Why did Moctezuma II remove the meritocratic system of the aztec army?

>>2265724

Because it turns out the job of an officer isn't the same as the job of a line infantrymen, and picking your officers based on how good they are at knocking other people on the head and bringing them back as prisoners is incredibly dumb.

>>2265726
Please tell me that's a bait.
It literally worked for the previous kings.

>>2265749

No, I'm dead serious.

And just because a system worked in spite of its flaws doesn't mean the flaws are non-existent and/or cannot be improved upon.

You could just as easily say that it was stupid for most European countries to stop awarding commands based on paying for them as was the norm for centuries. After all, it literally worked for lots of wars.

>>2266262
All right then.
How did the removal of the officers of commoner origin improved Moctezuma's army efficiency compared to his predecessors, let's say Ahuizotl?

Also, capturing an enemy commander requires quite more than just knocking him in the head. Might aswell say that pick up a general based on how good is at wounding people with a sword is dumb.

>>2265726
I would argue the opposite, that merit-based military command tends to create great generals that are much better suited for war than whatever pompous aristocrat is assigned a military command. Rome would have fallen long before if those Illyrian generals didn't take charge and get those inexperienced and selfish-minded ruling family members out of military positions.

Sure you could argue that the merit system they set up led to more rebellions, but at the same time they never would have lasted as long in the first place if they didn't go with merit leaders. Guys like Trajan and Constantine would never have come around if merit was not valued over the bloodline.

>>2266980

But that's not a merit-based military command. Or rather, it's a meritocracy based on the wrong kind of merit.

Yes, guys like Trajan and Marius and Constantine did great for the Roman polities of their day, and without a system where guys like them could rise to command positions, their talents would have been less useful.

But they all demonstrated ability to command, not because of other skills. Awarding generalship to the best archer or pikeman, because he's the best fighter you've got, is stupid.

File: Codex_Mendoza_folio_65r.jpg (348KB, 776x570px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 776x570px

>>2267009
>Awarding generalship to the best archer or pikeman
so all men in pic related were commanders?
dude seriously stop derailing

>>2267046

I'm hardly an expert, but everything I've ever read about the Aztecs indicates that one entered into a warrior society, or one advanced within it, based on the number of captives you took. Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

>>2267072
They certainly were awarded according to the number of captives, but it didn't mean they were awarded with generalship.

>>2267009
actually Trajan would have never taken military command without first being a respected soldier. Merit generals arise from incredible popularity within the ranks, and generals get popular by being rocks that the men can look up to and admire. They almost always are excellent soldiers in their own right and earn glory on the battlefield before they are ever given command.

Ultimately, merit is what runs modern militaries, so merit is clearly the way to go. It all comes down to that old maxim: before you lead, you must learn how to follow. Thousands of years of military success is not wrong, it's less about knowing how to stick them with the pointy end, and more about things like keeping cool under adversity, respecting the chain of command, showing bravery and creativity in grave situations, and generally proving that when the chips are down, you're still functioning like a machine no matter what. The worst kind of leader to have is a green one, likely scared and fearing for his own life more than actually worrying about winning the battle. You think Caesar would have lasted as long as he did if his soldiers didn't respect him as a soldier himself? That's why they loved him so much, because he got off his horse and fought with his infantry on multiple occassions, earning their loyalty for life.

Being a good soldier lends itself to being a good general, just not in the way you're implying.

>>2267144

But the Tlacochcalcatl and the Tlacateccatl were always drawn from the Cuachicqueh; and to get into that warrior society, you had to capture at least 6 people, as well as certain other feats of bravery I'm blanking on at the moment; I can't remember anything about rising in the "Shorn Ones" brotherhood for issues of leadership, it's all personal prowess stuff IIRC.

>>2267163

>actually Trajan would have never taken military command without first being a respected soldier

Trajan got a head start on his career because his father was Marcus Ulpius Traianus, and the governor of Syria province. I've never read anything to indicate he served as a common legionaire, as far as I know, he started off as a tribune, hardly a common soldier. He did serve, and serve with distinction, and win himself much honor, but he didn't claw his way up from private, and he didn't do so on the basis of his swordsmanship.

>. Merit generals arise from incredible popularity within the ranks, and generals get popular by being rocks that the men can look up to and admire. They almost always are excellent soldiers in their own right and earn glory on the battlefield before they are ever given command.


And almost all of them start off as officers, not line soldiers. Napoleon went to École Militaire and graduated as an artillery officer. Clive conquered half of India starting from a clerk's quasi officer positon in the EIC, not a musket-toter. Alexander was a cavalry commander from day one. They are very rarely "excellent soldiers in their own right and earn glory on the battlefield before they are ever given command". Offhand, the only counterexample I can think of is Nathan Bedford Forest in the ACW, and even that was a bought commission out of his own personal wealth after being fed up of being a private.

> it's less about knowing how to stick them with the pointy end, and more about things like keeping cool under adversity, respecting the chain of command, showing bravery and creativity in grave situations, and generally proving that when the chips are down, you're still functioning like a machine no matter what.

Which is very distinct from the Aztec system of meritocracy, which is primarily based on how many captives you personally capture. It's also why modern militaries have different promotion tracks for non-coms and for officers.

>>2267169
>But the Tlacochcalcatl and the Tlacateccatl
Both chosen within the nobility, just take a look at the people who held the position. Granted, in order to be chosen they had to prove their prowess in the front ranks.

>>2267227
>front ranks
*front lines

>>2267227

>Both chosen within the nobility,

Anon, the Cuachicqueh WERE nobility, and so were the other more prestigious warrior societies. You could rise to the blood by capturing enough people.

>Granted, in order to be chosen they had to prove their prowess in the front ranks.

Yes, that's what I've been saying, to rise within the shorn ones, you had to be a good fighter. A good fighter is not necessarily a good commander.

>>2267270
>Anon, the Cuachicqueh WERE nobility
I mean the nobility related to the king of Tenochtitlan, in this case Moctezuma.

>You could rise to the blood by capturing enough people.
not after Moctezuma's reforms

>>2267270
>Yes, that's what I've been saying, to rise within the shorn ones, you had to be a good fighter. A good fighter is not necessarily a good commander.
Then they would have chosen all the shorn ones as commanders, but they didn't. They chose the best commanders who proved to be able to survive in battle

>>2267350
>I mean the nobility related to the king of Tenochtitlan, in this case Moctezuma.

Ahh, my mistake then.

>not after Moctezuma's reforms

Well, yes, but that just restates the ultimate effect, not the cause. Moctezuma either didn't think they were good leaders (difficult to tell based on how fragmentary our knowledge of specific Aztec campaigns are) or were insufficiently tied to his own powerbase.

>Then they would have chosen all the shorn ones as commanders, but they didn't. They chose the best commanders who proved to be able to survive in battle

Again, I'm hardly an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the 1st and second in command of every battle, as well as their backups, were universally drawn from the ranks of the shorn ones. That seems to be pretty predominant.

This is a good thread tbhfamm

>>2267397
>Moctezuma either didn't think they were good leaders or were insufficiently tied to his own powerbase
Most historians agree in the second one, but I still don't understand why did he remove the meritoracy of all the army, it's seems impossible he could have controled all the warrior societies just by himself.

>the 1st and second in command of every battle, as well as their backups, were universally drawn from the ranks of the shorn ones
Yes, but they didn't chose anyone, both the Tlacochcalcatl and the Tlacatecatl were nobles of Tenochtitlan.

>>2267469
>Most historians agree in the second one, but I still don't understand why did he remove the meritoracy of all the army, it's seems impossible he could have controled all the warrior societies just by himself.


I admit, I'm guessing here, but I don't see why not. The Aztec army wasn't ranging over that large an area, and the "empire" was something more on the order of the Early Roman Repbulic, one dominant city-state and a network of alliances and tributaries. I'm not even sure if you had Aztec officers commanding troops from Texcoco or other allied cities.

Furthermore, it might have been a deliberate attempt to break the warrior societies themselves; any independent organization of armed forces with their own basis of support independent of the state (I'm using this term loosely in regards to the Aztec) is at least a potential threat to the ruler.

And lastly, at least to a lot of rulers, internal stability means more than battlefield efficacy. Forget the meme level The Prince, take a look at Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. He extols the virtues of an infantry citizen's militia as opposed to a professional mercenary cavalry corps, and his reasoning has almost nothing to do with battlefield performance and a lot to do with juggling the different class interests comprising a contemporary state.

We might not have had an Aztec Machiavelli, but it's hardly impossible for the same kind of reasoning to be floating around their political elite.

>>2267497
Thanks, it makes quite more sense now.
I'll definitely take a look The Discourses on Livy

>>2265726
>meritocracy is incredibly dumb
It's literally the best system for near anything, especially the military and ensures that the best qualified for for the job get those jobs.
>how good they are at knocking other people on the head and bringing them back as prisoners is incredibly dumb.
>>2266262
>No, I'm dead serious.
No, you're retarded
>>2267009
>Awarding generalship to the best archer or pikeman, because he's the best fighter you've got, is stupid.
>the 'ancient primitive people were retarded didn't know shit' meme
>implying all there is to war, Aztec war, and promoting people to commanding positions is clubbing people on the head
>implying Aztecs who got promoted in the military were only good at that and weren't the cream of the crop at what they did.
>>2267206
>They are very rarely "excellent soldiers in their own right and earn glory on the battlefield before they are ever given command".
Just because they're rare doesn't make meritocracy dumb and actually proves how good of an idea it is, and furthur disproves your asspumptions, which sound like bait and not even good bait. Why are you even on a history and humanities board if your going to post the retarded shit you just did

File: strawman.jpg (150KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 333x500px

>>2267718

Your mother must be proud.

>>2267718
>It's literally the best system for near anything, especially the military and ensures that the best qualified for for the job get those jobs.
What? No, you're totally wrong. It ensures those qualified get promoted to above the positions they're best at. Properly designed meritocratic systems choose promotions based on expected performance in the promoted role, not in the current role.

>>2267469
>both the Tlacochcalcatl and the Tlacatecatl were nobles of Tenochtitlan.
Just in case, I meant born nobles, who were educated as such