>>49822320Well, as I said, that's for the specific main deity impersonator(s) for a given festival: My understanding is that there were other "generic" sacrifices in the same ceremonies or outside of main festivals (certainly there was regular offerings of non-fatal bloodletting, animals, ceramics, etc outside of big festivals).that wouldn't have had the same amount of procedural/formal requirements.
>Did they actually consentIt depends on how you define consent and on the specific person. Sacrifice was a pan-mesoamerican practice every civilization in the region had, so even when you had an enemy soldier from a foreign state captured in a battle brought back, they still would have had the general cultural background of sacrifice even if the exact rituals or gods differed from culture to culture
There ARE some accounts of people willingly volunteering, or soldiers (like Tlahuicole, who was a gigachad:
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/8450402/#8457087) who refused amnesty and insisted they be sacrificed, since it was honorable and gave you a good spot in the afterlife; but there were undoubtedly people who also didn't want to be sacrificed: It is mentioned that say for the Tezcatlipoca impersonator, he was followed around by guards who would have made sure they wouldn't make a break for it, for example (but things going off-script also was bad omen and could cancel the whole ceremony)
I think for the majority of victims it was probably viewed as something that they probably didn't want to do/die for, but they also understood was a necessity in their religious system. Especially since most victims were captured soldiers and soldiers go into battle knowing they might die anyways, it's just a more involved process rather then bleeding out in a ditch in the battlefield (not that Mesoamericans didn't fight to kill in wars too, but captive taking was still an element)
>>49822411Here's the in depth description of Toxcatl from the Florentine Codex
