Please supply links to these claims. Conquistador literature went through several stages. It was accurately recorded by people who were there in most cases at one time. Soon after conquistadors became lionized and were claimed to have done all sorts of brave and noble deeds by amplifying what actually occurred. Then it became fashionable to denounce them as barbarian conquerors for a period of time based on garbage that never took place. It appears at least most of your sources came from this third and least accurate period.
You keep typing things that do not appear in any of the most reliable and exhaustive sources on Cortez. Why should I believe them. I need sources.
That is not even a little bit true.
The official version, as presented by Cortés and Díaz and accepted by many later commentators, is that the Aztecs ordered the Cholulans to prepare a trap. The conquistadors were housed in a palace in the town. They were fed and treated well on the first day, but after a couple of days the food stopped coming. A Cholulan woman told La Malinche that the Spaniards were to be murdered the next day, except for those who would be taken back to Tenochtitlan for sacrifice, and that she should escape and save herself. Instead, she told Cortés. The next day, convinced that they were slated to be the victims of a treacherous (from their point of view) betrayal, the Spaniards turned the tables on the Cholulans and massacred about ten per cent of the city's population.
Massacre at Cholula - Conquest of Mexico
Since you are simply going to deny this for convenience even though the sources for this account are the best possible let me illustrate more reasons to believe this account.
1. Cortez and all other conquerors benefit far more from peaceful co-operation than direct opposition.
2. The Spaniards were outnumbered thousands to one. You do not risk angering the general population when that weak.
3. You need to maintain what little troops you have and not recklessly endanger them for no high return on the investment.
4. This pattern of the Mexican tribes attempting to lure the Spaniards into a trap based on instigations from Montezuma is perfectly consistent. He wanted someone else to take them on because he was afraid of them, he arm twisted his neighbors constantly.
Keep in mind I am not attempting to suggest Cortez was a great moral example. I am only trying to establish what actually occurred versus the hyperbolic revisionist history stuff.
Partially true. This event was the result of constant harassment and betrayal by several tribes. He invited all their chiefs to a meeting and had them all killed as a military necessity. You must also evaluate Cortez in the context of his mission and role. He was a military commander who was commanded to win above all else. That does not make his actions moral but they do explain them in ways other than sheer brutality for it's own sake.
Not true at all. The forces were sent by the Governor of Cuba which Cortez had personally offended in some way. It was not the mission of the Church nor of the crowns instigation. It was petty battle of insults and greed. Cortez did no great slaughter to any Spanish force. He couldn't he had less than 200 men. He rode straight into the commanders quarters and either killed or captured him. He then made a speech that appealed to greed and the entire force joined him voluntarily. There was no slaughter of any kind involved.
No he did not. He lived in a palace supplied by Montezuma on his entrance. Much later he was driven out by massed crowds and lost many men at night. It is called La Noche Triste (sad night). He literally sat under a tree and wept for hours over his men. After he recovered and after savage battles he demolished the city block by block because it was used for cover by the Aztec's attacking him. Your confusing an act of military necessity with barbarity.
He later spent money from his own estate to rebuild the city.
This one is complete garbage.
I am quite sure sexual advantage was taken at times. There however was never any systematic sex slave events that ever occurred.
He defended the Aztec's against the crown, He rebuilt Tenochtitlan from his own pocket. He stopped abuses by later Spanish dignitaries. The most accurate way to describe Cortez is as follows:
1. Sincerely tried to accomplish works for God.
2. Sincerely desired gold at almost any cost.
3. He never acted for the sake of brutality alone. Many times he did whatever was available to reduce loss of life.
4. However he would do anything necessary to win and survive.
He is a very contradictory person who did great and noble acts and terribly brutal acts. My problem has only been with your inaccurate historical claims. There are plenty of accurate examples of brutality concerning Cortez. You do not need these hyperbolic distortions and out right fabrications.
Cortez's men killed less than 5000 people al together. It was the enemies of Montezuma that had been prayed on by him for decades that did almost all the killing and almost al the brutality. They took the opportunity for revenge that is unimaginable when they saw the Spaniards could possibly stand up to him. An educated guess would be that the Aztec's killed hundreds of thousands of their neighbors, Cortez and his men killed less than 5000 people all together. Mexican tribes abused by the Aztec's killed maybe a hundred thousand Aztec's. Small pox killed tens of millions. Your data is absurdly inaccurate. Cortez never had more than two dozen horses and a thousand men. It is physically impossible for him to do any thing like you claim.
All this aside my purpose is not to defend Cortez. It was primarily to suggest that there is many reasons to believe God did not forget about the Aztec's and what they had done and to get historical data in it's proper and accurate context.
If you actually care about what actually occurred then read Cortez by John Stevens Cabbot. It is a remarkable detailed and critical account of Cortez's actions given by an honest and fair handed eye witness to almost all of the actual events themselves. He was critical where appropriate and supportive where appropriate.
. You WANT objective morality to exist so you use a method for it to subjectively exist.
