Troop Grades

The troop grades in the current Aztec list, especially of the suit wearers as Bd(I), appear to be based solely on comparisons with the Spanish allies contained in the Tarascan list and not on comparisons with other Mesoamerican opponents. The Spanish should be dropped as Tlaxcaltec allies from the Tarascan list because they appear after the cutoff date for DBM and that: `Since ancient competitions should be restricted to armies of before 1500, the provision for a Spanish contingent is mainly for friendly games between historical opponents' (Barker and Bodley Scott 1999b:22).

Conquistadors and their opponents are covered in the army lists for De Bellis Renationis (Barker 1995).

There are still plenty of historic opponents for the Aztecs to fight: Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Tarascans, Tlaxcaltecs, Huexotzingans; the list is lengthy. Hassig's Aztec Warfare (1988) is an invaluable source of information on the campaigns of the Aztec Imperial Kings. Suit wearers are renamed military orders and represent the eagle and jaguar knights, other veteran warriors and novices. Warrior priests were armed the same as the military orders. If the priests' role in the army was primarily religious, then they should be graded as irregulars. Conversely, if their role was primarily secular, they should be graded as regulars since they received the same training at the calmecac as the other nobility.

Hassig presents a convincing argument that would support the latter interpretation (1988:pf.274). The category of military orders then includes warrior priests.

Following Hassig (1988), the military orders are regraded as Reg Bd(F) because they were `loose formation troops ...' (Barker and Bodley Scott 1998:6). In a similar manner, the military orders in the Tarascan list (Book 4, list 19) are regraded to Reg Bd(F). Toltec warriors armed with the short sword are more properly Bd(I) (Barker and Bodley Scott 1999a:56).

The classification of the bulk of the warriors in the current list is a source of some controversy. The note for the list contains a quotation that states: `The Aztec charge was described by the Spaniards as "harder to face than French artillery and fiercer than the Moors."' (Barker and Bodley Scott 1999b:61) The impression created is that of an intense, uncontrolled charge, which in this case has been modelled as Hd(S).

This quotation seems to be a corruption of Díaz del Castillo that is not found in the standard translations. Using the older Guatemala manuscript rather than the `corrected' Ramon manuscript, Díaz states:

“And I do not know how I can write this so calmly, because some three or four soldiers who were in Italy, who were there with us, swore many times to God, that they had never seen such ferocious fighting, like those that were found between Christians and against the artillery of the King of France, or of the Great Turk; nor men like those Indians, with so much courage in closing their ranks, and they said many other things, and the reasons they gave for them, as they would later see.”

Here, Díaz was writing about the street fighting in Tenochtitlan prior to La Noche Triste and not an open battle in the field. What Díaz was stressing was the desperate nature of the struggle in the confined spaces of Tenochtitlan and the discipline of the Aztecs during these battles. Given the particular circumstances surrounding this quote, it would be inadvisable to use it as a generalization of the operation of the Aztecs in open battle, which apparently has been done in the army list.

Sources indicate that the Aztec macehualtin behaved far less aggressively in battle. During the campaign against Azcapotzalco, Durán (1994) notes the following: The rest of the army, common soldiers who were lacking in spirit, were to remain ready in the rear, waiting for the king's commands, and if the enemy gained ground these soldiers were to approach Azcapotzalco little by little in orderly fashion (p.79).

The spiritless men who had remained behind, seeing where victory lay, were swept by a desire for glory and attacked the enemy so vigorously that the forces of Azcapotzalco abandoned the field and took refuge in the city (pf.79).

The commoners who had fought but had been timid and fearful at first and who had sworn to become serfs of the victors, of the nobility, were not given lands or anything else in order to castigate them for their lack of courage. Some, however, who had shown a certain amount of valor and spirit and desire to fight were awarded fields (p.82).

What is described above are the actions of regular, but unwilling, troops who ultimately pursued a broken enemy. Thus macehualtin are Reg Ax(I) because they were both `poorly motivated and trained regular troops' and `[troops] who would be psiloi were they not too numerous to skirmish' (Barker and Bodley Scott 1998:7). The pursuit of a demoralized command is already modelled under the rules governing spontaneous advance.

Otomí or Otontin

The cuahchicqueh and otontin could be graded as Wb(S) because they had a `strong belief, often shared by their contemporaries, in their own invincibility' (Barker and Bodley Scott 1998:6). However, they would slow down the advance of the rest of their army as Wb(S) move only 100p. These were the troops that were to lead their forces into combat.

Alternatively, since they fought in `loose formation and [emphasized] speed in the charge' (Barker and Bodley Scott 1998:6), they could be classified as Wb(F). This removes the problem about differing movement rates. The cuahchicqueh and otontin also suffered the heaviest casualties, which could be represented by the deduction inherent in (F) troops.

The question then revolves around the Otomí Wb(F) in the DBM army list. It appears that the list confuses the Otomí, one of the ethnic groups who were settled in Central Mexico before the arrival of the Mexica, the dominant ethnic group of the Aztecs, with the otontin warrior society. Although the Otomí did provide troops for the Aztecs, I cannot find anything that suggests they performed any differently than any other ethnic group within an Aztec army.

At the battle of Otumba (also Otompan), fought on July 7, 1520, a substantial proportion of the Aztec army consisted of Otomí from the surrounding area.

Some disaffected Otomí did serve as mercenaries with the Tlaxcalteca and Tarascans, and these are treated separately in that list. The Otomí from the Aztec list have been removed altogether and the otontin have been combined with the cuahchicqueh and have been graded as Wb(F).

Arrow Knights

Arrow knights are not found in any primary source; not Durán, Díaz del Castillo, Sahagún nor the Anonymous Conquistador. I originally found only two sources that mention arrow knights. The first is an uncited reference in Bray's (1968) Everyday Life of the Aztecs; the second is the drawing by Anton Hoffman reproduced in Wise's (1980)

The Conquistadors. Hoffman's depiction of an arrow knight should be regarded with some suspicion, as in other illustrations he creates some fantastic weapons used by the Aztecs.

As I do not like a mystery, I delved into the origins of the arrow Knights. I found a further reference to them in Vaillant (1944), and while he gave no direct citation in the text, the endnotes of the chapter refer to a publication by A.F. Bandelier (1877). After obtaining a copy of Bandelier through interlibrary loan, I discovered the following quotation:

Of the distinguished and meritorious braves, which had not, however, attained the chieftainship, we know three different kinds: the `fierce cutters', or `beasts of prey' (`Tequihua'), the `strong eagles' or `old eagles' (`Cuachic', or `Cuachimec'), and the `wandering arrows' (`Otomitl').

A footnote to this section gives these additional details: These definitions we give for what they may be worth, without in the least insisting upon their absolute correctness. `Tequihua' may derive from `nitla-tequi', to cut, or from `tequani', wild beast. `Cuachic' from `quauhtli', eagle, and `chicactic', an old man, or a strong object, or, also (though this is hardly probable), `chimalli', shield. `Otomitl' probably derives from `N. otoca', to travel, and `mitl', arrow. But this was also the name given to the `Otomies', a well-known savage tribe, expert hunters, found scattered over Mexico, among or around the sedentary Indians (Bandelier 1877:117).

Here, Bandelier conducted a rather dubious etymological analysis. Cuachic refers to the cuahchicqueh military order, which actually translates as the `shorn ones' (Sahagún 1954b:24). Otomitl refers to the otontin military order. However, what is especially important to note is that Bandelier himself indicated that these may be spurious translations. This cautionary note was ignored and then passed on through Vaillant (1944) and Bray (1968).

Bandelier may have further confused the cuahchicqueh with the cuauh huehuetque, who Durán identifies as the `Old Eagles'. These individuals were elderly warriors who no longer took an active part in battles. While the cuah huehuetque appear to have had ceremonial duties (Durán 1994:283; 301), they also helped marshal troops prior to battle (Durán 1994:pf.279).

The practical upshot of this is for those using the WRG 6th or 7th edition army lists, who should delete this troop type entirely. The elimination of this troop type does not make much of a difference in DBM as arrow knights were subsumed under the military orders.

Aztec Bw(O)

The Aztec list should also contain elements of archers supported by shield bearers, similar to the Bw(O) included in the Tlaxcalan list. In a battle against Cuitlahuac during the reign of Itzcoatl, Durán notes that:

A thousand canoes were filled with well-armed men carrying large shields, a great number of lances, darts, and arrows. With them came warriors who were to defend the archers and who were experts at deflecting the arrows with their shields. Their skill was amazing, when they saw an arrow coming they would hit it with a shield and make it turn back (Durán 1994:119).

These shieldbearers do not appear in accounts of other Aztec battles, so they may not have been a common troop type.

Primeros Memoriales

On another note, those interested in the Aztec military might want to avail themselves of the new translation of Sahagún's Primeros Memoriales (1993;1997). This two-volume set contains 67 images of military uniforms, shield devices and backbanners. Some of these are similar to ones found in the Codex Mendoza (Berdan and Anawalt 1997), but there are many that are unique to Primeros Memoriales. This set is quite expensive, and you may have to go to a university library or use interlibrary loan to obtain a copy.

More Aztec Army

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