"Hernán Cortéz

This guy, with a few hundred free-booters, conquered modern Mexico despite being at war with his own government during the conquest. If you read Bernal Diaz, you'll encounter a whole range of anecdotes which show he was quite a character. I don't usually like to see distinctive civilizations disappear, but the Mexican Indian states, esp. the Aztecs, were as or more savage than any fiction that the sickest imagination could ever hope to contrive. It's a pleasure to know that their cannibal-sacrifice civilization was replaced. "

You know that becouse of spaniards population in Central- America dropped from 16 to 1 million. Spaniards burned people at that time as "witches". And these spaniard conquerors were just bunch of criminals.

And SPANIARDS DIDNT DESTROY aztecs alone, other indians had maybe more to do with it. Spaniards just united the tribes that opposed Aztec- Power in Mexico. There were maybe 1000 spaniards and 200 000 indian soldiers conquering Tenoctitlan, the Aztec capital. After it was conquered it was burnt to ashes and completly destroyed.

The reason why spaniards attacked aztecs was, becouse aztecs had so much cold. Spaniards didnt want do anything good to indians, they just wanted their cold.

You never should condemn things that happened so long time ago, the world was different then. We are always blind to crimes of our own time. Destroying of nature is crime of our era.

Sacrificing of people and war was also some kind of necessity in Mexico, becouse of overpopulation. If people hadnt been sacrificed in great numbers, population would have grown too much, and people would have died in famine.

Aztec had also different conception of the world than modern man. The world was different, people lived short and hard life in every case, so the death was nothing to be afraid of. In fact many who werte sacrificed died voluntarily. And aztecs werent the only one to do these sacrifices in "New World", mayans and all other Central american nations sacrificed people. Also Phoenicians sacrificed babies to their cods. Vikings hanged people in trees to please their gods...

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/aztecs/montellano.htm

This is about aztecs and their sacrifices.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


You know that becouse of spaniards population in Central- America dropped from 16 to 1 million. Spaniards burned people at that time as "witches". And these spaniard conquerors were just bunch of criminals.


I know, those evil Spanish B*st*rds. Evily bringing disease wherever they went.

How were they criminals? Because you decide to call them such?

A criminal is someone who breaks the law of their nation. The Conquistadors were acting on behalf of their nation. They’re heroes, not criminals!


Originally posted by Inhalaattori


The reason why spaniards attacked aztecs was, becouse aztecs had so much cold. Spaniards didnt want do anything good to indians, they just wanted their cold.



You mean Gold, right? I'm not being cheap. It's just an unfortunate mistake given I just mentioned Old World diseases! ;)

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"Hernán Cortéz

And SPANIARDS DIDNT DESTROY aztecs alone, other indians had maybe more to do with it. Spaniards just united the tribes that opposed Aztec- Power in Mexico. There were maybe 1000 spaniards and 200 000 indian soldiers conquering Tenoctitlan, the Aztec capital. After it was conquered it was burnt to ashes and completly destroyed.

.

Nope, the other Indians didn’t have more to do with it. These Indians you talk about are the same ones who got whipped by the Mexicans before the Spanish arrived. And they abandoned the Spanish during the hardest part of the siege of Mexico. But, no matter; I can see that you want to discredit the Spanish in every way you think you can get away with!



Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"Hernán Cortéz

You never should condemn things that happened so long time ago, the world was different then. We are always blind to crimes of our own time. Destroying of nature is crime of our era.

Sacrificing of people and war was also some kind of necessity in Mexico, becouse of overpopulation. If people hadnt been sacrificed in great numbers, population would have grown too much, and people would have died in famine.

Aztec had also different conception of the world than modern man. The world was different, people lived short and hard life in every case, so the death was nothing to be afraid of. In fact many who werte sacrificed died voluntarily. And aztecs werent the only one to do these sacrifices in "New World", mayans and all other Central american nations sacrificed people. Also Phoenicians sacrificed babies to their cods. Vikings hanged people in trees to please their gods...

Of course, this is only my opinion, but what you just said is utter hogwash. I mean, you slander and condemn the glorious conquerors of New Spain, but you tell me not to judge things in history :lol: You justify the barbaric practises of the Aztecs, but then you yourself condemn the Spanish. :lol:

Tripe, my friend :mad:

And, you think that sacrifice was a method of population control. Why were the victims eaten then? Eh? Extra food I hear you mutter! Well, why did they only consume the limbs?

Even though all that is garbage, given that you believe it, would you recommend then that the starving folk of Black Africa adopt that policy?

One of the funny things about population control, is that every society in history has a system for it! Population control my foot! :rolleyes: Why did the Mesoamericans find that the system of sacrifice and limb-consumption was a particularly good one?


You're suffering from a severe case of inconsistent, un-historical, moral relativism! Get over it, mate :goodjob:

Thanks from your polite comments.
But, you are writing some rubbish also.

Its truth that Cortes or Pizarro couldnt have beaten Aztec/Incas without assistance from other indian nations. That is a FACT.

If Cortes was a hero, then Hitler was much bigger hero. These "Conquistadors" really were very often criminals. So it was not just my opinion. And these men were not thought to be heros in Spain.

I agree that sacrification of people wasnt a exactly necessity, but
Mexico was very overpopulated...

And yes, i writed cold, when i should have written GOLD. Im so sorry, you honoured centleman.

Your heroes in work. Killing unarmed aztecs. :slay:

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Thanks from your polite comments.
But, you are writing some rubbish also.



Great! :goodjob:



Originally posted by Inhalaattori


Its truth that Cortes or Pizarro couldnt have beaten Aztec/Incas without assistance from other indian nations. That is a FACT.



How, pray tell me, does a hypothetical situation amount to a fact.

You're lucky that there is no rule on these boards against the hard of thought! :p



Originally posted by Inhalaattori


And yes, i writed cold, when i should have written GOLD. Im so sorry, you honoured centleman.

No probs, just don't do it again :nono:

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Your heroes in work. Killing unarmed aztecs. :slay:

So, have we to never judge history then, unless the people in question are Spanish? :rolleyes:

That's racism you know :eek:

The conquest of the Aztec empire is portrayed in legend as the victory of a few hundred valiant Spaniards, equipped with several dozen horses and an equally small number of guns and cannons, over thousands of hostile Indians. Writing in 1791 the Mexican scientist and journalist, Joseph Antonio Alzate y Ramirez, urged his readers, "Let us not say that a few hundred Spaniards conquered New Spain. Let us say, rather, that powerful armies united and inspired by the gallant and enterprising Spanish battled against the Aztecs, and then we will not be untrue to history." The Tlaxcalans were the main Indian allies of the Spanish. Without their extensive support the conquest would not have been possible.

From site: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/nativeamericans/25.html

So shut your mouth!

Flowers and Songs of Sorrows
(Written by a post-Conquest Aztec poet)

Nothing but flowers and songs of sorrow are left in Mexico and Tlatelolco, where once we saw warriors and wise men.

We know it is true that we must perish, for we are mortal men. You, the Giver of Life, you have ordained it.

We wander here and there in our desolate poverty. We are mortal men. We have seen bloodshed and pain where once we saw beauty and valor.

We are crushed to the ground; we lie in ruins. There is nothing but grief and suffering in Mexico and Tlatelolco, where once we saw beauty and valor.

Have you grown weary of your servants? Are you angry with your servants, O Giver of Life?[

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
The conquest of the Aztec empire is portrayed in legend as the victory of a few hundred valiant Spaniards, equipped with several dozen horses and an equally small number of guns and cannons, over thousands of hostile Indians. Writing in 1791 the Mexican scientist and journalist, Joseph Antonio Alzate y Ramirez, urged his readers, "Let us not say that a few hundred Spaniards conquered New Spain. Let us say, rather, that powerful armies united and inspired by the gallant and enterprising Spanish battled against the Aztecs, and then we will not be untrue to history." The Tlaxcalans were the main Indian allies of the Spanish. Without their extensive support the conquest would not have been possible.

From site: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/nativeamericans/25.html

So shut your mouth!

I admire you for your persistence here, but the Tlaxcalans really weren't that important. The Tlaxcalans had their bottoms tanned by the Mexicans before the arrival of the Spaniards. Cortez actually had to defeat them before he could get an alliance. ANyway, like I said, they abandoned the Spanish during the most important part of the siege of Mexico. The Tlaxcalans were - let's be fair - naked cannon, or rather, dart fodder. Their main role was to carry the Spanish equipment through during the road to Mexico, mop up Mexican darts and spears and join in the plundering. I really don't regard them as very critical to the success of the expedition, although they obviously helped with manpower and local knowledge!

Ok. Enough of this.
History is always a matter of taste.

No one seemed particularly riled except you...

Im the bad guy here. Oh yes.

Alright you two, stop getting personal. And stick to the facts, and stop coloring all your arguments with your present-day morals and biases.

I am somewhat disturbed to say it, but I have to take Inhalaattori's side here; Tlaxcala and other allies were critical to the Spanish takeover, especially give the number of times the Spanish were in peril before they actually reached the Aztec capital.

Having 5,000 men with you, however weak, makes it that much easier to avoid getting surrounded by 10,000 or more.

But I was actually struck by Diaz's account in a different way: first, the spanish clearly treat the natives as humans, and as pagans but not necessarily as inferiors; the superiority of Spanish arms and Spanish people is, I think, an erroneous addition of hindsight. Second, until I read Diaz's account, I was unaware of the key role of the allied contribution. But it in no way diminishes the scale of Cortez's "achievement." On the contrary, I was more impressed with the boldness of Cortez's behavior in soliciting allies and working with allies.

Oh, and Calcagus, "their main role was to carry the Spanish equipment through during the road to Mexico" sounds an awful lot like logistics to me. And we both know how important that is ;) in hostile terrain. Cortez wouldn't have been able to reach Tenochtitlan if he'd starved first.

R.III

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Im the bad guy here. Oh yes.

No, but someone who speaks favorably of Adolf Hitler's "honor to his allies," etc. certainly is.

the spanish were arrogant and thought god was personally on their side-woo anybody that got in their way:(

Originally posted by Richard III
I am somewhat disturbed to say it, but I have to take Inhalaattori's side here; Tlaxcala and other allies were critical to the Spanish takeover, especially give the number of times the Spanish were in peril before they actually reached the Aztec capital.



Give me some instances where the Spanish were saved by their Indian allies!

The Tlaxcalans actually put the Spanish under the greatest peril they had in New Spain, with the exception of the time when they were trapped in Mexico.



Originally posted by Richard III

Having 5,000 men with you, however weak, makes it that much easier to avoid getting surrounded by 10,000 or more.


R.III


Since you've read Diaz, you'll know that the Spanish got surrounded all the time. But these were armies badly matched in equipment, surrounding the Spanish for a long time was suicidal.


Originally posted by Richard III
I

But I was actually struck by Diaz's account in a different way: first, the spanish clearly treat the natives as humans, and as pagans but not necessarily as inferiors; the superiority of Spanish arms and Spanish people is, I think, an erroneous addition of hindsight. Second, until I read Diaz's account, I was unaware of the key role of the allied contribution. But it in no way diminishes the scale of Cortez's "achievement." On the contrary, I was more impressed with the boldness of Cortez's behavior in soliciting allies and working with allies.



I was struck by the same thing. I wasn't expecting the Spanish to be as humane as they were. Although, Cortez did get kinda nasty towards the end, when he suddenly started enslaving Indians because of "revolt". I was also kinda taken aback by the way he suddenly had those Mexican captains burned to death in front of Montezuma for doing very little wrong.

There was was a clear superiority in the Spanish arms. Not even a madman could possibly convince himself otherwise. I would comment though, that their superiority was based as much on the strength of Spanish swords as anything else. These things could cut through as many naked people at one time as the wielder chose. The Indians had nothing like that. Too often, people will try to make out that muskets were the key. The swords kept the Indians away from making too many frontal assaults (which meant certain death for everyone who took part), and allowed the Spanish to make use of their crossbows, cannons and muskets, which all required space. Spanish armour was of course, the other area of critical superiority; it essentially made the whole system of Aztec warfare obsolete. And of course, there were the horses. :goodjob:



Originally posted by Richard III
IOh, and Calcagus, "their main role was to carry the Spanish equipment through during the road to Mexico" sounds an awful lot like logistics to me. And we both know how important that is ;) in hostile terrain. Cortez wouldn't have been able to reach Tenochtitlan if he'd starved first.

R.III

Of course logistics are important; but, the logistical role of the Indians here could have been filled by anyone. It's not exactly hard to carry a cannon.
I don't mind giving the Indians credit, as long as one doesn't go over the top or pretend that Indians were more important than the Spanish, or use this as a device for downplaying the achievement of these men. Anyway, Cortez rarely used his Indian allies in large numbers until the later stages of the siege of Mexico.

Yes. The muskets really werent the thing, I remember that Pizarro really didnt have many muskets with his army when he conquered Peru.

You shouldnt forget the horses and "fighting dogs" of spaniards. Spaniards were also heavily armored so the weapons of aztecs didnt made bad damage to them.

In the beginning aztec also tried to imprison spanish soldiers, not to kill them. Their goal was to sacrifice spaniards to their gods.

The cannons were much more effective. When you shot with that thing to big group of warriors, oh boy!

You are talking about some "Diaz". Maybe Bartholome Diaz?

And is this Diaz reliable source?
I believe he isnt, becouse he was a spaniard. (I suppose he was)

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


You are talking about some "Diaz". Maybe Bartholome Diaz?

No, Bernal Diaz. He was on the expedition.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
And is this Diaz reliable source?
I believe he isnt, becouse he was a spaniard. (I suppose he was)

There is no instance, known to me that is, where he deliberately lies, but he is occassionally forgetful. He is, in general, reliable, because he only writes of a small period of time, of an expedition that he was actually part of.
If there is an area where we could be sceptical, it would be his treatment of Cortez and his attribution of motives, which may often be totally based on his own conjecture.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
And is this Diaz reliable source?
I believe he isnt, becouse he was a spaniard. (I suppose he was)

Are you ok?

At the beginning of the thread, you refer to him as a source, and then forget who he is by end page one...?

Originally posted by Richard III


Are you ok?

At the beginning of the thread, you refer to him as a source, and then forget who he is by end page one...?

If you're referring to the first post, then he's quoting me. It was more obvious before XIII created the new thread. But that first paragraph is a quote of me ;)

Calcagus, all fair; I think the point on the weapons is debatable; spanish weapons clearly were superior, but not dramatically so. I think it's easy to pretend that having 50-1 attacks by guys trying to get at you is an easy thing to beat. If you really want to pick at it, I suspect the horses and dogs were most important precisely because they could quickly break up Aztec and other native formations quickly.

As for the supplies, well, anyone could have carried them. But Cortez didn't have a lot of anyone hanging around. :D No, it wasn't particularly skilled, but it sure was useful...

Yeah, Cortez did get a little hardcore in the end. Chalk it up to "Heart of Darkness syndrome." But both sides were busy getting ready to backstab the other; the point is that the outright moral perversion we're taught in schools isn't quite so clear cut; both sides had moments of charity, moments of deception and moments of savagery.

It's been awhile on the allied question, let me read back and see.

I just found this website about conquistadors. It looks quite interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/conquistadors/home.htm

Originally posted by calgacus


If you're referring to the first post, then he's quoting me. It was more obvious before XIII created the new thread. But that first paragraph is a quote of me ;)

I must have crossposted this aft. Yes, now it's all much clearer.

He he.

Yes, Inhala', do poke around at that site and other sources; I think - or hope - they make it clear that however savage their behavior, by contemporary standards, many (Cortez among them) also achieved incredible things. Not worth emulating, perhaps, but certainly worth studying. I highly reccommend Diaz's book, which is a long read, and not an easy one given the issues of language and translation, but worth the effort. A real genuine epic. Like many good works of history, you feel as tired as the real protaganists when it's all over. ;)

R.III

*cough* Ehhh, I am the first to recognize that some or many Conquistadors were though guys who enslaved population. What I want to point you that the Spanish were not affected by the racism of other europeans. Do you know many other colonial nations where the race mixture was so high as in Spanish conquered territoried? See to the native culture: in many South and Central America (even in Mexico, North America) countries there are a thriving native culture.

Anyway, about the Aztecs and Spanish conquests of Mexico I would recommend you some modern books:

"The conquest of Mexico", Thomas, Hugh.
"Mexico: a History", Miller, Robert R.

These two books were not written by Spanish people ;) You'd learn that the Spanish were aggresive, but that the aztec were also fierce warriors. I see the war as a war between two fierce people. They were in some ways cruel, they were in some ways noble for their age and cultures :)

The main problem I see here is that your entire argument Inhalaattori is based on one book written decades after the facts and written for the direct purpose of attaining money for Diaz's daughters (the wedding gift to the groom known as the "dote" ) so of course he exajerated on his writtings. You should also read The letters of Cortez, written by him while in New Spain to King Charles V; altro try getting the vision of the defeated by Leon-Portilla. Then, you can at least have a broader vision of what the so-called conquest was. "So-called" because even the term is debatable.
Inhalaattori, you say the aztecs where bloodthirsty, canivals, savages... If we add up all their sacrificial victims and add them up to those killed during WWII they don't even come close to that, or what about those that died during the Inquisition? or the holocaust, in Europe and the one Japan did in China? how about the ones who died in East Timor? or in the invasion of Panama by US marines? or the oned that died in India at the hands of british troops? If you try to justify the end of a civilization based on their bloodmongering ways...we should all be extinct by now.
It was interesting to see how europeans reacted to a recent exposition on the mexica in England... as if europeans never killed a fly. Just look at the spartans, the romans, the peoples of the north...
And Calgacus, stop portraying the spanyards and heroes, in history there are none, only people doing what they think is best for them, sometimes for their contry and sometimes for their god...or their idea of god.
Please remember that the words -savage, heroe, backwards, bloodthirsty...- have a strong modern conotation that can easily slip "our objective thinking". If a history work is really trying to run objectively, it will avoid these as well as other words.

Originally posted by calgacus


I know, those evil Spanish B*st*rds. Evily bringing disease wherever they went.

How were they criminals? Because you decide to call them such?

A criminal is someone who breaks the law of their nation. The Conquistadors were acting on behalf of their nation. They’re heroes, not criminals!


Hmmm... so by your statement, the guys that crashed the planes into the WTC are not criminals since they acted acordingly to their law (the Coran) since they didn't brake any of "their" laws they aren't guilty.... interesting point you handle there. And following the same basis, the US marines sent into Panama and killed more that 5,000 civilians during the first day of the invasion where not killers but heroes, since they followed their nation's law, not the law of the soil the stood on... but then of course, they were only following orders, of course! the great moral escape of anyone who kills under another one's order... :scan:

well, the law does not need to be right, so they maybe are not criminals, but still scum, thugs, or whatever you want to call it. And second, the Coran is not the law, and it certainly does not state that you must crash airplanes into buildings. And it was not some form of jihad, eventhough they like to think of it that way themselves.

About conquistadores then. They indeed treated most of the indians human, as their equals. Second, I think that the Indians did play an important role in logistics, tactics (not in being tacticians, but in being used by the spanish) and such things. I also believe that in battle they were nothing but cannonfood, or since the Aztecs had no cannons, 'arrow-' or 'spearfood'. The horses indeed also played an important role, indeed in breaking up enemy formations and making the enemy panick, and do not forget that most of the indian tribes were actually afraid of horses (especially Inca's).

Much of what was written about the savagery of the Aztecs was greatly exaggerated. Written down through the mind of a narrow thinking and paranoid Christian. Much of what you wrote is laughably elementary and just a perpetuation of the same jumbled slander that has been permeated through our understanding of the history of Mexico. The Aztecs were very civil and the sacrifices were not as great as most believed. Also I noticed you wrote something about some book called the 'dying god' in another thread. Maybe instead of reading revisionist history to suit your prejudices you ought to find out what non western civilization is truly about rather than giving non western peoples our occidental judgement standards and attributing technological and philosophical achievements to them when there is much more to what makes a civilization great than just that.

As for Cortez. He was a scoundrel and the circumstances greatly benifitted him. Not to say that much of it wasn't due to brilliant tactics on his part, but his triumph was quite overrated. Also the reason that the population went from 20 million to 2 million in 30 years was due to disease.

Also its VERY sad to see the Aztec culture gone. It would offer a counterpoint to the 2 dimensional Catholic culture of the 15th century Spaniards. The Aztecs are gone as far as their culture is concerned, and what is left is tainted by a boring and tired philosophy that came about in Europe 2000 years prior. Rather than taking peyote under the shadow of the pyramids of Teotihuacan its just a bunch of hybrid Catholics going to church every Sunday. That is definately something to regret. And Cortez and Pizzaro is are both people who I absolutely hate. As far as I'm concerned, defending the conquistadors is like defending nazis. Same $hit.

I don't really see how anyone could say the Conquistadors were "kind". They ruthlessly killed, extorted and backstabbed in order to make themselves rulers of South America. It is laughable to state that they saw the native Americans as equals, when the Spaniards by force took over the region. Just look at Pizarro and Atahuallpa.

Originally posted by Mescalhead
Maybe instead of reading revisionist history to suit your prejudices
:lol: Domt worry, about prejudices you are the champion here! :D

Originally posted by Hurricane
I don't really see how anyone could say the Conquistadors were "kind". They ruthlessly killed, extorted and backstabbed in order to make themselves rulers of South America. It is laughable to state that they saw the native Americans as equals, when the Spaniards by force took over the region. Just look at Pizarro and Atahuallpa.
I am looking. And your point is...


In fact Pizarro was at war, but in the Spanish colonies the Indians were legally considered subjects of the king and therefore they were free people and they could not be enslaved, unlike the rest of the colonial powers, which didnt even considered indians as humans (excepting the French) .

But to be more exact in Spanish colonies the indians were not treated as equals but as relatively incapable people and treated in a paternal manner, which is discrimination without any doubt.

A very different history is how they were treated by the local landowners, which was impossible to control by the king.

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
A very different history is how they were treated by the local landowners, which was impossible to control by the king.

For the most part of the colonial period, those were Spanish-born officials appointed by the king or under the king's authority, which means that it still was the full legal and moral responsibility of the Spanish Crown & government to curb their many abuses which went against the letter of the law. And they didn't.

As an imperfect analogy, if you play Civ, when you allow the level of corruption and discontent in your faraway cities to go up, it's still your fault, as the player/ruler in charge.

if you'd check the laws the Spanish emperor made back then, you see that they did see them as their equals. Attacking and murdering them does not show that they thought of them as inferior: then every single war would be racism. It was only after that the indians had accepted Spanish rulership that they became cruel.

For the most part of the colonial period, those were Spanish-born officials appointed by the king
Nope, the colonial period was very long. it was only in the first times.
under the king's authority,
Of course. Theorically everybody was under the king´s authority to first 19th century when colonies in the continent became independient.

which means that it still was the full legal and moral responsibility of the Spanish Crown & government to curb their many abuses which went against the letter of the law. And they didn't.
As an imperfect analogy, if you play Civ, when you allow the level of corruption and discontent in your faraway cities to go up, it's still your fault, as the player/ruler in charge.
It was the real world, and in the real word in the 16th century you could take several years travelling from Europe to Peru. How is it possible to pretend that a king in Europe could have absolute control in so enormous territory? BTW, In many cases it would be needed to send an entire army to stop abuses.

all the king could do is put some people he knew in charge over there. He already had enough trouble keeping order in the outskirts of his own country. That was already a weeks travel by foot.

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
Nope, the colonial period was very long. it was only in the first times.

The "first times" in this case would be at least two centuries. In any case, the Viceroys and other high positions were still mostly Spanish until almost the last century or so.

Yes, the remaining lower positions were gradually filled up with the direct descendants of Spaniards, BUT they still were considered (and considered themselves) full Spanish subjects until the first revolts began.

Of course. Theorically everybody was under the king´s authority to first 19th century when colonies in the continent became independient

And thus a ruler can be held responsible for the actions of those that are theoretically and legally under his authority, in the end. Both during the initial conquest and beyond. At the very least, the kings of Spain would be guilty of ignorance and negligence.

It was the real world, and in the real word in the 16th century you could take several years travelling from Europe to Peru. How is it possible to pretend that a king in Europe could have absolute control in so enormous territory? BTW, In many cases it would be needed to send an entire army to stop abuses.

Considering I've seen "Visits" from the period, at least one from the Peru-Alto Peru area, you're overestimating a bit when you say "several years". More like several months or up to a year, only longer in very rare cases.

Evidently, it was a long trip and it had difficulties, but it was rather regularly done after the first few cities/ports of note were established.

But none of that eliminates the legal responsability of the king and his government.

The distance didn't stop the king from expecting the absolute loyalty of those faraway subjects, did it? Therefore, those same subjects had all the right to demand that he take corrective measures to curb the abuses of his institutions and officials in the New World.

It wasn't "impossible" to improve the situation, just demanded a degree of pragmatism.

The king in Europe had two choices when the first revolts/protests began:

a)Accept that his authority was erroded by the distance (like you admit) and thus it wasn't unreasonable for the colonies to ask for more representation if the colonial association was to continue, in order to reduce the abuses and lead to better effective rule.

b)Live in a "fantasy world" where he expected all the "fair and good" royal edicts and laws (that you also cite in Spain's defense) to still be perfectly valid (when the truth was far from that), and thus the American subjects didn't have any legitimate complaints other than being insubordinate rebels.

Guess which position prevailed in the "real world".

Good Day.

ps: I don't strictly believe in the "black legend", but I'm not going to accept the "white legend" either. If anything, the truth would be closer to a "grey legend".

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
all the king could do is put some people he knew in charge over there. He already had enough trouble keeping order in the outskirts of his own country. That was already a weeks travel by foot.

As said before, if that were the case (which I don't think it necessarily is), the king would still be blamed for selecting/sending the wrong people, not effectively enforcing his laws, and not maintaining discipline and respect to his authority, and thus was either a weak willed, indifferent or an irresponsible ruler (more like "rulers", actually) for falling to do so.

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg

:lol: Domt worry, about prejudices you are the champion here! :D


Jolly good. But I make my prejudices known after getting the most accurate of information which probably still isn't terribly accurate. What I was referring to is a book of a man who wishes to discredit Occidental civilazation to make non Western civilization more palatable to the Western mind. Its a bit self defeating. What I'm saying is that there are things that are extremely different when dealing with cultures that had never been influenced by Sumer, or Semitic Monotheism until the 16th century. And yes, my bias against monotheitic world-hegemony is great. Nothing is better than diversity.I read and then I judge (which is still sad and pathetic) but at least I'm not blind to what most probably happened when Inhaalitori just goes by a historian with an agenda. Does that make any more sense?

EDIT: I just noticed you were Spanish. I'm not singling them out as the only peoples capable of this pathetic display, and the Aztecs certainly weren't 'perfect peace loving Indians', but I was raised to be Catholic, and I'm a bit tired of being inundated with Christianity. Thats all. No offence to Spain, especially now.

hahaha, this is very funny...how something that happened 500 years ago can lead to a heated discussion now, on the internet!

Originally posted by Inhalaattori

You know that becouse of spaniards population in Central- America dropped from 16 to 1 million. Spaniards burned people at that time as "witches". And these spaniard conquerors were just bunch of criminals.





I think you are not well informed.

Spanish didn't kill 15 million people as you pretend. Most of them died because of different illness. Not to blame the spanish, in my opinion. It was not intended.

Spanish didn't burnt "witches". In fact the spanish Inquisition didn't believe in witches. Many people were burnt, but for different reasons (usaully being heretic). Overall, the Inquisition didn't kill much more people than other countries.

The Aztecs felt just because they were an empire. They had conquered other people, so when the spanish came those people saw the oportunity to get rid of the Aztecs (otherwise it's impossible to conquer an emprire with 800 men). Probably the question of which empire was worst (either the Aztec od the Spanish) is irrelevant as both were bad.

Originally posted by pawpaw
the spanish were arrogant and thought god was personally on their side-woo anybody that got in their way:(

I don't know why this sentence brings G.W Bush to my mind :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mescalhead
Much of what was written about the savagery of the Aztecs was greatly exaggerated. Written down through the mind of a narrow thinking and paranoid Christian. Much of what you wrote is laughably elementary and just a perpetuation of the same jumbled slander that has been permeated through our understanding of the history of Mexico. The Aztecs were very civil and the sacrifices were not as great as most believed. Also I noticed you wrote something about some book called the 'dying god' in another thread. Maybe instead of reading revisionist history to suit your prejudices you ought to find out what non western civilization is truly about rather than giving non western peoples our occidental judgement standards and attributing technological and philosophical achievements to them when there is much more to what makes a civilization great than just that.

As for Cortez. He was a scoundrel and the circumstances greatly benifitted him. Not to say that much of it wasn't due to brilliant tactics on his part, but his triumph was quite overrated. Also the reason that the population went from 20 million to 2 million in 30 years was due to disease.

Also its VERY sad to see the Aztec culture gone. It would offer a counterpoint to the 2 dimensional Catholic culture of the 15th century Spaniards. The Aztecs are gone as far as their culture is concerned, and what is left is tainted by a boring and tired philosophy that came about in Europe 2000 years prior. Rather than taking peyote under the shadow of the pyramids of Teotihuacan its just a bunch of hybrid Catholics going to church every Sunday. That is definately something to regret. And Cortez and Pizzaro is are both people who I absolutely hate. As far as I'm concerned, defending the conquistadors is like defending nazis. Same $hit.

Yes, however defending the Aztecs is fine. Remember, the Aztecs were an empire, and as far as I know to build an empire you need to conquer other people. The Aztecs were conquerers before the spanish.

Inhalator:"You know that becouse of spaniards population in Central- America dropped from 16 to 1 million"

Jorge:" Spanish didn't kill 15 million people as you pretend. Most of them died because of different illness. Not to blame the spanish, in my opinion. It was not intended."


Spanish brought the disease, i didnt say it was their fault or anything like that. And many died also as slaves, in horrible conditions. (indians were forced to dig cold and silver for the Spaniards)

Spaniards anyway burnt people, no mather what their name. Im not saying Spaniards were "more evil" than others. (Spaniards had just been fighting against gruel muslims in southern Spain. They were not more gruel to indians I suppose)

And times were full of violence then, we cant judge them in modern standars.

Mescalhead : "Also the reason that the population went from 20 million to 2 million in 30 years was due to disease."

I dont know what your sources are, but my history book told that population dropped from 16 to 1 million. This shows that its almost impossible to know exact numbers. Its more like quessing. Anyway many indians died. Maybe we shouldnt care about numbers. History never was what we think it was.

Inhalaattori:

You are not being objective. You call the spanish a bunch of criminals but them justify the Aztecs (what the spanish did was not different of what Aztecs did before: to conquer).

Either you agree both (Aztecs and Spanish) were criminals (and then you will also have to include Romans, British, Mongols, etc ...) or better not to say anything. I think it's stupid to blame one empire randomly while all the empires on earth did the same.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Mescalhead : "Also the reason that the population went from 20 million to 2 million in 30 years was due to disease."

I dont know what your sources are, but my history book told that population dropped from 16 to 1 million. This shows that its almost impossible to know exact numbers. Its more like quessing. Anyway many indians died. Maybe we shouldnt care about numbers. History never was what we think it was.

I got ya. The 16 million figure is from the valley of Mexico alone. Not taking into account the Yucatan and northern tribes.

I am not defending western world, nor christian world. In fact i think some of the worst athrocities have been done by western and christian people. Spanish included. But Spain was not the worst.

At least in Spain there were laws protecting indigenous and there were not racism against indians, the proof is the high proportion of indians and mestizos in all the spanish colonies:


If you want let´s speak about some facts and numbers:

in all spanish colonies in center+south america in 1800: 6 % white, 75% indians, 15% mestizos (indian+white) and mulatos (white+African) and 4.6% Africans.

How could it be if spaniards were racist and extermined indians as nazis did?

So, this numbers are well reflected in the actual ex-colonies:

Peru today: 48% indians 40% mestizos 10% whites 2% other

Mexico today: 60% mestizos, 30% indians, 9% white, 1% other.


On the other hand:

Brasil today: white 55%, mulatos 38%, black 6%, other (including indians) 1%!!

USA today: white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, indians 1.5%, other 4.3%


I think you are too contaminated by the famous black legend. Compared with others the overall spanish behaviour with the indians was ´acceptable´.

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg

Brasil today: white 55%, mulatos 38%, black 6%, other (including indians) 1%!!


The thing is that in the whole territory of modern day Brazil in the 1500 the estimations for the native population are less than the population of Tenochtitlán alone (ca. 1 million people for a territory that is almost half of the entire south America).

About 5-6 millions in 1500, in Brasil. Today 300,000 only.

Source:
Center for Latin America Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Originally posted by Jorge


Yes, however defending the Aztecs is fine. Remember, the Aztecs were an empire, and as far as I know to build an empire you need to conquer other people. The Aztecs were conquerers before the spanish.

If you had actually paid attention to what I was saying and not just skimmed through the post, you would realise the basis for my bias against the conquistadors. Its not a moral argument, but the fact that the Spaniards completely wiped out a culture that will never return in a genuine sense. It has been tainted. My objection is to Christian hegemony. I know that al cultures conquer and destroy. I'm not attacking this practice, but rather a played out cultural norm.

I agree that it's sad that an entire culture was wiped out, but I also agree with Thorgalaeg and Jorge that it really was inevitable. The native Americans were just so backwards that any European invader (now it just happened to be the Spaniards) would have done the same.

Europe was very backward then in many ways. Europeans were better in weapondry. Mayan had great level in mathematics and in astronomy. Incas build great cities and roads.

The reason why europeans were so succesfull is diseases. Without diseases they couldnt have conquered so much in so short time.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Europe was very backward then in many ways. Europeans were better in weapondry. Mayan had great level in mathematics and in astronomy. Incas build great cities and roads.


While, if the Europeans had not brought over diseases, the superior numbers and political unity (which is lost when the ruler or his heir dies of smallpox as happened in one way or another in both cases) of MesoAmerican cultures would have proven formidable and perhaps overwhelming, it would be foolish to deny that Europe, at the time, was far more advanced technologically. Maybe not in Finland, and maybe not in all fields, but, on average, European civilization was several centuries ahead.

Dont try to insult me redneck- yank. Just humour...?

Europe was not so great in those areas I mentioned. In astronomy and in mathematics for instance.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


Europe was not so great in those areas I mentioned. In astronomy and in mathematics for instance.

its one thing to have knowledge, its another to use it, the europeans used astronomy and mathematics to cross the oceans and find mesoamerica--what did the mayans do with it?

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Dont try to insult me redneck- yank. Just humour...?


You've been dishing out insults throughout this topic -- and I've seen you doing it on other boards as well. I felt I had to put a jab at Finland in there. :)

Several MesoAmerican civilizations had seen great advances in some fields. However, on the whole, there is virtually no comparison between the two.

Nobody denies that the Mesoamerican civilizations had some nice knowledge, but the problem was that all that knowledge didn't travel, neither did it reach the ordinary people. It is no winner to have some obscure mystic successfully predict the location of the stars, when that knowledge could be put at use when navigating the oceans. While they developed writing, they never used it for educational purposes. In Europe, written texts had since biblical times learned that foreign invaders are to be repulsed with all force possible, not invited to the capital so they can kidnap the emperor.

And let's not forget the most important reason for Mesoamericas backwardness; the geography, the wildlife (both animals and plants), and time. The first humans came to America several thousand years later than to Eurasia, and (obviously) that gap was still apparent when the Europeans landed in America. Also, the Mesoamericans had worse crops (no wheat, barley or rice), worse domestic animals (no horses or cows) and worse terrain (which hampered trading opportunities).

Originally posted by Hurricane
Nobody denies that the Mesoamerican civilizations had some nice knowledge, but the problem was that all that knowledge didn't travel, neither did it reach the ordinary people. It is no winner to have some obscure mystic successfully predict the location of the stars, when that knowledge could be put at use when navigating the oceans. While they developed writing, they never used it for educational purposes. In Europe, written texts had since biblical times learned that foreign invaders are to be repulsed with all force possible, not invited to the capital so they can kidnap the emperor.

Very true, they did not really use it. They used astronomy in farming, to have a calendar, and in religion. That's about it. On that subject they were as 'advanced' as the Egyptians. They did not combine it with seafaring.

The remark about inviting invaders is a bit cheap though. Where the Bible said invaders should be repulsed, the Aztec believe said the Gods would come to Earth soon. Can you blame these religious people for thinking these strange hairy men actually were sent by the gods or even were gods themselves?

Originally posted by Hurricane

And let's not forget the most important reason for Mesoamericas backwardness; the geography, the wildlife (both animals and plants), and time. The first humans came to America several thousand years later than to Eurasia, and (obviously) that gap was still apparent when the Europeans landed in America. Also, the Mesoamericans had worse crops (no wheat, barley or rice), worse domestic animals (no horses or cows) and worse terrain (which hampered trading opportunities).

exactly. Europe became so big because of very good natural circumstances. Man stems from Africa, but after the last Ice Age ended, nature changed a lot, and all the big forests and grasslands disappeared for plains, steppes and desert. No ideal circumstances there.

The Aztecs, who many ignorantly call savage, had been fighting their "Flower Wars" for a couple hundred years before the Spanish even arrived. The "Flower Wars" were wars conducted mainly for the purpose of the daily need for human sacrifices and the greed for more tribute of neighboring tribes. (Human sacrifices were drugged before being sacrificed by the way).

When Cortes came to Mexico in 1519 with a few hundred soldiers and a pretty big ego, he was quick to recognize the obvious primitivity of the Aztecs' beliefs and weoponry. The Aztecs lacked any beasts of burden capable of being ridden upon such as horses, etc. (Llamas weren't much of a help. Llamas no eran mucho productivo para los aztecas). :eek: The Aztecs were terrified of the Spanish stallions and would not approach any mounted Spaniard at first. Also, the Aztecs had virtually no natural resources that matched what the Spanish had (coal, iron, etc.) Therefore, they had no steel weopons that could match the superior steel swords from Toledo and their muskets.

In response to an earlier post: Technically Cortes was a 'criminal' because Diego Velazquez, the governor of Cuba, did not permit Cortez to leave since he was Wanted in Cuba. Cortes left anyway and enganged in more 'criminal' activity in Mexico, such as keeping the gifts and spoils from the Aztecs for himself.

Anyway, it is a misconception to how big of a role the idea of the Aztecs thinking Cortes was Quetzalcoatl played in the conquest of Mexico. A few gullible messesngers sent by Montezuma believed he was a god and the deeply religious king was also a believer that it was Quetzalcoatl on account of his prophesier. The actual Aztec warriors were astonished by the new beasts (horses) and steel weapons, but they knew he was a mortal.

As far as the indios allied with Cortes, Tlaxcalans (I think that's right), they played more of a role in informing Cortes about the Aztecs' battle tactics and guiding them through the unknown Aztec territory. They did fight in the skirmishes and battles against their hated enemy, but their overwhelming numbers were more of a help to Cortes than their strength.

Many think Montezuma was the last Aztec king, but Cuatemoc was actually the last. Montezuma was killed in Tenochtitlan, and then the Jaguar warrior/cult appointed someone else who was also killed. Then Cuatemoc was appointed. The Spanish arrested him for trying to start more revolutions later in 1521, but they finally had to execute him.

i do not believe that the Human sacrifrice praticed by the american cultures was made up by the victors in this case. The alters were reportedly caked in blood. The conquistidors ended this human sacrifrice which in my mind seems a positive thing.
(and too was one reason they were able to get allies from the various tribes)
Maybe gold was their main objective, but ending such murder seems a good side effect. Perhaps those that think that cultures that have different ethics
should be left alone are right, perhaps african tribes that surgically remove a woman's clitoris are good, that hitler should have been allowed to gas babies-
but, personally i think murdering and maiming young people seems to be against life and mankind in general- maybe i am wrong and such cultures are here in order to maintain some kind of cosmic balance.....