Hi
My questiojn is this. Who really killed Montezuma? Hernando Cortez’ army or the Aztecs?I’ve read both versions and I would likle to know where the most recent studies stand on this issue. What do most scholarly historians think?
I look forward to your answers.
davidmich
Reported for forum change.
Moved to GD.
The doubts are coming by taking into account the narratives of the survivors of the Aztecs, the account is indeed different from the Spanish one.
IMO that is likely, because Pizarro followed the same tactics in Peru as Cortes did, once Atahualpa was no longer useful he was killed by the Spaniards. The only difference was that in Peru the Spaniards clearly had the upper hand, but in Mexico not many Spaniards escaped after they likely disposed of Montezuma after he showed that he was useless to them, of course Cortez rearmed and destroyed Tenochtitlan later.
Hernán Cortés, please, with or without the accents. Cortez is a common overcorrection in some locations including the US, Hernando is just wrong.
Well, dang, it turns out that I **made **the correct spelling first but then the checker missed the one with “z” What is annoying is that many dictionaries here report that both spellings are good.
Like I said, Cortez is a very common way of spelling it in the US (people think it’s a patronimic, when it’s actually a word meaning “courteous, honorable”). I noticed your change of spelling too.
Thank you for your replies. They were both very helpful.
davidmich
Wikipedia:
So, Hernando or Fernando are more correct than Hernan.
If you read Bernal Diaz (or just about any history, for that matter), you see how incredibly inappropriate “courteous” is.
Cortez is the correct traditional spelling in English.
( Gulf of California - Wikipedia )
Cortés is indeed a patronimic, he was the son of Martín Cortés and Catalina Pizarro.
He was a charismatic leader who lead people into doing incredible feats and who turned people around just with his words. He was a great military leader but much more a skilled politician. His greatest achievements are in how he convinced Spanish and natives alike.
When he and his men could barely hold Mexico city a Spanish army outnumbering them was sent against them but he went to meet them, talked to them and most of them changed to his side.
The aim of Cortez (and the Spanish policy in general) was not to destroy the civilizations they found but to integrate them into the Spanish empire. To this purpose they strived to conserve the existing social order and hierarchy and the ruling classes were given Spanish titles of nobility. As long as they submitted to Spanish rule they were pretty much allowed to continue as before. The idea was that it was easier and better to slowly introduce Christianity and European customs than to immediately impose them by force. Only when a people did not submit to the Spanish was war waged against them. It was a conquest conducted along similar lines as the Reconquista and with the same mentality.
While Montezuma was emperor and held as a “forced guest” of Cortez he was treated with utmost respect and Spanish soldiers were punished if they did not salute him when they went by him. Again, the idea was to keep the existing social order and use him to control his people.
What the Spanish did not seem to fully understand is that once Montezuma had been deposed and replaced he was pretty much powerless (he was not really a king but held an elective office from which he was removed and replaced). They tried to use him to calm the Mexicans but the Mexicans already had a different leader who had given orders to attack the Spanish. He was almost certainly killed by the attackers.
That makes it a family name, but not necessarily a patronymic.
Ok, now I see I did not fully understand Nava’s meaning. Now I get it. That some people think the -ez implies that. I totally overlooked that and thought she was meaning that he was called Cortés as an adjective and not because he inherited the name. In other words, never mind me.
And you will also see how even more vile the Aztecs were. They practiced human sacrifice on a large scale…some 50,000 in four days. Even the industrialized German national socialists under their community activist couldn’t match that pace at Auschwitz
Bernal Diaz del Castillo speaks very highly of Cortez calling him brave and comparing him to great historical leaders like Alexander, Julius Caesar and others.
Cortez gets a bad rap in the English-speaking world because of the general anti-Spanish slant of English history books. Judging those times by today’s standards makes no sense but by the standards of the times Spain and Spanish customs and mentality were far ahead of anything else in Europe.
The concern about the morality and justice of the conquest and the rights of the natives was unheard of at the time and even centuries later in other cultures.
Spain was spreading Christianity with the same zeal the British would later spread “civilization” and America today spreads “democracy”. Except we’re talking 500 years ago.
Cortez wanted to conquer land and peoples for Spain and gain glory and riches for himself and his men. His men generally loved him and in many cases if they criticise him it is because he did not let them loot or they considered their share was insufficient.
In Cozumel Cortez rebuked his lieutenant Alvarado for stealing some gold and chickens from the natives and ordered them returned saying “this is no way to pacify a land”.
For 500 years ago the record is not bad at all. Specially if you compare it to what was done later and what is being done now by other cultures.
Cortez did not conquer Mexico with a handful of Spaniards, he led a revolt of thousands of Tlaxcalans and other tribes who were being oppressed by the Mexicans and were tired of it. Cortez was just the leader they needed to revolt.
He and the Spaniards got a good rap in my history books, but they were Catholic and all. Didn’t get much about the Founding Fathers, though a couple of them lived down the road, because they weren’t.
Nonsense. Cortes himself estimated about 3500 sacrifices per year in the entire empire (quoted in 1491, by Charles C Mann). 50,000 in four days would have depopulated large parts of their country, and was impossible anyway. In four days there are 48 daylight hours, and sacrifices to the sun were obviously only done when the sun is in the sky. So to kill 40000 men (women weren’t used for heart sacrifices, in spite of thousands of cheap calendar prints of a grieving warrior weeping over his sacrificed wife) meant that they would have lead up the pyramid, stretch out on the altar, cut out the heart (not an easy task with a flint knife, as some doctors down here recently proved by experiments on cadavers) hold the heart up to the sun, chant various incantations, dismember the corpse, and roll it down the pyramid steps, in four seconds, non stop, for twelve hours straight. And the captives were often more or less volunteers (look up “flower wars” if you want to know more); were treated like kings while waiting for the sacrifice, often drugged before death, told that they were messengers to the gods who would be welcomed as heros into paradise, and killed in the quickest and least painful manner they knew. Contrast this with the Catholics, who often tortured their victims until they had to be dragged to the stake, kept them in filthy dungeons, told them that they were being sent to Hell for further torture, and murdered them in the most agonizing manner possible.
Charles Mann, by the way, quoting from a lot of old documents, estimates that the English executed more people per capita than the Aztecs did, (think ten year olds hanged for stealing a loaf of bread) and that the Spanish, French, and Italians killed even more. Often by torture.
The Mayans sometimes even sacrificed the winning team captain of their sacred ball games, who played his heart out, often for several days, knowing what his fate would be if he won.
I’m not sure who killed him, but he got his revenge.
Great post, my old friend. I no longer have the energy to engage in these ‘debates.’
“Black Legend” my arse. Mind you, I am not proud of our past Empire, but as you very well said, context matters.
Shall we meet again in good health.
The patronimic would be Martínez. Cortez as a patronimic would mean “son of Corto”.