Talk:History of the Aztecs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great section on Tlacaelel[edit]

That is really well written. I'm not sure if it's any shorter than what was there before but it is absolutely a lot more to the point. It really gets across how important he was. Thanks! --Richard 03:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. I'm not sure it's any shorter, either.  : ) Madman 04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Aztecs' were [was] in lots and lots of war,tributes,and trade,that made the Aztecs' strong and rich!!!! {HINT! HINT! its true. got it from a 6th grade social studies book!!!} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.181.56 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the expansion section[edit]

I expanded the section describing the geographical expansion of the aztec empire and made map based on Ross Hassigs Aztec Warfare. I also edited some parts downplaying Tlacaelel a wee bit (the reign of Tlacaelel for example (he wasnt a ruler)). And emphasizing the actual exploits of the different Tlàtoanis. Maunus 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures missing[edit]

There needs to be information here on the population of Mexico throughout its various time periods. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge article with Aztec or Aztec Empire?[edit]

This article appears to duplicate material appearing in other articles. I think it should be merged with either Aztec or Aztec Empire, but would like to hear other comments from Wikipedians. Amuseclio (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]

  • Yes, both of those have longer & I think better accounts, except that this may cover the very early history better. There is duplication between those two as well. I agree this should be merged. I don't feel strongly to which, but perhaps Aztec Empire. This discussion should be advertised at those talks as well - not sure if a 3-way merge template is possible. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done that. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it appears to be a slightly larger problem. For example the Aztec article fails to distinguish between Aztec ethnicity/culture and the Aztec Empire which empire included non-Aztec Nahuas as well as non-Nahuas. Given the breath of the topic and the wealth of source materials available, it seems to me that three articles are a good choice. The majority of the history should be moved to the History of the Aztecs and its subsidiary articles such as Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire. Culture should be moved to the Aztec article which should be edited to distinguish it from the Nahuas article. The Aztec Empire should be a subsidiary of the History of the Aztecs, and should just deal with the empire building and its operation, its fall being in the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire article. So, I oppose a simple answer, and suggest hard editing work in lieu thereof. If any article is to be deep-sixed, it should be the Aztec article which should be adequately covered by the Nahuas and the Mexica articles. --Bejnar (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no aztec ethnicity, and there never was. And the Nahua and Mexica articles do not cover the Aztecs, and should not do so since they are distinct topics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there is no simple answer. I do note that History of the Aztecs gets only around 130 pageviews per day. Top hit for this general topic is Aztec, with up to 4,000/day, followed by Aztec Empire with 1700, along with Tenochtitlan 1,700. Mexica gets only around 360; Aztec warfare, 300; Aztec codices, 200; and Aztec society 100. Nahuas gets a paltry 160, so it is not a go-to article. Although there are links to main articles for specialized topics, WP readers are seemingly not going there. I understand that we don't want an overly long general article, but perhaps in order to capture readers and inform them most efficiently, we should concentrate on main articles. As a historian, I am disheartened that WP articles entitled "History of X" usually get fewer page views than the article simply entitled "X". So I oppose moving Aztec Empire into the History of the Aztecs article. As the discussion on the WP article Aztec indicates, disentangling "Aztec" and "Nahua" and other Mesoamerican groups is not easily done, but we should make readers aware of the complexity. So, for me, I would be for merging History of the Aztecs with either Aztec or Aztec Empire. I don't think we need a proliferation of articles that get few pageviews and duplicate information accessible in WP articles with a greater readership.Amuseclio (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]
I certainly agree that checking what readers seem to search for is an important factor. Nb that History of the Aztecs is (surely wrongly) given a "main" link at the history section of Aztec yet still gets these low views. I've noticed that "History of..." titles generally get low views. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Aztec empire was a political organization, the Aztecs are a cultural group. They are two distinct topics. The article on Aztec Empire should have a history section written in summary style which should have a "main" link to "History of the Aztecs" or "History of the Aztec Empire". So I also oppose: let's keep separate things separate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to maintain a "History of " article it should be the best and most and comprehensive article on that topic rather than, as at present, the 3rd best, with better coverage of the history at A and AE. This could be achieved by large transfers between them and "History". Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Aztec should just be a disambiguation page, pointing primarily to (1) for ethnicity to Mexica Mixicas were a Nahuatl-speaking indigenous people of the Valley of Mexico, known today as the rulers of the Aztec Empire. (2) for empire to Aztec Empire and (3) for full history to History of the Aztecs, with (4) a other uses section. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not. Because "Aztec" or "Aztecs" is a major topic with a gigantic body of literature about it. And that literature is what the article on Aztecs covers. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds exactly like your providing the reasons why a disambiguation page would be useful. Lots of material, variety of topics, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a disam page already, but we need Aztec(s) as a primary topic article. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I go back to my argument that the number of pageviews for a WP article is an important factor to consider. Amuseclio (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]
A large number of people put in the simplest search term, and try to find what they want from there. --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spaniards vs Spanish[edit]

I wonder, why are the conquistadors in this article called "Spaniards" and not "Spanish". Would it not be better to call them "Spanish" to signify their allegiance to the Spain (state), rather than their ethnicity?

45.94.119.61 (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aztecs[edit]

What is the meaning of the vision the Aztecs saw 2803:1500:1200:CF8C:2DFE:47C6:F098:F209 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Aztecs&oldid=1202308015"