History Aztec Final
Topic A – Final
Felipe Fernandez- Armesto has written that the Spanish conquest of the Aztec has long been attributed to what he calls the “conquistador myth”: the notion that the Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs “because they were in some sense better, better equipped, technically morally or intellectually”. Do you agree with Fernandez- Armesto that this is a myth? If explain why? If so explain why not.
The question of how a small Spanish army was able to conquer one of the greatest ancient empires in history is one that has been raised countless times. Often there are no simple answers and frequently super natural omens and religious understandings are presented as the reason. The Spanish were also quick to present the answer that they were simply more intelligent, technically and morally and that they had a superior morale. Historians such as Prescott present the answer that Europeans will always triumph because they have superior mental and moral qualities.1 However historians like Clenninden, Fernandez-Armesto, Townsend and Toderov have argued against these explanations, considering them ‘Conquistador myth’. 2 This essay will discuss the traditional arguments and consider the flaws they present, aiming to challenge the idea of the ‘Conquistador myth’. The aim is in line with arguments by Toderov and Clenninden to prove that the Europeans did not manage to conquer the Aztec empire because of their natural superiority but rather a range of factors that included using different cultural understandings to their advantage, including their weapons, their native allies and the delayed initial reaction of the Aztecs.
The main courses of action that took place between the Mexicans and the Spanish are well known and worth considering for deeper understanding. In 1519 Cortés was sent by the Cuban governor to Mexico, however he then forbid Cortés to go, but Cortés ignored him. He sailed with the Vera Cruz, declaring himself under the authority of the Spanish
Felipe Fernandez- Armesto has written that the Spanish conquest of the Aztec has long been attributed to what he calls the “conquistador myth”: the notion that the Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs “because they were in some sense better, better equipped, technically morally or intellectually”. Do you agree with Fernandez- Armesto that this is a myth? If explain why? If so explain why not.
The question of how a small Spanish army was able to conquer one of the greatest ancient empires in history is one that has been raised countless times. Often there are no simple answers and frequently super natural omens and religious understandings are presented as the reason. The Spanish were also quick to present the answer that they were simply more intelligent, technically and morally and that they had a superior morale. Historians such as Prescott present the answer that Europeans will always triumph because they have superior mental and moral qualities.1 However historians like Clenninden, Fernandez-Armesto, Townsend and Toderov have argued against these explanations, considering them ‘Conquistador myth’. 2 This essay will discuss the traditional arguments and consider the flaws they present, aiming to challenge the idea of the ‘Conquistador myth’. The aim is in line with arguments by Toderov and Clenninden to prove that the Europeans did not manage to conquer the Aztec empire because of their natural superiority but rather a range of factors that included using different cultural understandings to their advantage, including their weapons, their native allies and the delayed initial reaction of the Aztecs.
The main courses of action that took place between the Mexicans and the Spanish are well known and worth considering for deeper understanding. In 1519 Cortés was sent by the Cuban governor to Mexico, however he then forbid Cortés to go, but Cortés ignored him. He sailed with the Vera Cruz, declaring himself under the authority of the Spanish