Abstract This paper explores the concept of nationalism in England in 1066, English unity, social make-up and the ferocity of their opposition to the invaders. It looks at how the Normans attempted to justify their conquest of England and, in particular, why. It examines how the "rightful claimant to the throne" needed to put such an emphasis on the justification of the conquest. It looks at how William of Normandy held a strong claim to the English throne and how the Norman use of propaganda and their emphasis on the "will of God" suggests there was a seed of doubt somewhere in the Norman establishment concerning legitimacy.
From the Paper "To understand the Norman efforts to justify the conquest it is important to understand the nature of Anglo-Saxon England. How was Duke William of Normandy received? Did he face opposition because he was a foreigner or was it purely political? Anne Williams? provides an insight into English society much earlier than 1066, suggesting that the "emergence of Englishness" began as early as the 7th century . However, such an expression gives little more than a hint as to how developed and patriotic a society England was in the 11th century. The existence of patriotism in England is hard to identify in this period. Overseas invasions were not uncommon and it was only twenty-four years earlier that the Danish dynasty of Cnut had ruled."
Abstract The paper considers the novel "Utopia" by Thomas More that describes conquests in a utopian society and Bartolome de Las Casas's "Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies." The paper examines the justification for conquest, treatment of the conquered, and rights of the conquered. The paper explains how these two works show different scenarios. In the Utopian society, there is reasonable justification for the conquest, the conquered people are treated well and the conquered people are given full rights. In the case of the Spaniards and the Indians, there is no valid justification for the conquest, the Indians are treated harshly, and the Indians are stripped of their rights. Despite these apparent differences, the paper shows that both works offer the same message.
Contents:
Conquering "Primitives" and the Justification for Conquest The Treatment of the Conquered
The Rights of the Defeated
Conclusion
From the Paper "In Utopia there is a lot of detail given justifying the conquest of primitives. This starts with a statement that the Utopians detest war and do not enter into battle easily. The strongest statement made about the Utopian position on war is that "they count nothing so much against glory, as glory gotten in war" (More, The Second Book of Warfare). Considering that society typically considers war as being associated with glory, this statement shows that the society rejects war as much as they possibly can. The book then goes on to describe the justifications for war. These justifications include defending their own country, driving out enemies from the lands of their friends, and freeing oppressed people from tyranny and bondage. It is this third justification that is their reason for conquering the original inhabitants of Utopia. Essentially, they consider that the original inhabitants are being ruled wrongly and that their conquering of the people will free them and allow them to be ruled in the correct way. The book even states that they conquer lands where people are oppressed out of "mere pity and compassion" (More, The Second Book of Warfare)."
Abstract This essay outlines Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul between 59 and 51 B.C. It outlines major points and battles and, more specifically, centers on how his conquests affected his standing in Rome and his rise to power. The paper also examines Caesar's commentaries on the great battle, "The Conquest of Gaul".
From the Paper "Instances such as these show Caesar at his finest. With courage and enthusiasm Caesar routinely fought in the front ranks with his troops - leading by example to rally them. They won the battle of Sambre. Out of the force of 60,000 that came against the Romans, only 600 soldiers remained. Furthermore, the Conquest of Gaul not only showed his ability as a leader but also the type of man he was. Caesar was proud to be Roman, and his pride reveals itself in his commentaries. Caesar's commentaries were, in themselves, a reflection of that pride. To Pompey after having his command in Gaul revoked Caesar wrote, ?The glory of Rome has ever been my first object, dearer indeed than life itself.? Rome's will was his ambition."
A descriptive essay showing through fictitious newspaper articles and other media sources the Spanish conquest on Mexico and the character of the local Aztecs.
Abstract The author of this paper uses an original style to produce this essay which brings across the story of Spaniard Hernan Cortez's conquest of Mexico and the local Aztecs with which he fought. By conducting an 'interview' with the Chronicler Juan de Pomar and Hernan Cortez and writing an article about Cortez's success in the Mexican conquest, the paper gives an overall picture of the events of the 1519 era and the culture of the Aztec people.
From the Paper "Montecuhzoma allowed Cortez and his men into Tenochtitlan, which was not his normal policy of caution. Great diplomatic overtures were made on both sides, and at first the two warring parties almost seemed as though they might find peace.
Unfortunately that was not to be. The Spaniards were coarse, ignorant of local customs, and rude. They cared little for protocols and pleasantries. In the end, this disregard for the Aztec culture may have been what created their successful attacks and eventual takeover of Tenochtitlan- while the Aztecs were sacrificing warriors to their gods during battle, the Spaniards were killing them off in large numbers."
Abstract ?Peace Without Conquest? was one of the most significant speeches of the 20th Century. It evoked the passions of Americans all over the country and cemented the nation's commitment to the War in Vietnam. ?Peace Without Conquest? is Lyndon Johnson's explanation of the American involvement in the war as a means to bring harmony to the region while avoiding occupation. This paper presents a reaction to the reasons why America engaged in battle in Vietnam. It specifically explores the legitimacy of Johnson's assertions. The writer also explores whether Johnson's assertions were sufficient to justify America's continued involvement. In addition, it considers what reasoning he failed to discuss that would have argued against America's involvement.
From the Paper "In this statement, Johnson asserts that the ability to exist in a world where nations have the right to dictate their own lives is dependent upon America's willingness to fight for this right. Johnson asserts that the only way to preserve freedom is to use force. This assertion seems accurate?there is a price to be paid for freedom. In addition, the argument that American freedom is only truly secure when other countries are also allowed to be free is also legitimate. History has proven that humanity is a continuum and that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". In this section of Johnson's speech it is clear that the war in Vietnam is viewed as a necessary agent. Johnson asserts that in some cases force must precede reason it is obvious that he believes that the war in Vietnam is one of those cases. The point that he makes in this section of the speech is legitimate and justifies our involvement in the war."
Abstract This paper explores and negates many of the myths associated with the Spanish conquest of America. The paper points out that the allegations of Cortez's military genius and technological superiority over the Native Americans are unfounded, and, contrary to popular legend, the actual conquest of the native Indians was a long and arduous process and not a rapid and simple achievement; the concept of Spanish superiority over native Indians directly challenges what is known to be true about the native Indians' advanced and sophisticated societies.
From the Paper "The suggestion that the Conquest was achieved rapidly by defeating the native Indian armies with a small group of Spaniards acting alone is also a myth. Such tales of the Conquest, according to the Spaniards, completely disguises the incomplete nature of this event and throws a dark shadow over the roles played by the Native Indians and the free and enslaved West Africans. It is also a myth and a widespread misconception that the Conquest reduced the Native Indians of the "New World" to the point of extinction. In truth, these peoples, via diverse and profound means, displayed enormous resilience, adaptability, and vitality and even turned the impact of the Conquest into opportunity instead of disaster."
Abstract This research paper discusses the military and political aspects of the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. It gives detailed background information on the previous attempts to conquer the city by several other civilizations and provides primary source information on the 45-day conquest process of the city by the Turks, which changed the fate of Europe, Christianity, and the Turks.
From the Paper "The city of Constantinople, which is now known as Istanbul, was inhabited by people as early as 3000 BC. Along with its history, Constantinople always held the interest of Greeks and Romans; yet, this interest could only continue until the rise of the Ottoman Turk power. The most powerful civilizations of their times eventually occupied, or at least tried to occupy, this city for various reasons. The location of Constantinople is the most attractive feature of the city; it is located in such an area that the Bosphorus, the sea that separates the two continents Asia and Europe, simply implies that this city is an entry to both Asia and Europe. Given this fact, it is true to say that the European originated Greeks and Romans wanted to control the entry to Asia, which eventually would cause a tremendous expansion in trades. Thus, Constantinople and ?the huge peninsula, known to the ancients as Asia Minor, had been one of the most populous areas in the world.? (Runciman, 22)."
Abstract This paper looks at Clendinnen's "Ambivalent Conquests" and discusses how the Mayans and other Yucatan natives were strong fighters. It points out however, that it was not only Spanish military conquest, but more importantly other events and interactions that brought about their ultimate downfall.
From the Paper "To remedy the common exemption of the Yucatan's perspective Inga Clendinnen wrote Ambivalent Conquests. She starts out with the very first encounter between the Spanish and Yucatan natives, which interestingly did not actually occur on Yucatan soil. Actually in the year 1502 A.D. Christopher Columbus came across a floating canoe manned by twenty-five naked people carrying bronze ax heads, cacao beans, pottery and other cargo apparently to trade off the coast of Honduras. Columbus' crew ravaged through the Indians' belongings and took whatever they liked along with an old man who seemed to be the canoe's guide in hopes that he would be a helpful navigator. This was a gentle precursor to the offenses Spanish intruders would later inflict upon the Yucatan's deep cultural heritage."
Abstract The paper outlines the history and events surrounding the figure of La Malinche, with a focus on her influence on and relationship with Cortez and her effect on the conquest of the Aztecs. The central contention of this paper is that without her help, the Spanish would not have been able to conquer the Aztec people. The paper portrays the historical figure of La Malinche and details her valuable knowledge and skills that assisted the Spanish. The paper concludes that although her role in the conquest of the Aztecs is without a doubt, the figure of La Malinche, however, remains ambiguous. She is seen as both a heroic figure as well as a traitor to her own country.
From the Paper "Known as the mother to the ethnic Mestizo people of Mexico, La Malinche was also known as Dona Marina, Malintzin, Malinal and Malinulli. While much of the writing about here is mythical and partially unsubstantiated, various reports and studies claim that she was undoubtedly a figure who played an important, if not vital role in the Spanish invasion and conquest of Mesoamerica. Researchers, for example, claim that she successfully "...guided Hernan Cortez into, and out of, many a battle with great success.""
Abstract This paper discusses and reviews Bernal Diaz del Castillo's book, "The Conquest of New Spain." The paper analyzes the content of the book and the biases that Diaz del Castillo appears to present in his accounting of events in the book. The paper suggests that "The Conquest of New Spain" raises many troubling ethical questions for a critical reader, reading with a post-colonial, post-modern mindset.
From the Paper "Immediately upon reading the title of Bernal Diaz del Castillo's The Conquest of New Spain a critical reader bridles at the title, and expects an imperialistic history. After all, to our postmodern, politically correct ears, Mexico is not 'new Spain,' but an independent nation. When one hears that Diaz del Castillo's account is a 16th century memoir of one of the soldiers who accompanied the conqueror and, in today's view, the modern imperialist, Cortes to the New World of Central America, the reader grows even more suspicious. However, although the author's biases must be acknowledged, this is still an important account of a grounds-eye view of Cortes and his invasion of Central America. It was written after the destruction the Aztec Empire, and according to the author it was designed to deflate rather than inflate the mythology that had grown up around Cortes' invasion."
Abstract This paper compares Ridley Scott's film, "1492: Conquest of Paradise" with the events that actually took place under the leadership of Christopher Columbus. The author describes the portrayal of Columbus, the long sea voyage, the natives, and the lush scenery.
From the Paper "
This film depicts the violence of the Spaniards when the first discovered the New World, and shows how cruel man can be to fellow man, in the name of conquest and riches. It depicts Columbus as ?also a good deal more convincing as a human being. As played by Gerard Depardieu, he seems huge and shaggy and dogged, just the kind of man who would get an idea in his head and refuse to surrender it."
Tags: america, christopher, columbus, discovery, ridley, scott, spain, film
This paper analyzes both conquests in detail, finding what both generals had in common -- that they took the advantage of the internal conflicts between the natives of the respective lands and used it to make their allies.
1,605 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 0 sources, 2002, $ 52.95
Abstract An analysis of the leadership of Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro in the 16th century. It describes in detail the conquests, focusing on various regions such as Dona Marina, countryman Geronimo de Aguilar and the Spanish governor of Cuba, Diego Velaquez.
From the Paper "The Spanish conquest of Mexico started from the year 1519, when the Spanish conqueror Corte's started his battle to conquest the land and to take away the wealth for the Spanish empire. Hernan (also Hernando or Fernando) Cortes was from a family of minor nobility. He gained respect in later years by participating in the conquest of Cuba with Diego Velazquez, the future governor. The army of Hern?n Cortes consisted of around 500 Spanish soldiers and sailors, 16 horses and fourteen cannons to terrorize the Mexicans. They were given a war welcome by the native "Totanic" Indians."
Abstract The paper examines the film "1492: Conquest of Paradise" in light of the historical telling of the Columbus story. The film's setting, portrayal of character, dialog and violence are assessed against fact. The film is found to overall not be a realistic portrayal of historical fact.
From the Paper "This film depicts the violence of the Spaniards when the first discovered the New World, and shows how cruel man can be to fellow man, in the name of conquest and riches. It depicts Columbus as "also a good deal more convincing as a human being. As played by Gerard Depardieu, he seems huge and shaggy and dogged, just the kind of man who would get an idea in his head and refuse to surrender it" (Ebert).
In the film, director Ridley Scott portrays him as arrogant at times, which an explorer would have to be to lead three tiny ships into the unknown to prove his theories. In the movie he says to Sanchez, the Spanish royal treasurer: "Look out there! What do you see?" Sanchez: "I see clouds ... I see palaces, I see steeples: I see civilization ... and I see spires that reach ... to the sky." Columbus: "All of them created by people like me. No matter how long you live Sanchez, there is something that will never change between us: I did it, you didn't" (1492)."
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the characters and actions of Harold of England and William of Normandy as introduced and discussed in the book ?1066: The Year of the Conquest,? by David Howarth. Specifically it also examines the similarities and differences between Anglo-Saxon England and Normandy before the Battle of Hastings and the workings of the feudal system within which both men operated. The paper also includes some theories of why William won and Harold lost.
From the Paper "Afterwards, life in Normandy went on pretty much as usual. Some of their men did not return, but there were always more warriors to take their place. The thanes that had fought for William took over English lands, and got as much out of them as they could, so they were more prosperous than before. The Normans drank their wine, and continued with their violent lives. However, the English never became Norman, and they did get their country back."
This is an essay outlining Julius Caesar's imperial conquest of Gaul during the last century B.C. Special attention is paid to Caesar's military strategy and the motivational techniques that he used with his troops.
Abstract This paper explains how, through analysis of Caesar's "The Conquest of Gaul", among other works, one may begin to put together an explanation as to why and how Julius Caesar was so successful in defeating his enemies in such a routine fashion. It shows that, although Caesar has been subject to many subsequent criticisms about the embellishments of his campaigns in his own work, and even his military abilities at the tactical level, his feats are simply too astounding and too well-documented and praised to go unnoticed.
From the Paper "Caesar's campaigns in Gaul began in fifty-eight BC when the Helvetii, among other peoples, began a mass migration from their homes in Switzerland. Caesar declined their request to pass through Roman territory due to the fact that the Helvetii had killed Roman consul, Lucius Visutskie 2 Cassius, years previous. For this reason, Caesar viewed the Helvetii as a threat to the well-being of their allies, the Sequani and the Aedui, who had been loyal to Rome in the past, and whose territory the Helvetii wished to pass through.3 Since the Helvetii had burned their own towns and villages to the ground, Caesar viewed them as even more dangerous since they had nowhere to retreat to, thus, they would be more willing to face the consequences that resulted from any of their actions.4 Despite Caesar's refusal for the Helvetii to travel through Roman territory, they marched anyway. Caesar reacted to this manoeuver posthaste. By the time Caesar's army had reached the Helvetii army, they had already pillaged the towns and fields of the Aedui and the Sequani, and taken all of their children into slavery.5 This infuriated Caesar, he planned a careful attack on the Helvetii, determined to make them pay. Caesar first attacked a small portion of the Helvetii, whom had not yet crossed the Saone River with the rest of the army, and ravaged them, making somewhat of an example of them. Caesar caught up with the rest of the Helvetii tribe days later and damaged them more in a gruelling battle which ended with the retreat of a hundred and thirty thousand Helvetii soldiers. Caesar intelligently sent messages to other allied settlements where the Helvetii could surface, warning them not to provide the Helvetii with food or shelter as they would become the enemy of the Romans if they did. Due to lack of food and nutrition, the Helvetii surrendered within three days and were divided into several groups in accordance with Caesar's wishes.6 Thus, the first campaign of Caesar's conquest into Gaul was not really intended to be a victory for Caesar, and a step in expanding the Roman Empire, but more or less a gesture of assistance to a group who had remained loyal to Rome over many years(as understood by the writings of Caesar himself). Besides being successful in getting the Helvetii out of Rome, Caesar also was quite successful in removing Ariovistus from Roman territory."
