This essay is a critique of the book "The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of America", edited by Miguel Leon-Portilla; showing its unique manner in relating historical events.
Abstract This paper presents a critique of this book which tells the Aztec peoples? account of the Spanish conquest of Mexico. The paper examines the way in which, throughout history, the conquest has been told from the viewpoint of the conquistadors ?- the Spanish victors. "The Broken Spears" was the first book to tell the story of the conquest from the Aztecs? perspective. The writer shows the difference between "The Broken Spears" and other history accounts whereby this book is not about historical data gathering but, rather, is of the storytelling and human emotion behind the Spanish conquest.
From the Paper "Hernando Cortes? army arrived in Mexico in the early 16th century and defeated the Mexicans in relatively short order.
Cortes had originally been sent to Mexico by the Cuban governor to search for gold, but when he was asked to withdraw and return to Havana, he gathered 11 ships and 600 troops and made his way to Mexico.
"Previous Spanish expeditions had been sent to Mexico as early as 1517, but Cortes was a very powerful, persuasive leader and was able to rally the troops, so to speak. Also, the Indians turned out to be very susceptible to the Spaniards? superior weapons, as well as the new European viruses such as smallpox, chicken-pox, and measles. Of crucial importance was the Aztec leader's (Moctezuma) indecisiveness about Cortes? motives and confusion as to whether Cortes? arrival was a spiritual arrival or a spiritual sign ? a major mistake. Finally, the Mexican Indians were internally divided and there was much internal resentment about the Aztec domination in Mexico. Therefore, the Tlaxcaltecs and others ? the Aztecs? enemies ? became the Spaniards? allies."
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."
