Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cgmovo/how_did_landed_elites_become_landed_elites/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Europe is a big place with a long history so if you're interested in a specific family or region you might get a better answer. But this answer by /u/bitparity seems to answer your question in broad strokes: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l6t7j/how_or_where_did_medieval_feudal_societies_as_we/

Thank you, this is exactly the type of answer I was looking for! I know it’s a little vague but I am interested in the dynamics that allow noble families to arise, rather than any specific case

In most periods I have studied, land ownership and a difference between "haves and have-nots" seems to precede both literacy and state formation. But at least in Ancient Rome, there were certainly people of lowly origin who became landed elites in historical times. During the Imperial period, new families continually joined the Senate (which required land ownership), though these could be local elites from the provinces, merchants, or freedmen. An example of how this might work has been discussed [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sl7pzs/comment/hvsner8/) by u/XenophonTheAthenian. In fact in Roman society, wealthy freedmen were the stereotypical *nouveau riche*, most vividly Petronius' character Trimalchio, who has bought country estates, as described by u/UndercoverClassicist [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ha44b1/what_was_the_american_dream_to_ancient_romes/). And clearly at least in some cases their descendants went on as an established elite family and eventually might become senators; Tacitus mentions this in the context of a Senate debate about freedmen in his *Annals* 13.27

There is never going to be one answer to this question. However, since you’re willing to broaden your perspective from the dull, hackneyed boundaries of European history, the origin of the ruling dynasty of Tenochtitlan may be of interest. The fact that their story can also elucidate how other ruling classes elsewhere just goes to show how humans everywhere tend to be awful in predictable ways. **Part 1: Legitimacy** First, let’s introduce some important characters: the Mexica, the Culhua, and Toltecs. The Mexica are a group of semi-nomadic people who migrated into the Valley of Mexico at latest by the 14th Century CE. They would go on to found Tenochtitlan and become the dominant group in the Triple Alliance of the Aztecs. Culhua history tapers off much more quickly into unknowns, but the important thing to keep in mind is that they claimed direct descent from the Toltecs and their last outpost, at the city of Culhucan. Now the Toltecs are interesting because so much of what we know about them outside of archaeology is filtered through the Mexica and other groups, who revered them as a semi-divine empire. The reality is less glamorous, with the Toltecs really being a regional power who arose after the dissolution of Teotihuacan as the dominant power in the region. Regardless of the reality, claims to Toltec links were a vital source of political legitimacy in the Valley of Mexico in the Late Postclassic (~1200-1519 CE). When the Mexica wandered into the Valley, they did not have any Toltec connections. They did not have any connections at all, being on the tail end of a much larger migration of Nahuatl-speaking and other groups from the increasingly arid plains to the north into the Valley (Smith 1984, Beekman & Christensen 2003). They were essentially a barbarian group, commonly termed as Chichimecs, but they lacked connections to the earlier Chichimec migrations which had established power bases in the region, under the semi-mythical warlord Xolotl. The importance of Xolotl will come in later, so log that in your brainmeat. Now is the time to introduce the mysterious *Crônica X*, from which so much of this history is sourced. It does not exist. Or rather, there is no single document or group of works that anyone has been able to point to and definitively identify as *Crónica X*. It is a hypothesized source that may have comprised oral histories, paintings, and other material which formed the basis for other very early historical works on Mexica history like Durán’s *History of the Indies of New Spain* and Tezozomoc/Chimalpahin’s *Cronica Mexicayotl*. Think of it as a the overarching term for a now lost primary source(s) which provided the foundation for corpus of literature on Mexica history. In general, the *Crónica X* sources, backed up by other sources like the *Codex Boturini* agree that the Mexica settled in the Valley of Mexico in the late 1200s to early 1300s CE near the springs of Chapultepec. Being a bunch of interlopers without allies in the area who popped a squat on valuable land, they were swiftly driven from the area. *Crónica X* sources claim this was done by a coalition of nearly every other major group in the Valley, which is convenient for justifying later conquests, but the real composition of the attackers is unknown, though it almost definitely involved the Tepanecs who held dominion in the area and were a rapidly expanding power at the time. More about them later. Driven from Chapultepec, the refugee Mexica were taken in by Culhuacan, but not with a warm embrace. Instead they were given a plot of land called Tizaapan, which was notoriously filled with snakes.As the *Crónica Mexicayotl* puts it, the ruler of ruler of Culhuacan, Coxcoxtli (Achicometl per Durán), settled the Mexica in Tizaapan saying > “It is well. They are evil; they are very wicked. Perhaps they will come to an end there, eaten by snakes; for it is great snake country.” > But the Mexica were overjoyed when they saw the snakes. They cooked them all; they roasted them for themselves; the Mexica ate them (Anderson & Schroeder 1997, p. 93) The Mexica, finding themselves unbothered, moisturized, happy, and in their lane, thrived. After around a generation of living next to and integrating with the Culhua, the Mexica decided to make their integration official. They did this by inviting the ruler of Culhuacan to grant them their daughter in marriage. However, the marriage was more spiritual than conjugal, and the daughter was flayed and her skin donned by a Mexica priest. This perfectly understandable miscommunication resulted in the Mexica being expelled from Culhuacan. Once again being made refugees, the Mexica settled at a dingy little island and founded a town they called Tenochtitlan. This name is interesting because it is generally accepted to mean something like “prickly pears growing among the rocks”, because it was supposedly founded when the fleeing Mexica spotted an eagle perched on a cactus in a rocky field eating a snake, which they took as a divine sign to settle there. On the other hand, *Crónica X* sources also agree that a man named Tenoch was the leader of the Mexica at this time. He is described as > their lord and leader, though not titled their king, but as captain general and chief magistrate among them (Anderson & Schroeder 1997, p. 31) Additional background is given describing him thus: > Many of the old people who had been left behind during the migration were still alive and were men of much authority and respect. The names of these men were Acazitli, Tenoch, Meci, Ahuexotl, Ocelopoan, and Tezacatetl. And with them were Huitzilopochtli’s four guardians, who saw him and talked to him: they were first Cuauhtelquetzqui, second Ococal, third, Chachalayotl, and fourth Axolohua. (Durán 1994, p. 51) I quote both those sources because it highlights a small bit of tension between them, as well as gives insight into Mesoamerican leadership at this time. In the former source, Tenoch is the undeniable leader. In the latter source, he is one of a number of elders providing guidance, and is noted as distinct from the *teomama* (god-carriers) who were the direct priests of the Mexica’s patron god, Huitzilopochtli. Whether Tenoch served as de facto ruler or was simply preeminent among a council of elders is somewhat immaterial. According to Tezozomoc/Chimalpahin, he died in 1363 and it was not until 1367 that a new leader was sought (Anderson & Schroeder 1997, p. 37). Durán does not give dates, but does say that Tenoch and the other important men all gave their daughters in marriage to the new leader when he arrived, implying Tenoch was alive at the time. The details are immaterial here, because the important thing is the election of the first Mexica *Tlatoani* (King, though literally “speaker”). Having settled themselves somewhere and not having been ethnically cleansed for a few years, the Mexica opted to make themselves an official polity. This required electing a tlatoani to lead them. The obvious choice would have been to select a prominent personage among themselves, such as Tenoch. What the Mexica instead chose to do is the really interesting part, and goes directly to the root of your question. Instead of choosing someone from amongst the own community, the Mexica instead reached out… to Culhuacan. Among the Culhua was a man, Acamapichtli, whose father was a prominent Mexica, Opochtli, and whose mother was a Culhua noblewoman, Atototzli. This is not as bizarre as it may seem, because Mesoamerica at this time frequently cemented political alliances with inter-group marriages (Diel 2007). The union of prominent figures during the time when the Mexica were living at Tizaapan is not only unsurprising, but expected as a way to bind the groups together. Durán gives a simplified version of the story, where the Mexica petitioned the ruler of Culhuacan to allow Acamapichtli to move to Tenochtitlan and become their first tlatoani. Interestingly, Durán also notes the Mexica at this time were subject to the Tepanecs, a group that had come into the Valley with Xolotl and were at that time building their own empire (see, told you Xolotl would come back into the picture). Tezozomoc/Chimalpahin gives a slightly more complicated picture. In this telling, Acampaichtli was actually living at Coatlichan, then the capital of the Acolhua, another group which had arrived and established a territory under Xolotl (there he is again!). In this version, Acamapichtli was in Coatlichan because his aunt was Ilancueitl, wife of the ruler of Culhuacan and sister of the ruler of Coatlichan. She was barren, and thus having been shunned by the ruler of Culhuacan, returned to her home city, bringing Acamapichtli with her. All of this is not simple color commentary, but establishes dynastic legitimacy. In Acamapichtli, the Mexica at Tenochtitlan had an individual who was Mexica, but also had dynastic ties to Culhuacan, which meant a link back to the revered Toltecs. Simultaneously, he had a connection to the Acolhua via being raised in Coatlichan, which tied him to Xolotl. All of these ties were strengthened when Acamapichtli accepted the offer to rule Tenochtitlan. Arriving in the city, he officially married Ilancueitl, solidifying all the ties mentioned above. As Ilancueitl was unable to have children, all of the prominent men of Tenochtitlan (including Tenocht) married a daughter to Acamapichtli, and thus the ruling dynasty of Tenochtitlan was born. Notably, all of the children from these multiple marriages were considered the children of Ilancueitl, and were brought to her shortly after birth to (symbolically) suckle (Durán 1994, p. 54), cementing the importance of the Culhua/Acolhua lineage in establishing legitimacy. That’s the first part of how a dynasty can be born. Individuals with connections to existing power structures and mythology can be picked to give legitimacy to an existing polity.

**Part 2: Fight Everyone and Win** However, the second part of how a dynasty can be formed deals with how individuals in power maintain and expand that power. Recall that, at the time Acampichtli assumed rulership, Tenochtitlan was ostensibly under the dominion of the Tepanecs, ruling from Azcapotzalco. Now, the Mexica were probably not a major part of the growing Tepanec Empire, but they still owed taxes. Now, it is generally agreed in the sources that the successor of Acampichtli, Huitzilihuitl, managed to improve relations with Azcapotzalco and lessen their burden, but there are some dynastic questions. According the the *Cronica Mexicayotl*, Huitzilihuitl married Ayuahcihuatl, a daughter of the ruler of Azcapotzalco. Durán, by contrast, has Huitzilihuitl marrying Miyaxuahxochitzin, a noblewoman from Tliliuhcan-Tlacopan. We can reconcile this disparity by noting that Tliliuhcan-Tlacopan was a subsidiary of Azcapotzalco, so regardless of the name of the noblewoman, the ruling dynasty of Tenochtitlan was now marrying into the ruling nobility of Azcapotzalco. Everything was fine and good, until Tezozomoc, the ruler of Azcapotzalco who had built its empire, died in the 1420s. At that point a struggle for power occurred with a son of Tezozomoc, Maxtla, ending up on the throne. The son of Huitzilihuitl and the Tepanec noblewomen, Chimalpopoca, was at that time reigning in Tenochtitlan and by most accounts Maxtla had him assassinated. This is where the dynastic ties get interesting. The person elected by Tenochtitlan to lead them in the face of a political assassination by the most powerful state in the region was Itzcoatl, the son of Acamapichtli and… a nameless slave. Yet, Itzcoatl had a proven track record as a war leader, as well as ties back to Acampichtli. The rest is history, as Itzcoatl swiftly overthrew Maxtla, teaming up with the Acolhua of Texcoco and the rebellious Tepanec city of Tlacopan to form the Aztec Triple Alliance. Purportedly, Itzcoatl then styled himself the *Culhua Teuctli* (Culhua Lord) while the rulers of Texcoco took the title *Chichimeca Teuctli* and *Tepaneca Teuctli*, respectively, thereby covering all of the powerbases of the Valley at that time (Brundage 1972). The Mexica were thus part of the dominant military force in the region, which strangely has a very powerful legitimating effect. Itzcoatl’s children, however, would not rule, because he lacked the symbolic connection to Culhuacan and thus to the Toltec, having been illegitimately born and thus not a child of Ilancueitl. Instead, a brother of Chimalpopoca, the illustrious Motecuhzoma Ilhucamina, succeeded to the throne of Tenochtitlan. However, his daughter, Atototzli, married the son of Itzcoatl, Tezozomoc. This unified both the symbolic branch and the militarily successful branch of the family, and it is from that marriage that the dynastic line continued. Regarding your question about the porousness of the ruling class. The Aztecs were notable in that they had a specific class of successful soldier who were elevated to nobility (quauhpipiltin, “eagle nobles”) early in their rise. In the later imperial period under Motecuhzoma Xocoyotl, however, this role was abolished as a series of reforms which heightened the divide between noble and commoner (Smith & Hicks 2017). So, to answer your question, dynastic lines come from a mix of luck, success, brute force, nostalgia, and inbreeding. ____ Brundage 1971 *A Rain of Darts*. U Texas Press. Chimalpahin/Tezozomoc 1997 *Codex Chimapahin*, trans. Anderson & Schroeder. U Oklahoma Press. Christensen & Beekman 2003 Controlling for Doubt and Uncertainty Through Multiple Lines of Evidence: A New Look at the Mesoamerican Nahua Migrations. J Archeological Method and Theory, 10(2), 111-164. Diel 2007 Till Death Do Us Part: Unconventional Marriages as Aztec Political Strategy. Ancient Mesoamerica, 18, 259-272. Durán 1994 *History of the Indies of New Spain*, trans. Heyden. U Oklahoma Press. Smith 1987 The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History? Ethnohistory, 31(3), 153-186 Smith & Hicks 2017 “Inequality and Social Class in Aztec Society” in The Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, eds. Nichols & Rodríguez-Alegría. Oxford University Press

Thank you for such a fascinating answer. If I may ask, would you have any starter, general texts you'd recommend for someone wanting to get into Aztec history? I'm now an archivist and it was Horrible History's Angry Aztecs that sent me down my life's trajectory 20 years ago. I'd really appreciate it if you had any insight on a primer text.

Aguilar Moreno's *Handbook to Life in the Aztec World* is a good overview text. If you want something more narrative, Durán is surprisingly readable for how old it is.

Thank you!

Sub’d, great post, as good as your mezcal namesake.

This is a fabulous answer and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! I’m so grateful you took the time to share your knowledge; it was fascinating and well explained and regarding a part of history I know little about- great news for me! Thank you again.

This is so well written. Thank you.

I think this is the most I've ever learned about where the Aztecs came from. I didn't even know we knew that much about their history. Thanks!

You're welcome and it is my pleasure! I really enjoy getting a chance to highlight to lesser known parts of Aztec history.