Batman is heading to Mexico. HBO Max Latin America has ordered an original animated feature-length film that takes the DC Comics character south of the border. The streamer will launch the Dark Knight story Batman Azteca: Choque De Imperios (Aztec Batman: Clash of Empires). The news was unveiled at the Guadalajara International Film Festival.
In the time of the Aztec Empire, Yohualli Coatl – a young Aztec boy – experiences tragedy when his father and village leader, Toltecatzin, is murdered by Spanish Conquistadors. Yohualli escapes to Tenochtitlan to warn King Moctezuma and his high priest, Yoka, of imminent danger. Using the temple of Tzinacan, the bat god, as a lair, Yohualli trains with his mentor and assistant, Acatzin, developing equipment and weaponry to confront the Spaniard invasion, protect Moctezuma’s temple, and avenge his father’s death.
https://deadline.com/2022/06/batman-azteca-hbo-max-orders-animated-feature-mexico-1235044624/
Well this sound even more bizarre than Batman Ninja, I’m curious.
Batman Ninja could have. Dennis so awesome
I'm still mad
Batman Ninja is the best throwback to early localizations when the two American guys admitted they didn't follow any of the original script outlines and just made stuff up on the fly.
Why not Blue Beetle ?
Blue Beetle isn't Batman.
It could be cool. And it's nice to see more Aztec stuff on TV/film following Onyx Equinox and Maya and the Three.
We are literally gonna get Mexican Joker
He'll probably be a Conquistador general or something.
A Tlaxcalan court jester would be nice as well.
There's a mention of an Aztec priest called "Yoka" which kinda sounds like Joker
why aren't they using the localizations if it's supposed to be set in mexico
JOKER ESPAÑOL
General Guason Comodin Bromista de los Payasos.
EL BROMAS
Mesoamerican history dumper chiming in and happy to answer questions till I go to bed or if the thread is still up tommorow
Also reminder to watch Onyx Equinox ( if you haven't already, it is both Cinemaphile and is extremely well researched, the best I've ever seen a commercial media production (and for indie Cinemaphile stuff check out Zotz, Codex Black, and Aztec Empire; though Codex Black actually got picked up by IDW, see also https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/119651972/#119695404)
Honestly, the premise sounds decent, as far as authenticity goes. I'm saying that partially based on low expectations because A: rarely anything does Mesoamerica well (hence why I shill Onyx so much: it does an amazing job REGARDLESS of the bar being low) and B: an adaptation of Batman brings with it a lot of baggage that inherently doesn't entirely work in the setting, but FOR WHAT IT IS it sounds like they're trying and giving a shit: The names are all actual Nahuatl or close enough faux Nahuatl, the use of the -tzin honorific is there, the meaning of the names is at least tangential related.
I don't know a ton about batman, but i'd make Joker tied to Tezcatlipoca, who is heavily associated with strife, chaos, mischief, and tricking rulers into their downfall, such as in the infamous pic related.
I'm also sort of sick of needing to center everything around the Conquest, but it's sadly all most people know. If you haven't watched Onyx Equinox yet, check it out: Not only is it NOT focused around contact/the conquest at all, but it instead focuses on conflict between different Mesoamerican civilizations (not just the Aztec and Maya, but also Zapotec and Totonac), and their gods. Even Izel's character arc ties into themes from 16th century Nahuatl poetry and adages from the florentine codex, it's sort of incredible.
And yeah, making him Maya so he could be tied to an actual diety/monster like Camazotz might have worked better.
1/?
cont:
Watch Onyx: You have Maya ball players, an Aztec boy, a Zapotec tomboy, etc fighting against cosmic horror aztec gods.
Mesoamerica had urban state socities, not "tribes". Even the conquistadors like Cortes and Bernal Diaz and Spanish friars like Duranb and Sahagun repeatedly made it a point to praise Mesoamerican cities (see pic), cleanliness, rule of law, and intelligence. You also see missionaries directly comparing them to Greeks and Romans in terms of being "civilized pagans"; in spite of sacrifices.
History doesn't have good guys and bad guys, everybody involved in the conquest was trying to use it to their own ends: Cortes wanted glory, the Governor of Cuba wanted to reap the rewards of the mainland for himself, Moctezuma II/the Mexica of the Aztec capital wanted to court the Conquistadors into becoming subjects, Texcoco wanted to use them to replace Tenochtitlan as the seat of Aztec imperial power. Even Tlaxcala, which was was using the Conquistadors to escape Aztec aggression, seemed to have still used the Conquistador to commit a massacre and prop up Tlaxcalatec puppets in Cholula.
Regarding sacrifices, I do think acting like it's somehow any worse then the religions purges and wars that happened in Medieval Eurasia is very arbitrary: Both are religious murder, it's just one is for your own god vs punishing people for worshipping a different god. Both were also a mix of religious and political violence: most victims in sacrifices in Mesoamerica were captured enemy soldiers, etc
The Aztec empire was a warmongering, militaristically expansionist state, and the capital Tenochtitlan propped a lot of it's ideology and political identity and stability up based on constant conquests; and I think you could make plenty of moral criticisms on that ground, but "One of the most objectively evil nations" I think is unwarranted and based on misunderstandings.
2/?
cont:
When the Aztec Empire DID conquer a city or a town, they generally just demanded taxes of economic goods, military aid and public labor service on request, and some other basic obligations. As long as that was met, they got left alone to self manage and local rulers, laws, and customs were generally kept in place. They did NOT generally sack/raze the city (economic resources were their primary interest in expansionism, a dead city cannot gather fine feathers, pan for gold, or harvest cacao beans), nor were they dragging people off to be sacrificed: Sacrifices weren't demanded as tax/tribute payments other. Even slaves as tax payments was pretty rare: We have 3 large surviving tax documents and slave payments only show up in one and only for a few towns out of hundreds.
Cortes made alliances not because other states (not tribes) resented Mexica rule, but because that hand-off political system where even subjects were effectively independent meant there was no collective national identity and it was in their interest to be fluidly shifting allegiances to gain influence, and if a subject basically got left alone anyways, pledging yourself as an ally or a subject to help somebody else topple your captial or take out your rivals so you can be in a higher political position in the new kingdom you helped prop up is a great method of political advancement: That's what was going on with Cortes and it's very common in Mesoamerica, the Aztec Empire itself came about in the same circumstance.
See: https://pastebin.com/VqW97h93
I'm shilling Onyx a lot, but it also does a great job of this: while the focus is more on gods, magic, and monster's, what look at the cities and societies we do get shows them, you know, as actual functioning societies with good and bad people and actual infrastructure and social classes and ethnic disputes.
Same for the other media I mentioned, even moreso
3/?
cont:
see the pastebin in . What you posted is an extreme misunderstanding of the way the Aztec Empire worked politically. They were warmongering expansionists but very hands off with the places they did conquer as long as they coughed up economic goods as taxes. Cortes got allies not because they were opppressive and were resented, but because the hands off system enabled and encouraged opportunistic coups
Also that reminds me, for you,
and
, sacrifice was a pan mesoamerican practice that basically every culture/civilization in the region did. So when I say the Aztec weren't demanding sacrifices as tribute, i'm not saying that there was no sacrifice in their subjects/vassals, just that the sacrifice that did occur was in accordance with their existing local customs.
There were a few states nearby the Aztec never conquered (see pic for reference, though this sadly excludes all the Maya states, the one that includes them I have is 2big for Cinemaphile; see also the image I posted here
showing how this and other maps don't convey how dense the region was with cities and towns)
Tlaxcala (and Huextozinco and Cholula) are the most famous example; though people mistake it for a subject which is why they think the Aztec were oppressive/dragged people off for sacrifices, when in reality Tlaxcala was a well-defended state they were trying to wear down to be able to conquer.
Another powerful enclave was the kingdom of Tututepec, the only unconquered state in Oaxaca: It was the remnant of a larger empire founded by the absolute gigachad 8 deer jaguar claw a few centuries prior. There was also Yopitzinco and Metztitlan, a Tlapanec and Otomi kingdom(s) respectively, but those 2 probably could have been conquered if the Aztec really felt the need to. Lastly, Teotitlan may or may not have been a vassal or an unconquered state the Aztec were on good terms with.
4/?
cont:
What seperates the Purepecha empire vs them is that at the time of contact, it was an actual rival power rather then just a tough-nut-to-crack: Tlaxcala was being worn down over time and would have been conquered if Cortes didn't show up, Tututepec probably could have been as well, and as I said, Teotitlan, Yopitzinco and Metzitlan were small potatoes without lucrative resources; but the Aztec never got close to doing real harm to the Purepecha and they had a cold war with fortified borders after attempted invasions and counteroffenses ended up going nowhere.
Sadly the lack of cities/towns is an issues with all maps, even ones that show the Maya region like
To be clear, I am not saying that the Aztec Empire was beloved as foreign state or as a dominant political force to it's subjects: It was still a large, expansionistic military power, and obviously even if you get mostly left alone, nobody likes paying taxes, especially at the threat of military retribution if you stop paying (though even you may not get sacked, often just re-conquered with your temples burned: full sacks/massacres/mass-enslaving was mostly if you incited OTHER cities to rebel)... I'm just saying that the idea that they were administratively onerous or demanded sacrifices is wrong. Also, keep in mind i'm also speaking in generalities: Sometimes they DID sack places they conquered, for example, it just wasn't the norm.
I think how they were viewed would really vary on a state by state basis: Tlaxcala obviously disliked them, since they were getting invaded, wheras Teotitlan was probably a independent state on good terms with them. Some subjects disliked them, while others in the core valley of Mexico area benefitted from the tax income to the area and their political marriages to Tenochtitlan as a result of the Aztec Empire's power. Some foreign states even joined it willingly as vassals for similar reasons or to get protection from rivals, etc
5/6
Also, I already go into this in the pastebin, but a particularly convincing point as to why I am blaming Cortes getting allies on opportunism then resentment, is beyond what I already said, almost every state that participated in the Siege of Tenochtitlan were core valley of Mexico and therefore benefitted from the Aztec Empire's expansionism, and they all only allied with Cortes AFTER Tenochtitlan was already ridden by smallpox, partially massacred, and Moctezuma II dead.
Tlaxcala joined before then, but as i've noted, it sort of had a unique position and actually DID dislike the Mexica for being a constant target of military aggression as a target for conquest. Huextozinco was the only other particpant in the siege not in the valley of mexico/part of the Aztec empire, and it had close political ties to Tlaxcala. The only other state involved that really had a particular reason to dislike Tenochtitlan/the Mexica was Texcoco, and that's because Texcoco was the second most powerful city in the empire and (as the Texcoca accounts say it, though there's some modern skepticism of this) was supposed to be on equal terms with Tenochtitlan but gradually got eclipsed in power.
Even then, only HALF of Texcoco sided with Cortes, namely the heir to the throne that didn't get Mexica support in the war of successon a few years prior, with that war ending in half the city being ruled by one heir and half the other. (on that note, simply because the Aztec empire didn't do direct mangement and imperalism isn't to say they didn't do indirect stuff like this, though again, not super commonly). And even even then, Texcoco still only joined after Tenochtitlan was vulnerable.
6/7, need more
cont:
People with specific handicaps were used as court jesters or courtiers; most often those with dwarfism and hunchbacks (they were associated with the rain deities), and IIRC also some with mental disabilities.. Again, like in Europe, this was also partially a position of respect and power, in that they were seen as advisors or as seers with supernatural insight.
In Tenochtitlan, many actually lived in Moctezuma's zoo, though that sounds worse then it was, since the zoo also contained housing for other royal attendants, officials, and concubines, so in reality it was more like a section of the zoo also just had sleeping chamber for officials in addition to the actual zoo/aquarium part... though I guess less charitably, you could also argue that it was a sign of objectification for all of them beneath the king. It's also of course possible that there was a spectrum here, and that for the hunchbacks/dwarves and concubines in particular, it was more a mix of both: The reality is I don't think we know the symbolism and connotations for sure.
It is also said parents would donate such children to the palaces/zoo. I'm doing this off of memory, I don't have my source in front of my, but I recall this being presented as "because they were well cared for", but on the flip side, I guess you could interpet it as the parents wanting to be rid of them. And sometimes their supernatural ties meant they (and some people with other disabilities) got selected for specific sacrifices that called for it, as well. (volunteering for sacrifice, or in some cases kids, was a thing too, so you could also argue some may have been groomed into that)
So it's sort of a mixed bag depending on how you wanna read into it and how lucky/unlucky they got.
As I said in
though, that's not the approach I would take with Mesoamerican joker. Maybe you could give him a slight hunchback?
7/8
cont:
I already gave multiple shorter tl;drs on it, like the one from
:
>see the pastebin in
[...]
cont:
When the Aztec Empire DID conquer a city or a town, they generally just demanded taxes of economic goods, military aid and public labor service on request, and some other basic obligations. As long as that was met, they got left alone to self manage and local rulers, laws, and customs were generally kept in place. They did NOT generally sack/raze the city (economic resources were their primary interest in expansionism, a dead city cannot gather fine feathers, pan for gold, or harvest cacao beans), nor were they dragging people off to be sacrificed: Sacrifices weren't demanded as tax/tribute payments other. Even slaves as tax payments was pretty rare: We have 3 large surviving tax documents and slave payments only show up in one and only for a few towns out of hundreds.
Cortes made alliances not because other states (not tribes) resented Mexica rule, but because that hand-off political system where even subjects were effectively independent meant there was no collective national identity and it was in their interest to be fluidly shifting allegiances to gain influence, and if a subject basically got left alone anyways, pledging yourself as an ally or a subject to help somebody else topple your captial or take out your rivals so you can be in a higher political position in the new kingdom you helped prop up is a great method of political advancement: That's what was going on with Cortes and it's very common in Mesoamerica, the Aztec Empire itself came about in the same circumstance.
See: https://pastebin.com/VqW97h93
[...]
I'm shilling Onyx a lot, but it also does a great job of this: while the focus is more on gods, magic, and monster's, what look at the cities and societies we do get shows them, you know, as actual functioning societies with good and bad people and actual infrastructure and social classes and ethnic disputes.
Same for the other media I mentioned, even moreso
3/?....They were warmongering expansionists but very hands off with the places they did conquer as long as they coughed up economic goods as taxes. Cortes got allies not because they were oppressivel and were resented, but because the hands off system enabled and encouraged opportunistic coups...sacrifice was a pan mesoamerican practice that basically every culture/civilization in the region did...i'm not saying that there was no sacrifice in their subjects/vassals, just that the sacrifice that did occur was in accordance with their existing local customs.
If that's still too long for you then too bad, I guess.
As I also noted before I really don't care about if you wanna consider them bad or evil, I just wanna make sure people have accurate information and aren't having double standards. Draw your own moral conclusions.
I actually really need to head to bed, but I can chime in in the thread is still up tommorow. And yeah, from the Conquistador perspective, it seems like Cortes "liberating" subject states or turning them against each other, but (and the pastebin goes into this) in reality the Mesoamerican states were playing Cortes against one another too, with this sort of backstabby, ever-shifting-of-alliances and ganging up on existing rivals and captials being pretty typical in the region, due to the more hands off political models in the region being common: It just backfired because Spain wasn't playing the same political game (at least in the long run, in some places it worked out for the first few decades) with the states that pledged themselves as subjects gaining/retaining power and did colonialism instead; and epidemics happened.
If you or anybody else wants more resources, my directories are here: https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12600924/#12604922
8/8 for now.
good too see you.
Have you read this? http://www scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-62862017000100009
cont because I have no self control
For the sake of further clarification:
>i'm not saying that there was no sacrifice in their subjects/vassals, just that the sacrifice that did occur was in accordance with their existing local customs
By this, I mean to say that if a city was conquered by the Aztec empire, it was not mandating sacrifices or taking people for them as tribute: the city/town would still be doing whatever sacrifices they were already doing
also worth noting that while the Mexica did not take sacrifices as tribute, and only rarely took slaves (some of whom could be sacrificed, though there were rules for how/when) as taxes/tribute, taking slaves/captives from enemy armies who got sacrificed, or some civilian slaves as spoils given by the surrendered city after being conquered WAS frequent: but slaves as regular payments were not
Again, just trying to be as informative/transparent as possible
I actually can't read Spanish, which always shocks people, it's very unusual for somebody to be this into this field and to only speak or read english; so I can only view that through google translate (I wish I did read spanish, i'd have way more sources)
Seems to be talking about Tezcatlipoca's various epithets and aspevts? That's one of the confusing aspects of Aztec mythology, the gods have so many minor variations and even seperate dieties often share iconography and sort have their attributes flow into one another. Doesn't help that we have a limited amount of sources so in some cases it's hard to say what the exact symbolism or signficance of things are
I always stress to people that there's a lot of surviving sources on Aztec history and culture, in spite of the spanish book burnings; and this is true (the florentine codex alone is thousands of pages of in depth information) but with religious iconography and symbolism it really is often as much interpretation as it is learning
9/9 for now.
Keep going anon, I'm saving your pastebin for a read later. Back then I studied it from the Conquistador perspective, for the adventure, God, Gold and Glory. It's fascinating to see it from the Aztec and the other city states perspectives
>Cortes got allies not because they were opppressive and were resented, but because the hands off system enabled and encouraged opportunistic coups
Persia-esque
hmm interesting anon, I always get impression that the other urban cities just disliking the Aztec governance and therefore happily supporting the Spanish
>several sorceresses made fun of Huemac for his inability to get women who were fat enough
> Huemac then had sex with these sorceress
HOLY FRICKING BASED I KNEEL
I won’t watch that show because it has gay characters I will just stick to the zorro tv show
LMAO
SOUTH PARK MEME IS REAL
MEXICAN JOKER
Well, the Aztec Empire still fell, but at least you tried, Batman.
Batman is a versatile character that you can do many alternate takes with, but with some Elseworlds, you ever just wonder "why did this have to be Batman in the first place?" They could have done a totally new character who happens to be a vigilante avenging his father's death in 16th-Century Mexico. Hey, maybe they could have made the first popular, enduring superhero whose main setting is prior to the 20th Century.
Oh well. Still could be a cool take on Batman. It's just that this seems like an opportunity to expand superheroes instead of just do another "Batman, but in setting X."
>"why did this have to be Batman in the first place?"
because you and I both know it wouldn't get even half the attention without the brand recognition
Because people honestly only care about the big names when it comes to superheroes.
>Mexican Batman
>being an animated DC movie, it'll probably be dubbed in Venezuela
Grim Fandango, a game based on Mexican traditions and with Mexican characters, was localized and dubbed in Spain.
That was because videogames weren't dubbed in latam then except Microsoft games iirc. Also the manolo dub of Grim was kino at least.
Coco wasn’t dubbed in Spain. Neither was Mucha Lucha not Víctor & Valentino. Spaniards had to watch them in Latino.
>Latino
>implying
It's being produced as a Spanish-language movie by a Mexican production company. The English version will be the dub, sort of like Batman Ninja.
>Venezuela
They're alright. There were some animated shows that I could swear had Mexican dubs but it turns out they were Venezuelan. Forgot which ones. Also I had no idea the Venezuelan dubbing industry still existed. I imagined they had become a communist hellhole.
I’m Mexican and I wish it ended up dubbed there. Outside of Live-Action stuff, Mexican DC dubs always feel…off.
Is being dubbed in Mexico. This guy is voicing this Mexa Batman. He was the lead of a Netflix original series called Diablero.
https://deadline.com/2022/06/batman-azteca-hbo-max-orders-animated-feature-mexico-1235044624/
Venezuelan dub was worthy because of Ruben Leon (Joker). Now that he stopped voicing him its not the same anymore.
>Yohualli Coatl
Yohualli means "night" and Coatl means "serpent", thus, "night serpent"
>more "le human sacrificing tribal mexican culture good, civilized spaniah culture mexico bad" horseshit
VIKINGS HAD HUMAN SACRIFICE FOR THEIR GODS
YOU FRICKING moron
Yes and they were better off when Christians finally converted the snowBlack folk.
>spanish
>vikings
>"y-you had bad things too white boy!"
Mexican jimmies officially rustled.
Remember the alamo lol.
>ENOUGH with the Bat!
>developing equipment and weaponry to confront the Spaniard invasion, protect Moctezuma’s temple, and avenge his father’s death.
This is going to be cringe. Why can't they just do other shit? Fight the other enemies.
t. Mexican.
It woulda been kino if it was about some chad Mayan fighting the Aztec priesthood with them being his version of the mob Bruce fights in his early years.
Honestly yeah that that would be sick. Im sick of the whole 'spain bad' when the aztecs were literally one of the most objectively evil nations to ever exist.
Not excusing everything the spainish did, but this idea the natives were perfect is such bullshit
I wish they have chosen the Purepecha instead (or should I say PurepeCHADS). They were the only population in the region that managed not to be oppressed by the Aztecs, they wore animal-like suits while in warrior mode so a Batman-like hero could work, they were gold miners so a Wayne-like family could work and most importantly, they are a winning story (unlike the Aztecs).They were the underdog who resisted against evil.
My ancestors sacrificed children and practiced ritualistic torture and cannibalism. So the jump to Catholicism after colonization wasn't that big a leap, to be quite honest.
Road to El Dorado at least made it clear that its Mayaztec stand-ins were no saints. Some of them were swindlers and con artists (Chel) and some were outright scumbags (Tzekhel khan).
1.Tzinacan is not a real god it just the Nahuatl word for biting bat
2. yeah just batman ninja
3. another batman film which at this point it just so boring and unoriginal who even care at this point
>is murdered by Spanish Conquistadors
how original can't have an aztec story without needing to throwing imperialism commentary. Which is kinda hilarious come how the aztec got the least worst than any other native american tribes when the Europeans came mostly destroy by the various tribes that the Spaniard got on their side (eventually betray later down)
How come the spanish speakers will most likely love this like japan loves when we depict them as ninjas and samurais? Why are they never offeneded by this stuff?
There's nothing to be offended by.
Mexico despite the massive political corruption and American propaganda have lots of pride in their heritage & religion the myth of banditos, conquistadors & Aztecs is embraced just as Americans embrace the myths of patriots & cowboys.
In case of the Mexicans, they're very blunt about their mythology and history and don't like the white-washing of it. That's why when some gringo Twitter rando tried to start a campaign to "cancer" Onyx Equinox for being "problematic", they shut that shit down fast.
MESOAMERICANON
I SUMMON THEE
Glad that they are putting out original animated dc Movies for hbo max instead of the usual dvd shit, hopefully they follow suit with other characters.
Too bad only Mexicans care about Mexicans.
It's okay. Less globohomosexual noise.
Maybe they won't shit this up as much as the Ninja one.
If nothing else, the designs should be interesting.
I loved that stupid movie when I was a kid.
>Yoka
Joker?
He's gonna sell the Aztecs out for the lulz and some Spaniard Harley pussy.
I want Aztec era clussy. She better have silly footwear or bare feet
Harley will be la Malinche.
Finally, an opportunity for kino Batman music
I hate it when an interesting enough story gets co-opted by commercial interests and some other ip is crowbarred in to pander to the lowest common denominator
What makes you think this was meant for anything other than a Batman story to begin with?
Doesn't DC has a Aztec character or 2?
well sorta
you have Aztek a sorta Mexican moon knight meets cyberpunk
the you have El Dorado the superfreinds hero who lead the mexican branch of the justice league Justicia who has a bunch of aztec inspire heroes
then their is the mexican supervillain & suicide squad member el diablo
Why does HBO Max have such a hard on for latinos anyway? Every new release is catered to them in someway.
It's a huge market. It would be stupid not to do so.
But most of them just pirate the services.
Maybe some poor country like Argentina but streaming services are pretty big in Mexico as are cinema theaters. Mexico has the 4th largest kinoplex chain in the world.
Argentina has a higher GDP per capita than Mexico
and yet...
Warner’s properties have been huge over here for decades. Couple that with the fact that HBO Max was offered at a competitive price and you got a smash hit.
That sounds terrible
He is going to eat shit when conquistador Joker uses his smallpox gas on him.
adsdsadsa
Batmxn
>The animated feature comes from Warner Bros. Animation and DC in partnership with Anima and Chatrone.
This will be so bad.
SOVL. I'm curious about Joker and Harley though. Did Aztec society had anything similar to Jesters or Circus types?
Yes, court jesters are pretty much a universal thing.
oh good, I love glorifying the Triple Alliance who were so evil that their vassal states sent tens of thousands of troops to fight side by side with the Spanish to overthrow their insane and monstrous regime.
Aztec Batman needs to be at least half as badass as Tzilacatzin or Tlahuicole.
This sounds cool
Can’t wait for it to be a solid 7/10
The latinamerican dub of Batman animated movies isnt done in Mexico. It is done in Venezuela. I wonder if this will be the exception.
I knew something was iffy when I was watching them.
This homie expects us to read his heavily editorialized 10000 word essay about how "ACKTUALLY the culture with rutualistic mass sacrifices of children were not that bad".
Be concise mother fricker.
They would murder the frick out of Globohomo. They're good in nature's eyes
While I disagree with your simplification learning about other people's history like Spain itself and the American Colonies I just cannot wrapped my head around historians not realizing that maybe even people ever so slightly hindered by taxes will believe themselves to be completely and utterly tortured by the conquest.
I mean frick perhaps one sacrifice for prisoners of war can be a long remembered grudge.
I mean, couldn't you simplify literally any society to sound evil? All nations, especially empires, do fricked up shit.
>Tzinacan
uh. interesting I didn't know about him
>Warner Bros is so desperate for content they're ripping off art projects for ideas
Batman is based off of Zorro. Why not just make a Zorro-Like Batman film instead??
Mexican here, like, actual Mexican not some fake ass 3rd gen Latinx pocho paisa mf.
We don't want this.
Speak for yourself.
frick off pochos, you're not real Mexicans
frick you i like the idea
Yo si lo quiero puto.
usa Tinder pues. Aquí no hallarás lo que quieres
I shit on DC comics all the time because I wish they’d release at least one good product every year but that’s too much to expect I guess
So where's the complaints about race swaps and replacements?
Literally made in Mexico for a South American audience. He's a what-if local story, not a replacement for Bruce. This is more akin to Takuya Yamashiro than Miles Morales.
>Aztec Batman
>Aztec Namor
What's going on here?
Hollywood wants the Latinx audience
Even if they have to create it from scratch.
>beaner power fantasy
NOSOTROS ERAMOS HOMBRES MURCIELAGOZ
>Beaner power fantasy
Pathetic. THIS is what a beaner power fantasy looks like.
>Esto es el fin Cell Rojo!
Would it better if they made Bane as a villain?
>Anima
Legend Quest was okay, but still below what I'd expect out of an animated DC movie. I hope WB really paid them big bucks for this.
>Ánima
I don't have a good feeling about that.
The Aztec were one of the most evil empires ever. They didn't go to war for resources or gold or empire but to gather sacrifices. They built towers of human skulls. Their are other cultures in south america but for some reason pulp culture only cares about Aztec.
METAL
>Aztec
For fricks sake, why they always have to milk Aztecs? Mayans literally had a bat deity, why not use that as the basis of the story?
Will he have a no kill rule? Doesn't seem fitting for a Aztec not to tear out hearts from living victims.
How do all these woke-sploitation pieces of media keep succeeding enough for them to continue? Or is it that Hollywood "fail on purpose for tax loophole" gimmick i heard about a while ago?
Guess we're getting another Hispanic Joker
Thank you anon very interesting. Surprised you don't speak Spanish, may I ask were you studied?
I didn't, actually: I started out just binging askkhistorians posts, then I moved onto speaking with other hobbyists and academic researchers, and then started to read published research papers and academic books from there.
I'd love to pursue the topic professionally but I'm not sure it's worth it, especially considering I'd be going to college quite late (and missed my chance to have a fallback plan if stuff doesn't work out) and I don't know how i'd pay for it.
Any recommendation where i should start? i'm making a story based on mesoamerican cultures
direct to video?
I think this would have been more interesting if he was against corrupt priests exploiting sacrifices for personal gain or something instead of Spain bad again.
The Pochteca, a merchant class, had been gaining power and influence that was sort of circumventing the commoner-noble divide which existed and was usually pretty tightly enforced (with social mobility being lessened over time) as a sort of middle class.
You could probably do something with that, or how classist Mexica society was in general (emphasis on "Mexica", Tenochcitlan was particularly classist, other Nahua cities variously less so: Tlaxcala was very egalitarian and was a sort o republic, for example; again see
for Aztec vs mexica vs nahua)
Based merchant class allowing social mobility to exist. Same thing happened in Europe. I, for one, am thankful for our israeli overlords.
> That's incorrect, economic resources WERE their motivation
And what of the flower wars Anon?
So, the way Flower Wars are usually described are as ritualistic battles focused on captive taking, which were forced onto or launched against existing subjects as sacrifice taking raids/conflicts.
Rather, AFAIK, Flower Wars as preformed against existing subjects were mostly mutually agreed upon events to cement alliances or other occasions (though some sources state that the actual soldiers may not have been privy that these were arranged affairs and that their lives were toyed with in them).When used against enemy states, they COULD be used to "farm" sacrifices against them ( Moctezuma II told Cortes they left Tlaxcala around for this reason), but they had pragmatic uses too: they were a way for states to test the waters with less lethal warfare, which could then escalate into full conflict or die back down (like the one vs Chalco)
The Mexica also liked using them (though they really weren't that common aside from against Tlaxcala, Huextozinco, and a few other states) as a tool to weaken enemy states before launching full out conquest: they'd conquer the areas around the state to box them in, then force flower wars on them (how they "forced" it, I'm not sure) and since flower wars could be waged year round (normal campaigns had to be seasonal due to the geography/climate) and and since the Aztec almost invariably had the larger armies and population to call from, they were less impacted vs the target being whittled down.
They also allowed soldiers get trained (though public schools did too) and stay in fighting order, and perhaps as a way to keep soldiers invested in millitary careers, providing chances to gain captives to then rise through the ranks/gain status (commoners could gain honorary noble title and then fine clothing, israeliteelry, etc, or land grants).
11/12
cont:
Some researchers think Flower Wars were entirely a retroactive excuse to justify why the Mexica were never able to fully conquer Tlaxcala: The traditional narrative is that Tlacaelel selected Tlaxcala, Huextozinco, etc as targets for flower wars for "Huitzilopochtli to feed on people like tortillas" (I've also seen the claim that Tlacaelel invented the practice entirely but that seems to be a myth. More prevalent is that Tlacaelel increased the emphasis on the Mexica patron war god Huitzilopochtli and his need of sacrifices to justify expansionism in general, but despite this showing up in even academic sources I can't find much origin for it: Might be legit and I just need to read more, could just be sources extrapolating from the Tlaxcala/huextozinco thing), but as I note, the Mexica were making real military efforts to whittle down Tlaxcala over time, a few years before the Spanish arrive, launching actual, non-flower wars against them too.
Of course, I've also mentioned Flower Wars used against allies/subjects in a mutial agreed upon way, so if THATS' documented they can't be entirely a retroactive excuse, right? There's a few other things here that don't quite add up either. In short, I need to do more reading and message some researchers about the topic, but what I explained is my understanding of them what I have read.
Also it's now really late for me so in addition to some stuff actually not adding up that might be worded like shit, if you need clarification let me know but I am going to bed for real this time.
i love you, autistic aztec history anon
EL AZOTE (FORMA HOMBRE GRANDE)
the way dc would literally die if batman started flopping lmao
Will he throw obsidian batarangs?
that design needs work
I am so tired of this representation crap ...
This looks fricking sick actually, looking forward to it!
ssdasd
Me acorde del Pepe Argento vestido de Batman boludo
>and avenge his father’s death.
wait only one of the parents die? that's new for batman media.