posts,/or is basd on faulty math, like applying per captia estimate from the Mexica/Tenochtittlan to all other cities): Tlaxcala DIDN'T hate the Mexica for doing sacrifices: They were taking captives too and sacrificing them during the flower wars. In fact, foreign kings ATTENDED the sacrificial ceremonies in Tenochtitlan were their people were being sacrificed and vis versa. It was a universal practice in Mesoamerica, especially for the Nahua:

Cempoala, the first city that allied with the Spanish even before Tlaxcala, did so not out of any issue with sacrifices (they didn't abduct or demand civilians from foreign cities or tributaries for sacrifice anyways: they ONLY sacrificed enemy soldiers who composd the vast majority;, slaves (and even then they had protections, see >>5467484), criminals, or selected civilians in their own city), but rather due to only recently being conquered and not liking having to offer up tribute.

Here's the kicker: Cempoala and Tlaxcala were the only cities who formally joined Spain against the Aztec prior to the smallpox outbreak in Tenochtitlan. The rest only joined after there was chaos and political instability, and as I explain here >>5487537 , cities rebelling or rebuking their status as tributaries during times of instability or when a capital displayed weakness, or a new king was selected, was the norm. All of the other cities that joined the Spanish (other then the second most important city of Texcoco, which did so after that point also due to one of it's royals being mad at Tenochtitlan for supporting his rival heir in a succession dispute) did so more or less only out of opportunism, not out of grievances with Tenochtitlan/the Mexica.

14/?
>>
Can anybody tell me the name of that painting of a conquistador standing triumphantly atop a pyramid that gets posted here often please?
>>
>>5488082
>>5487401
>>5487077
>>5487077
>>5483849
Cont:

In short 'Everybody hated the Mexica" is heavily overstated, and "due to sacrifice" is complete bullshit: A few specific cities (Cempoala, Tlaxcala, Texcoco, and I forgot to mention Huexotzinco, which as can be seen in >>5487401, was a city alongside the path between the core Aztec cities and Tlaxcala, and was frequntly fought over, and disliked the Aztec as a result of tthat) joined th Spanish due to specific grievances, but the rest (Itzalpalapa, Chalco, Xochimilco, Mixquic, and others) did not, at least as far as I am aware. They certainly would not have had any economic issues with tribute like Cempoala, since thy were all core cities inside the Valley of Mexico and as such benefited from the monetary influx of tribute into the area.

To clarify further, let's talk a bit about the actual sacrifice ceremonies themselves: Recall how I note earlier that the victim would often be sen as the incarnation (ixiptla) of the god they were being sacrificed to. They WERE that god: Recall what I said about teotl earlier: by killing the god as a mortal, you are symbolically relasing teotl to be given back to the "actual" god. As part of being an Ixiptla, you would often be required to live and act outt as that god for an extended period of tme. You were not dragged kicking and screaming to an altar: You had to play out a role with very specific ritualistic complainants for days, weeks. or months. In other words, the victim would need to be a cooperative and active participant. You couldn't just refuse, either. Not in the sense that you were forced, but if you did, doing so would be seen as a bad omen and you might not b sacrificed at all: These were highly formal, ceremonial affairs with strict conditions for who was eligible to be sacrificed (gender, age, physical qualities, personality, etc) and how they had to behave.

15/?
bed time

>>5488768
If it's what I think it is, it's concept art for age of empires III
>>
File: 1528432552404.jpg (22 KB, 720x400)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>5472498
The aztecs sacrificed literally everybody. Adulterer? Heart torn out. Murderer? Heart torn out. War prisoner? Heart torn out then eaten.

If you add up all the Nahua communities, there must have been thousands of sacrifices yearly
>>
>>5488961
There's literally already a breakdown of sacrifice totals based on recent excavations in this thread you tard

see >>5472652 and >>5472999

Also, you act as if enemy soldiers weren't killed in combat in europe, and that murderers and other criminals as well as adults also weren't executed in europe
>>
>>5488957
Yeah your right it’s concept art thanks
>>
>>5489026
IIRC there's two versions, make sure you download both
>>
>>5489026
This the one?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.