…Carl von Clausewitz and other philosophers of war have distinguished the concepts of force and power in relation to statecraft. In the broadest sense, power is ideological capital, predicated on military strength and influence in the global political sphere. In contrast, force is the exertion of military might to coerce other nations to your political will.
While power can be sustained through a strong economy, alliances and moral influence, force is expended. It drains resources and can erode internal political capital as well as global influence if it is used in a way that is perceived as arrogant or imperialistic.
The Aztec empire formed in 1428 as a triple alliance between the city-states of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan, with Tenochtitlan eventually dominating the political structure. The empire exerted force through seasonal military campaigns and balanced this with a power dynamic of sacrificial display, threat, tribute and a culture of racial superiority.
In both its use of force and power, the Aztec empire was coercive and depended on fear to rule. Those subjugated by the empire, and those engaged in what seemed perpetual war, held great animosity and distrust of the Aztecs. The empire was thus built on conquered people and enemies waiting for the right opportunity to overthrow their overlords…
Maybe we should bring back the war of the flowers.
username checks out
Also, we’re kind of already there, the main difference seems to be that we’re not sacrificing nobles en-mass (yet).
The wiki article makes it sound like a custom born of perceived resource scarcity where they would send some people away so the rest could have more.
It’s every expansive empire, but even biological life follows the square cube law.
Once something gets so big, it can’t survive.
For life it has to do with transporting oxygen throughout the body.
For empires it’s being able to maintain and pacify the populace of conquered lands. If you expand too fast, you don’t have the populace on your side and have already moved troops forward. Then you end up with rebellion between your troops and your city. If your lucky it just causes a logistical nightmare when rebels stick to your own lands.
If you’re unlucky they march in towards your capital forcing you to pull troops back and if your unconquered enemy capitalizes, your troops are eventually caught in the middle.
But impatient rulers destroy empires.