Ancient Aztecs: Mass Sacrifice of Warrior Captives/Christianity: Mass Burnings, Hangings and even Flayings of Heretics and Pagans for 2000 years. But one culture gave you sexual and body freedom and the other didn't. Both were in need of Ahimsa, but Christians were nurturing a wicked demi-urge posing as Godhead. Thank the Gods for Democracy, but a true Christian knows Theocracy is his/her way!
Maybe the sound is tied to their soul somehow? Atranformation of the souls energy once the heart has stopped. That would make the whistler that skulls "god",or master?
I had one of those small ones when I was growing up ,we use to play it all the time it was so loud it would hurt my ear's . I never found them again ,I think my mom put them away . Never saw them again and forgot I had one till I saw this video .
I had one of those small ones when I was growing up ,we use to play it all the time it was so loud it would hurt my ear's . I never found them again ,I think my mom put them away . Never saw them again and forgot I had one till I saw this video .
@KingNationStudios First, where did you get your facts, i study and read on my culture and i know enough that i know that they where never first mayas, they were Olmecs, our mother culture. The mayas are a seperated civilization from the Mexica (falsely called the Aztecs). The aztecs are from Aztlan a place far from the civilizations of the Mexica and the Maya. If you spent less time being a hiphop baby and get educated maybe you will have a chance next time.
Look, I didn't mean to upset anyone. I'm just pointing out that maybe one of the reasons God chose to kill so many of your people was because he saw how awful and gay your culture was.
Any culture does the same thing given the same environment and resources. I'm not saying European colonization and exploitation is right by any means (it was atrocious), but that any other civilization would have done the same types of things were they given a chance.
Also, if you think European religious views are nasty, study the old Aztec religious views. All cultures are made of humans who have the same general nature. Supremacists of any kind are misguided.
@DushevnaSepsa people don;t murder in name of their god, people kills for power, maybe under the name of some god or whatsoever, only a very few killed others cos of the beliefs, but that are all 1 vs 1 things, the many vs. many were all for land, power, food or "cos we can"
It is my belief that the whistles emitted a specific sound frequency that calls forth certain dimensional demons that feed upon the victims energy as they are sacrificed. To me the whistles are a dinner bell that had to be rung to call forth the demons that the victims were sacrificed to. Since there were different demon entities, they had different whistles for different demons. I know this sounds fantastic, but if they sacrificed to the demons, there would have had to be a way to call them.
The Ancient Mexican Ruling class where blood sucking vampires to the marginalized tribes they fed upon for their absurd and evil religious blood sacrifices. Those brutalized tribes were more than willing to assist the Spanish to slay assholes. This does not absolve the Spanish for their baseless claims on the nature of god etc which they used to justify similar evils.
The Indegenous people came up with the concept of ZERO, Europeans learn it from Arabs. Our mathematics and knowledge of Astronomy was perfect. The Maya had accurately calculated the Bing Bang. The average life expactancy of Europeans during the the 15th century was about 35 years. my ancestors all had a average life expectancy of 72 years.
We had universities, libraries, astronomical observatories. They had the largest cities in the world and sacredly preserved their natural enviroment.
@makayla415 So if Europeans learned it from Arabs.. then who taught the Arabs? I don't think that the Indigenous people came up with the concept of 'zero', Wikipedia doesn't show this either. I know the Maya discovered many things and made many contributions, but I'm not exactly sure on the concept of zero... sorry. Research it for yourself. The field of Mathematics and Astronomy is mainly filled with Arab, Persian, and Hindu contributions.. Algebra for starters.
@SerbiansareTrash well wiki is not a reliable source of information, the concept of zero was invented by the Mayas, the best proof i got is in their ruins just look at their number system and you'll see the truth.. and to through some facts. you know how much it to for the Europeans to understand the concept of Zero (Maya)? it took them 800 yrs...
@SerbiansareTrash The Maya are believed to have independently discovered zero, but it was also discovered in India, probably around the same time - the earliest depiction of zero is from an Indian temple from, I think, the seventh century. Yes, the history of maths and astronomy is mostly taught as being mostly Greek, Arab, and Indian - nowadays, Chinese maths is acknowledged too. But Mayan mathematical achievements were many and independent. It is the independence that is most important.
@SerbiansareTrash I Lol'd at "Wikipedia doesn't show this either". Wikipedia is a TERRIBLE place to acquire actual facts. We DID have zero centuries before ANY other people had it. The Arabs, idk, discovered it on their own? Durrrrrr. YOU need to do some reading, buddy.
@makayla415 I doubt the Maya had life expectancy exceeding 45 before the 20th century, for the simple reason that even the most advanced, clean and civilised cultures rarely exceeded that figure until the discovery of penicillin and of modern medicine generally. Also, by the time of the Classic Maya, the largest cities on earth were in China. That does nothing to denigrate the brilliant achievements and cultural radiance of the Maya, of course, and I do not wish to offend.
@makayla415 Well said! I've been doing a lot of reading and researching myself lately on the civilizations of the "Americas". These people were soooooo advanced in many aspects. If only they were able to unite. They would've been unstoppable. Well, maybe not unstoppable because of disease, which was the primary cause of their demise.
@makayla415 you are quite right mi amigo. by this time, i wouldnt be speaking spanish nor english. i should been speaking nahuatl, but europeans came due to exploration and discovering more for their people. aztecatl would do the same for euros but, its the way destiny for earth is.
@45Mang The Spanish came here with the intent to commit GENOCIDE 23 million Mexicas died from this. The Mexicas would NOT have done this to Europeans. Remember the Spanish Inquisition, they were very violent and racist. Nothing like my MEXICA ancestors. This is not destity, its GENOCIDE. Could you imagine if Hitler would have won, well the Spanish did.
@makayla415 yes, an no, yes beacuse, its horrible for death of millions of mesos, but no because, what i said hermano, its part of destiny its supposed to happed, ask mayans en guatemala. my mexica brothers in mexico city, will all tell yu the same thing mayans tell you. its all part of destiny. i dont say it to be a horrible person, but its supposed to happen. its the way we were meant to be. now mexico is far more powerful than spain. and spain has no chance of winning any war towards mexis.
@45Mang Would you tell Jewish victims of Hitler's Holocaust that it was there destiny. And MExico is still controlled by the Spanish (Criollo). The Indigenous people dont have no power at all in Mexico. Its not destiny its WHITE SUPREMACY destruction of the world, and if you believe that this is destiny then we are all surely doomed.
@makayla415 no, no, no, no. i dont think you know what i mean. i dont know if god meant earth to be this violent and many racist. i dont know, honestly. but i do believe he sent us here for a purpose. i just know every century ends extremely different. thats all. western cowboys are gone and now theyre different.
@45Mang Just wandering am i a western white person seen as a murderer to people like u who r desended from aztecs and mayans etc because i wanted to just say that i think that western people have come to realise that there are other great civilisations other than europian ones and i for example am fasinated by aztec and mayan stuff :)
@Bayliss27 thank you for the love and understanding, but its not too late for the civilizations to rise up again. i do not understand why white call spanish whites mexicans, when theyre just as white as them, but with a diff language. come to texas, and you'll hear that alot.
The original discussion was that I believed that the Aztecs were cruel, but at the same time it was exaggerated. You have proven it for me, you exaggerate the Aztecs cruelty. 250,000 sacrificed per year is way off. Most historians agree on 20,000 thats an exaggeration of 230,000 people. The Aztecs didn't sacrifice conquered tribes as much as people believe. The majority of sacrifices came from POW's from Tlaxcala, which is true. Tlaxcala was never conquered
"You have proven it for me, you exaggerate the Aztecs cruelty. "
When did I do that? They were exceptionally cruel. You admit it. As to "how" exceptional their cruelty was, virtually EVERY author on the subject is agreed: they took human sacrifice to unprecedented heights.
They also practiced Cannibalism.
The one thing you have never understood about what I was saying when I said they were cruel... is that I was not just talking about human sacrifice. YOU assumed that.
Furthermore, notice that YOU did not even get my sources right. You ENTIRELY dismiss the BEST DEMOGRAPHER of conquest era meso america and insist that your imagination is better than his years of research.
You must imagine yourself to be some sort of God ... to know all things without even studying it.
The Spaniards assigned special Aztecs known as tlacuilos to make codices for them. Post-conquest codices have Spanish influences on them and may not be accurate, which is why most historians prefer pre-conquest codices. Quit trying to act like you know a lot about Aztec history, you're not fooling anybody but yourself.
You say Post conquest codices have Spanish influences on them and may not be accurate.
There is no evidence that the historical recordings are particularly biased or innaccurate as you keep implying.
More to the point though... and something you continually disregard (even though you said you would not) is that archeological science and historical analysis have confirmed the cruelty of the aztecs -- separate and apart from these texts.
some people wont let anyone else have some historical significance. mormons believe jeses lived in america! wtf? and his is modern civilization? lol. your opinion means shit! respect and appreciate what primitive people with so little technology did for themselves. plus we kill each other over subway seats and parking spaces everyday not over the next good harvest. fuckin losers.
Dude, this is awesome! The Aztecs are such a misunderstood civilization. Demonized by Spanish lies. To be honest, the one in the beginning kinda made me shiver. pretty creepy.
The evidence is found in pre-columbian Aztec sources that survived the Spanish Conquest and in archaeology, which confirm the accounts of the Spanish -- who were NOT, in any case, known to be liars about what they saw in reports back to Spain.
On the other hand, you have no (zero) evidence that the aztecs were tree hugging, peaceful hippies.
Most pre-columbian Aztec sources were destroyed and re-written by Spaniards. Most of our sources of Aztec history come from the post-conquest era. Even most of the codices that were made were made after the conquest by Aztecs under Spanish supervision, so the Spanish can only have them put what they wanted them to put.The Spanish weren't known to be liars!?!?!?! hahaha, you made my day, thats the funniest shit i've heard so far. Tell me, what pre-columbian sources do you talk of? If they exist
They are recovering pre-columbian records, and we have records written by aztecs at the time who learned Spanish. Furthermore, we have archaeological records that confirm the written accounts of the time. And the Spanish were NT known to be liars in their reports back to the crown. Just saying you think that they were is not the same thing as them being liars.
What do you imagine has been exaggerated? We KNOW that they offered human sacrifice -- of men, women and children, they tore out the hearts of their victims, they terrorized their neighbors and they practiced cannibalism. So what is exaggerated?
The numbers of sacrifice are far exaggerated. The only time it was documented was by Bernal Diaz, who was miles away when he "saw" the Aztecs sacrificing. It is very bias, the Spanish exaggerate the Aztecs cruelty but gloss up their own crueltys. Just learn about the Massacre of Cholula. Cannibalism did not happen, no proof, no evidence, once again, simply because the "Spaniards said so". The spanish were the biggest liars of all, how do you think they got so many Native allies? By lying to them
When you say the numbers of sacrifices are far exaggerated -- how do you know this? What census or poll or objective third party source do you have to make such a claim?
And you are incorrect that it was only documented once. And yes, Cannibalism happened, it has been proven.
The Spanish lied to the people but they did NOT lie to their king or to the pope in reports going back. Their accounts have been shown to be historically reliable.
The Spanish claim that an Aztec king once had tens of thousands of people sacrificed in a single setting. You believe that? I don't know about you but most people will agree that its not even possible to do that. The Aztecs had stone knifes, so cutting through human chest, making the gap big enough, and pulling a heart out is quite difficult to do. Doing that tens of thousands of times at a single setting... well, seems a little impossible to me... and most professional historians.
The Spanish did not claim that an Aztec king once had tens of thousand of people sacrificed in a single setting. It was the Aztecs who made that claim. And though I doubt it happened I do NOT believe it is impossible.
However, it was not the Spanish who made this claim.
Yes it was. The Aztec king was long gone when the Spanish arrived. The Spanish said that the Aztecs said, that they had tens of thousands of people sacrificed. No Aztec source shows this, only a Spanish source that SAYS that THEY [the Aztecs] said it. Not proven either. Theres a reason why the Spanish destroyed the Aztecs libraries and codices, to destroy their history and simply rewrite it themselves. Can this be anymore obvious?
Incorrect. The Aztec King was still around. His name was Moctezuma. This is well known. That you do not know it does not make you right.
The Spanish said that the Aztec priests and rules claimed to have killed tens of thousands in one event but the spanish also reported that they did not believe it and that other Aztecs denied it.
You're obviously the one who doesn't know what he's talking about because the King who supposedly did the mass sacrifice, was during the rebuilding of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in the 1480's. The king you're talking about is actually Moctezuma II, who came decades later. You're the one who has no clue.
Uhhh you say that I do not know what I am talking about and yet, clearly I do. It was you who was unclear that you were talking about a specific King who had died. But you did not say that. You just said the King was long gone. But there was indeed a king there.
That the King who conducted these sacrifices was dead, does not mean he did not live or hold sacrifices. Why would you think so?
"Incorrect. The Aztec King was still around. His name was Moctezuma. This is well known."
What are you trying to say? the king that im talking is the king who supposedly sacrficed tens of thousands of people. When you say "the", you are referring to the king who comitted the sacrfice,. Why would you talk about Moctezuma? First of all, the king was Moctezuma II, and second of all Moctezuma has nothing to do with our discussion about the sacrifice. You're puposely getting off topic.
What I was saying was that "The Aztec King" was still around. Perhaps not "The Aztec King who committed these Sacrifices to History" but "The Aztec King". It was YOU who said "The Aztec King" was not around.
But he was. You meant the One who claimed those sacrifices but you did not say it and you did not make it clear.
What do you mean I did not make it clear? The Aztec king that committed the sacrifice has been the ONLY king we've been talking about. Which other king could I have referred to? He's the only one we've talked about..
When I said "the" I was talking about "The" King of the Aztecs. Just as I would be talking about "The" King of Saudi Arabia. It is a title -- a position held by many people. IF ... I were to specify a time (for example when the Spanish arrived) it would be one particular King (Moctezuma in that case) or if I were referring to "The King" of Saudi Arabia when Obama came I would be talking about Abdullah.
Dude, for the millionth time stay on topic.. One more off topic comment and this discussion is over. You lost, its simple. We can argue for days, but if you believe Spanish sources while I believe others, this is never going to come to a conclusion
I have been on topic this whole time. YOU brought up the holocaust, Joan of ark, moctezuma and so much other crap that had nothing to do with the discussion. Lets make it simple, all those discussions about those topics, let em go.
You have changed the subject so much. YOU have brought up the cruelty of the spanish, the lying of the spanish, the civilizations on lake texcoco and so much ther crap that had NOTHING to do with the discussion.
Lets make it simple. All those discussions about those topics... let em go.
The civilizations of Lake texcoco was part of the subject about finding bones! Oh my gosh can you be anymore complicated! The lying of the Spanish was brought up by YOU when you said the Spanish were not known to be liars! Do you even know what the original discussion was about!?!?!
We can argue for days but if you simply refuse to believe archaeology and science and just believe your politically correct but completely unsupported and unhistorical opinion while I believe credible sources and science, this is never going to come to a conclusion.
do believe in archaeology and science, but you believe in Spanish sources and you believe in the archaeology and science that backs up what they say. Where is the evidence of tens of thousands of people sacrificed?
The only source that the Aztecs claimed it was a Spanish source. If there was an actual source of an Aztec claiming, from an actual Aztec source then i'd believe it, but thats not the case here. How is someone supposed to find evidence of something that never happened? It never happened, which is why there isn't evidence to prove it. You can't find evidence that it didn't happen because it never happened, you're not going to find evidence of something that didn't exist.
The source that claimed that though was a source during the conquest, when I say Spanish source I mean it was a source BY the Spaniards. Even after they were conquered the Aztecs wrote their sources under Spanish authority, in their native languages but simply in the Latin alphabet. We are talking about the source of the king who sacrificed tens of thousands of people, that source was a Spaniards source.
I understand everything you're saying. Aztec sources after the conquest were written under Spaniards authority, that makes them automatically suspect because the Aztec is only writing what the Spaniards allow him too. What part of that don't you understand? The source from the sacrifice was indeed from a Spaniard. Aztec sources in Spanish came after the conquest, the source of the sacrifice happened during the conquest. You are without doubt simpy biased.
No, they were NOT written UNDER Spanish Authority. That is wrong. They were not written under ANY authority.
And that they were published in Spanish does not make them Automatically suspect... especially since there is not one single thing that has been written about that can be verified by science that was shown to be false.
Yeah they were, the original ones were destroyed, and the ones that were re-written by Natives were rewritten under the authority of a Spaniard.
I never said that if they were published in Spanish its automatically suspect. If they were written by the Spanish as in an ethnic Spaniard during the conquest, than its automatically suspect. Quit trying to twist my words. You've lost this argument. You can't even support you're own claims. twisting words and trying to sound smart won't win here.
NOTHING was written under the AUTHORITY of a "Spaniard". At best it could be said that it was written under Papal authority. But even that is not true. It was, instead, recorded under Papal Protection.
Well, the account of the 84,000 was RECORDED (not the source -- his source was Aztec natives) by a Spanish fra who "Went Native" and admired the Aztecs.
This is not a matter of twisting your words. YOU repeatedly refuse to recognize the SOURCE of this information and you repeatedly reuse to acknowledge that it has so far been a VERY RELIABLE account -- with absolutely NO contradictions of any significance with scientific or other sources
Moctezuma also had sacrifices done so he is not irrelevant to this discussion.
However, the fact that the King who is legend to have killed tens of thousands (and it is possible he did that) was dead when the Spanish got there is irrelevant to the fact that such sacrifices happened.
Oh my gosh, Moctezuma has nothing to do with the mass sacrifice that we originally were talking about. Stay on topic. If this so-called mass sacrifice really did take place, it would have averaged out to around 14 sacrifices a minute... if you actually believe that, then you'd have to be pretty dumb. No offense, but to me, that seems impossible. Plain and simple.
You are right, moctezuma had nothing to do with ONE of the mass sacrifices, but he had others he did. And YOU said "The Aztec King was long gone". I had no idea you meant one in particular. I thought somehow you believed the Aztec Kingdom had already fallen.
Yes, if the UPPER LIMIT of what the Aztecs BRAGGED was the size of the sacrifice, it would have been 14 sacrifices a minute. This is hardly impossible.
Have you ever seen how many cattle can be slaughtered in a minute?
And do not forget, these were all supposedly WILLING sacrifices. Makes it easier.
Something is a bit weird about you. You seem to intent on insisting that something which is demonstrable, historical fact -- from records (even pre-columbian) and from archaeology... something accepted by historians all over the world ... is untrue.
There isn't even archaeological evidence to prove that the Aztecs sacrificed that many people. What evidence, or proof do you have that the numbers were that high? Spanish sources are not evidence or proof. The only time a Spaniard actually "saw" an Aztec sacrifice and documented it was that time, and that time only. They documented other sacrifice, but those weren't of actual sacrifices they witnessed, which make it automatically suspect.
it is up to YOU to prove that the numbers were low. It is well recognized that the aztecs were NOT a kind people. They were cruel to their conquered people and THAT made it very easy to enlist enemies to fight against them.
The Aztecs weren't as cruel to the people they conquered as you may believe. The Aztecs simply conquered for expansion. When a nation was conquered by the Aztecs, the Aztecs gave them every right they had, they gave them the right to celebrate their culture, worship their own religion, follow their own ways. The only thing the Aztecs asked for was the right to pass through their lands in order to expand further, and to pay tribute to the capital. The Aztecs hardly interfered with their lives.
The Aztecs were every bit as cruel to their vassal states as I have said. They were probably MORE cruel than I believe because I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The Aztecs did not just ask for tribute in the form of wealth but also in the form of human sacrifices. You may think that is not interfering with lives, but your views on that are weird.
The majority of human sacrfice came from Tlaxcala, which were never conquered by the Aztecs. You don't know what you're talking about. The Aztecs and Tlaxcalas agreed to go to war in order to obtain POW's, and use them for sacrifice. They both agreed to sacrifice eachothers POW's, and Tlaxcala was never conquered by the Aztecs. Since the Aztecs were more powerful though, Tlaxcala became frustrated, which is why they became the Spaniards main ally in defeating the Aztecs.
Comparing me to a holocaust denier is simply stupid. The Aztecs weren't even near as cruel as the Nazis. The conquistadores on the other hand...
My proof and evidence is that the skeletons haven't been found, simply claimed. It is up to you to prove that the numbers were high because thats whats being claimed, -mass sacrifice in the Aztec empire.-
Once again, most pre-columbian history is not fact, the majority of it is simply theories and claims, which is why it is very debated.
Comparing you to a holocaust denier is entirely apt.
You are willing to acknowledge that the Aztecs were cruel and vicious ... just that it has been "exaggerated". What do you think the Holocaust deniers are actually saying? They do not deny that there were people killed by Nazi's -- but that it has been exaggerated.
it is absolutely retarded. The holocaust actually has photos to prove it, survivors to this day that can tell you that it happened, and both sides agreed it happened. The Aztecs being these absolutely cruel, vicious people is not agreed by both sides, simply those that believe Spanish sources, it doesn't have survivors who can tell you anything that happened, nor does it have photos to show it happened. In fact, no other tribe EVER documented that the Aztecs were being very cruel to them.
Of course not. You're being foolish and obviously getting off topic. We are talking about the holocaust and the Aztec cruelties, and I told you how they are different. Comparing a holocaust denier to somebody who denies the Aztecs were soooo cruel is retarded. Plain and simple. I never said if it doesn't have photographs it isn't true, I simply said that the Aztecs cruelty have no photographs to prove it while the holocaust does. Im just stating how they're different.
You told me that the difference of criticality between the holocaust and the aztec cruelties being accepted was photographic evidence and living memory.
it is a big difference. Comparing someone who denies the holocaust and someone who denies that the Aztecs were so cruel is simply plain and stupid. Aztec cruelty happened, but it is exaggerated.
I know that already. the Aztecs were cruel, it is how cruel they were which I believe is exaggerated. There is a very big difference between someone who denies the holocaust and someone who denies how cruel the Aztecs were.
So you admit, you are ONLY arguing over how much cruelty there was. The best demographic expert of that era believed that they sacrificed about 250,000 people a year.
Of course, that was one of the first things I said in this argument, that it happened but its exaggerated. 250,000 people is way off. The population of Mesoamerica was in the tens of millions, it was more populated than any other region in America. If the Aztecs sacrificed that many people a year, the population would've declined drastically, and that clearly isn't what happened.
The Aztecs were there for over a century, if the Aztecs sacrificed about 250,000 people a year, that means they sacrificed 250,000,000 people every 100 years. That is WAYYYYYYY off, the population of North and South America combined wasnt even that high. Im sorry, but you have to take population into consideration, and it proves that 250,00 people a year is false. Period
WHAT! That isn't MY science, its common sense. For once, take a time and actually think. If the Aztecs sacrificed 250,000 people a year, than wouldn't that mean 25,000,000 people for every 1 hundred years? That would cause an immense drop in population, and the population of Mesoamerica was the highest in America. Im actually explaining to you, you're just making crazy claims.
Yes 250,000 a year would mean 25,000,000 over 100 years. You say "common sense" tells you this is impossible.
Common sense also clearly shows that the sun revolves around the earth.
You are not qualified to use "common sense" when evaluating population demographics 600 years ago in a place you do not understand and without any scientific training or validation of your common sense.
Yes because the population of Mesoamerica was estimated at around 25 million, higher than any other region in America. If they were sacrificing 250,000 people a year they'd be drastically lowering their population, and not to mention the other nations that were also sacrificing. You got 250,000 people from Michael Harner, who is one of the most biased historian when it comes to Pre-columbian history. It is the same man who believes in Aztec cannibalism. Nice, now I see where you're getting this
The Aztecs being absolutely cruel vicious people is agreed to by BOTH SIDES -- depending upon what you call cruelty. Sure the Aztecs did not call it cruelty but they REVELED in the deeds that you are referencing as cruelty. THEY did not deny it as you do.
It is well known and well established. No serious scholar of the aztecs argues that they did not widely practice large scale human sacrifice.
You're claim is wrong because you simply believe it because a book written by murdering conquistadores said so. No proof, no evidence of mass sacrifice. Prove it to me. I have nothing to prove because you are the one claiming that the Aztecs sacrificed so many people. There is not enough evidence to support it, because there isn't evidence to show it, then its most likely because it never happened.
Wait.... are you seriously saying that my claim is wrong because of my source?
Really?
Does the source make it wrong or does it have to be wrong in fact?
Beside I have told you... I do NOT just believe these things based on one source. Multiple sources... precolumbian, post hispanic and archaeological all say the same thing.
No they don't. Once again, I want you to show me these pre-columbian sources. You simply accuse me of things I never say. You have to state what source you're getting it from or else nobody will ever believe you're claims. I can tell you don't know Aztec history by the way you continue to try to get off topic.
Cannibalism hasn't been proven. Once again, a crazy Spanish source. They claimed that they saw a "priest roasting a baby for breakfast", and thats it. The Ramirez codex also shows what looks like an Aztec eating a baby, but its a post-conquest Codice, which means it was made under Spanish authority, which once again is automatically suspect. Even Diaz, who was with Cortes 99% of the time during the conquest says that he, himself had NEVER actually witnessed any form of cannibalism.
Cannibalism has not been proven. If it was, it would be widely accepted, which it isn't. Sacrifice is agreed upon by everyone, its the numbers that are debated. Cannibalism on the other hand, isn't even agreed upon to ever even have existed. Pre-colombian history is possibly the most misunderstood and unkown history in any human civilization. The majority of pre-colombian history is filled with simple theories and "what if's", hardly any solid proven history.
Cannibalism has been proven. Scientifically. This is widely accepted by ARCHAEOLOGISTS. That you do not accept it does not make you smarter than they are on this subject matter.
It is NOT proven. Its a theory that is only accepted by some archaeologist and historians. At the same time, there are archaeologist and historians who don't accept it.
How many civilizations have settled in the Lake Texcoco area? So many tribes and civilizations have lived there, even IF you find something like that, how do you know it was Aztec? The Aztecs were new to the area, and they were only there for a little while since their civilization didn't last that long.
Im not changing the subject at all. We are talking about how bones found can be of any civilization that settled there. Im still talking about those bones, if you find a bone there, how do you know its Aztec? Plain and simple, im sticking to the bone subject. If you don't understand than thats you're fault, not mine.
"if you find a bone there, how do you know its Aztec?"
Do you understand the concepts of archaeology and science? How things like records from the time matching to a dig matching to carbon dating, matching to geography all work together?
Ok than, now I want you to tell me of a carbon dated bone that was proven to be from the Aztec era and found somewhere settled by the Aztecs. You haven't proven anything, I already know archaeologist use science.
If you show me the evidence, where it was found, when it was found, what time it dates to, who found it, and not just one bone, then I will believe you.
The Spaniards were not so honest. During the Cholula massacre Cortes claimed that he and his men (including allies) massacred the Cholulans because the Aztecs had ordered them to trap them, and kill them. Which, would be self-defense. Bartolome de las Casas, another Spaniard who was there, says that the massacre of Cholula was not for defense, but simply was "an act of cold-blooded terrorism designed to break the spirits of the indigenous people". Two totally different stories, both Spaniards.
The records of the Cholula massacre were sent to the King by Cortes and Bartolome. That wasn't a tactic, it was a record, which told 2 totally different stories, yet they were both there. These are all Spanish sources that im giving you, some Spanish sources even contradict themselves. We know that cruelty happened, it happened in every civilization, the thing is that Aztec cruelty is far exaggerated.
Yes, the records of the Cholula Massacre were sent to the King by Cortez and another was written by Bartolome. Are you of the opinion that these accounts do NOT detail an actual massacre? Or are you arguing that the HISTORICAL RECORDINGS OF THE SPANISH are reasonably reliable?
They are not reliable because they have contradicted themselves. You say that Spanish weren't liars, if they weren't liars then how come two Spaniards, who took part in the same massacre, ended up with two totally different stories? One claims self-defense so they wouldn't be killed, while the other claims they did it to terrorize the Indigenous people, and that they were never going to be killed in the first place. Obviously one is lying, because they can't both be true.
"They are not reliable because they have contradicted themselves."
Really? Cite two accounts of Spanish who WERE THERE that contradict one another in any important way.
Yes I agree that there were contradictions from others WHO WERE NOT THERE. I do not count that -- and technical historians tend to look favorably upon the first and earliest accounts of historical events rather than later revisionism.
The Spaniards accounts IS revisionism. The original accounts and documents of Aztec history were destroyed by the Spaniards, and were later rewritten and told by the Spaniards in THERE way. That is indeed revisionism. 2 examples would be Cholula, and the cannibalism which Hernan Cortes claims, but Bernal Diaz doesnt. There you go. I've proven everything I claimed, you haven't. You just continuously claim a bunch of crap.
They can easily both be true. Notice the facts in common. The king of Chollua greeted Cortez -- who already had an agreement with Tlaxcala. He brought him into the city and housed him in a special area of the city. Cortez had every intention of deposing him but looked for an opportunity. The Cholulan king gave him that opportunity by ALSO plotting against him. They were each going to kill the other. Cortez had better ability.
Wrong. Bartolome says that the Spanish were never going to be killed in the first place. They can't both be true, its that simple. I have a feeling you're barely learning about all this right now, you're not the brightest when it comes to Aztec history.
What!?!?!?!? Every time one person conquers another they demonize the people they kill in order to justify. its been going on for centuries. Its obvious the Spanish exaggerated, what better way to justify the fact that they killed an entire nation. All humans do that, demonize and exaggerate one of you're victims in order to make yourself look like the good guy. Its common sense.
It is not true that every time one person conquers another they demonize the vanquished. If you really understood Aztec history... you would know this.
It is NOT obvious that the Spanish exaggerated as you claim because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EXAGGERATION and THERE IS EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY.
Ancient Aztecs: Mass Sacrifice of Warrior Captives/Christianity: Mass Burnings, Hangings and even Flayings of Heretics and Pagans for 2000 years. But one culture gave you sexual and body freedom and the other didn't. Both were in need of Ahimsa, but Christians were nurturing a wicked demi-urge posing as Godhead. Thank the Gods for Democracy, but a true Christian knows Theocracy is his/her way!
MushroomedAnymore 2 months ago
@MushroomedAnymore the ancient american people were more democratic that any ancient european civilization...
DARVGH1 4 weeks ago
Maybe the sound is tied to their soul somehow? Atranformation of the souls energy once the heart has stopped. That would make the whistler that skulls "god",or master?
carlochuckt 3 months ago
100 BABY!!
MEXICANMADESTWR 8 months ago
I had one of those small ones when I was growing up ,we use to play it all the time it was so loud it would hurt my ear's . I never found them again ,I think my mom put them away . Never saw them again and forgot I had one till I saw this video .
DaniaAlexandraOliva 8 months ago
I had one of those small ones when I was growing up ,we use to play it all the time it was so loud it would hurt my ear's . I never found them again ,I think my mom put them away . Never saw them again and forgot I had one till I saw this video .
DaniaAlexandraOliva 8 months ago
I've seen wheeled toys from excavation sites in jalisco mexico...they had the wheel, i was sacred therefore was not left sitting around.
Cuah123 10 months ago
now that's a rape whistle.
sounds like someone screaming.
d0ck47 10 months ago
@KingNationStudios First, where did you get your facts, i study and read on my culture and i know enough that i know that they where never first mayas, they were Olmecs, our mother culture. The mayas are a seperated civilization from the Mexica (falsely called the Aztecs). The aztecs are from Aztlan a place far from the civilizations of the Mexica and the Maya. If you spent less time being a hiphop baby and get educated maybe you will have a chance next time.
makayla415 1 year ago
some of those sound were as scary as HELL!!!
crazydude52able 1 year ago 3
Im flattered that all these bigots are Jealous of our Epic ancestors.
elguapodetamaulipas 1 year ago
again F-ing Beautiful! WOW!
IdimmuUrukuAbsu 1 year ago
Look, I didn't mean to upset anyone. I'm just pointing out that maybe one of the reasons God chose to kill so many of your people was because he saw how awful and gay your culture was.
MegaMuslim 1 year ago
@MegaMuslim lol god was the asshole really i mean he tried to end the human race :l
tichergeorge 3 months ago
What a bunch of stupid crap that sounds awful. I hope all indigenous Americans are ashamed of their heritage after hearing this.
MegaMuslim 1 year ago
@MegaMuslim you're retarded.
1. "indiginenous american" is incredibly fucking broad. apaches =/= mayans
2. it's not supposed to sound nice. they played these before they cut someones fucking heart out
iherduliek 1 year ago
those with little to show for tend to cling to the past
stayhandsome 1 year ago
Do you sell reproduction wind instruments???
Conradbluesman 1 year ago
the real name of aztecs is Tenocha
MsKillerBill 1 year ago
Europeans suck so bad, im European and our civilization is nothing but murderous scum backed up by nasty religious views.
DushevnaSepsa 1 year ago
@DushevnaSepsa
Any culture does the same thing given the same environment and resources. I'm not saying European colonization and exploitation is right by any means (it was atrocious), but that any other civilization would have done the same types of things were they given a chance.
Also, if you think European religious views are nasty, study the old Aztec religious views. All cultures are made of humans who have the same general nature. Supremacists of any kind are misguided.
RadMajik 1 year ago
@DushevnaSepsa people don;t murder in name of their god, people kills for power, maybe under the name of some god or whatsoever, only a very few killed others cos of the beliefs, but that are all 1 vs 1 things, the many vs. many were all for land, power, food or "cos we can"
gaoth88 1 year ago
I need one of those. I'll go for walks late at night while playing it...
pqwilrj 1 year ago
It is my belief that the whistles emitted a specific sound frequency that calls forth certain dimensional demons that feed upon the victims energy as they are sacrificed. To me the whistles are a dinner bell that had to be rung to call forth the demons that the victims were sacrificed to. Since there were different demon entities, they had different whistles for different demons. I know this sounds fantastic, but if they sacrificed to the demons, there would have had to be a way to call them.
MrCati 1 year ago
Lol, my dog... Anyone who has a dog, try this on your dog! XD
roronoazorohun 1 year ago
Comment removed
Blazeittup562 1 year ago
amazing sounds, very interesting and unique
Mtbfanro 1 year ago
The Ancient Mexican Ruling class where blood sucking vampires to the marginalized tribes they fed upon for their absurd and evil religious blood sacrifices. Those brutalized tribes were more than willing to assist the Spanish to slay assholes. This does not absolve the Spanish for their baseless claims on the nature of god etc which they used to justify similar evils.
TheRenaldo 1 year ago
The Indegenous people came up with the concept of ZERO, Europeans learn it from Arabs. Our mathematics and knowledge of Astronomy was perfect. The Maya had accurately calculated the Bing Bang. The average life expactancy of Europeans during the the 15th century was about 35 years. my ancestors all had a average life expectancy of 72 years.
We had universities, libraries, astronomical observatories. They had the largest cities in the world and sacredly preserved their natural enviroment.
makayla415 2 years ago 47
@makayla415 So if Europeans learned it from Arabs.. then who taught the Arabs? I don't think that the Indigenous people came up with the concept of 'zero', Wikipedia doesn't show this either. I know the Maya discovered many things and made many contributions, but I'm not exactly sure on the concept of zero... sorry. Research it for yourself. The field of Mathematics and Astronomy is mainly filled with Arab, Persian, and Hindu contributions.. Algebra for starters.
SerbiansareTrash 1 year ago
@SerbiansareTrash well wiki is not a reliable source of information, the concept of zero was invented by the Mayas, the best proof i got is in their ruins just look at their number system and you'll see the truth.. and to through some facts. you know how much it to for the Europeans to understand the concept of Zero (Maya)? it took them 800 yrs...
tala12 1 year ago
@SerbiansareTrash The Maya are believed to have independently discovered zero, but it was also discovered in India, probably around the same time - the earliest depiction of zero is from an Indian temple from, I think, the seventh century. Yes, the history of maths and astronomy is mostly taught as being mostly Greek, Arab, and Indian - nowadays, Chinese maths is acknowledged too. But Mayan mathematical achievements were many and independent. It is the independence that is most important.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@SerbiansareTrash I Lol'd at "Wikipedia doesn't show this either". Wikipedia is a TERRIBLE place to acquire actual facts. We DID have zero centuries before ANY other people had it. The Arabs, idk, discovered it on their own? Durrrrrr. YOU need to do some reading, buddy.
drki11joy123 1 year ago
@makayla415 I doubt the Maya had life expectancy exceeding 45 before the 20th century, for the simple reason that even the most advanced, clean and civilised cultures rarely exceeded that figure until the discovery of penicillin and of modern medicine generally. Also, by the time of the Classic Maya, the largest cities on earth were in China. That does nothing to denigrate the brilliant achievements and cultural radiance of the Maya, of course, and I do not wish to offend.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@makayla415 Well said! I've been doing a lot of reading and researching myself lately on the civilizations of the "Americas". These people were soooooo advanced in many aspects. If only they were able to unite. They would've been unstoppable. Well, maybe not unstoppable because of disease, which was the primary cause of their demise.
drki11joy123 1 year ago
@makayla415 *big* bang. not bing bang
tubbyboy1985 1 year ago
@makayla415 *cough cough* human sacrifice *cough cough*.
aronchai 1 year ago
@makayla415 And finally they were conquered.
IVomitOnYourGod 1 year ago
@makayla415 so much truth in this man comment
ED000111 1 year ago
@makayla415 This comment is so full of myths and stupidity I have no idea where to start.
Baneslave 1 year ago
@Baneslave go ahead, start
makayla415 1 year ago
They are not called Aztecs. They never called themselves Aztecs. They are my ancestors the Mexica pronouced
Me-shee-ka. The root word of Mexico.
makayla415 2 years ago 26
@makayla415 The spaniards call the Aztecs
CocaC 1 year ago
@makayla415 you are quite right mi amigo. by this time, i wouldnt be speaking spanish nor english. i should been speaking nahuatl, but europeans came due to exploration and discovering more for their people. aztecatl would do the same for euros but, its the way destiny for earth is.
45Mang 1 year ago
@45Mang The Spanish came here with the intent to commit GENOCIDE 23 million Mexicas died from this. The Mexicas would NOT have done this to Europeans. Remember the Spanish Inquisition, they were very violent and racist. Nothing like my MEXICA ancestors. This is not destity, its GENOCIDE. Could you imagine if Hitler would have won, well the Spanish did.
makayla415 1 year ago
@makayla415 yes, an no, yes beacuse, its horrible for death of millions of mesos, but no because, what i said hermano, its part of destiny its supposed to happed, ask mayans en guatemala. my mexica brothers in mexico city, will all tell yu the same thing mayans tell you. its all part of destiny. i dont say it to be a horrible person, but its supposed to happen. its the way we were meant to be. now mexico is far more powerful than spain. and spain has no chance of winning any war towards mexis.
45Mang 1 year ago
@45Mang Would you tell Jewish victims of Hitler's Holocaust that it was there destiny. And MExico is still controlled by the Spanish (Criollo). The Indigenous people dont have no power at all in Mexico. Its not destiny its WHITE SUPREMACY destruction of the world, and if you believe that this is destiny then we are all surely doomed.
makayla415 1 year ago
@makayla415 no, no, no, no. i dont think you know what i mean. i dont know if god meant earth to be this violent and many racist. i dont know, honestly. but i do believe he sent us here for a purpose. i just know every century ends extremely different. thats all. western cowboys are gone and now theyre different.
45Mang 1 year ago
@45Mang Just wandering am i a western white person seen as a murderer to people like u who r desended from aztecs and mayans etc because i wanted to just say that i think that western people have come to realise that there are other great civilisations other than europian ones and i for example am fasinated by aztec and mayan stuff :)
Bayliss27 1 year ago
@Bayliss27 thank you for the love and understanding, but its not too late for the civilizations to rise up again. i do not understand why white call spanish whites mexicans, when theyre just as white as them, but with a diff language. come to texas, and you'll hear that alot.
45Mang 1 year ago
I suppose nobody will fully understand aztec history better than the aztecs themselves.
RemoteTechnology2012 2 years ago 3
I will have the last comment.
The original discussion was that I believed that the Aztecs were cruel, but at the same time it was exaggerated. You have proven it for me, you exaggerate the Aztecs cruelty. 250,000 sacrificed per year is way off. Most historians agree on 20,000 thats an exaggeration of 230,000 people. The Aztecs didn't sacrifice conquered tribes as much as people believe. The majority of sacrifices came from POW's from Tlaxcala, which is true. Tlaxcala was never conquered
Bye
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
"The original discussion was that I believed that the Aztecs were cruel, but at the same time it was exaggerated. "
No, that is false. Here is the original discussion:
Me: Aztecs were exceptionally cruel. It does not take much to demonize them.
You: Evidence and archaeology do not stand by your side.
You originally claimed that they were NOT cruel and LATER (like a holocaust denier) claimed "its exaggerated".
And so far, everything you have said has been without a shred of evidence.
CASteinman 2 years ago
"You have proven it for me, you exaggerate the Aztecs cruelty. "
When did I do that? They were exceptionally cruel. You admit it. As to "how" exceptional their cruelty was, virtually EVERY author on the subject is agreed: they took human sacrifice to unprecedented heights.
They also practiced Cannibalism.
The one thing you have never understood about what I was saying when I said they were cruel... is that I was not just talking about human sacrifice. YOU assumed that.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Furthermore, notice that YOU did not even get my sources right. You ENTIRELY dismiss the BEST DEMOGRAPHER of conquest era meso america and insist that your imagination is better than his years of research.
You must imagine yourself to be some sort of God ... to know all things without even studying it.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The Spaniards assigned special Aztecs known as tlacuilos to make codices for them. Post-conquest codices have Spanish influences on them and may not be accurate, which is why most historians prefer pre-conquest codices. Quit trying to act like you know a lot about Aztec history, you're not fooling anybody but yourself.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You tell me to quit acting like I know a lot about Aztec history.
But I do. it is a minor hobby.
At least, I know more than most people. I certainly know more than you. But I can tell you are learning.
CASteinman 2 years ago
You say Post conquest codices have Spanish influences on them and may not be accurate.
There is no evidence that the historical recordings are particularly biased or innaccurate as you keep implying.
More to the point though... and something you continually disregard (even though you said you would not) is that archeological science and historical analysis have confirmed the cruelty of the aztecs -- separate and apart from these texts.
CASteinman 2 years ago
some people wont let anyone else have some historical significance. mormons believe jeses lived in america! wtf? and his is modern civilization? lol. your opinion means shit! respect and appreciate what primitive people with so little technology did for themselves. plus we kill each other over subway seats and parking spaces everyday not over the next good harvest. fuckin losers.
changospank1 2 years ago
The Mexica Civilization by far the most glorious and greatest civilization the world have ever known.
AliCarmona 2 years ago
The Mexica/Aztec Civilization lasted about 100 years. This is compared with Chinese, Egyptian and Roman Civilizations that lasted thousands of years.
No Comparison.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Yeah, we took only a few decades to achieve knowledge superior to those so yeah, you're making my point :D
AliCarmona 2 years ago
Dude, this is awesome! The Aztecs are such a misunderstood civilization. Demonized by Spanish lies. To be honest, the one in the beginning kinda made me shiver. pretty creepy.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Aztecs were exceptionally cruel. It does not take much to demonize them.
CASteinman 2 years ago
And what do you have to back that up? Spanish sources??? lol. Evidence and archaeology do not stand by your side.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
The evidence is found in pre-columbian Aztec sources that survived the Spanish Conquest and in archaeology, which confirm the accounts of the Spanish -- who were NOT, in any case, known to be liars about what they saw in reports back to Spain.
On the other hand, you have no (zero) evidence that the aztecs were tree hugging, peaceful hippies.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Most pre-columbian Aztec sources were destroyed and re-written by Spaniards. Most of our sources of Aztec history come from the post-conquest era. Even most of the codices that were made were made after the conquest by Aztecs under Spanish supervision, so the Spanish can only have them put what they wanted them to put.The Spanish weren't known to be liars!?!?!?! hahaha, you made my day, thats the funniest shit i've heard so far. Tell me, what pre-columbian sources do you talk of? If they exist
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
They are recovering pre-columbian records, and we have records written by aztecs at the time who learned Spanish. Furthermore, we have archaeological records that confirm the written accounts of the time. And the Spanish were NT known to be liars in their reports back to the crown. Just saying you think that they were is not the same thing as them being liars.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Of course we know the Aztecs weren't the most peaceful people in the world, but the cruelty of the Aztecs is far exggerated.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
What do you imagine has been exaggerated? We KNOW that they offered human sacrifice -- of men, women and children, they tore out the hearts of their victims, they terrorized their neighbors and they practiced cannibalism. So what is exaggerated?
CASteinman 2 years ago
The numbers of sacrifice are far exaggerated. The only time it was documented was by Bernal Diaz, who was miles away when he "saw" the Aztecs sacrificing. It is very bias, the Spanish exaggerate the Aztecs cruelty but gloss up their own crueltys. Just learn about the Massacre of Cholula. Cannibalism did not happen, no proof, no evidence, once again, simply because the "Spaniards said so". The spanish were the biggest liars of all, how do you think they got so many Native allies? By lying to them
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
When you say the numbers of sacrifices are far exaggerated -- how do you know this? What census or poll or objective third party source do you have to make such a claim?
And you are incorrect that it was only documented once. And yes, Cannibalism happened, it has been proven.
The Spanish lied to the people but they did NOT lie to their king or to the pope in reports going back. Their accounts have been shown to be historically reliable.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The Spanish claim that an Aztec king once had tens of thousands of people sacrificed in a single setting. You believe that? I don't know about you but most people will agree that its not even possible to do that. The Aztecs had stone knifes, so cutting through human chest, making the gap big enough, and pulling a heart out is quite difficult to do. Doing that tens of thousands of times at a single setting... well, seems a little impossible to me... and most professional historians.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
The Spanish did not claim that an Aztec king once had tens of thousand of people sacrificed in a single setting. It was the Aztecs who made that claim. And though I doubt it happened I do NOT believe it is impossible.
However, it was not the Spanish who made this claim.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Yes it was. The Aztec king was long gone when the Spanish arrived. The Spanish said that the Aztecs said, that they had tens of thousands of people sacrificed. No Aztec source shows this, only a Spanish source that SAYS that THEY [the Aztecs] said it. Not proven either. Theres a reason why the Spanish destroyed the Aztecs libraries and codices, to destroy their history and simply rewrite it themselves. Can this be anymore obvious?
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Incorrect. The Aztec King was still around. His name was Moctezuma. This is well known. That you do not know it does not make you right.
The Spanish said that the Aztec priests and rules claimed to have killed tens of thousands in one event but the spanish also reported that they did not believe it and that other Aztecs denied it.
You do not know what you are talking about.
CASteinman 2 years ago
You're obviously the one who doesn't know what he's talking about because the King who supposedly did the mass sacrifice, was during the rebuilding of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in the 1480's. The king you're talking about is actually Moctezuma II, who came decades later. You're the one who has no clue.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Uhhh you say that I do not know what I am talking about and yet, clearly I do. It was you who was unclear that you were talking about a specific King who had died. But you did not say that. You just said the King was long gone. But there was indeed a king there.
That the King who conducted these sacrifices was dead, does not mean he did not live or hold sacrifices. Why would you think so?
CASteinman 2 years ago
"Incorrect. The Aztec King was still around. His name was Moctezuma. This is well known."
What are you trying to say? the king that im talking is the king who supposedly sacrficed tens of thousands of people. When you say "the", you are referring to the king who comitted the sacrfice,. Why would you talk about Moctezuma? First of all, the king was Moctezuma II, and second of all Moctezuma has nothing to do with our discussion about the sacrifice. You're puposely getting off topic.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
What I was saying was that "The Aztec King" was still around. Perhaps not "The Aztec King who committed these Sacrifices to History" but "The Aztec King". It was YOU who said "The Aztec King" was not around.
But he was. You meant the One who claimed those sacrifices but you did not say it and you did not make it clear.
CASteinman 2 years ago
What do you mean I did not make it clear? The Aztec king that committed the sacrifice has been the ONLY king we've been talking about. Which other king could I have referred to? He's the only one we've talked about..
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Here is what I meant when you did not make it clear:
Should someone say "The Rule of Rome was long gone when Christ was born", I would disagree. Because there was a ruler of Rome when Christ was born.
Now if someone should say "Julius Cesar" was long gone when Christ was born i would agree.
You were unclear because you said "The Aztec King Was long gone". But he wasn't. You did not make it clear you were talking about a particular one.
CASteinman 2 years ago
When I said "the" I was talking about "The" King of the Aztecs. Just as I would be talking about "The" King of Saudi Arabia. It is a title -- a position held by many people. IF ... I were to specify a time (for example when the Spanish arrived) it would be one particular King (Moctezuma in that case) or if I were referring to "The King" of Saudi Arabia when Obama came I would be talking about Abdullah.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Dude, for the millionth time stay on topic.. One more off topic comment and this discussion is over. You lost, its simple. We can argue for days, but if you believe Spanish sources while I believe others, this is never going to come to a conclusion
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Dude, I am just replying to your comments. If you do not stay on topic, then i won't either. But if you do, so will I.
CASteinman 2 years ago
I have been on topic this whole time. YOU brought up the holocaust, Joan of ark, moctezuma and so much other crap that had nothing to do with the discussion. Lets make it simple, all those discussions about those topics, let em go.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You have changed the subject so much. YOU have brought up the cruelty of the spanish, the lying of the spanish, the civilizations on lake texcoco and so much ther crap that had NOTHING to do with the discussion.
Lets make it simple. All those discussions about those topics... let em go.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The civilizations of Lake texcoco was part of the subject about finding bones! Oh my gosh can you be anymore complicated! The lying of the Spanish was brought up by YOU when you said the Spanish were not known to be liars! Do you even know what the original discussion was about!?!?!
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You have lost.
it is simple.
We can argue for days but if you simply refuse to believe archaeology and science and just believe your politically correct but completely unsupported and unhistorical opinion while I believe credible sources and science, this is never going to come to a conclusion.
CASteinman 2 years ago
do believe in archaeology and science, but you believe in Spanish sources and you believe in the archaeology and science that backs up what they say. Where is the evidence of tens of thousands of people sacrificed?
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Where is the evidence that tens of thousands of people were NOT sacrificed.
More pointedly... since the Aztecs themselves claimed it, why doubt them?
CASteinman 2 years ago
The only source that the Aztecs claimed it was a Spanish source. If there was an actual source of an Aztec claiming, from an actual Aztec source then i'd believe it, but thats not the case here. How is someone supposed to find evidence of something that never happened? It never happened, which is why there isn't evidence to prove it. You can't find evidence that it didn't happen because it never happened, you're not going to find evidence of something that didn't exist.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
It is incorrect to say that the only source that the Aztecs claimed was a Spanish source.
You THINK that because it is recorded in spanish. But it was by AZTECS who learned spanish.
Did you know that?
Of course, (like the books of the bible) we do not have the very original writings. But they are the ones who wrote about it and talked about it.
These are considered reliable sources. To reject them is to reject what fits with archaeology and other sciences.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The source that claimed that though was a source during the conquest, when I say Spanish source I mean it was a source BY the Spaniards. Even after they were conquered the Aztecs wrote their sources under Spanish authority, in their native languages but simply in the Latin alphabet. We are talking about the source of the king who sacrificed tens of thousands of people, that source was a Spaniards source.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
I do not think you understand the issue about Sources very well.
These are NOT all spanish sources. They are AZTEC sources.
The source for the these sacrifices are AZTECS, not Spanish.
That they are recorded in books that were published by the spanish does not make them Spanish sources.
What is there about this that you do not understand?
CASteinman 2 years ago
I understand everything you're saying. Aztec sources after the conquest were written under Spaniards authority, that makes them automatically suspect because the Aztec is only writing what the Spaniards allow him too. What part of that don't you understand? The source from the sacrifice was indeed from a Spaniard. Aztec sources in Spanish came after the conquest, the source of the sacrifice happened during the conquest. You are without doubt simpy biased.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
No, they were NOT written UNDER Spanish Authority. That is wrong. They were not written under ANY authority.
And that they were published in Spanish does not make them Automatically suspect... especially since there is not one single thing that has been written about that can be verified by science that was shown to be false.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Yeah they were, the original ones were destroyed, and the ones that were re-written by Natives were rewritten under the authority of a Spaniard.
I never said that if they were published in Spanish its automatically suspect. If they were written by the Spanish as in an ethnic Spaniard during the conquest, than its automatically suspect. Quit trying to twist my words. You've lost this argument. You can't even support you're own claims. twisting words and trying to sound smart won't win here.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
NOTHING was written under the AUTHORITY of a "Spaniard". At best it could be said that it was written under Papal authority. But even that is not true. It was, instead, recorded under Papal Protection.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Well, the account of the 84,000 was RECORDED (not the source -- his source was Aztec natives) by a Spanish fra who "Went Native" and admired the Aztecs.
This is not a matter of twisting your words. YOU repeatedly refuse to recognize the SOURCE of this information and you repeatedly reuse to acknowledge that it has so far been a VERY RELIABLE account -- with absolutely NO contradictions of any significance with scientific or other sources
CASteinman 2 years ago
Yes, you basically said if it was published in Spanish it was automatically suspect.
CASteinman 2 years ago
It is silly to say the source was a Spaniard. No Spaniard knew about this sacrifice because no spaniard was there. The Accounts were given by AZTECS.
And in the record where they are recorded, it is part of a very long history which so far has been shown to be well recorded.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Moctezuma also had sacrifices done so he is not irrelevant to this discussion.
However, the fact that the King who is legend to have killed tens of thousands (and it is possible he did that) was dead when the Spanish got there is irrelevant to the fact that such sacrifices happened.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Oh my gosh, Moctezuma has nothing to do with the mass sacrifice that we originally were talking about. Stay on topic. If this so-called mass sacrifice really did take place, it would have averaged out to around 14 sacrifices a minute... if you actually believe that, then you'd have to be pretty dumb. No offense, but to me, that seems impossible. Plain and simple.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You are right, moctezuma had nothing to do with ONE of the mass sacrifices, but he had others he did. And YOU said "The Aztec King was long gone". I had no idea you meant one in particular. I thought somehow you believed the Aztec Kingdom had already fallen.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Yes, if the UPPER LIMIT of what the Aztecs BRAGGED was the size of the sacrifice, it would have been 14 sacrifices a minute. This is hardly impossible.
Have you ever seen how many cattle can be slaughtered in a minute?
And do not forget, these were all supposedly WILLING sacrifices. Makes it easier.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Something is a bit weird about you. You seem to intent on insisting that something which is demonstrable, historical fact -- from records (even pre-columbian) and from archaeology... something accepted by historians all over the world ... is untrue.
You are like a holocaust denier.
CASteinman 2 years ago
There isn't even archaeological evidence to prove that the Aztecs sacrificed that many people. What evidence, or proof do you have that the numbers were that high? Spanish sources are not evidence or proof. The only time a Spaniard actually "saw" an Aztec sacrifice and documented it was that time, and that time only. They documented other sacrifice, but those weren't of actual sacrifices they witnessed, which make it automatically suspect.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You asked me for proof the numbers were high.
it is up to YOU to prove that the numbers were low. It is well recognized that the aztecs were NOT a kind people. They were cruel to their conquered people and THAT made it very easy to enlist enemies to fight against them.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The Aztecs weren't as cruel to the people they conquered as you may believe. The Aztecs simply conquered for expansion. When a nation was conquered by the Aztecs, the Aztecs gave them every right they had, they gave them the right to celebrate their culture, worship their own religion, follow their own ways. The only thing the Aztecs asked for was the right to pass through their lands in order to expand further, and to pay tribute to the capital. The Aztecs hardly interfered with their lives.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
The Aztecs were every bit as cruel to their vassal states as I have said. They were probably MORE cruel than I believe because I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The Aztecs did not just ask for tribute in the form of wealth but also in the form of human sacrifices. You may think that is not interfering with lives, but your views on that are weird.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The majority of human sacrfice came from Tlaxcala, which were never conquered by the Aztecs. You don't know what you're talking about. The Aztecs and Tlaxcalas agreed to go to war in order to obtain POW's, and use them for sacrifice. They both agreed to sacrifice eachothers POW's, and Tlaxcala was never conquered by the Aztecs. Since the Aztecs were more powerful though, Tlaxcala became frustrated, which is why they became the Spaniards main ally in defeating the Aztecs.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Comparing me to a holocaust denier is simply stupid. The Aztecs weren't even near as cruel as the Nazis. The conquistadores on the other hand...
My proof and evidence is that the skeletons haven't been found, simply claimed. It is up to you to prove that the numbers were high because thats whats being claimed, -mass sacrifice in the Aztec empire.-
Once again, most pre-columbian history is not fact, the majority of it is simply theories and claims, which is why it is very debated.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Comparing you to a holocaust denier is entirely apt.
You are willing to acknowledge that the Aztecs were cruel and vicious ... just that it has been "exaggerated". What do you think the Holocaust deniers are actually saying? They do not deny that there were people killed by Nazi's -- but that it has been exaggerated.
How are you really different?
CASteinman 2 years ago
it is absolutely retarded. The holocaust actually has photos to prove it, survivors to this day that can tell you that it happened, and both sides agreed it happened. The Aztecs being these absolutely cruel, vicious people is not agreed by both sides, simply those that believe Spanish sources, it doesn't have survivors who can tell you anything that happened, nor does it have photos to show it happened. In fact, no other tribe EVER documented that the Aztecs were being very cruel to them.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Oh that is interesting.
So if there was no photograph, and no one is alive today to describe it, it did not happen.
Fascinating.
I suppose you do NOT believe that there were dinosaurs. Because there are no photographs and there is no one alive to describe them.
Also you do not believe that Joan d'Arc was burned at the stake. No pictures of it.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Of course not. You're being foolish and obviously getting off topic. We are talking about the holocaust and the Aztec cruelties, and I told you how they are different. Comparing a holocaust denier to somebody who denies the Aztecs were soooo cruel is retarded. Plain and simple. I never said if it doesn't have photographs it isn't true, I simply said that the Aztecs cruelty have no photographs to prove it while the holocaust does. Im just stating how they're different.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You told me that the difference of criticality between the holocaust and the aztec cruelties being accepted was photographic evidence and living memory.
Which is silly.
CASteinman 2 years ago
it is a big difference. Comparing someone who denies the holocaust and someone who denies that the Aztecs were so cruel is simply plain and stupid. Aztec cruelty happened, but it is exaggerated.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
There is no difference between denying the holocaust and denying the WELL KNOWN AND WELL RECOGNIZED AND SUBSTANTIATED cruelty of the Aztecs.
No difference other than time frame.
CASteinman 2 years ago
I know that already. the Aztecs were cruel, it is how cruel they were which I believe is exaggerated. There is a very big difference between someone who denies the holocaust and someone who denies how cruel the Aztecs were.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
AH HAH!!!
"I already know the Aztecs were cruel"
So you admit, you are ONLY arguing over how much cruelty there was. The best demographic expert of that era believed that they sacrificed about 250,000 people a year.
but that's not very cruel to you.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Of course, that was one of the first things I said in this argument, that it happened but its exaggerated. 250,000 people is way off. The population of Mesoamerica was in the tens of millions, it was more populated than any other region in America. If the Aztecs sacrificed that many people a year, the population would've declined drastically, and that clearly isn't what happened.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
The concept of 250,000 people per year is not from Spanish Sources.
It is from a demographer who, using the best information available estimates that they sacrificed 1% of their population a year.
That would NOT cause their population to decline drastically as you imagine.
And yes.. it is YOUR imagination. Unscientific. Just prejudiced.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The Aztecs were there for over a century, if the Aztecs sacrificed about 250,000 people a year, that means they sacrificed 250,000,000 people every 100 years. That is WAYYYYYYY off, the population of North and South America combined wasnt even that high. Im sorry, but you have to take population into consideration, and it proves that 250,00 people a year is false. Period
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
*250,000
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You claim to know more than one of the worlds most famous researchers of mezo-American population demographics.
That is an example of your "Science"
CASteinman 2 years ago
WHAT! That isn't MY science, its common sense. For once, take a time and actually think. If the Aztecs sacrificed 250,000 people a year, than wouldn't that mean 25,000,000 people for every 1 hundred years? That would cause an immense drop in population, and the population of Mesoamerica was the highest in America. Im actually explaining to you, you're just making crazy claims.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Yes 250,000 a year would mean 25,000,000 over 100 years. You say "common sense" tells you this is impossible.
Common sense also clearly shows that the sun revolves around the earth.
You are not qualified to use "common sense" when evaluating population demographics 600 years ago in a place you do not understand and without any scientific training or validation of your common sense.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Yes because the population of Mesoamerica was estimated at around 25 million, higher than any other region in America. If they were sacrificing 250,000 people a year they'd be drastically lowering their population, and not to mention the other nations that were also sacrificing. You got 250,000 people from Michael Harner, who is one of the most biased historian when it comes to Pre-columbian history. It is the same man who believes in Aztec cannibalism. Nice, now I see where you're getting this
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
if the population was 25,000,000 and they sacrificed 1% that would NOT drastically lower their population. It is silly to think so.
And no, I did NOT get 250,000 from Michael Harmer. You are not paying attention.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The Aztecs being absolutely cruel vicious people is agreed to by BOTH SIDES -- depending upon what you call cruelty. Sure the Aztecs did not call it cruelty but they REVELED in the deeds that you are referencing as cruelty. THEY did not deny it as you do.
It is well known and well established. No serious scholar of the aztecs argues that they did not widely practice large scale human sacrifice.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Ok then, show me where the Aztecs revealed this. Pre-conquest too by the way.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You claim your proof is that the skeletons have not been found.
This is just simply wrong. Just wrong. I do not know any other way to say it. They have found the skeletons of victims. People sacrificed and eaten.
CASteinman 2 years ago
You're claim is wrong because you simply believe it because a book written by murdering conquistadores said so. No proof, no evidence of mass sacrifice. Prove it to me. I have nothing to prove because you are the one claiming that the Aztecs sacrificed so many people. There is not enough evidence to support it, because there isn't evidence to show it, then its most likely because it never happened.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Wait.... are you seriously saying that my claim is wrong because of my source?
Really?
Does the source make it wrong or does it have to be wrong in fact?
Beside I have told you... I do NOT just believe these things based on one source. Multiple sources... precolumbian, post hispanic and archaeological all say the same thing.
CASteinman 2 years ago
No they don't. Once again, I want you to show me these pre-columbian sources. You simply accuse me of things I never say. You have to state what source you're getting it from or else nobody will ever believe you're claims. I can tell you don't know Aztec history by the way you continue to try to get off topic.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Cannibalism hasn't been proven. Once again, a crazy Spanish source. They claimed that they saw a "priest roasting a baby for breakfast", and thats it. The Ramirez codex also shows what looks like an Aztec eating a baby, but its a post-conquest Codice, which means it was made under Spanish authority, which once again is automatically suspect. Even Diaz, who was with Cortes 99% of the time during the conquest says that he, himself had NEVER actually witnessed any form of cannibalism.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Cannibalism has been proven. Scientifically. Not from a Spanish Source. Archaeology. That you do not know this does not make you right.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Cannibalism has not been proven. If it was, it would be widely accepted, which it isn't. Sacrifice is agreed upon by everyone, its the numbers that are debated. Cannibalism on the other hand, isn't even agreed upon to ever even have existed. Pre-colombian history is possibly the most misunderstood and unkown history in any human civilization. The majority of pre-colombian history is filled with simple theories and "what if's", hardly any solid proven history.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Cannibalism has been proven. Scientifically. This is widely accepted by ARCHAEOLOGISTS. That you do not accept it does not make you smarter than they are on this subject matter.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Once again cannibalism has not been proven. If it was, it would be widely accepted like sacrifice, which it isn't.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You are wrong about cannibalism not being proven in two ways.,
1. Just because people MIGHT not accept it does not mean it is not true. I reference the ancient vs modern concepts of the universe.
2. Nevertheless it is PROVEN by science and ACCEPTED by archaeologists that aztecs were cannibals.
That you do not know this does not make you brilliant or right
CASteinman 2 years ago
It is NOT proven. Its a theory that is only accepted by some archaeologist and historians. At the same time, there are archaeologist and historians who don't accept it.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
It is PROVEN. They have the BOILED BONES with HUMAN TEETH MARKS on them to prove it.
CASteinman 2 years ago
How many civilizations have settled in the Lake Texcoco area? So many tribes and civilizations have lived there, even IF you find something like that, how do you know it was Aztec? The Aztecs were new to the area, and they were only there for a little while since their civilization didn't last that long.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Are you changing the subject by talking about how many civilizations have settled in "Lake" texcoco? I thought you wanted to stick to the subject.
Will you get upset with me if I change the subject this way?
CASteinman 2 years ago
Im not changing the subject at all. We are talking about how bones found can be of any civilization that settled there. Im still talking about those bones, if you find a bone there, how do you know its Aztec? Plain and simple, im sticking to the bone subject. If you don't understand than thats you're fault, not mine.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
You are changing the subject again. Now you are changing it to the subject of who changed the subject.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Ok then. Forget about who changed the subject. This argument with you is absolutely pointless.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
"if you find a bone there, how do you know its Aztec?"
Do you understand the concepts of archaeology and science? How things like records from the time matching to a dig matching to carbon dating, matching to geography all work together?
CASteinman 2 years ago
Carbon dating plus location indicate the time of the archaeological evidence. Archaeologists use science.. you know.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Ok than, now I want you to tell me of a carbon dated bone that was proven to be from the Aztec era and found somewhere settled by the Aztecs. You haven't proven anything, I already know archaeologist use science.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
What if I show you the bone evidence? Will you believe it?
CASteinman 2 years ago
If you show me the evidence, where it was found, when it was found, what time it dates to, who found it, and not just one bone, then I will believe you.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Okie dokie.... But this will take a commitment of your time
Google "Aztec Massacre"
Google "Tales of the living dead: Aztec Death"
Google "The Enigma of Aztec Sacrifice"
That's just a few things.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Ok than, I will research that. But remember, im also going to research WHO is saying it, as some historians may be biased.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
The Spaniards were not so honest. During the Cholula massacre Cortes claimed that he and his men (including allies) massacred the Cholulans because the Aztecs had ordered them to trap them, and kill them. Which, would be self-defense. Bartolome de las Casas, another Spaniard who was there, says that the massacre of Cholula was not for defense, but simply was "an act of cold-blooded terrorism designed to break the spirits of the indigenous people". Two totally different stories, both Spaniards.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
It does not matter that the spanish were deceptive to their enemies. Their RECORDS are shown to be historically valid.
You seem to be confusing disinformation tactics in war with whether their RECORDS were historically reliable -- within the abilities of that day.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The records of the Cholula massacre were sent to the King by Cortes and Bartolome. That wasn't a tactic, it was a record, which told 2 totally different stories, yet they were both there. These are all Spanish sources that im giving you, some Spanish sources even contradict themselves. We know that cruelty happened, it happened in every civilization, the thing is that Aztec cruelty is far exaggerated.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Yes, the records of the Cholula Massacre were sent to the King by Cortez and another was written by Bartolome. Are you of the opinion that these accounts do NOT detail an actual massacre? Or are you arguing that the HISTORICAL RECORDINGS OF THE SPANISH are reasonably reliable?
CASteinman 2 years ago
They are not reliable because they have contradicted themselves. You say that Spanish weren't liars, if they weren't liars then how come two Spaniards, who took part in the same massacre, ended up with two totally different stories? One claims self-defense so they wouldn't be killed, while the other claims they did it to terrorize the Indigenous people, and that they were never going to be killed in the first place. Obviously one is lying, because they can't both be true.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
"They are not reliable because they have contradicted themselves."
Really? Cite two accounts of Spanish who WERE THERE that contradict one another in any important way.
Yes I agree that there were contradictions from others WHO WERE NOT THERE. I do not count that -- and technical historians tend to look favorably upon the first and earliest accounts of historical events rather than later revisionism.
CASteinman 2 years ago
The Spaniards accounts IS revisionism. The original accounts and documents of Aztec history were destroyed by the Spaniards, and were later rewritten and told by the Spaniards in THERE way. That is indeed revisionism. 2 examples would be Cholula, and the cannibalism which Hernan Cortes claims, but Bernal Diaz doesnt. There you go. I've proven everything I claimed, you haven't. You just continuously claim a bunch of crap.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
"Obviously one is lying, because they can't both be true."
Where on earth did you get the idea that they cannot both be true? Anyway... only ONE is an actual account of the event.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Ok then, can YOU explain to me how they can both be true. Go ahead genius, explain to me how they can both be true.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
They can easily both be true. Notice the facts in common. The king of Chollua greeted Cortez -- who already had an agreement with Tlaxcala. He brought him into the city and housed him in a special area of the city. Cortez had every intention of deposing him but looked for an opportunity. The Cholulan king gave him that opportunity by ALSO plotting against him. They were each going to kill the other. Cortez had better ability.
CASteinman 2 years ago
Wrong. Bartolome says that the Spanish were never going to be killed in the first place. They can't both be true, its that simple. I have a feeling you're barely learning about all this right now, you're not the brightest when it comes to Aztec history.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
Bartolome does NOT say that the Spanish were never going to be killed in the first place.
He just does not say that. Where did you get that idea?
CASteinman 2 years ago
You continually maintain the Aztec cruelty is far exaggerated.
And yet the ONLY people who probably intentionally exaggerated it are the Aztec rulers themselves... as part of their terror campaign against others.
CASteinman 2 years ago
What!?!?!?!? Every time one person conquers another they demonize the people they kill in order to justify. its been going on for centuries. Its obvious the Spanish exaggerated, what better way to justify the fact that they killed an entire nation. All humans do that, demonize and exaggerate one of you're victims in order to make yourself look like the good guy. Its common sense.
TO0DLES213 2 years ago
It is not true that every time one person conquers another they demonize the vanquished. If you really understood Aztec history... you would know this.
It is NOT obvious that the Spanish exaggerated as you claim because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EXAGGERATION and THERE IS EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY.
CASteinman 2 years ago