Iriqouis and Aztec

[Entrails Konfetti]

Before the Spanish conquest the Iriqouis in the north of the Americas were spreading, as were the Aztecs in the south. Do you think if the Spanish never conquered these two tribes would have fought a major war?

[Leif]

Feasibly, but both nations were at seperate times with many other nations between then. If Europe never went to the 'Americas', I believe they potentially would have had conflict, but I believe for the greater part, they would have gotten along.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Iriquois? Or Iroquois? Never heard of the Iriquois at all during the time I studied the Aztec. Anyhow the Aztec would have probably have beaten them because they were the strongest in the region and almost beat the Spanish.

[Wiesty]

Hmmm, Im not to sure the Aztecs even knew of life in Northern America, as im sure the Iriquois probably didnt know of life in Central America. So if the Aztecs would of decided to move that far north, or the Iriquois that far south, they might of fought, but by the time they would of done that, other europeans would of landed, and wiped them out, so very unlikely in my opinion.

[which doctor]

The Iroquois were a in Northeast America. The Aztecs never got much past Mexico City. I doubt their empires would be stable enough to grow so large that they would one day reach eachother. Even if they did, they probaly would have met in the 1900's, considering their was no european exploration of the area.

[Leo]

If I am not mistaken, Aztecs were an Empire pretty much in the same state of ancient empires such as Egypt, Rome etc. and they were as brutal as those empires. Iroquois was a Confedeary, or a League of Peace and Power as they called it, was a fraternal union between six different Native American tribal nations. They had a representative government known as the Grand Council. Each tribe sendt chiefs to act as respresentatives and make decisions for the whole nation. They had a constitution called the 'Great Law of Peace' which was probably created between late forteenth century to early seventeenth century but some say it dates back even further but the Confederacy itself was formed in 1600s against the English forces.
The way Native American tribes tended to move from Primitive Communism to civilized fraternal communalism is quite interesting. Unfortunately, they were never given the chance to continue their peaceful development freely. One of the greatest tragedies in the history, even now thinking about it makes gives me sorrow...

[Eoin Dubh]

Cant see it happening.
The Iroquois did range from Canada south to Florida and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi river.
Deganawidas Gayanerkowa-or-Great Law of Peace, intended to unite the nations into one confederacy and although eventualy there were only six nations to join ( Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, Oneida, Seneca, and later the Tuscarora) just imagine if the confederacy had more time to coalesce and unite.
But that was not to be as first the Dutch and Swedish and later the French and English colonists disrupted the order of things.
Tecumseh and the Prophet made an effort to revive Deganawidas dream during the war of 1812 but to no avail.

The Great law was praised by Marx as a model state operating without police, it inspired the US Constitution and has been called the worlds oldest participatory democracy.

I can only imagine how incredible it would have been for the Aztecs to join in the Confederacy, and the great heights their collective cultures could have reached! :(

[Iroquois Xavier]

The Iroquois tribe fuckin rules! I used their name cos they rule! They used to live on Manhattan Island until the greedy yanks chucked them out.

[Janus]

I doubt that the Iroquois would've expanded that far nor would the Aztecs. Furthermore, the Aztex would much more technologically advanced and united than the Iroquois who were based on an alliance of different groups.

[MurderInc]

It is possible that if the Spanards wouldn'thave come, the Aztecs would have continued their expansion into what is today the U.S. If this would have occurred, the English colonies that became the United States of America and the Aztecs might have fought a war, with the U.S. winning and expanding throughout all of North America.

The Aztecs also forced treaties and the payment of tribute on many tribes; this is more likely what the fate of the Iriquoi would have received.

[TheSpoon]

I heard the Aztecs had a beutiful city called Tenochtitlan, which Spanish soldiers upon seizing it claimed was as beautiful as Rome or Constantinople, it's a shame how imperialism has wrecked so many beutiful things. :(

[Janus]

The Iroquois population could've never reached above 40,000 between the 12th and 16th century. The population of Tenochtitlan itself was over 3 times this. The Aztecs were overwhelmingly superior in numbers.

[godisdead]

when dealing in counter-factuals or re-writing history....u basically open the floodgate for alternate histories.

ie
spanish fail at conquering mexica (aztec is not what they called themselves), dutch, french, english, and german colonies never happen, those empires established american colonies based on the success of the spanish over the mexica and incan empires.

w/o the gold and silver fueling european wars and industries development in europe, europe would have stagnated and the wars wit the muslim empires would have been a primary concern, along with inner-euro wars.

the mexica would have a) collapsed due to the spread of smallpox, cortez and spanish defeated or not, diesases would have took 90% of the indigenous population. the spanish establish trading posts (as they intended to do, to get gold) and the city-states that remain become fairly strong with horses and euro weapons.

or b) the mexica survive and reform, estabishing a true empire ( they never assimilated conquered ppls), undergoing a meiji period ( rapid development, meiji refers to the japanese industrialization from serfdom to imperial state in the late 19th century). armed with horses, canons, steel, and euro mercenaries they go on a expansion bonanza in partiuclary to the south (north of central mexico was desert area ruled by nomadic "chichimecas" whom the mexica feared and hated).

as to meeting the iroquios then its b) and i dont see how the iroquios would have survived a battle or if they would have formed to begin with, they formed in late 1600s if im not mistaken and with the mexica empire expanding and spreadin its influece and culture i would imagine "confederacies" would had a hard time stayin aflout.

this is all IMHO. :ph34r:

[Morag]

Well, by about the 14th century, there were trade routes linking the Iroquois regions with the Aztecs. Both were big trading groups, and I think I recall proof that an Iroquois person was found, buriedx in Iroquois fashion as far away as Southern texas. And the Arapaho and Navajo are technically Iroquois peoples, I recall, and the Siouxan languages are also believed to descend from the same root as Iroquioan, since Iroquois refers more to a language group then a "nation", just as Algonquin does.

That being said, it should be noted that even before the introduction of Europeans into the regional systems of North America, there was plenty of warfare, though, due largely to population size and the general way of life and honour codes, it wasn't quite as brutal as European warfare. The Six Nations were often at war with each other, although it never tore the larger group apart. And there were the Hurons, who were already at war with the Iroquois before the Europeans arrives. There are other cases of such national wars, but I can't remember. Naturally, the rivalry between nations accelarated when the Europeans arrived, disrupted trade routes and turning formally important trade goods useless at the blink of an eyte, completely wiping out the prosperity of some nations in a matter of years.

Regarding whether I think the two groups the Iroquois (which I take actually to mean the Five Nations, not Six, since the Tuscarorans joined due to European-related problems) and the Aztecs would have expanded far enough to have come to blows, no. I figure the Axtecs, who I know much less about, were southern looking, while the Iroquoians were looking at expansion further into the Ohio River Valley, New England, and if trade routes or goods demanded, perhaps into Algonquin-held territories. The outcome of the French and Indian Wars leads people to believe that the Iroquois were much more powerful then they were in reality. Unless tehre was a population boom related to new agricultural methods (and the Iroquois had a fairly high-yeilding agriculture already) the pressure for new lands would not drive them to expansion. What did, in the end, was the pressure for beaver pelts that caused them to spread out along the waterways. Although, I know in the 1500 and early 1600's in Europe, and I believe in NA as well, there was a "Little Ice Age" causing agricultural outputs to drop, so they might have forced themselves further south, if they could manage it, to get at the fertile Ohio River areas. Even if the two groups did meet, it would be at the furthest expansion points of their regions, and it seems likely that both might be more interested in trade, which they already had, then anything else.

I hate what-if history... And I love it, too.

[Janus]

Well, by about the 14th century, there were trade routes linking the Iroquois regions with the Aztecs.
How? The Aztec civilization just began in the late 14th century.


And the Arapaho and Navajo are technically Iroquois peoples, I recall, and the Siouxan languages are also believed to descend from the same root as Iroquioan
The Arapaho and Navajo are not Iroquois and do not even speak a similar language. Same goes for the Sioux.

[Morag]

Pardon me, Janus. I suppose I was loose in my terminology. The group which the Aztecs grew out of, which I think might have been called the Mexica, lived in a region, prior to the 15th century, which had trade routes or auxillery trade routes, which were connected to the Iroquois. Just because they weren't the ruling Aztecs until the late 15th doesn't mean they didn't exist or didn't trade before that time.

And Iroquoian and Souixan aren't the same language, yet are in the same language group. Just like, for instance, Danish and English, which do have similar roots. How close the link between the two is disputed. When I said Arapaho, I did mean Apache, however; and your right. I was writing off memory- they are Athabaskan languages. My mistake.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:15 PM
I heard the Aztecs had a beutiful city called Tenochtitlan, which Spanish soldiers upon seizing it claimed was as beautiful as Rome or Constantinople, it's a shame how imperialism has wrecked so many beutiful things. :(
They probably would've let it be, but the human sacrifices and blood pouring down the steps of the temples kind of put them off, as I understand it.

[Morag]

A lot of historians and archaeologists feel the role of human sacrifice had been exaggerated by the Spanish to further vilify the Aztecs. As well, the Spanish had allied themselves with the Aztecs rivals, and so could have been fed very contrary information. Not to say that the sacrifices didn't happen.

[Black Dagger]

They probably would've let it be, but the human sacrifices and blood pouring down the steps of the temples kind of put them off, as I understand it.

I thought it was the whole &#39;let&#39;s pillage the fuck out of these people&#39; approach the &#39;conquistadors&#39; took to their &#39;exploration&#39; of The Americas <_<

[Janus]

And Iroquoian and Souixan aren&#39;t the same language, yet are in the same language group
Interesting. Could you provide some links?

By the way, are you majoring in Native American studies or is it pure academic interest?

[rebelworker]

I really dont think the Iroqoise were anywhere near the Aztecs.

The six nations only spread as far south as new york city area, as far a i know. The Plains and desert peoples had nothing to do with them, and they were very low in population and semi migratory, so the possibility of these two groups meeting, never mind coming in contact and competition over resources enough for a war is a little far feched.

The Aztecs capital was larger than any city in europe at the time(I heard this from a teacher years ago so mabey im wrong) so as mentioned above, if by any chanve they did war with the iroqoise it would have been pretty one sided.

[Janus]

The group which the Aztecs grew out of, which I think might have been called the Mexica, lived in a region, prior to the 15th century, which had trade routes or auxillery trade routes, which were connected to the Iroquois.
That is an increadible distance. As far as I know, Native American groups never traded that far.


Just because they weren&#39;t the ruling Aztecs until the late 15th doesn&#39;t mean they didn&#39;t exist or didn&#39;t trade before that time.
Yes but since they were even smaller, how could they have traded that far?


The Aztecs capital was larger than any city in europe at the time(I heard this from a teacher years ago so mabey im wrong) so as mentioned above, if by any chanve they did war with the iroqoise it would have been pretty one sided.
There are only estimates but Tenochtitlan was definitely one of the largest cities in the world with over 200,000 inhabitants at its height.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:27 PM

And Iroquoian and Souixan aren&#39;t the same language, yet are in the same language group
Interesting. Could you provide some links?

By the way, are you majoring in Native American studies or is it pure academic interest?
The best I have on-line would be wiki, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siouan_languages). There is also a page on Iroquoian languages on wiki. But it is presented as fact in mostbooks I&#39;ve read. I&#39;m not majoring in it, but it&#39;s dead interesting and as a Canadian studying history, you pick stuff up.

And while the trade routes weren&#39;t specifically Iroquois or Aztecs travelling across the continent to trade with the other groups, the trade would instead go through several groups before reaching the other end. So it wasn&#39;t as if they had, say, bi-lateral trade, but multi-national trade. The pre-Columbian trade routes were amazing, and trade was really important (naturally). I had to write an essay about the Destruction of Huronia, and a lot of the information suggested that it wasn&#39;t the repression or disease from the Europeans that caused a lot of the initial damage to nations, but rather the change in trade routes, as I said in my first post.

[Janus]

the trade would instead go through several groups before reaching the other end. So it wasn&#39;t as if they had, say, bi-lateral trade, but multi-national trade.
Yeah that could be possible. I thought you were originally talking about exclusive trading between the two which would&#39;ve been impossible as most Native American groups only traded with their neighbors.

I don&#39;t really know about the Sioux and Iroquois language connection seeing as how the Sioux and Iroquois were from very different backgrounds.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:24 PM

the trade would instead go through several groups before reaching the other end. So it wasn&#39;t as if they had, say, bi-lateral trade, but multi-national trade.
Yeah that could be possible. I thought you were originally talking about exclusive trading between the two which would&#39;ve been impossible as most Native American groups only traded with their neighbors.

I don&#39;t really know about the Sioux and Iroquois language connection seeing as how the Sioux and Iroquois were from very different backgrounds.
Well, Latinate languages and Scandinavian languages have root words from ancient Sanskrit. Navajo and Apahce are in the same linguistic group as nations in the NorthWest Territories of Canada. Languages spread in odd patterns quite often.

[Janus]

Languages spread in odd patterns quite often.
Yeah. Since the Native Americans are all related they&#39;re all connected; some more than others.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2006, 11:52 AM

They probably would&#39;ve let it be, but the human sacrifices and blood pouring down the steps of the temples kind of put them off, as I understand it.

I thought it was the whole &#39;let&#39;s pillage the fuck out of these people&#39; approach the &#39;conquistadors&#39; took to their &#39;exploration&#39; of The Americas <_<
Actually, they made a great many allies in their early travels as they moved towards the Aztec capital. They fought those who fought them, but they weren&#39;t pillaging everything in sight. They probably would&#39;ve been content to get lots and lots of gold from the Aztecs and not wipe them off the planet, but the whole human sacrifice thing was what set them off, or so their records suggest.

Of course, once the Aztecs were defeated, pillaging the fuck out of everyone pretty much became the modus operandi. The Aztecs were the only ones who could&#39;ve (and did) mount a serious defensive.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by BBBG+--> (BBBG) Actually, they made a great many allies in their early travels as they moved towards the Aztec capital.[/b]

I know, but that is just standard euro pragmatism - exploit disputes between Indigenous nations, encourage rivalries that serve your interests, divide and conquer etc. - their alliances with Indigenous peoples were always strategical (i.e. they&#39;d help fight the Aztecs/&#39;stronger&#39; nations) - and in the end, it was to establish the conditions in which they could go buckwild, pillagefest 1520&#33;


BBBG
They probably would&#39;ve been content to get lots and lots of gold from the Aztecs and not wipe them off the planet, but the whole human sacrifice thing was what set them off, or so their records suggest.

Perhaps, but i&#39;m not sure if i&#39;m ready to just accept Spanish records on the face of it ;)

Though i suppose &#39;christianisation&#39; would have factored into their motivations on some level (a few below ORO ORO- EL DORADO~&#33;~&#33;&#33;&#33; no doubt) - and that would entail the standard disgust levelled at non-christian religion by euros on their &#39;world tour&#39;.

[bcbm]

I know, but that is just standard euro pragmatism - exploit disputes between Indigenous nations, encourage rivalries that serve your interests, divide and conquer etc. - their alliances with Indigenous peoples were always strategical (i.e. they&#39;d help fight the Aztecs/&#39;stronger&#39; nations) - and in the end, it was to establish the conditions in which they could go buckwild, pillagefest 1520&#33;

Of course. In all of this, the real victims were probably the nations who joined the Europeans to fight the Aztecs, since whoever won they were screwed. The Aztecs were just as brutal an empire as the Europeans, just not as efficient, although their bloodlettings of non-Aztec peoples to their gods were probably somewhat worse than anything the Europeans mustered. The Spanish were assholes, but they didn&#39;t demand ritual sacrifice (just slavery, etc, etc, which I recall the Aztec having as well, though I could be wrong).


Perhaps, but i&#39;m not sure if i&#39;m ready to just accept Spanish records on the face of it

Heh, don&#39;t worry, I&#39;m skeptical of their claims as well. Given the fact that they were extremely outnumbered and in hostile, unknown territory though, I think something would&#39;ve had to push them over the edge to seek the complete destruction of the Aztecs. Hell, Cortez had to sink the ships to even get them to stay, and that was when they knew the Aztecs had a shit ton of gold&#33;


Though i suppose &#39;christianisation&#39; would have factored into their motivations on some level (a few below ORO ORO- EL DORADO~&#33;~&#33;&#33;&#33; no doubt) - and that would entail the standard disgust levelled at non-christian religion by euros on their &#39;world tour&#39;.

Christianisation maybe. More so that they were shocked by the Aztecs practice of religion, ie slaughtering tons of people in rapid succession by ripping out their hearts and then having the upper classes eat them. And you thought modern proletarians had it bad. ;)

[godisdead]

:rolleyes:

its sad to see the same myths and lies repeated over and over again.

human sacrifice in central mexico was practiced by all the groups except the tarascans.

it was never a whole sale slaughter, recent estimates put it around 2k-5k a year. this numbers are comparable to the number of ppl ritually executed in europe. for example british historian gatrell asserts that 75k englishmen were executed between 1530-1630.

and the mexica never practiced cannibalism, that was a now-debunked theory to explain how central mexicans got protein (this was before they figured out corn, beans, and squash provide tons of protein).


as to what &#39;set off&#39; the spanish, lol, GOLD and the fear that the mexica might rebuild themselves. the conquest of tenochitlan was long and brutal, the mexica were depopulated by smallpox so even womyn and children fought the spanish and their allies. the thought of having to fight an adversery with that much determination was something the spanish did not want to face. also the destruction of the temples had a practical purpose they used the stones etc. to build churches/mexico city.

ppl should check out 1491 by charles mann.
ne books on the mexica/triple alliance/aztec b4 1998 r full of errors and have gross omissions or false assumptions.

im not an expert but i do have a degree in latin american and mexican history.

:ph34r: