How did the Spanish beat the Aztecs?
Cortés’s army besieged Tenochtitlán for 93 days, and a combination of superior weaponry and a devastating smallpox outbreak enabled the Spanish to conquer the city. Cortés’s victory destroyed the Aztec empire, and the Spanish began to consolidate control over what became the colony of New Spain.
What is the most probable reason the Aztecs become violent?
Possible answer: The Aztecs created and maintained their empire through warfare, the threat of force, and demands for tribute and prisoners. They practiced a religion that demanded regular human sacrifices, and they took prisoners for this purpose.
What led to the fall of the Aztec Empire?
Disease. When the Spanish arrived, they brought with them smallpox. Smallpox spread among the indigenous people and crippled their ability to resist the Spanish. The disease devastated the Aztec people, greatly reducing their population and killing an estimated half of Tenochtitlán’s inhabitants.
Could the Aztecs have defeated the Spanish?
No. It just means that later Spanish expeditions would’ve had the glory of subjugating Mexico. It might have taken a much larger force but it would’ve happened. Smallpox and other diseases from Europe would’ve decimated the Aztecs and made them much weaker than the society that Cortez faced.
When did the Aztecs empire fall?
1521
Invaders led by the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés overthrew the Aztec Empire by force and captured Tenochtitlan in 1521, bringing an end to Mesoamerica’s last great native civilization.
How did the Spanish treat the people conquered?
How did the Spanish treat the peoples they conquered? Badly, forced them into “encomienda” made natives farm, ranch, or mine for Spanish landlords. What was unique about the Spanish colonization of the lands of New Mexico?
Was the Aztec Empire peaceful?
The Aztecs were not peaceful and were about as violent as most other premodern civilizations.
Why did conquered people rebel against Aztecs?
The Aztecs offered human blood from conquered people (enemies and prisoners) in worship to the sun. Why did conquered peoples rebel against the Aztecs? Conquered people rebelled against the Aztecs because they did not support human sacrifice and were religiously persecuted.
What was the major weakness of the Aztec Empire?
What was the greatest weakness of the Aztec Empire? It had a lack of unity, because conquered people wanted their freedom. warfare.
How many city-states were part of the Aztec Empire?
three city-states
The Aztec Empire was a confederation of three city-states established in 1427: Tenochtitlan, city-state of the Mexica or Tenochca; Texcoco; and Tlacopan, previously part of the Tepanec empire, whose dominant power was Azcapotzalco.
How many city states were part of the Aztec empire?
What ended the Aztecs?
Invaders led by the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés overthrew the Aztec Empire by force and captured Tenochtitlan in 1521, bringing an end to Mesoamerica’s last great native civilization.
Did the Aztecs practice human sacrifice?
In December, at an excavation in an Aztec-era community in Ecatepec, just north of Mexico City, archeologist Nadia Velez Saldana described finding evidence of human sacrifice associated with the god of death. “The sacrifice involved burning or partially burning victims,” Velez Saldana said.
How did the Aztecs change in the years before their fall?
One hundred years before its fall, the Aztec Empire went through an incredible change. The emperor’s son, Tlacaelel, declared that the god of war, Huitzilopochtli, was to be the highest of all gods. From then on, the Aztecs lived in service of the god of war.
Was the Aztecs ‘barbaristic’?
The idea of what ‘barbarism’ is really lies in the eye of the beholder. Although Spanish priests thought many Aztec practices to be base and even evil, they preached in the name of an empire (the Holy Roman Empire) that regularly tortured people for the Inquisition!
Were the Aztecs more bloody than the Mayans?
Still others conceded the Aztecs were bloody, but believed the Maya were less so. “We now have the physical evidence to corroborate the written and pictorial record,” said archeologist Leonardo Lopez Lujan. “Some ‘pro-Indian’ currents had always denied this had happened. They said the texts must be lying.”