ere was social pressure on the Aztec warrior to at least act as if he were fearless and ready to face death in battle. As Clendinnen writes, to act cowardly, to refuse to fight and kill, to fail to advance through military training according to the schedule of education into military fearlessness---any or all of these shortcomings meant that the individual would be marked for life as a coward, would suffer at least psychological and emotional ostracism, and would be relegated to the life of a menial laborer instead of the life of an honored and privileged warrior with wealth and power for himself and his family. In other words, the social forces at work in the Aztec Empire were tremendous in terms of encouraging fearlessness in battle.
All cultures which develop through conquest and expansion necessarily place an emphasis on the military and on wartime heroics, but this emphasis in other cultures ancient and modern in many cases allowed and allow for options other than such unadulterated fearlessness. The empire of the United States, for example, allowed for conscientious objection, alternative service, etc. Even in the unpopular Vietnam War, young men were at least temporarily viewed with disdain by certain segments of the populace, but their entire lives were not affected as would have been the life of the Aztec warrior who failed to march into battle ready and even eager to die.
The Aztec Empire in its origins and expansion was marked not only by war, but also by hard work, a pioneer spirit, innovative approaches to the physical environment, favorable opportunities to radically alter that environment, and an emphasis on developing and expanding land holdings. The military emphasis of the Aztecs in the early years was characterized not by conquest which would expand its own territory imperialistically, but rather by exploits which benefitted others. The combination of the military and the environmental and social marked the o...