1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
wolverine [178]
3 years ago
7

What was a primary cause of the fall of the aztec empire?

History
1 answer:
Romashka-Z-Leto [24]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Answer:

Lacking food and ravaged by smallpox disease earlier introduced by one of the Spaniards, the Aztecs, now led by Cuauhtemoc, finally collapsed after 93 days of resistance on the fateful day of 13th of August, 1521 CE. Tenochtitlan was sacked and its monuments destroyed.

Explanation:

There's little doubt that the ritual Aztec sacrifice contributed to the fall of the Aztec Empire, and in more ways than one. First, killing thousands of people, whether you or your neighbours, simply can't be good for a society. The loss of people in a loss that can't be calculated. Who knows how it would have been different if these people and their children had swelled the ranks that fought the Spanish, not to mention the other contributions they would have made. And although the Aztecs certainly weren't the first people ever to sacrifice humans, the fact that they did and the incredible number they sacrificed led to the hatred of some of the surrounding peoples. The powerful city-state of Tlaxcala was one of these. Many of their own had been sacrificed, and in the end they joined the Spaniards to fight the Aztecs. It may be that the Spanish simply were an excuse to start what was already an inevitable civil war. Lastly, it's believed that the horror of human sacrifice highly motivated the Spaniards to conquer what they considered an evil culture - in other words, they used it to justify their war with the empire.Naturally, religion played a part because of the sacrifices. It has been commonly believed that, at first, the Aztecs thought that the Spanish were gods.

This belief is more and more being questioned - it may be a fabrication. ReliNaturally, religion played a part because of the sacrifices. It has been commonly believed that, at first, the Aztecs thought that the Spanish were gods. This belief is more and more being questioned - it may be a fabrication. Religious, yes, but the nobles were also well educated. Even if they did have such a passing thought, it's unlikely it lasted long. In addition, there's no reason to believe that Cortes and his men wouldn't have been welcomed anyway, with similar results. Modern scholars are questioning whether this belief in the return of the god Quetzalcoatl was real or a later rewrite of history. Even more interesting is the theory that, at one point, the Aztecs did not completely destroy the Spanish army because they wanted more people to sacrifice to their gods. This was a tactical error that at least hastened the fall of the Aztec empire., yes, but the nobles were also well educated. Even if they did have such a passing thought, it's unlikely it lasted long. In addition, there's no reason to believe that Cortes and his men wouldn't have been welcomed anyway, with similar results. Modern scholars are questioning whether this belief in the return of the god Quetzalcoatl was real or a later rewrite of history. Even more interesting is the theory that, at one point, the Aztecs did not completely destroy the Spanish army because they wanted more people to sacrifice to their gods. This was a tactical error that at least hastened the fall of the Aztec empire. Disease played a huge part in the fall of the Aztec empire. Here's what happened.

After Cortes landed in Mexico, another Spanish army came from Cuba to make sure he followed orders. Cortes would have none of that, and went to fight them. In this new group was an African being held as a slave, who had smallpox, a very contagious disease.

empire.

Hope this helps! Brainlist?

You might be interested in
If you get into financial trouble, borrowing against your retirement plan is a good option.
MrMuchimi
True. Hffjbftjvftjhgyjgjgjgm
5 0
2 years ago
Why might violence be tempting to activists? Why might it be risky to their movements?
Neko [114]

Answer:

We agree with a number of Thaler’s points. First, he is right to question those on the outside who tell activists what to do or offer strategic or tactical advice. Local activists know their context best, and specific instructions from outside actors can place activists at great risk. People struggling under such conditions often say they learn the most from being in touch with other activists. But when activists approach scholars or practitioners for information or resources, it is crucial to make sure that a broad range of experience and evidence are publicly available and accessible. That was the purpose of a recent event hosted by the United States Institute of Peace that featured various scholarly and activist perspectives on how movements respond to repression.

Second, we appreciate how the article highlights the role of human agency in the struggle against authoritarianism and other forms of oppression. Civil resistance offers a way for marginalized and excluded groups to wage struggle using a wide range of direct-action tactics that can be used to disrupt injustices and challenge the status quo. It is more than simply an ideal or a normative preference. We also recognize that when activists seek out support or information, they decide for themselves whether the information is relevant to their context, or whether to discard it.

Third, we share his denunciation of repressive state violence targeting unarmed civilian dissenters. It is a regrettable reality that states often respond to those who challenge state power with violent repression, regardless of which methods of resistance they use. This state violence should never be normalized, nor should false moral equivalences or “both sides”-type narratives be tolerated. Outside actors should stand in solidarity with those fighting oppression and prioritize actions that protect fundamental human rights and mitigate violence targeting unarmed dissidents.

Yet we differ on other important points. First, critics often claim that nonviolence is part of a Western hegemonic discourse that reinforces the legitimacy of state violence while simultaneously encouraging oppressed people to carry the unfair burden of good behavior under crushing conditions. Discourses advocating nonviolent resistance are in no way hegemonic, nor are they Western in origin. Over the millennia, states and nonstate groups have justified violence on the basis of its necessity, used cultural relativism as a way to prevent critiques of violence, and persecuted, imprisoned, and executed those who have advocated nonviolent approaches, which threaten two hegemonic discourses—the state’s monopoly on power, and the normalcy and necessity of violence.

Nonviolent resistance has been a counterhegemonic force that challenges both of these dominant discourses. The technique was developed and embraced by people living under colonial regimes throughout the global south, as well as by marginalized and oppressed communities within the West. Despite their views that violence was preferable to passivity, practitioners such as Mohandas Gandhi and Badshah Khan saw mass civil resistance as the only way for them to challenge the violence of Western imperialism on pragmatic grounds. Over the course of the past century, the technique spread from the global south to the United States and Europe, where people fighting racism, sexism, poverty, war, authoritarianism, and economic inequality have seen the strategic value of fighting structural violence by building and wielding inclusive power from below using nonviolent resistance.

Activists from around the world continue to make arguments about the strategic utility of nonviolent resistance, without any nudging from Westerners or Western researchers. Protesters facing a massive crackdown in Baghdad attempted to maintain nonviolent discipline by shouting “Peaceful! Peaceful!” while under fire from security forces. Women in Lebanon have organized human chains to maintain nonviolent discipline in the ongoing movement there, which is now in a particularly delicate phase. Dissidents associated with the Sudanese Revolution insisted on maintaining a remarkable level of nonviolent discipline, despite bloody crackdowns attempting to throw the transition into disarray. And in Algeria, the ongoing movement there has remained both disruptive and restrained in its use of violence.

Our book, Why Civil Resistance Works, presents evidence that mass, broad-based participation is critical to movement success and that movements that rely primarily on nonviolent tactics tend to enjoy more diverse participation, which in turn yields a number of political advantages for the campaign. Updated analyses reinforce these earlier findings, and other research helps to unpack these dynamics at a more granular level.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Based on the historical setting, why does Paul have two different names? Paul is close with Cassie and his mother, so they enjoy
tankabanditka [31]

Answer:

Paul’s relationship with his white father and their shared name is not acceptable to society.

Explanation:

Mildred D Taylor's novel "The Land," tells the life story Paul-Edward, the son of a white plantation owner and his black mistress. The story follows the young Paul and his life struggles to come to terms with his biracial identity.

As given in the excerpt from the text, we see Paul narrating how he came to be named Paul-Edward. He points out how his father would call him by his name<em> "Paul-Edward"</em> but only when they are alone for he believes that calling/ giving his name to a biracial/illegitimate child <em>"wouldn't be fitting"</em>. So, calling him by their shared name openly in the white-dominated society, amidst the slavery issue, will not be acceptable to the society.

Thus, the <u>correct answer is the fourth/last option</u>.

5 0
3 years ago
Business owners supported Mussolini's role but the workers did not. What is the reason for<br> this?
klemol [59]

Answer:

They would support it because mussolinist is a very important role for business workers like them and if business workers don't have that kind of information they wouldn't be able to have their job.

6 0
3 years ago
How many people have been President of the United States of America?
kogti [31]
45 people have been the president
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • whic of these pieces of land is an example of a fief? A. land that the owner has promised to leave to his children when he dies
    7·1 answer
  • What does the term “Final Solution” mean? How many Jews lost their lives during the Holocaust?
    6·1 answer
  • which of the following locations did president Kennedy visit to show support to our allies. A.) Saigon, Vietnam B.) Berlin, Germ
    9·1 answer
  • How were women afftected by the new republic?
    6·2 answers
  • When was henry cuellar elected to the senate?
    14·1 answer
  • Why did president Roosevelt support the rebels in panama when they declared independence from Columbia?
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the following scenarios is an example of culture being learned indirectly through observation and imitation?
    14·2 answers
  • Powers kept by the states. These are
    8·2 answers
  • how world war 1 expaneded economic opportunities for women and identify how womens role in the military changed as a result of t
    8·1 answer
  • Did congress give Thomas Jefferson authority to use the war vessels, or frigates, in the Barbary Wars yes or no
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!