AHC: Surviving Tenochtitlan
- Thread starter Expat
- Start date
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
I don't know of any TLs with this theme specifically. But I will speculate that had the overthrow of the city been a slightly less violent affair and more of it had remained intact to begin with, that the majority of its infrastructure and general shape would have remained more similar to how it was during the Triple Alliance days. It's still possible Lake Texcoco could be gradually drained as the city expands, however.
I'd argue that Tenochtitlan has survived, considering that the current capital of the country and one of the largest cities in the world was built right on top of the old smolders. Lots of cities get sacked and razed and then built on, again - Rome, Baghdad, and Jerusalem are just a few good examples of places where any attempt to dig down inevitably unearths layers of older and older relics (Hebrew actually has a specially word - tel - to refer to the little hill that develops as cities are rebuilt on top of ruins). We consider Rome, Baghdad, and Jerusalem to have survived, so why not Mexico City?
This, basically. We consider that the Inca capital city, Cusco, still exists today under the same name and with direct continuity to the Pre-Columbian city, though under Spanish rule its architecture was plundered, defiled, and destroyed by the Spanish to reflect a more European, or at least hybrid Euro-Andean style. All that remains are the foundations and the stones taken from older structures to build new ones under Spanish rule. Tenochtitlan would probably be no different - In that case, we can invoke the cliche Shakespeare quote about a rose still maintaining its characteristic fragrance under any other name.
You have a point, but Rome and Jerusalem retain a fair amount of their historic architecture and, in places, ancient layout. Also, in these cases, the new conquerors never sought to raze the original city but to add on to it. Also, they have retained their original names.
Tenochtitlan, unfortunately was not built onto by Mexico City, but was completely replaced by Mexico City. To my knowledge, not a single building dating to the Aztec city has continued to be used or occupied down to the present day. In fact, the Spaniards apparently made little use of the original buildings except as a source of stone for their own buildings.
To have Tenochtitlan survive as Tenochtitlan you almost need a different conquest of Mexico...one achieved more peacefully that did not lead to the siege and destruction on the city. Perhaps if Cortez had remained in charge of the Spanish and allied armies in Tenochtitlan rather than head off to Veracruz, the Spanish might have managed a gradual coup d'état from within the city without the retreat and later the need to re-conquer it.
This was basically what I meant. If Mexico City fans felt I was too facile, I apologize.
You have basically described the key difference between the fate of Cuzco and that of Mexico City. Cuzco did survive. Although much of the city's stonework was plundered for new buildings, some Spanish buildings were built directly on the foundations or lower walls of Inca buildings and presumably elements of the pre-Columbian street/barrio patterns survive. As you note, its style was a bit of a hybrid. Plus it retained its original name. Tenochtitlan was erased and ignored to be replaced by a new Spanish city retaining no hint of its earlier architecture, except when discovered as archaeological remnants.
To speculate a bit, perhaps with Cuzco, the Spanish sought to identify their new rule with the old Imperial capital of the centralized Inca Empire, whereas, in Mexico, they realized that many of their new subjects had little love for Tenochtitlan and the Aztecs. Rather than move into the Aztec city and to some extent be associated with the former Aztec rulers they built their own capital on the ruins of the Aztec capital to signify the utter destruction of Tenochtitlan's dominance in Mexico.
What about Beijing or Xi'an? Both of those have been renamed (several times, in the case of the former) during their history, and both have been totally razed and rebuilt at least once. But they're still considered continuously inhabited cities.
I'm not saying that the place currently occupied by Mexico City was not continuously occupied since the founding of Tenochtitlan in the 1300's. I am saying that the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan did not evolve into Mexico City...it was replaced by it. They are two distinct cities. Virtually all locations of modern cities in both the old and new worlds occupy favorable settings (riverine confluences, etc) that were the sites of human settlements long before the modern city's founding is recognized. The prehistoric archaeological site of Cahokia in East Saint Louis was a huge settlement, and in reduced numbers Native farmers and villagers occupied the general area of what eventually became the Saint Louis area until European contact. But Saint Louis is not Cahokia.
And I am pointing out some examples of cities in China where similar things happened, but which are not considered distinct cities from their differently-named forebears. No one considers Chang'an and Xi'an different cities, even though the former was almost completely razed and virtually depopulated after the fall of the Tang Dynasty.
Riain
Banned
I guess I should rephrase:
The bulk of grand public edifices in Tenochtitlan that existed just prior to European contact survive until today.
(Was it really unclear, or is this board just full of lovely pedants?)
Pedants. I've asked a similar question myself in the past.
New line of inquiry, please let go of this misinterpretation of my OP question. To restate:
AHC: The bulk of grand public edifices in Tenochtitlan that existed just prior to European contact survive until today.
I guess this would be a good thread to do some self-promoting! My TL, Minarets of Atlantis, features an "Emirate of Atlantis" lasting about 150 some odd years after the defeat of the Spanish conquistadors by an Aztec Empire recently exposed to Berber and Moorish nobles fleeing Granada. "Tenoqtitlan" remains, as does the converted "Moqtezumid" dynasty, and Aztec society until gradual decay and internal dispute leads to their expulsion further north to the bayous, while the Spanish New World empire, based in Hispaniola but completely surrounding the Emirate of Atlantis, finally captures Tenoqtitlan and Atlantis, incorporating it into New Spain, converting the temple-turned-mosque into a cathedral, and moving their capital to this now reconquista, but not razed, Azteco-Berber Tenoqtitlan
(see link in my signature)
(see link in my signature)
I guess I should rephrase:
The bulk of grand public edifices in Tenochtitlan that existed just prior to European contact survive until today.
(Was it really unclear, or is this board just full of lovely pedants?
Pedants.
It's hard to imagine the Spaniards would preserve intact the sacred precinct that contained the temple pyramids and associated religious/governmental residences and buildings given their religious zeal. That in essence is the main location of the "grand public edifices" in Tenochtitlan. But if the city was captured peacefully and the Spanish permitted some of the indigenous power structure to be coopted into the empire of New Spain, I could see the Spanish adapting thethe Aztec buildings for their purposes (such as placing Christian churches/chapels on top of the temple platforms, and renovating and occupying the colonnaded residences) while removing those structures that were too much associated with Aztec religion (such as the skull racks and maybe the ball courts). More than likely the typical single-story Aztec buildings would be reconstructed/replaced as 2-3 story buildings in Spanish style. Other areas that might be preserved more or less intact would be the Zocalo marketplace and stall structures and some of the most substantial (high status) residences near the center of the city. Possibly the basic layout of what would become the "old city" might be preserved, but Lake Texcoco would be drained rather soon, eliminating need for the Aztec causeways. I suppose the "old city" might even retain the name "Tenochtitlan", at least informally...but then again even I Aztec times I believe the city was referred to at times as "Mexico" or the most accurate Nahuatl equivalent.
As the decades and centuries went on, I suspect Mexico City would assume a similar Spanish appearance to OTL, and grand Spanish style cathedrals might replace entirely the Aztec temples (much as occurred OTL), but elements of Aztec art and architecture might be incorporated into some details (such as serpent walls) and pictographic elements, and they might be constructed directly on the old foundations and retain some of the lower walls as visual elements
Butterflies abound with his scenario, but in the even there is eventually a successful Mexican revolution and independence, I could see the entire city renamed Tenochtitlan as a nationalist gesture.
I guess this would be a good thread to do some self-promoting! My TL, Minarets of Atlantis, features an "Emirate of Atlantis" lasting about 150 some odd years after the defeat of the Spanish conquistadors by an Aztec Empire recently exposed to Berber and Moorish nobles fleeing Granada. "Tenoqtitlan" remains, as does the converted "Moqtezumid" dynasty, and Aztec society until gradual decay and internal dispute leads to their expulsion further north to the bayous, while the Spanish New World empire, based in Hispaniola but completely surrounding the Emirate of Atlantis, finally captures Tenoqtitlan and Atlantis, incorporating it into New Spain, converting the temple-turned-mosque into a cathedral, and moving their capital to this now reconquista, but not razed, Azteco-Berber Tenoqtitlan
(see link in my signature)
Well that's a perfect example then!
Thanks for mentioning it, I'll head over to your TL this minute!
I guess this would be a good thread to do some self-promoting! My TL, Minarets of Atlantis, features an "Emirate of Atlantis" lasting about 150 some odd years after the defeat of the Spanish conquistadors by an Aztec Empire recently exposed to Berber and Moorish nobles fleeing Granada. "Tenoqtitlan" remains, as does the converted "Moqtezumid" dynasty, and Aztec society until gradual decay and internal dispute leads to their expulsion further north to the bayous, while the Spanish New World empire, based in Hispaniola but completely surrounding the Emirate of Atlantis, finally captures Tenoqtitlan and Atlantis, incorporating it into New Spain, converting the temple-turned-mosque into a cathedral, and moving their capital to this now reconquista, but not razed, Azteco-Berber Tenoqtitlan
(see link in my signature)
Sounds quite interesting!
Cheers! So preserving more of the city probably requires more out-there PODs, like coming up with some reason why the invasion might fail, or sending in a European power that doesn't care about conversion, or perhaps one that prefers vassalage to domination. Which are all quite unlikely, I realize.