Archaeologists have found the remains of 42 children sacrificed to Tlaloc (and a few to Ehecátl Quetzalcóatl) in the...

An anonymous Mexica, probably a Tlatelolcan, recorded by Friar Bernardino de Sahagun for the Florentine Codex.
Other two versions are from Bernal Díaz del Castillo and Pedro de Alvarado himself. The first claims that the Aztecs were organizing a rebellion and the latter states that he interviened to prevent a sacrifice. Both versions are compiled by the personal historian of Cortes, Francisco López de Gómara:
>"Whether on [the basis of] his own opinion or in an agreement decided by everyone, I don't know, but some say he had been warned that the Indian nobles of the city had assembled to plot the mutiny and the rebellion, which they later carried out; others, believe that [the Spaniards] went to watch them perform this famous and praised dance, and seeing how rich they were and wanting the gold the Indians were wearing, he [Alvarado] covered each of the entrances with ten or twelve Spaniards and went inside with more than fifty [Spaniards], and without remorse and lacking any Christian piety, they brutally stabbed and killed the Indians, and took what they were wearing."

"B-b-b-but we can't build a wall and keep them out! Beaners are the demographic of peace!"

How fucking obsessed are you

It's like Blood Meridian: Yucatan edition

So question for the other half of Veeky Forums did violence like this ever really stop in Mexico? Is there a clear relationship between this bullshittery and the various barbary of modern day cartels in the region?

Our nation is falling deeply in love with the Trumps. Did you see the speech in Poland? Go watch it seriously.

>Were the Spaniards justified in conquering the Aztecs?
A better question is if the rebels were justified in freeing themselves from Aztec tyranny.

Most americans aren't even aware.

>Is there a clear relationship between this bullshittery and the various barbary of modern day cartels in the region?
Only if you count "money" as a clear relationship. Mexico's current crime problem is its geographic situation, as it's the natural corridor between the world's largest drug producer and the world's largest drug consumer.

The Aztecs sacrificed 42 children in 200 years. On the exact same spot the Spanish killed 8000 nobles with their children in a couple of hours.
Cut your racial bullshit, tearing off the chidlren's nails (if the practice is true since the article is unsourced) is still more human than what europeans did:
>They struck some from behind, who fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out [of their bodies]. They cut off the heads of some and smashed the heads of others into little pieces. They struck others in the shoulders and tore their arms from their bodies.

It wasn't always this violent. Romans were pretty violent and the thirty years war was brutal. Doesn't mean it's always been violent it's just the way we humans are. Look at the Japanese, they were savage not long ago now they are passive and tamed. Same in central america it used to be safe before the cold war to travel there.

>implying

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_culture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures

Not an argument.

If there ever has been a time when completely wiping out a culture was justified, this was it.
The entirety of aztec society was arranged around the ritual murder of tens of thousands of innocents.
>Bu... Bu... Muh eurangutans killed thousands too!
They should have killed millions. Beaners should be glad the Spics were so merciful with them.

>Beaners didn't keep good records of their wars, ergo whites are bad

Not an argument.

>muh ten gorillion sacrifices
Point me to a credible source.

not even muslims i swear

A quarter million were sacrificed every year.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

"Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year. Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant and the author of Codex Ixtlilxochitl, estimated that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually."

Not worth arguing with these fuckin Veeky Forums racists. In their eyes, everything done by whites is completely justified, no matter how abhorrent. They hold nonwhites to this arbitrary and ridiculous moral standard, then argue that doing even worse is actually an act of mercy or something. Sure those children were saved by enslaving and genociding them all, thanks guys.

>he was doing drugs that were bad for him, so I was completely justified to rape and murder him and his entire family! He was a savage!

Thats literally the highest estimate but it's not backed up by anything archeologically. Going by the accounts which vary and the archeological data most scholars have it somewhere between 4,000 and 10,000 a year. Honestly a quarter of a million sounds impossible to even conduct every year.

>Some post-conquest sources report that at the re-consecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs sacrificed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days. This number is considered by Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, to be an exaggeration. Hassig states "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony.[40] The higher estimate would average 14 sacrifices per minute during the four-day consecration. Four tables were arranged at the top so that the victims could be jettisoned down the sides of the temple.[41] Nonetheless, according to Codex Telleriano-Remensis, old Aztecs who talked with the missionaries told about a much lower figure for the reconsecration of the temple, approximately 4,000 victims in total.

t. Juan Mestizo Alvarez

>Talking as if race had anything to do with it.
Why do progressive idiots love injecting race into everything? I mean, at some point they must realise they are doing the same thing the /pol/tards do; ignoring the crimes of a group of people because they happen to be a specific colour.

there is no fucking way they had the population to allow for that kind of mass murder

>Michael Harner, in his 1977 article The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice, estimates the number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the 15th century as high as 250,000 per year
The same guy that argued that Aztecs sacrificed for cannibalism because their diet lacked proteins.

3.
>"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

>Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl, a Mexica descendant, estimated that one in five children of the Mexica subjects was killed annually
He considered himself more a Texcocan and Spanish descendant, hence why he actually named himself Ixtlilxochitl (the only Aztec ruler who sided with the Spanish) and De Alva (last name of a famous Spanish general). Besides, the Mestizo historians of this time were trying to shit on the Aztecs and praise the Spanish conquest, while claiming noble ancestry so the Spaniards would give them social and economical benefits.

A society so pathological all it took to bring it down was a group of about 500 Spanish assholes can't have been worth much to begin with.

See:

It is not because they were white, it is because Spanish papism, thought still very oppressive, was a step up from the Aztecs.

The world isn't all ice cream and rainbows, you have to choose the lesser evil.

Agreed, Europe at the time was not worthy in any
way.

This
It's mind boggling how BTFO those people got

Not as mindboggling as how disease ridden were Europeans.

Diseases introduced from the New Wolrd to the Old World:
- A bedbug infection
- Syphilis (disputed)

Diseases introduced from the Old World to the New World:
- Bubonic plague
- Chicken pox
- Cholera
- Diphtheria
- Influenza
- Leprosy
- Malaria
- Measles
- Scarlet fever
- Smallpox
- Typhoid
- Typhus
- Whooping cough
- Yaws
- Yellow fever

It helps when you have disease and over 100,000 native allies.

>because Spanish papism, thought still very oppressive, was a step up from the Aztecs.
>The world isn't all ice cream and rainbows, you have to choose the lesser evil

>Archaeologists have found the remains of 42 children sacrificed to Tlaloc (and a few to Ehecátl Quetzalcóatl) in the offerings of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan. In every case, the 42 children, mostly males aged around six, were suffering from serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections that would have been painful enough to make them cry continually.

vs

>While Hernán Cortés was in Tenochtitlan, he heard about other Spaniards arriving on the coast – Pánfilo de Narváez had come from Cuba with orders to arrest him – and Cortés was forced to leave the city to fight them. During his absence, Moctezuma asked deputy governor Pedro de Alvarado for permission to celebrate Toxcatl (an Aztec festivity in honor of Tezcatlipoca, one of their main gods). But after the festivities had started, Alvarado interrupted the celebration, killing almost 8000 people present at the festival, men, women, and children alike. While differing so on Alvarado's specific motive, both accounts are in basic agreement that the celebrants were unarmed and that the massacre was without warning and unprovoked.
>"They came to close the exits, the steps, the entrances [to the patio]: The Gate of the Eagle in the smallest palace, The Gate of the Canestalk and the Gate of the Snake of Mirrors. And when they had closed them, no one could get out anywhere. At that moment, they then attacked all the people, stabbing them, spearing them, wounding them with their swords. They struck some from behind, who fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out [of their bodies]. They cut off the heads of some and smashed the heads of others into little pieces. They struck others in the shoulders and tore their arms from their bodies.

yeah, obviously the lesser evil

Why is this a question?

Incas were superior to those barbarian eurangutans.

El peruANO.

In all honesty the Spaniards didn't conquer them because how barbaric they were, they just sought riches. But yes, it's a good thing Aztec """"civilization"""" was destroyed, they were fucking scum, lower then even animals.

>But yes, it's a good thing Aztec """"civilization"""" was destroyed, they were fucking scum, lower then even animals.
>"These people live almost like those in Spain, and in as much harmony and order as there, and considering that they are barbarous and so far from the knowledge of God and cut off from all civilized nations, it is truly remarkable to see what they have achieved in all things."
- Hernan Cortes, Second Letter of Relation to Charles V

How is it that none of those Old World diseases were introduced 500 years prior with the Scandinavians in North America?

>subhuman sp*niards found this beautiful unique culture and turned it into another smelly european colony for money

>One small group of humans settled in a far corner in the middle of fucking ice. They eventually abandoned the area or were killed.
>The diseases they were carrying didn't spread.

>Other group established a permanent and thriving colony in sub-tropical regions, having constant contact with the native population.
>The diseases they were spreading carried through the entire area.

Jesus, I wonder how it was that possible?

> beautiful unique culture
> cannibalism
> human sacrifice on an industrial scale
> child sacrifice
muh noble savages; cry some more you mexishit

Really, it was the surrounding pissed off native tribes that destroyed the Aztecs. The Spaniards were just left standing when the dust settled.

Sounds like those kids would've suffered badly in the long run due to their health system.

The 42 sacrifices weren't the only sacrifices and general brutality by the Aztecs and the massacre was during a rough transition period.

>europeans
>flaying people alive for not being catholic enough
>burning people alive for not being catholic enough
>disease
>corruption
>war
get out of my continent

>> cannibalism

kek

>> human sacrifice on an industrial scale
99% warriors captured in battle, who should have been slayed on the battlefiled in the first place.
Still less dead people than with Europeans.

>New Brunswick was permanently icy during the Medieval Warm Period

>le Iron Maiden meme

>Still less dead people than with Europeans.
And that's not even counting civilian casualties, a population which the Aztecs never attacked.

>Pope Clement VII had given his support to the Kingdom of France in an attempt to alter the balance of power in the region, and free the Papacy from dependency, i.e. a growing weakness to "Imperial domination" by the Holy Roman Empire (and the Habsburg dynasty).
>The army of the Holy Roman Emperor defeated the French army in Italy, but funds were not available to pay the soldiers. The 34,000 Imperial troops mutinied and forced their commander, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon and Constable of France, to lead them towards Rome.
>After the brutal execution of some 1,000 defenders of the Papal capital and shrines, the pillage began. Churches and monasteries, as well as the palaces of prelates and cardinals, were looted and destroyed. Even pro-Imperial cardinals had to pay to save their properties from the rampaging soldiers. On 8 May, Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, a personal enemy of Clement VII, entered the city. He was followed by peasants from his fiefs, who had come to avenge the sacks they had suffered by Papal armies.
>The population of Rome dropped from some 55,000 before the attack, to 10,000. An estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people were murdered.
>Many Imperial soldiers also died in the following months (they remained in the city until February 1528) from diseases caused by the large number of unburied dead bodies in the city. The pillage only ended when, after eight months, the food ran out, there was no one left to ransom and plague appeared.

>le european torture devices are an invention, but all that has been said about the aztec sacrifices is true

If the Euros were justified in wiping out the Aztecs why do you even give a shit if they were killing each other? Lmao.

>> child sacrifice
The Aztecs sacrificed 42 children in 200 years. On the exact same spot the Spanish killed 8000 nobles with their children in a couple of hours. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_in_the_Great_Temple
Cut your racial bullshit, tearing off the chidlren's nails (if the practice is true since the article is unsourced) is still more human than what europeans did:
>They struck some from behind, who fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out [of their bodies]. They cut off the heads of some and smashed the heads of others into little pieces. They struck others in the shoulders and tore their arms from their bodies.

There are literally no references to an Iron Maiden before the 1800s, whereas some version of Aztec human sacrifice is beyond question. The scale is the only thing up for debate.

Repeating yourself there AIDF
>> one corn basket has been deposited into your account

>The scale is the only thing up for debate.
The biggest burial of sacrificed people, again 99% young men i.e, warriors, is 200 people. 650 if you count the different layers of the same structure which correspond to different time periods. The Spaniards killed 8 000 unarmed civillians not in 200 years, but a couple of hours and I literally never seen people making threads to shit on them. The Mongols killed 200 000 - 2 000 000 civillians at Baghad in 1258 and I never see people shitting on them for that, quite the other way around is always some praise for being conquerors and the same goes fo the Spanish.
There's about three threads like this monthly, while in two years I've never have seen people shiting on the Japanese for what the Unit 731 did. Yet they will always claim that the Aztecs were the worst people to ever live.

>atrocities committed during war

Vs

>society built on human sacrifice and torturing children

TRULY A NOBLE PEOPLE

>42 in 200 years
>This instance was the only one
Lol

>society built on human sacrifice and torturing children killed 42 children in 200 years, while europeans killed 8 000 civillians and children in a day, in war that lasted 2-80 years
yeah, truly subhumans

>8 000 unarmed nobles with their children in a couple of hours
>this instance was the only one
Lol

Once they conquered Mexico, did they institute a system that included ripping the still beating hearts out of Aztecs for a thousand years?

Cuz otherwise you're just complaining about invasion tactics, which while brutal by modern standards still didn't include ripping out the fingernails of children so their tears would make it rain.

Not the point. You realize considering the thought that was put into making those children suffer, it was not the first time, neither the last?

>did they institute a system that included ripping the still beating hearts out of Aztecs for a thousand years?
A labour system of 15 hours of work, that increased to 20 when the firars tried to make this "labourer" condition non hereditary and that was re introduced again so all the already sick people wouldn't die. Had the diseases not been introduced, the Spaniards would have faced far, but quite far more revolts.

>"They came to close the exits, the steps, the entrances [to the patio]: The Gate of the Eagle in the smallest palace, The Gate of the Canestalk and the Gate of the Snake of Mirrors. And when they had closed them, no one could get out anywhere. At that moment, they then attacked all the people, stabbing them, spearing them, wounding them with their swords. They struck some from behind, who fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out [of their bodies]. They cut off the heads of some and smashed the heads of others into little pieces. They struck others in the shoulders and tore their arms from their bodies.
I don't see how that's any better

The point is not whether either is better than the other.
It's that you're idolizing and defending a culture that raises children in the most painful way possible to make them suffer as much as possible until their sacrifice.
If that's not inhuman I dont know what is.

>did they institute a system that included ripping the still beating hearts out of Aztecs for a thousand years?

How was slavery better and more human?

Yeah, maybe the Iron Maiden in particular is a myth, but that doesn't mean torture didn't happen, you're arguing the small details of the greater argument. The Spanish Inquisition, for example. In fact, torture was a large part of the justice system in Europe for a long time, read Disipline and Punishment if you want to learn more.

>It's that you're idolizing and defending a culture that raises children in the most painful way possible
the raising was not any worse than europe at the time

>to make them suffer as much as possible until their sacrifice
make them cry, they tearing off their nails is something i have never found a source of. People always cite the florentine codex to say that the parents of the sacrificed children ate the children afterwards, yet they never include the part that says that the children were not tortured.
They cite archaeological researches, but not the ones that point that the children were already sick and not injured alive.

>If that's not inhuman I dont know what is.
Then why shit only on the Aztecs? No one in this thread has claimed that Spaniards were the worst people to ever live for what they did.
Even if they killed unarmed children and their parents without a declaration of war in a worse way. "fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out [of their bodies]. They cut off the heads of some and smashed the heads of others into little pieces. They struck others in the shoulders and tore their arms from their bodies".

>on an industrial scale
>savages
Archieving the logistic infraestructure to subjugate the surrounding cultures, capture and sacrifice 250,000 people anually. When Tenochtitlan was founded the mexicas were nomads that didn´t know shit about farming.

>It's that you're idolizing and defending a culture
Absolute bullshit point, every culture can be accused of doing something morally reprehensible. All of them. I'd consider it a miracle if I ever come across one that hasn't. The problem every time these threads pop is not that people defend human sacrifice but it's that people can't seem to get the aforementioned through their thick skull, and what they do is basically the equivalent of overriding certain information so they can point the finger and fanboy for their favorite football team.

what about the inquisition

Got me reading about it on the wiki pages

It's really interesting, the entirety of aztec culture was based on breaking and sending back parts the material plane to the gods that created it

It seems there were two kinds of human sacrifices: ritualistic sacrifice of captives and sacrifice of volunteers and chosen aztec people. The former placate the gods and the lattter represented the cycle where the gods sustain the universe where the volunteer basically mantled the god like in morrowind.

It would be a pretty cool sacrifice is they only accepted volunteers

Almost one kid every 4 years. Was it for seasonal harvest, war or whenever something bad happened? I'm really curious about why the aztecs sacrificed. Reading the wiki page, it seems child sacrifice where to satisfy the god of rain. It's very possible that the place sthat sacrified to him did it because of disease outbreak. Which is interesting that almost ever 4 years they's have a an outbreak of leprosy.

Also, according to their calendar, they's sacrifice more than one kid per year

It's surreal how a religion practically wired itself to self destruct.

The aztec empire would have collapsed in 10 years.

The spaniards are the gods of timing. Literally every tribe they encountered was basically preparing to rebel.

well, it's what happens when you put the entire biodiversity of the human race, some of which where there since the start, against a isolated population descended from a relatively young human group

>8 months of pillaging
>pillage the city for so long half your army dies of sickness

jesus christ, the PSTD is fucking palpable

But nobody is rooting for the spaniards you shit indian. It's the other way around. Everyone is pointing at how subhuman and savage the Azkeks were, and that nothing of real value was lost. Actually I'd add that the Spanish are a disappointment for me, as they didn't complete the job of exterminating those animals like the vermin they were, and now we have mestizos like you and Pitbull

Amerindians developed faster and reached the early bronze age in less time than eurangutans though. They were pretty much superior.

>The aztec empire would have collapsed in 10 years.
You have nothing to back that up.

>Literally every tribe they encountered was basically preparing to rebel.
Mayans at Yucatan? Repelled them once and then avoided confrontation.
Mayans at Tabasco? Lost against them in a battle, then went to war a second time when they returned two years later.
Totonacs? Allied with the Spanish once they knew about their victory at Tabasco.
Tlaxcalans? Fought gainst them for two weeks until they were convinced that they couldn't bet them so it was better to have them as allies?
Texcocans sided with Ixtlilxochitl II? Offered an alliance only after both their king, Cacamatzin, and the Mexica king Moctezuma II were killed.
The Spaniards would have gone nowhere had it not been for their militar equipment, i.e. steel, cannons and horses >The spaniards are the gods of timing.
Agreed. Somehow they arrived in the year Quetzalcoatl said he would return.

>continued child sacrifice by a society
vs
> a single massacre thats reason still remains unclear

really? what about muh Inquisition muh Europeans are just as bad, anything is better than that when trying to defend a society that killed and ate their own children....

>> a single massacre

apparently this particular one was special in defense of continued child sacrifice...

apparently disemboweling and maiming 10 times more children in a day than the child sacrificers in 200 years is completely justified if it's part of a war and the precise reasons remain unclear

>But nobody is rooting for the spaniards you shit indian.
Yes they are. Source: This thread and all the others like it.
We've had multiple threads like this, and nobody can ever seem to get their head out of their ass.

>Everyone is pointing at how subhuman and savage the Azkeks were, and that nothing of real value was lost. Actually I'd add that the Spanish are a disappointment for me, as they didn't complete the job of exterminating those animals like the vermin they were, and now we have mestizos like you and Pitbull
Oh, you're edgy and underage. I should have realized that before I bothered to reply.

>10 times more children in a day than the child sacrificers
citation needed
we discovered 42 bodies. but we know from sources this was done yearly also how do you know how many children where killed during the massacre?

IDGAF about any of this, but I know for a fact that Cortez The Killer is an awesome song.

>but we know from sources this was done yearly also how do you know how many children where killed during the massacre?
I don't, 8 000 dead according to Francisco López de Gómara, but no precise ammount. Either way if we go for 1%, that's still twice the number of sacrificed by the Aztecs. In 200 years, not a day.

>but we know from sources this was done yearly
yet only 42 have been found, in the most important temple of the empire
I use this massacre as an example because it happened in the exact same place the 42 children were found.

>yet only 42 have been found, in the most important temple of the empire
probably because they ate them user.....

>Amerindians
>bronze age
m8 aztec weaponry was sticks and stones. Armor didnt exist. Metals were used for shiny paperweights and tools

They would have kept the skulls for the skullrack. They didn't eat the bones. And cannibalism was done even less than sacrifices.

Bronze weapons were used by Andeans and some Mesoamericans.

>Cortes issued orders to all the townships which lay in the vicinity of Texcoco, and were in alliance with us, for each of them to furnish him with 8000 bronze points for our arrows, to be made after the model of our Spanish ones, of which some were sent them for that purpose.
>He allowed them eight days for the making and delivery of these; and indeed both the arrows and the bronze points arrived at Tezcuco in the time specified. Our stock of these now consisted of 50,000 pieces, and the arrow points made by these people were even better than those we brought from Spain.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CXLVII

>>Cortes issued orders to all the townships which lay in the vicinity of Texcoco
for reference

Yes, Incas were starting the bronze age already.
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalurgia_precolombina_en_Am
%C3%A9rica#Imperio_Incaico
>Los incas utilizaban el bronce en gran cantidad de armas punzo cortantes y de impacto como los martillos, mazas y hachas de guerra, lanzas y así como cascos para los elementos militares de mayor rango.
Incas used bronze on many weapons of all variety. (maces, hammers, axes, spears). Also they used it to make helmets that higher range soldiers used to wear.