The Aztecs did not have a large standing army. Warriors would have been recruited from the nobility and calpulli lands as needed. These were not merely ad hoc groups of warriors trained to keep a rough formation. Sahagún indicates that order and discipline were maintained in the ranks under the threat of harsh penalties. He states that: `no-one might break ranks or crowd in among the others; they would then and there slay or beat whoever would bring confusion or crowd in among the others' (1954a:52).

Both the nobility and the macehualtin, or free commoners, underwent military training. Those of noble birth trained in the calmecac, which provided not only military training, but also instruction in religion, history and politics. The instructors were priests. It appears that priests also engaged in battle and could attain the same honours accorded to successful warriors. However, priests may have participated in battle in a secular and not religious capacity (Hassig 1988).

The majority of the warriors were macehualtin from the calpulli lands. The calpulli was a territorial and land-holding unit of a town or city. It also functioned as a political and social unit. Within each calpulli was a telpochcalli or young men's house. Here, education focused on the martial arts, with the instructors being veteran warriors.

Warriors, who had captured more than four of the enemy, were eligible for admittance into one of two military orders: the eagle and jaguar `knights'. Hassig (1988) argues that the terms eagle and jaguar may have represented differences in the costumes of the individual warriors rather than any meaningful distinction between the two orders. While the military orders were composed primarily of members of the nobility, promotion into these was based on merit. For the macehualtin, the capture of enemy warriors was practically the only way to enter into the ranks of the nobility (Berdan 1982). However, such promotions appear to have been uncommon, with the vast majority of troops receiving no such rewards.

Apart from the military orders, there existed two other special units: the otontin and the cuahchicqueh. Both of these were elite units, who vowed never to retreat. Hassig (1998) suggests that the only difference between the two was that the cuahchicqueh may have been of a higher status.

Central Mexico was ethnically diverse, containing groups such as the Culhua, Chalca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuaca and the Mixquica. Some were Aztec subjects, others were allies and each sent troops to the Aztec army as required. These ethnic groups formed their own units, and sources suggest that these units also had some internal divisions. In an offensive against the Tepeaca, each ethnic group accompanying the Aztecs was divided into four sub-units.

Sullivan suggests that the `primitive nature' of the arms used by Aztec warriors guaranteed their defeat by the Spanish as these weapons were `suited to the military needs of a people who were far more interested in taking captives for sacrifice than in killing their adversaries' (1972:156). Her justification for this statement is that the macuahuitl, an obsidian-edged club, brought opposing warriors within arm's length of each other, thus making it easier to attempt a capture.

The early sources reveal in no uncertain terms the lethality of Aztec warfare. The Anonymous Conquistador states that: In warfare they are the cruelest people to be found, for they spare neither brothers, relatives, friends, nor women even if they are beautiful; they kill them all and eat them. When they cannot take the enemy plunder and booty with them, they burn everything (1963:170). Cortés notes that in a battle against Iztapalapa, their native allies killed more than 6000 people with the `sole idea to kill right and left' (1963:60). In a later unsuccessful attack against Tlatelolco, the ensuing rout produced over 1000 casualties including 35 to 40 Spanish dead.

Durán makes many references to the heavy slaughter of warriors. In wars against Coyoacan and Tehuantepec, the victorious Aztec armies massacred their opponents. One of the clearest examples of this behaviour occurred in a war against the Huaxtecs. After the Aztec army had laid an ambush, Durán remarks that: When the [Huaxtecs] had entered the trap, the men concealed by the grass stood up and, with great fury, surrounded them, taking many prisoners and killing others. Not one Huaxtec escaped ... and the Aztecs entered the city, burned the temple, sacked and robbed the place. They killed old and young, boys and girls, annihilating without mercy everyone they could, with great cruelty and with the determination to remove all traces of the Huaxtec people from the face of the earth, so that not one of them remain (1994:165). In the wars against the Tepanec (A.D. 1428), Xochimilco (A.D. 1430) and Chalco (A.D. 1446) the Aztecs inflicted heavy casualties.

The Aztecs received as good as they gave. In a campaign against the Tarascans, Durán states that: `The massacre was so great that Axayacatl decided to withdraw those men who were still alive in order to save at least a few. In this encounter the Tarascans killed many valiant Aztecs, especially from the military orders called Cuachic and Otomi' (1994:281). Some 20,000 Aztec warriors are said to have perished. In an A.D. 1478 offensive 32,200 warriors met 50,000 warriors from Michoacan. The Aztec force was nearly annihilated. The arms employed by the Aztecs were quite capable of wreaking such havoc upon their opponents. Sullivan's statements to the contrary do not withstand an examination of the primary sources.

Díaz del Castillo states that the macuahuitl cut better than the Spanish swords. During one battle, Aguilar notes that: One Indian at a single stroke cut open the whole neck of Cristóbal de Olid's horse, killing the horse. The Indian of the other side slashed at the second horseman and the blow cut through the horse's pastern, whereupon this horse also fell dead (1963:140).

A weapon which could lay open a horse was probably just as effective against a human opponent. The macuahuitl is considered to be an improvement over an earlier short sword used by the Toltecs, ca. A.D. 900 to 1200 (Hassig 1992).

Additionally, the sources support the statement that Aztec missile fire was lethal. In a battle between the Aztecs and the Cuitlahuaca, Durán states that: As soon as the Aztecs saw the Cuitlahuacas, they signalled to begin the action and a great deal of shouting burst out on both sides. The men began to throw darts, which are dangerous weapons because once these darts have entered the flesh they cannot be pulled out ... Great numbers of these darts were being thrown, on one side and the other, and men in both armies were severely wounded ... (1994:pf.119).

The Spanish recognized the effectiveness of these missiles. Díaz del Castillo observes that: `their barbed and fire-hardened darts fell like corn on the threshing-floor, each one capable of piercing any armour or penetrating the unprotected vitals' (1963:149). These darts were launched by atlatls, the primary missile delivery system of the Aztec military orders. As these atlatls had an effective range of only 60 metres, the darts were not thrown until immediately prior to contact with the enemy (Hassig 1992). The bow was not primarily an Aztec weapon. Archers were mainly auxiliary troops sent by clients, most often being Chichimec from northern portions of Central Mexico. These troops appear to have been few in number.

More Aztec Army

Command Structure
Army Organization
Aztec Military System
Renaissance Warfare Aztec List
Aztec References