Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

The comic stuff here.

Moderator: Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
Master
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:01 am
Location: The Wall.
Favorite Character: the bear in my signature

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#31 Post by Neptune » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:46 pm

...And then Maddie died of internal bleeding. The end.
Image Haha, he's so tiny! Where is he going?

User avatar
Templar Master
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:48 pm
Location: México
Contact:

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#32 Post by Technic[Bot] » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 am

Dadrobit wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:28 am
Just a note here. Both Eastern and Western Basitins are militaristic communities to their core. Military life and conflict between the two communities is so essential that when one side begins to gain too much of an advantage over their counterpart, they actually back off and let the other side recover so that they can continue their war.
😕 What?
I knew Basitins were supposed to be weird but that is more than i expected...
There are three things that motivate people: Money, fear and love.
Links to my ramblings:
Twokinds [of] data
PhpBB in the age of facebook

User avatar
Grand Templar
Posts: 1148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Sunny Arizona

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#33 Post by Dadrobit » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:53 am

Technic[Bot] wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:06 am
Dadrobit wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:28 am
Just a note here. Both Eastern and Western Basitins are militaristic communities to their core. Military life and conflict between the two communities is so essential that when one side begins to gain too much of an advantage over their counterpart, they actually back off and let the other side recover so that they can continue their war.
😕 What?
I knew Basitins were supposed to be weird but that is more than i expected...
Yup. It's an old statement, but I believe it's one of the few from this period that is likely still canon to some degree.
Image

Grand Templar
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:19 pm

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#34 Post by Warrl » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:57 am

With that kind of arrangement, I would expect that the Eastern Basitin would have an ambassador who is a respected presence in the Western Basitin court, and vice versa.

Of course, we haven't seen all that much of the ordinary day-to-day governance, so us not having seen such an ambassador means very little.

User avatar
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#35 Post by SpottedKitty » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:56 pm

Warrl wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:38 am
And neither side cares to talk about why the Eastern Basitins rule the western half of the island, and vice versa.
<grumpy!Worf> "We do not discuss it with outsiders." </grumpy>
“Despite rumor, Death isn't cruel — merely terribly, terribly good at his job.”
Terry Pratchett, Sourcery

User avatar
Weaver of Tales
Posts: 5561
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:49 am
Location: POOTISPOOTISPOOTISPOOTIS

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#36 Post by tony1695 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:26 am

SpottedKitty wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:56 pm
Warrl wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:38 am
And neither side cares to talk about why the Eastern Basitins rule the western half of the island, and vice versa.
<grumpy!Worf> "We do not discuss it with outsiders." </grumpy>
I like to think it's something as silly as whoever drew the borders had the map upside down
Gentlementlemen
How do you get to the Rakdos Guild Hall?
You take the psycho path.
Weed la Weed Warning: WEIRD

User avatar
Merchant
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:55 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#37 Post by Panther » Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:33 pm

Neptune wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:46 pm
...And then Maddie died of internal bleeding. The end.
Nope ........... Maddie finishes married to Carver , during a spying mission (remember he's in basitins island) XD
Man is a wolf for man ........ Don't insult the wolves :natani:

User avatar
Templar Master
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:48 pm
Location: México
Contact:

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#38 Post by Technic[Bot] » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:02 am

I see...
I can understand a produ warrior race, even liking a good fight, but enjoying war? That is a bit bizarre, since you now as Sun Tzu said:
Sun Tzu wrote: There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.
And, if I might add, only arms dealers tend to benefit in those situations.
But on the other hand that is one of the few isntances when the "gamey" situation of Mekkan is evident: All these races were created to entertain the local demigods in their weird AoE/DnD custom campaign. And I think the one responsible for the Basitins really decided to min-max them all he could. So they are exceptional warriors, but not much else.
It is also curious how most of the deepest recesses of the Twokinds lore are rarely referenced directly on the comic but only on side-sketches and the forum itself. I mean it makes sense, there is already a lot of thing happening on the comic as it is, but it is curious nonetheless.
There are three things that motivate people: Money, fear and love.
Links to my ramblings:
Twokinds [of] data
PhpBB in the age of facebook

User avatar
Templar Master
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:00 am

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#39 Post by Rafe » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am

Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.

I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.

It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.

And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.

User avatar
Templar
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:20 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#40 Post by AndreRhineDavis » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:48 am

Rafe wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am
Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.

I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.

It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.

And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
That's super interesting :)
The situation you mentioned in Europe in the Middle Ages reminds me of Civilization 6's "warmonger" system.
Basically, as a sovereign nation, you can declare war on anyone you want and destroy/take over anything you want if you have the military force, but if you don't follow certain niceties (e.g. having a justification for war, performing a formal denouncement at least 5 turns before declaring war, not razing any cities, etc), the other nations of the world will get pissed off with you. That is, you don't get punished for war in and of itself, but rather the way you conduct your war has a significant effect on how *third parties* view you and judge you, and therefore they might stop trading with you or put up diplomatic sanctions against you, etc. (and if it gets really bad they might declare war against you!). Also, as you move through the eras, the world becomes less and less tolerant of war in general.
I think this is an interesting model for war in the real world. On one hand, war is a last resort, it's a breakdown of law and rule. In this sense, war has no rules; "war" is what we *call* it when it gets to the point where a nation says "you know what? [censored] the rules. We're going to get what we want by any means necessary". On the other hand, war does not occur in isolation. The whole world judges how a nation behaves in war. So the reason why soldiers and a nation as a whole might follow certain "rules" of war may not be that they care more about these "rules" than their own survival and victory, but rather that they don't want to piss off the rest of the world. They may be able to afford to declare war on this one other nation, but they can't afford for all of their neighbours to stop trading with them and put up diplomatic sanctions against them, let alone declare war against them!

Of course the Basitin example is very different to this because there are no "other neighbours" who are going to judge them; the Humans and Keidran seem not to care what the Basitins do, and the Basitins seem pretty self-sufficient, it doesn't seem like they're super reliant on trade with the humans or Keidran anyway. They're pretty isolationist in general. But yeah, it seems like the Basitin war is very different from a struggle to survive against oppression by any means necessary. It might be a stretch to even call it a "war" in the usual sense. it's more like an ongoing battle that's part of the culture and lifestyle of these two interdependent nations.

Traveler
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:26 pm

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#41 Post by Xian » Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:53 am

Rafe wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am
Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.

I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.

It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.

And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
Actually, they broke the rules of Chivalry quite a bit during the Hundred Years War. The routinely burned the fields and houses of the peasants, and they were killed and raped too (that was called "chevauche", which means "ride"). I guess the nobles decided to turn a blind eye to this, since they weren't personally affected (they lost money, but so long as they were ransomed, they were willing to let slide a few dead peasants and claim that the war was fought following the Code of Chivalry...).

User avatar
Citizen
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:21 pm

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#42 Post by Welsh halfwit » Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:07 am

AmigaDragon wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:25 pm
Irrelevant for Reni's interrogation, I've been wondering if Karen knows any keidran, and now whether Brutus knows any human. On the wall during the attack, were they speaking human or being magically translated?
Welsh halfwit wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:27 am
Brutus' thoughts. "Food, food, food... Human with Keidran ears!???
Don't forget "DRAGON!"
He already knows about the Dragon though.
Corp Davidstow. Don't mess with the mouse.

User avatar
Templar Master
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:48 pm
Location: México
Contact:

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#43 Post by Technic[Bot] » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:46 pm

Rafe wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am
Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.

I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.
or
It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.

And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
You reminded me my history classes in high-school. Used to love history you know. And your comment is mighty interesting.
Anyhow to add some relevant about this type or organized conflict. Xochiyáoyotl or floral wars* was a form of ritual wars practiced by aztecs and other native people in Mexico. In these conflict two opposing "armies" faced each other in an specifically designated place called either yaotlallí or cuauhtli. The objective of these battle was not to rout the enemy forces, nor to win the battle but to get captives. These captives and prisoners were then took home and sacrified to the god of war Huitzilopochtli. They did these as they believed that the gods ran on blood and if no sacrifices were made the sun would stop rising in the morning.
Sure in this conflict people could and did died and get hurt but that was not the point you wanted captives. And also this was no normal war either, aztecs did fought conventional wars from time to time, mainly to capture the different lordships located in the area. In these wars you took no prisoners, by imperial order.
I can imagine the basitins having a similar arrangement. After whatever made them end on the opposite ends of the island made them realize that all out conflict would results in mutual assured destruction they went to more and organized, "chivalrous" conflict were they could exercise their blood lust martial prowess without necessarily killing each other.

*citation needed
There are three things that motivate people: Money, fear and love.
Links to my ramblings:
Twokinds [of] data
PhpBB in the age of facebook

Traveler
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:26 pm

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#44 Post by Xian » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:10 am

Technic[Bot] wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:46 pm
Rafe wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:48 am
Some Long-Winded History Notes from Professor Rafe:
I minored in History, and ended up working as a historian, with one of my main areas of study being the history and effects of warfare. There have been periods in human history when wars were conducted under a very strict and mutually respected rules. This usually happens when the combatants are very close in religion and culture. Arrangements like this seem to come and go in cycles. Although it never worked all that perfectly, the "High Middle Ages" in Europe saw a period where warfare was somewhat regulated by the rules of Chivalry, and a lot of pressure from the Church to be non-violent (at least to other Christians). Basically, armies fought other armies, and were supposed to leave civilians alone, prisoners had to be properly cared for (at least the ones with rich friends), churches and monasteries were off-limits, you weren't supposed to fight on Sunday or religious holy days - things like that.

I remember reading an account of a battle for a besieged castle, where the army attacking the castle decided to have their sappers dig a tunnel under the castle to collapse one of its walls. The force defending the castle found out about it, and broke into the tunnel, starting an underground battle in the dark tunnel. The fighting was like nothing any of them had seen before. Everyone thought it was great, and pretty soon soldiers on both side were lining up and saying something like "C'mon! You've been down there long enough, it's my turn now!" I can't remember the outcome, but under Chivalry, if a castle surrendered, you couldn't loot it or harm any of the defenders.
or
It could be the Basitins have a similar respect for rules like these. When wars are more or less run in a way that the entire society isn't wiped out, they can last a long time. You may have heard of one European war that did. It was fought between the French House of Valois and their allies, against the Plantagenets and their allies, who were running most of Western France and England. It lasted from the year 1337 until 1453. They call it "The Hundred Year's War". Plenty of good stories and movies about that one.

And as to the Eastern Basitins being in the west and vice-versa, I can imagine the Eastern Basitins making a major push to capture the Western capitol. and in a countermove, the Western Basitins move to cut off the Eastern attack by flanking them and cutting them off from their capitol and their supplies (Kind of like the "On to Richmond"/"On to Washington" campaigns in the U.S. Civil War). But what ends up happening is, both of them succeed and capture their enemy's capitols. The Eastern Basitins control the West of the island, and the Western Basitins control the East. After arguing about who has to surrender to whom, they mutually decide to occupy each others land and keep fighting, which is where we stand today.
You reminded me my history classes in high-school. Used to love history you know. And your comment is mighty interesting.
Anyhow to add some relevant about this type or organized conflict. Xochiyáoyotl or floral wars* was a form of ritual wars practiced by aztecs and other native people in Mexico. In these conflict two opposing "armies" faced each other in an specifically designated place called either yaotlallí or cuauhtli. The objective of these battle was not to rout the enemy forces, nor to win the battle but to get captives. These captives and prisoners were then took home and sacrified to the god of war Huitzilopochtli. They did these as they believed that the gods ran on blood and if no sacrifices were made the sun would stop rising in the morning.
Sure in this conflict people could and did died and get hurt but that was not the point you wanted captives. And also this was no normal war either, aztecs did fought conventional wars from time to time, mainly to capture the different lordships located in the area. In these wars you took no prisoners, by imperial order.
I can imagine the basitins having a similar arrangement. After whatever made them end on the opposite ends of the island made them realize that all out conflict would results in mutual assured destruction they went to more and organized, "chivalrous" conflict were they could exercise their blood lust martial prowess without necessarily killing each other.

*citation needed
Actually, many of the Aztec's neighbors didn't share that view on war and religion (they did sacrifice human beings as part of their religion too, but not at a level that demanded to launch actual wars to provide enough victims...), and loathed them so much that when the Spaniards arrived they provided tens of thousands of warriors to help destroy the Aztecs...

As a matter of fact, the Aztecs had a reputation of being quite irrational and bloodthirsty when it come religious matters...

An concrete example from actual Aztec religious history: When the Aztecs were still a homeless, errant people wandering around North America in search of a place to settle down, they arrived to the lands of Culhuacan, where they were greeted by the king. The Aztecs told him that, as a way to show their gratitude, they would make one of his daughters "the wife of their god", implying that she would be made their great priestess.
The king of Culhuacan, flattered by their offer, accepted it, and sent them his favorite daughter. Soon after, he was invited to a ritual to honor the god Xipe Totec...
The lord of Culhuacan came, sat and feasted with the leaders of the Aztecs, and when the ritual was about to start... the priest of Xipe Totec appeared, wearing the skin of the princess as a body suit...

Yeah, they had taken the chance to use trickery to capture and sacrifice a virgin of royal blood, not caring that her father was the only leader willing to accept them in his lands (no wonder nobody else wanted then around!). The king of Culhuacan was incredibly pissed, of course, and he ordered his army to genocide the Aztecs, who had to escape and hide in a swamp, where they built their city, Mexico.

User avatar
Templar Master
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:48 pm
Location: México
Contact:

Re: Comic for June 29th, 2019: Checking on the Prisoner(s)

#45 Post by Technic[Bot] » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:11 am

Xian wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:10 am

Actually, many of the Aztec's neighbors didn't share that view on war and religion (they did sacrifice human beings as part of their religion too, but not at a level that demanded to launch actual wars to provide enough victims...), and loathed them so much that when the Spaniards arrived they provided tens of thousands of warriors to help destroy the Aztecs...

As a matter of fact, the Aztecs had a reputation of being quite irrational and bloodthirsty when it come religious matters...

An concrete example from actual Aztec religious history: When the Aztecs were still a homeless, errant people wandering around North America in search of a place to settle down, they arrived to the lands of Culhuacan, where they were greeted by the king. The Aztecs told him that, as a way to show their gratitude, they would make one of his daughters "the wife of their god", implying that she would be made their great priestess.
The king of Culhuacan, flattered by their offer, accepted it, and sent them his favorite daughter. Soon after, he was invited to a ritual to honor the god Xipe Totec...
The lord of Culhuacan came, sat and feasted with the leaders of the Aztecs, and when the ritual was about to start... the priest of Xipe Totec appeared, wearing the skin of the princess as a body suit...

Yeah, they had taken the chance to use trickery to capture and sacrifice a virgin of royal blood, not caring that her father was the only leader willing to accept them in his lands (no wonder nobody else wanted then around!). The king of Culhuacan was incredibly pissed, of course, and he ordered his army to genocide the Aztecs, who had to escape and hide in a swamp, where they built their city, Mexico.
Well most actual scholars consider that Xochiyailyotl were less "war" and more ritual conflicts, the number of sacrifices that these events provided is considered to be way small compared to other events and most accounts of them are considered to be very exaggerated by the spanish. Not to say there were not many sacrifices: In the "New dedication of the greater temple"* (1487) over 10k persons were sacrificed.
And yes most other nations on Mesoamerica were really not on speaking terms with Aztecs/Mexicah mostly as they have managed to conquer most of them. The aztecs for their part did not ruled directly over the conquered lordships but simply levied taxes. So when the Spanish arrived most people saw them as a way to get rid of the aztec rule.
And yes curiously enough the Aztec did come from the north, Aztlan as they called it, and when they finally arrived to the Mexico's Valley they were pushed by everyone else: Tepanecas, Xochimilcas, Tlatelolcas. Into the Great Texcoco lake which I can hardly compare with a swap, were they founded Tenochtitlan. Funnily enough the most bloodshed that city saw was when the spaniards finally breached in 1521 an routed the city. The channels that went all thorough the city were then filled by blood.

*poor translation
There are three things that motivate people: Money, fear and love.
Links to my ramblings:
Twokinds [of] data
PhpBB in the age of facebook

Post Reply