Although the Maya were once thought to have been peaceful, current theories emphasize the role of inter-polity warfare as a factor in the development and perpetuation of Maya society. The goals and motives of warfare in Maya culture are not thoroughly understood, but scholars have developed models for Maya warfare based on several lines of evidence, including fortified defenses around structure complexes, artistic and epigraphic depictions of war, and the presence of weapons such as obsidian blades and projectile points in the archaeological record. Warfare can also be identified from archaeological remains that suggest a rapid and drastic break in a fundamental pattern due to violence.

Maya polities engaged in violent warfare for political control of people and resources. Recent scholarship argues that Maya warfare was not primarily aimed at territorial expansion but instead focused on the capture of prisoners and imposing tributary relationships. Along with this, the Mayan would take control of much territory for resources. Among the most critical resources were water and agricultural land. Economic control of resources such as obsidian also increased competition among polities. As polities became more successful, they also became more complex. This led to improved efficiency in acquiring and holding valued resources, especially through military force. Population growth increased the competition between polities, resulting in increased levels of violence.

Warfare was likely a driving force of cultural change. Although warring leaders undoubtedly benefited materially, one of the main goals may have been to acquire sacrificial victims. Sacrifice not only legitimized the ruler by intimidating rivals and awing the citizens, but was also associated with concepts of sacred fluids and the passage of time. Sacrificial captives were deemed a part of the flesh and blood of the captor, showing the great respect for the prisoners of war. Warfare is alluded to in the mythology of the Popol Vuh, which describes sacrifice through decapitation. Certain events such as the death of a leader or birth of an heir may have required sacrifice.

Another possible goal in warfare was to seize sacred objects and impose tributary relations. The possession of religious objects would signify the religious defeat of rival neighbors. Scholars believe that, instead of taking complete control of neighboring lands, the Maya imposed tribute on the defeated. This would inherently increase economic growth and society without having complete control.

Little can be known about how the ancient Maya planned and coordinated their attacks. However, it has been noted that the Maya cities kept some distance between themselves and their enemies with an estimated mean distance of 55 km (about two to eight day's travel) between major settlements.

This may support the theory that war was fought by and for elites; that is, the Maya and non-Maya nobility. This may be because of the long distances that had to be traveled between cities. One estimate puts about 500-1000 men on the battlefield on each side of the conflict at maximum based on estimates about the logistics of the journey, such as amount of weight carried and how much food was needed on the journey.

Some Maya raids were deliberately timed to coincide with major religious festivals, maximizing surprise. In the 744 AD attack on Naranjo, the Maya chose to attack during the New Year ceremony when defenses were lowered. Maya war theory relied on surprise and deliberate planning.

Military organization is somewhat unclear. Leadership seems to have been embodied mostly in the Halach Uinik, the ajaw or lord of each geopolitical unit, known as a batab.