abnormal swabbie action?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by junior
IIRC, there are conflicting stories about what happened to Moctezuma. The Spaniards claimed he was killed by his own people (in a riot, in which case the 'stone' story would probably be true), while the Aztecs said the Spaniards did it (don't remember the details, unfortunately).
Click to expand...
The Aztecs' story is false. Considering that for most of their stay in Tenochtitlan, Cortez' people's safety was guarateed by Moctezuma, and that they only barely made it out alive after he was killed, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Cortez would have Moctezuma killed. To quote Khasra, that would be suicide. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any sort of eyewitness account from the Aztec side would have survived until this day, whereas eyewitness accounts from Cortez' expeditions have survived. And the Spanish would have no reason to lie about this - they had done many worse things and didn't worry about falsifying the accounts.

As for Malinche, she betrayed no one. She was a slave, and was given to Cortez by Moctezuma's emissaries. By definition, the only person she could have betrayed was her owner - and she didn't. Besides, if she had no qualms about helping Cortez, we certainly couldn't blame her for it, because most of the population of the Aztec Empire hated the Aztecs with a passion, and had very good reasons for it.
 
But then again, you wouldn't assume such a small exbedition force would topple an empire of millions of people either. (Even if it was generally from disease.) So things such as killing him wouldn't be ENTIRELY out of the realm of possibility. (Although I do think it is more likely that he was killed by his own people, which has evidence to support it that I can't remember right now-so good point. :) )

Eh, just because you've done worse things, doesn't mean that you wouldn't lie to hide something.

Although was she a slave, I suppose that would certainly be true that she didn't really betray anyone. (All the more if she hated the Aztecs to begin with.)
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
But then again, you wouldn't assume such a small exbedition force would topple an empire of millions of people either. (Even if it was generally from disease.) So things such as killing him wouldn't be ENTIRELY out of the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
Cortez didn't go out there with the specific purpose of toppling the Empire... until he landed, the Aztec Empire was even less than a rumour, as far as the Spanish were concerned. Oh, I'm sure the Spanish were very interested in subjugating the Aztecs eventually (them being pagans in need of 'conversion'... and filthy rich pagans ;)), but Cortez was just an explorer. Like I said earlier, Moctezuma was the sole guarantee of Cortez' safety in the capital (the Spaniards' technological advantage is much overrated), though even he failed in the end. Biting the hand that feeds you is a lousy way to reach old age, and Cortez wanted his name on a gold watch, not a coffin :).

Eh, just because you've done worse things, doesn't mean that you wouldn't lie to hide something.
Click to expand...
Except that the Spanish were proud of their fight against infidels. The execution of a pagan ruler was something to show off, not to cover up - as Pizarro demonstrated with Atahualpa.
 
Originally posted by Quarto

Cortez wanted his name on a gold watch, not a coffin :).
Click to expand...

Yes he did! I mean, the dude was considered an outlaw by Spain. IIRC, he went to Mexico against Spains' wishes. He was on the lamb in either Puerto Rico or Cuba... can't remember which one.

All I know is that he was closer to a pirate/criminal than explorer!
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom
All I know is that he was closer to a pirate/criminal than explorer!
Click to expand...
He and 99% of the white population of the carribean :p. To be fair, I don't think he was actually a criminal as such - he just happened to irritate the wrong people back in Spain. However, my memory fails on the details. But yes, he was not supposed to go to Mexico. While he was there, an expedition was even sent to retrieve him... but most of them chose to join him instead.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
But yes, he was not supposed to go to Mexico. While he was there, an expedition was even sent to retrieve him... but most of them chose to join him instead.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! I remember that now!

Thanks for jogging my memory :)
 
Despite his ruthlessness, or perhaps because of it, once the war got started, Cortez was actually rather effective. He knew how, and when to strike at a place once disease had overtaken the population, and exactly how to keep the Aztec's worried about fixing their own public works than in hunting down all of his men.
 
Originally posted by Col.Dom


What does that mean :confused:

May I have a translation, please?
Click to expand...

"It was the same with Christopher Columbus"
(if not MORE so, since Columbus' machinations led to the decimation of the Native populations of the "New World"!)
 
Originally posted by Ghost
I think that was the fault of the Church and the Kings Of Spain not Columbus
Click to expand...
I agree that they had a hand in it, but Columbus' independent decisions were the greater factor.

This is precisely why most of us of Native heritage do not celebrate Columbus' birthday (I am part Mohawk). We view it as the "beginning of the end" of our sovereign control of our own lands (Our own "date which will live in infamy")...
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
He knew how, and when to strike at a place once disease had overtaken the population, and exactly how to keep the Aztec's worried about fixing their own public works than in hunting down all of his men.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? At that time, the European diseases hadn't even arrived to the Aztec Empire (not to mention the obvious fact that even if they had, Cortez like all Europeans of the time had no idea that they were responsible for importing diseases deadly to the natives). And the Aztecs didn't start an all-out war against him until it was too late - by then, most of their empire was on his side.

And Preacher, that makes no sense whatsoever. It's nice and convenient to say that it's all Columbus' fault... it allows you to pin all the blame squarely on just one guy. But do you also blame the Wright brothers for September 11th? Columbus did nothing more than initiate a set of events - events he didn't even want to initiate. The guy was looking for a way to India, for crying out loud. Blaming him is equivalent to blaming continental drift for putting America in his way. Not to mention that he wasn't the first to reach America, and had he not gone, someone else would have soon enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top