it was tbf

>>220614413
Yeah, bro, remember that time when the Romans would regularly rip people’s hearts out while alive to keep the Sun going round?

jesus te amo wey

>>220614482
worked didn't it?

To justify the spanish conquest.

I've heard this argument several times, but in my opinion there's a difference between sacrificing someone to the sun god and killing someone because they're practicing another religion. The former is bronze age retardation, the latter is medieval retardation and requires you to have moved past the whole human sacrifice meme

>>220614413
they created football, that says it all

human sacrifice still happens in my city

>>220614413
yes it was, that's why all the other Indians allied with complete foreigners to exterminate them

It was significantly different, come on. Aztec niggas sacrificed as much as 50 to 80k people in a day to appease the rain God Tlaloc. You also cannibalized them. Renaissance brutality was more rooted in tribalism and geopolitics, killing people for being catholic or protestant. The whole burning people alive was also not that common, many of the witch trials, especially in Germany, had also more to do with property rights than anything else, which was insane and psychopatic but the scope is totally different, there was a real economic incentive structure behind them. And dimensionally it was on a minuscule scale comparted to the human sacrifices in Mesoamerica, which not only the Aztecs performed but also the Mayans, Tlaxcalans and pretty much everyone there.

>>220614413
so white people can feel they ackshually saved the indios from the evil, cannibal, people sacrificing aztecs (have you noticed kkkrakkkerz always abscribe these solely to the aztecs even though everyone in the region including tlaxcallans engaged in these practices?) and don't have to think about the other millions of people that died, all the temples, statues, cities and books they destroyed, valuables stolen, people enserfed or how they just kept subjugating people that had nothing to do with the aztecs like mayas or purepechas.
and it's all good cause they introduced us to their kk worshipping religion and their loving god who then proceeded to kill 60 million people across two continents cause why not haha

>>220614812
>Aztec niggas sacrificed as much as 50 to 80k people in a day to appease the rain God Tlaloc.

At that rate the whole of mesoamerica would had been depopulated in a matter of months.

The more realistic number according to recent research is 8,000-10,000 per year, with some years peaking 20,000 (special calendaric events)

demonized for the uneducated

>>220614833
the most powerful empire in the american continent was brought down by a couple hundred hidalgos. if their culture led them to such an epilogue, of what use was it?

>>220615052
this is what gleepglops from the gleebo system are going to be saying about our culture when they invade us in 100 years with their nano-rays

>>220614792
>yes it was, that's why all the other Indians allied with complete foreigners to exterminate them

A lot of Cortes' allies were brutally submitted into the anti-mexica alliance, it was not wholly voluntary. Castillians would periodically hunt & torture people in the proximities in order to force them into submission

>>220615052
remember the mexican you are talking to is a rich, big faggot chilango who attends unam and doesn't view rural people as human

which is why the rural peasantry is with the church always

>>220615153
I know MMA. Mexican Martial Arts.

>>220614413
Gringo propaganda though...

>>220614413
They were brutal and savage,the problem is we are told we are their descendants and México is the heir of the Mexica empire.In reality most Mexicans are descendants of the people who destroyed the aztecs

>>220618085
>They were brutal

Like most of the world in that time

> and savage

They built the biggest metropolis of the Mesoamerican world, full of gardens, market places, there was even a library (Texcoco). Savages dont do that

> we are told we are their descendants and México

Mexican Republic only continued the New Spain obsession with aztec civilization. Lets remember that the spanish royal administrators put their palace where Moctezuma used to rule and not in tlaxcala

> In reality most Mexicans are descendants of the people who destroyed the aztecs

Mexicas would settle northern territories alongside other indian nations & spanish settlers, they didnt simply dissapear

>>220614413
>Their brutality was not much different from what was happening around the world in those times
yes it was. in fact, it was way worse than you probably think it was. it was really really bad

>>220619117
i think it's logical that aztecs are thought of as our predecessors and not tlaxcallans. at the end of the day tlaxcallans are faggot cuck traitors and if you are a larping criollo you'd obviously choose as your ancestors the noble aztecs fighting gachupines to the last man instead of tlaxcallans.

>>220614413
The aztec triple alliance was like the america-israel of their time, sure they built cool stuff but they were also cunts who ate children and strangled smaller tribes who dared challenge them. I'm sure that if aliens came looking to topple them more than one country would gladly join them.

>>220620157
>who ate children
Children werent cannibalized.

Ritual cannibalism was limited to some elites & priests.

And there in fact logical reasons for dietary cannibalism in mesoamerica. The lack of beast of burden made carrying provisions for 20k-30k armies a logistical nightmare. The most logical conclusion is to eat up your enemy.

This was later fetishized & ritualized by the priest class & elites, cannibalism ended up meaning being at war, that is, ritual cannibalism meant carrying the war home


> strangled smaller tribes


You conveniently forget that the mexica were opressed when they arrived to the valley of Mexico and relegated to a dirty snake-infested islet, they had to climb up the ladder by themselves, I must say they did impressive

>>220621288
snakes are cute, though

>>220614413
You say that, as predicted due to your flag and third world ethno-narcissism, despite your ancestors most likely not being aztecs but rather their victims, but its exactly because their brutality was different from not only what was happening around the world, but also what was happening in their part of the world, that they are justifiably vilified. Mass Human Sacrifice, and cannibalism, and wearing human skin and otherwise playing with human heads and bodyparts, while worshipping pagan demons on a constant and ongoing basis, and constantly massacring neighbours and vassals and showing an utter lack of mercy the entire time for the explicit purpose of sacrificing them, is not only pretty bad, but potentially one of the most evil societies to have ever existed (that we know of).

>>220614482
>>220614539
>>220614812
You're forgetting that they were sacrificing war prisoners and slaves and so on. The economic incentive was there.
And thats also why your comparison is not the same, what was done with war prisoners, slaves and so on?
Even if it was retarded, non-isolation is very useful for a civilization, which you dont seem to be taking into account


You also seem to conveniently forget about the incas, they were much more civil and with an equally sustainable civilization that quite simply lacked what the old world had in terms of logistics.

>>220614413
Whitey won so they get to write history o algo

>>220614413
>Why dont people like the cannibal death cult
There is an alternative timeline where your heart was ripped out and your skin turned into a drum, going to church once a week and having a 9-5 is better than that.

>>220621510
The wars were fought for the sole purpose of sacrificing your neighboring tribes so you won't have to sacrifice your own family
It's a belief that was rightfully destroyed

>>220621592
You dont know what people in isolation can get away.
Why do you think poltards exist?
Politics and mystic beliefs/emotions have always been interwoven in a way that their rituals are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This happens to every human group

File: 1773672357686772.jpg (34 KB, 216x248)

34 KB JPG

>>220614413
Impotent braindead tantrum of the spanish ""empire"" getting mogged by the time by the english one, they had to justify their crimes and the reason to destroy america

>>220614482
didnt they starve vestal nuns to death if rome lost a war

>>220614482
Go watch HBO Rome. There's a scene where the Romans ritually strangle a captured Celtic King as part of Ceasar's Triumph.

>>220614413
>Why are aztecs demonized so much in western historiography?
Ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism.

>>220622877
source?
>inb4: spanish source

Bumping so I can reply to shit

File: file.png (64 KB, 850x600)

64 KB PNG

Archeological record shows the aztecs were hyper violent but in line with modern aztecs

File: tlaxcala collage redownload.jpg (1.01 MB, 3088x2112)

1.01 MB JPG

Autistic obsessive Mesoamerican history anon here

>>220614482
The Romans actually did do ritual killings, though obviously not as many as the Mesoamericans. Las Casas (a Spanish chronicler at the time) actually specifically brought up Roman (and Celtic, Indian etc) sacrifices when discussing the Mesoamericans as an example of how sacrifices were a common practice amongst pagan people and how the Mesoamericans weren't unique for doing it.

The Romans were also a lot more imperialistic then the Aztec and did slavery on a more widespread basis and to greater restriction of rights, though I have heard some disputed things regarding the amount of rights slaves actually had in Aztec (or at least Mexica, the group specifically in Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital) society, so Aztec slaves may or may not have been that much better off. Certainly we know at least misbehaving slaves could get sacrificed.

To be clear I think trying to claim any ancient or medieval militaristic empire/civilization had the moral high ground over the other is silly, so I'm not necessarily trying to say that the Aztec were less bad then the Romans, so much pointing out that the Romans were also not obviously less bad.

>>220620157
>>220621485
>>220621592
>>220614792
Firstly, there were no "tribes". Mesoamerica had cities, writing etc going back many thousands of years, the region is defined in large part by having urbanized formal political states as opposed to simpler tribal societies (which did exist at the fringes of the region, but they were uninvolved in the fall of the Aztec nor were they frequent targets of Aztec conquests)

Case in point, Teotihuacan was a city and head of an empire in the same valley as the core of the Aztec empire but 1000 years earlier, while Tlaxcala was a city (and head of kingdom) who allied with Cortes, and both respectively rivalled large Roman and Spanish cities in size and infrastructure, something Cortes himself states when describing Tlaxcala (see pic)

1/?

>>220614413
>Why are aztecs demonized so much in western historiography?

are they? modern books on the subject like townsends "the fifth sun" are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the aztecs

>>220614812
>50 to 80k people in a day
Are you retarded?

File: Aztec warfare Hassig chap(...).jpg (3.3 MB, 3242x2034)

3.3 MB JPG

>>220624382
>>220620157
>>220621485
>>220621592
>>220614792
cont:

Secondly, and more importantly, most states who allied with Cortes didn't do so from resenting Aztec rule or from them doing sacrifices and so on.

To get it out of the way, sacrifice and ritual cannibalism was a likely universal practice in the region: All the states who allied with Cortes also did it. So the Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan doing it wasn't seen as problematic.

Moreover, while the Mexica were militaristic conquerors, they were not particularly prone to razing cities or massacring/mass enslaving their populace during their conquests, and their actual rule over the states they conquered was loose and hands off: They typically left existing kings, laws, and customs in place for subjects to continue to self-manage. see pic. This sort of political model was common in Mesoamerica due to the lack of draft animals causing logistical challenges

It was in fact because of this loose political system that most states who allied with Cortes did so: The hands-off approach meant subject states retained their own sense of political identity, agency, and interests, so it left those states with both the ability and incentive to opportunistically secede, defect etc if they thought they could get away with it and would benefit from it, especially during times where the capital showed weakness (for example, Tizoc was such a militarily shit emperor that it caused a bunch of subjects to secede, for Tizoc to get assassinated by his own nobles, and for his successor Ahuizotl to get ghosted at his own coronation ceremony)

Of particular note is a practice where a state would pledge themselves as a subject or ally to another state (since within this political model, subjects mostly got left alone anyways) to help them take out their capital(s) or rivals, so then the first state would have a position of influence within the second state's kingdom or empire which they just helped prop up

2/?

>>220614413
who tf is aztec
isnt that a mexica calendar?

>>220624574
There's zero evidence that ritual sacrifice was ever practiced in Mesoamerica. Unlike Europe, where child sacrifice is still practiced to this day.
It's all projectionist cope.

They went out of their way to torture crying children because their suffering was especially pleasing to the gods

>>220624574
>>220620157
>>220621485
>>220621592
>>220614792
cont:

That "pledge yourself as a subject to another state to take our your collective capital/rival" maneuver was pretty much what was going on with Cortes, and this is evidenced by many things: Firstly, this sort of thing happened all the time in Mesoamerica: The Mexica/Tenochtitlan itself rose to power in a similar situation where after their then capital Azcapotzalco had it's influence destablized due to a successon dispute, Texcoco and Tlacopan allied with Tenochtitlan to help take it out, so those two cities got a position of power within the Aztec empire from having done so. And decades after the fall of the Aztec, other Mesoamerican states like the Zapotec kingdom of Tehuantepec and the Iximche Maya etc allied with other Conquistadors to take out their rivals (the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec and the Kiche Maya respectively), even when the Mexica were uninvolved (in fact, by allying with the Spanish Tututepec and the Iximche may have even fought ALONGSIDE the Mexica, who the Spanish were using as subject armies by then)

This is evidenced by the fact that most states who allied with Cortes only did so after Moctezuma II died, Tenochtitlan was struck by smallpox etc, after which Mexica power and influence was damaged anyways, and by the fact that many of those states were within the Valley of Mexico alongside Tenochtitlan and therefore benefitted from Mexica conquests (to a degree) due to the taxes they brought in, and the fact that as Mexica status grew so did theirs due to them having political marriages with Mexica royalty. So by the time they allied with Cortes, those benefits they got from Mexica rule was already jeopardized, and they had more to gain and less to lose by switching sides: taking out the already weakened Tenochtitlan and gaining status from doing so was a safer bet then staying loyal and hoping the Mexica not just beat Cortes but stayed in power long term.

3/?

>>220624756
>>220620157
>>220621485
>>220621592
>>220614792
cont:

By contrast, the only state who played a major role in the Siege of Tenochtitlan who allied with the Conquistadors before then was Tlaxcala, and Tlaxcala wasn't an Aztec subject state, but a state they were actively at war with at the time, so no shit they allied with Cortes.

Also, relatively few states even allied with Cortes: the Aztec empire contained ~500 subject and vassal states, and the region maybe had a few hundred more outside of the empire or in other empires/kingdoms: only a few dozen allied with Cortes, and most of those were subjects/depencies who just went along with their capital allying with Cortes. Also, many states only allied with the Conquistadors conditionally or in part: Texcoco and it's subjects/kingdom as a whole didn't ally with Cortes, Ixtlilxochitl II and his followers did, because he wanted the throne after he lost a succession conflict a few years prior to a Mexica backed rival heir: The rest of Texcoco and it's domain only joined the Conquistadors, Tlaxcalteca, and Ixtlilxochitl II's faction after they took control over their part of the valley. Likewise, Xochimilco initially fought with the Mexica against them untill it was beaten and forced to switch sides, etc.

As evidenced by what I pointed out with Ixtilxochitl II, it was also often local kings and officials using Cortes to their own ends rather then Cortes being a mastermind: Cempoala (which did ally with Cortes early on but didn't play a major role in the siege, because...) for example lied to Cortes about their rival city, Tzinpantzinco, being an Aztec fort after the Cempoalans complained a bunch about onerous Aztec taxes to try to get Cortes to help them attack it, and after the ruse was discovered they basically ditched the Conquistadors to get attacked by the Tlaxcalteca.

4/?

>>220624581
aztec=nahuatl speakers (incl. tlaxcaltecs and mexicas) moishe kun

>>220624875
>>220620157
>>220621485
>>220621592
>>220614792
cont:

Speaking of Tlaxcala, after they fought each other to a standstill and then formed their alliance, the Tlaxcalteca either orchestrated or at least took advantage of the massacre and sacking that they and the Conquistadors preformed in the city of Cholula while en route to Tenochtitlan, as by doing so, they were taking revenge on Cholula for having recently switched from being a Tlaxcalteca ally to a Mexica one (if the Mexica were truly so resented, would Cholula have switched to become a Mexica ally like that?) and putting Cholula back within the Tlaxcalteca sphere of influence, showing that even Tlaxcala worked with Cortes for opportunistic benefit and not just to be rid of Mexica aggression

In general stuff makes sense when you understand Mesoamerican politics, even Moctezuma II letting Cortes into Tenochtitlan, since diplomatic etiquette was a big deal (which is why Ahuizotl getting ghosted at his coronation was notable, even kings from cities at war typically attended each others ceremonies where their own soldiers got sacrificed) and to deny Cortes entry would break those norms and be seen as an act of cowardice, potentially damaging Mexica influence and encouraging subjects to secede like they did under Tizoc. By contrast inviting him in signaled to other rulers that he was unafraid and still in control, plus it kept Cortes close and under watch and able to be used as a source of intel, rather then out of reach and in a position to try ally with other states. Plus, flaunting the grandeur of your city and the scale of your sacrifices was part of courting and intimidating states into becoming allies or vassals, which local kings were trying to do with Cortes (EX: Cortes and co were given noblewomen as attempted political marriages, in accordance with the political dynamics i've explained, with local kings expecting it would get them status within whatever empire Cortes put in place)

5/?

>>220624382
>Much better fortified
What'd he mean by that? I remember reading about a walled city built in the late Mayan era that was considered unique because defensive walls weren't used in mesoamerica.

>>220624548
In exceptional days you fucking imbecile, obviously not every day of the fucking year, in this case the 80k sacrifice was spread withing four days of ceremony, this was written by Diego Durán and pretty much confirmed by archaeological finds even tho everyone wants to downgrade the number for political reasons. What an obnoxious twat you are coming at me like that, you fucking idiot.

>>220625074
>>220620157
>>220621485
>>220621592
>>220614792
cont:

There's a lot of nuances and caveats I still didn't get into, and obviously each state which allied with Cortes had their own motives (or multiple motives, for many it was a mix of opportunistic motives and also having some grievances with the Mexica, admittedly), but what i've outlined is basically the gist of it

TL:DR:

The Aztec Empire may have been an expansionistic military power, but it was also a loose hegemony rather then a imperialistic regime under an iron fist, and it was that looseness that enabled the sort of opportunistic side switching that we see happened with Cortes and many other times in Mesoamerican history, and regardless of what grievances some states may have had with Mexica rule, Cortes getting allies is more accurately characterized as states situationally switching sides to further their own interests based on what they thought was most advantageous to them, rather then as some sort of mass uprising against Mexica tyranny

Additionally, Cortes was not calling all the shots, and local kings and officials like Ixtilxochitl II of Texcoco, Xicomecoatl of Cempoala, Xicotencatl II of Tlaxcala, and Moctezuma II were actively planning, giving orders (Ixtlilxochitl II and the Tlaxcalteca did retreats and assaults in the leadup to and during the siege of Tenochtitlan that would have benefitted them and their political position once the war ended, even when it did nothing to help or even undermined Cortes and his ambitions, and Cortes was forced to work around them or play along), and manipulating the Spanish as much as Cortes was using them

For even more info, see pastebin.com/h18M28BR and arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/640670498/#640679139 and desuarchive.org/his/thread/16781148/#16781964 and desuarchive.org/k/thread/64935126/#64961571 and desuarchive.org/k/thread/64434397/#64469714 + the other posts I link to within that /k/ post and the two posts of mine directly preceding that one

6/?

>>220625164
In order to kill 80k people in one day you would need hundreds of people killing nonstop from sunrise to sunset... Please have some common sense and think before you post

File: G-YP86TXcAAN0wW.jpg (123 KB, 1024x787)

123 KB JPG

>>220625233
I am starting to understand why they slaugthered you en masse on top of pyramids, you people are literal subhumans.

>>220625132
tulum has a city wall. i don't think they're rare, though but they don't preserve well

>>220625164
>80k sacrifice was spread withing four days of ceremony, this
80 000 / 4 = 20 000
20 000 / 24 = 833.3
833 / 60 = 14 sacrifices per minute
tenochtitlán itself had a population of 200k tops

File: tzompantli.jpg (286 KB, 735x1237)

286 KB JPG

>>220625194
Cont:

>>220614812
>>220615009
Even if you were counting all the sacrifices across all "culturally Aztec" cities or within the "Aztec Empire" at once, there wouldn't be 50k to 80k sacrifices a day (and it doesn't make sense to total up sacrifices that way since each city and possibly even each town/village did sacrifices in accordance with their own separate customs and laws, there wasn't a empire wide quota or sacrifice oversight apparatus), much less that many specifically to Tlaloc.

The Mexica in Tenochtitlan (and Tlatelolco, which was technically a separate city but was fused into Tenochtitlan as a sort of fifth city quadrant, when most people say Tenochtitlan including me in this thread, they/I mean both) probably sacrificed a few hundred to a few thousand people a YEAR, and other cities, towns etc probably did significantly less.

You might be thinking of the 1487 reconsecration of the Great Temple in Tenochtitlan where in some accounts it is said that ~80,000 people were sacrificed across a 4 day period, but the Skull Rack said to have been built from the event's victims was excavated and the rack only holds ~16,000 skulls, plus maybe a few thousand more in adjacent skull towers. Plus at least some of the deposits to the rack/towers were done in earlier or later periods so that ~16k figure probably represents years if not decades of deposits rather then skulls from that one incident.

Considering that the reconsecration was done for or around Ahuizotl's coronation, it makes sense that the numbers were inflated even in Indigenous sources, since the Mexica wanted to present a strong military image (the plurality of sacrifice victims were captured enemy soldiers, so more sacrifices suggested a stronger military) following Tizoc's inept military performance and the damage it caused Mexica influence.

7/?

>>220625289
Yes, they basically sacrificed all war captives and slaves, and four altars were operating simultaneously and not all of them were killed atop the pyramid through heart extraction. If you know anything about WW1 and WW2 you know that number is nothing. A single croat Ustasha in Jasenovac is recorded to have killed over 1000 prisoners in a single day by cutting their throats.

File: Restall When Montezuma Co(...).png (356 KB, 1125x825)

356 KB PNG

>220625295
cont:

>>220624548
>>220625164
>>220625245
>>220625289
Whoops, forgot to reply to these when I posted >>220625295, see my post there re: sacrifice numbers.

>>220618085
>>220619225
see >>220624574 and the 5 posts I did following it and my prior post re: sacrifice numbers. The Mexica weren't exactly not-brutal, since they still did sacrifices and were conquering expansionists, but their rule wasn't especially oppressive and Cortes getting allies against them was more from states seeking to further their own political interests then having to do with the Mexica being particularly bad, which they mostly weren't as far as military powers go.

Also even Cortes and other conquistadors/friars would take issue with calling then savages, many of them viewed the Mexica (in fact, especially the Mexica) and other Mesoamericans as civilized high societies in spite of their paganism. I can post dozens of pages worth of quotes to this effect.

>>220621288
I'm not confident that children weren't cannibalized. I know some sources say that only enemy soldiers were but that could be a generalization. The findings at Tecoaque (EX: theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/10/conquistadors-sacrificed-eaten-aztec-acolhuas) might be an example of cannibalized children but the reports that i'm looking at at least don't specifically say if the cannibalized victims included children or not

>>220624626
No, you're coping. The Huey Tzompantli skull rack is clear evidence of sacrifice occurring. The victims were disproportionately in good health, which shows they weren't natural deaths. People overstate the numbers and sadism involved, but sacrifices did still happen

8/?

File: Screenshot 2026-04-09 at (...).png (265 KB, 1536x1070)

265 KB PNG

>>220625390
>A single croat Ustasha in Jasenovac is recorded to have killed over 1000 prisoners in a single day by cutting their throats.
The oracle says you're lying

>>220614482
what are you, woke?

>>220625479
Anyone relatively fit could kill over a thousand per day, easy. It's about mindset not physical prowess. If you are already doing human sacrifices and enjoy harming and torturing others and value life so lowly, killing 100 or 1000 makes no difference other than in exertion, we are just splitting hairs at this point.

File: Conquistador quote meanwh(...).jpg (3.92 MB, 4080x4080)

3.92 MB JPG

Shit, I got my image mixed up last post

>220625476
Cont:

>>220622877
The other Mesoamericans did that too, and to a lesser extent so did the Andeans and plenty of ancient Eurasia. The Mexica get particularly demonized because people extrapolate Tlaxcala's motives for allying with Cortes as being represenative of a broader anti-Mexica sentiment amongst the states who allied with Cortes even if the other states didn't share Tlaxcala's motives, as I explain in >>220624574 and in the following 5 posts

>>220615052
Not sure if you're referring to the Aztec or Inca, but both fell also due to diseases and the Spanish being aided by and reliant on local states and rival factions. Also even just looking at the Spanish, there were 2000-3000 conquistadors involved in the fall of the Aztec, not a just a few hundred, see the pic in >>220625476

>>220618085
>>220619225
>Also even Cortes and other conquistadors/friars would take issue with calling then savages, many of them viewed the Mexica (in fact, especially the Mexica) and other Mesoamericans as civilized high societies in spite of their paganism. I can post dozens of pages worth of quotes to this effect.

See pic for some

>>220625132
>>220625256
DESU I'm not quite sure. Walls existed with some frequency amongst the Classic Maya, but are usually cited as being pretty rare in Central Mexico, though I've seen some people push back on that. I'll refer you to this post: https://x.com/Majora__Z/status/2032250995594387597 a friend of mine did on the subject

>>220625390
see >>220625295, if you trust Duran enough to think the 80k numbers he gave then you should also trust that he wasn't lying when he said the Huey Tzompantli was built with all the victim's skulls, and yet the Tzompantli has nowhere near 80k skulls.

9/9 for now, happy to answer further questions

File: 1775425317572725.png (2.03 MB, 1200x863)

2.03 MB PNG

>>220614482
>Romans would regularly rip people’s hearts out while alive to keep the Sun going round?
I mean...

File: 1686175787111799.jpg (93 KB, 750x920)

93 KB JPG

>>220625522
okay, retard

File: 1529956685159.gif (22 KB, 364x265)

22 KB GIF

>>220625662
se le escoció el culito al botijo

>>220625532
do you know if polychrome stone was used for decoration among mesoamericans?

>>220625532
>To get it out of the way, sacrifice and ritual cannibalism was a likely universal practice in the region: All the states who allied with Cortes also did it. So the Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan doing it wasn't seen as problematic.

>The Mexica in Tenochtitlan (and Tlatelolco, which was technically a separate city but was fused into Tenochtitlan as a sort of fifth city quadrant, when most people say Tenochtitlan including me in this thread, they/I mean both) probably sacrificed a few hundred to a few thousand people a YEAR, and other cities, towns etc probably did significantly less.

To sum it up: yes, the Aztecs were extremely brutal when compared to other Mesoamerican people, even if those other people, and other American people, like the Incas, also did human sacrifices, because they did it in a much smaller scale when compared with the Aztecs. So OP is wrong.

>>220625532
Could you share contemporary descriptions of Mayan cities? I haven't read much about those, I imagine it's because the Spaniards stuck to the coast on their way to the central valley.

tenochtitlan was bigger than any other city in mesoamerica

Tláloc need more baby tears

>>220625789
Probably, some Conquistador descriptions of palaces in Iztapalapan describe differently colored stones being used as accenting.

I say "probably" because they could be plastered and painted rather then the stones being left bare and with different natural colors, obviously stone architecture was generally plastered and then painted with murals and such.

>>220625871
I mean, you could sum it up that way, but the difference is a degree of scale, not of fundamental practices. The Mexica probably did it more just because they were the most militaristically successful group in the region and had the most opportunity to collect captives in their conquests.

Some argue or you could make an arguement that the Mexica always had a higher need of sacrifices (and their miilitarism was to satisify that need) or that they were more brutal in their wars, but I don't find those particularly convincing anyy time I've looked into it. If people care I can clarify.

>>220625930
I don't have any quotes on hand, sadly. I know Cortes describes Potonchan in his letters though so checking those and Diaz's account for that would be where i'd start.

You wouldn't know because the Mexcrement goverment doesn't want you to know
https://youtu.be/W39L8Z7nJgM

>"These poles formed many crosses on the beams, and each third of a cross or pole had five heads impaled through the temples. Andrés de Tapia, who told me this, and Gonzalo de Umbría counted them one day, and found one hundred and thirty-six thousand skulls on the beams and steps." The description by the chronicler Francisco López de Gómara (born in 1511)

>>220626250
This just sounds cool.

>>220626203
>>220626250
>>220626265
See
>>220625295

The rack has ~16,000 skulls, a fraction of the 136,000 that Andres de Tapia claimed or the ~80,000 that Diego Duran claimed

>>220614413
> Why are aztecs demonized
they are the closest thing in history to literal demons.

>>220626272
how would you know the exact amount of skulls if they're still getting discovered to this day?

>>220624283
This
Mexicans are extremely violent, the way we speak, our slangs, how we refer to women and many other things. Everything we do is extreme violence
It's why we make the best fighters in the world, our fists hit like hammers

But it's also the reason why extreme barbarity is always found in Mexico no matter the century or year

File: genes.png (364 KB, 1046x1222)

364 KB PNG

>>220626416
except narco problem was brought to mexico by norteño scum with majority european ancestry?

File: 1709607767167727.gif (99 KB, 1200x1200)

99 KB GIF

>>220626203
>the mexican government doesn't want you to know THIS
>posts archeological exploration done by the mexican government's institute of anthopology from an msm channel

>>220626577
Why are there Chinamen in Guerrero but none in the adjacent states?

>>220614413
>>>/his/

>>220626142
>>220626272
cont:

>>220626313
The 16,000 figure is based on plugging in the dimensions of the rack (35m long, 12m wide, 5m high), as reported in media reports and INAH press releases about the excavations, into the tables provided in this paper researchgate.net/publication/229761556_Counting_Skulls_Comment_on_the_Aztec_Cannibalism_Theory_of_Harner-Harris , which calculates the skull per cubic meters racks of different sizes could hold, based on the fact that as rack height increases, so too does the width of the poles used to hold the rack up.

We also factored in the reported size and spacing of the poles inn some papers published about the excavations, and if you do the math to combine that info with the tables in the "Counting Skulls" paper you get a figure of around 16,000.

Keep in mind, again, this is JUST for the rack, there's also two cylindrical towers next to the rack as seen in >>220625295, that would add a few hundred or even a few thousand more skulls. Conversely, though, the rack dimensions I gave seems to be for the entire platform, not just the rack itself, so the rack actually probably held less then 16,000 skulls since the rack only occupied a portion of the platform's total area. On the other-other hand, some media reports give a "at least 5m" figure for the rack and towers, so it's possible the rack is taller, but increasing the rack height past 15m actually leads to a diminishing returns in the amount of skulls due to the poles getting too thick so even if the rack is taller then 5m it shouldn't impact the final figure too much, especially given what I commented about rack vs platform area

If you're curious I can go more in detail about the math tomorrow if the thread is still up, but I'm heading to bed now

>>220624283
>>220626416
>>220626577
Fuck I forgot to reply to this, I looked into the methodology of this >>220624283 chart before and it was nonsense, if this thread is still up tommorow I'll clarify

technically 12/12

>>220614812
>Aztec niggas sacrificed as much as 50 to 80k people in a day to appease the rain God Tlaloc.
holohoax levels of made up bullshit lmao

>>220626648
manila galleons

File: 1747317050397266.jpg (77 KB, 1080x1033)

77 KB JPG

>mfw i hate both natives and iberians
how can i spread infighting between the browns

>>220614812
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificios_humanos_en_la_antigua_pen%C3%ADnsula_ib%C3%A9rica
>Los lusitanos hacen sacrificios y examinan las entrañas sin separarlas del cuerpo; observan así mismo las venas del pecho y adivinan palpando. También auscultan las vísceras de los prisioneros, cubriéndolas con sagos; cuando el hieróscopo golpea la víctima debajo de los órganos vitales, predicen en primer lugar de acuerdo con la forma como cae el cuerpo. Cortan a los prisioneros la mano derecha y ofrécenla a sus dioses.
Estrabón, Geografía, III 3.6

>>220626664
what's the coolest thing you've learned about mesoamerica the past three months?

>>220622636
Most reddit post award.

>>220621529
everyone once in a while the colonials would find a real monster, but then theyd accuse everyone of it.
Aztecs were the real deal.