Racha Salha 02/09/14 HIST 125 Paper Draft #1: Bernal Diaz's document: a more reliable account?

The European colonization of the Americas is a major event of the 16th and 17th centuries, which has started with the Spanish in 1512, when they invaded the West Indian Islands looking for gold, but also determined to expand Christianity into the New World. This paper will compare three documents that tell the story, from different points of view, of the Spanish arrival, and their encounter with the great Aztec empire that was in place at the time in what is now Mexico. Two of those documents are from the points of view of two Spaniards, while the third one is from an Aztec origin. Even though the events told in those documents are similar and took place around the same time-1510s-1520s-, they differ by their tone, their purpose, but also by the point of view from where they are told. Based on all that, the document that appears the more reliable could be the one written by Bernal Diaz, a Spanish soldier who took part in the conquest of Mexico, led by Hernan Cortes. Indeed, Diaz seemed very sincere in his writing, more objective, and he gave a lot of relevant details. Thesis statement is shorter. One of the similarities between the three documents is that they are mainly descriptive, and tell similar events. In fact, they are all about the arrival of the Spaniards in the New World. In the Broken Spears account, two Aztecs messengers were sent by Montezuma to greet and take a gift to Cortes. All along the text, we have a description of the Spaniards through the eyes of the Aztecs, who were impressed and even afraid of all those new things they discovered, as the horses that they thought were deer! (The Broken Spears, 2). Cortes was more focusing on telling the king of Spain, Charles V, his exploits and how the Aztecs were under his control. Here too, Diaz makes a better description of the events, by organizing his thoughts, while Cortes is trying to give as many information as possible to his king, what

Racha Salha may let him forget or exaggerate some of them. For instance, he writes to the king that he and the other Spaniards "were in a position to win for Your Majesty the greatest dominions and kingdoms in the world" (Cortes, 1), and makes the expedition look easy and rapid, and the Spaniards invincible, when it is known that it took him years to really defeat the Aztecs. Diaz is more specific and he precisely describes the Aztecs' and their chief's living ways, as well as the way Montezuma was dressed for his encounter with Cortes, and who was carrying him. He also exactly described the necklace Cortes offered to Montezuma (Diaz, 2). His words show how impressed he was by the Aztecs, as when he described Montezuma as a "great and valiant prince"(Diaz, 5). The fact that his account is more detailed than Cortes' and the Aztecs' ones, and more organized -there are titles in between each section, for instance he named the paragraph devoted to Montezuma: "Of the manner and appearance of the great Montezuma and what a great prince he was" (Diaz, 5) - makes it look more reliable because he is giving a more complete version of the events. Concerning the period when those documents were written, it is almost the same time for all. In fact, Hernan Cortes wrote his report to the king of Spain in 1519, sometime after his arrival to the New World. Diaz's report was written years after the conquest of Mexico, although the events he is describing actually took place in 1519 too. The third text was written in the 16th century, around the same time since it described the encounter between the Aztecs and the Spaniards. Here, the document written by the Aztecs could be the less relevant since we do not have a specific date of when it was written, only an approximation. Moreover, the authors of the document are unknown, and this may questions their authority, in addition to the fact that those texts have been translated many times, and so their true meaning may have been lost. On the contrary, Cortes and Diaz were historical characters who really existed, and who are internationally known. The fact that Diaz wrote his account many years after the conquest and that he still remembered so many details may be explained by saying that he

Comment [SH1]: Not following you here

Comment [SH2]: But a fairly narrow dat range, no? Dont rely too heavily on this point.

Racha Salha surely took notes during the expedition. Indeed, this was very common back then, when people usually had a journal, especially explorers. Although there are some similarities between the three documents, as the events that are told, their description and their period, there are still many differences, starting by the tone that is used by each one of the authors. For instance, Diaz looks much more neutral in his writing than the others. He is neither the victims nor the captain, but a simple soldier; so his point of view is more objective. Unlike Cortes, he doesn't need to impress the king or to assure him that everything was going fine. He voluntarily participated to the expedition, and could be seen more as an observer than as an invader. It was rather different for Cortes, since he was sort of sent on a special mission by the king, and needed his funding to succeed. He was the leader of the expedition, and so had many responsibilities related to his status. This is the main reason why he looked more subjective in his account, and his letter was more formal. He was trying to prove to Charles V that he was succeeding, and this may had pushed him to exaggerate some of the events he was telling. Thus, if we compare what Diaz says to Cortes' account, it obviously appears that one of them is not sincere. Indeed, Diaz describes Cortes as very respectful to Montezuma, by telling how he greeted him with a reverence, and offered him a gift (Diaz, 2), while Cortes appears to be much more violent in his letter to the king. He only talks about his superiority toward the Aztecs, and the harm he did to them (Cortes, 1). He described himself as without mercy, and as the enemy of the Aztecs, while he appears to be their friend in Diaz's account. Concerning the third document, the tone is not as objective as Diaz's, and that is comprehensible knowing that the Aztecs were the victims, and so they were telling the events from a sufferer's point of view, while Cortes was telling them in a conqueror's point of view. None of them could be really objective, since they were too concerned by what was happening at the time. The three documents also differ by the point of view from where they are told. As said
Comment [SH8]: Good! Comment [SH7]: Okayand? Comment [SH6]: But they are talking about two different times during the conquest, no? Comment [SH4]: But everything he received after the event, including his position in New Spain, was owed to his participation in the conquest, no? You are giving Diaz A LOT of credit here. Comment [SH5]: Yikes, really?!?

Comment [SH3]: Maybe but no way to b sure of this, right? Again, dont rely too heavily on this point.

Racha Salha above, the Broken Spears document is one of the rare documents left and that are from an Aztec point of view. Given that the Aztecs were the victims, it may be very important since they described the events very differently from the way the Spaniards did. Thus, this document shows that the Aztecs were very impressed by the Europeans, as much as they impressed them. The description they made of the encounter is not exactly the same as the one made by the Spaniards since they looked much more impressed and astonished than in Diaz's report. They also described their fear and the feeling that they were inferior to the Europeans who had a lot of metal weapons (The Broken Spears, 2). Moreover, they tell how they were completely wiped out by the diseases brought by them (The Broken Spears, 3). However, their account shows that despite of their suspicions and their concerns, they tried to be hospitable. On the other hand, both Diaz and Cortes were Spanish, what means that both documents were written by the invader's point of view. This is perfectly proven in Cortes' letter, when he proudly described the treatment he inflicted to the Aztecs, and how he attacked them. He mainly pointed out the fact that the Spaniards were much stronger than the Indians, by making them look as inferior and savages who were quickly influenced by the Europeans and under their thumb. He didn't give them any consideration, and keep repeating to the king that they "begged" him to be their ally (Cortes, 1- and 2). However, he seems to be very contradictory, by referring to the Aztecs as allies or friends, right after saying that he killed them! For his part, even though he was Spanish too, Diaz saw things differently than his captain. He described the Aztecs community as an impressive empire, which had its own rules, customs, and beliefs. He also showed them as independent and proud people. He even thought that they could be superior to the Spanish (Diaz, 1). The fact that Diaz and Cortes' accounts are so different whereas they are both supposed to be in the same side make us doubt even more Cortes's words by realizing that his account is too optimistic to be true. Finally, another of the differences of the three documents is their purpose. The Aztecs
Comment [SH9]: Again, they are talking about two different times during the conquest, no?

Comment [SH10]: Im not following how this paragraph helps prove your overall argument.

Racha Salha wrote to give their point of view. Maybe the rest of their writing was a testimony of the Spanish's cruelty toward them all along the colonization, but in this document they were mainly trying to point out the big differences between their living styles, and the Spanish's one, in addition to the diseases that wiped them out. They may have written this for their offspring, so that their people know the real story of what they went through. Cortes wrote his report to the king, wanting him to believe in the Spanish's success, so he might be exaggerating and only telling the Spanish's triumph by voluntarily ignoring their defeats. Here again, Diaz's report may be the more believable because he was not the captain of the expedition, and his writing was not personally destined to anyone. He was telling the facts from a more neutral point of view. Everyone can read what he wrote, and his main purpose was to tell the story of the conquest as sincerely as possible, and to write his memories. In conclusion, the document that appears to be the more reliable is Diaz's. Indeed, he described things as they were, instead of trying to exaggerate them by raising the Spanish's profile. Even if he was impressed by the Aztecs, his tone tended to be more neutral that the two other authors. However, this doesn't mean that the other documents can't be believable. The fact that Cortes was the leader of the expedition obviously gives him an important status, and so he couldn't lie with impunity to his king. At the same time, the Broken Spears document is very interesting too, according to the fact that it is from the Aztecs' point of view, and that they were the ones who were attacked and invaded. So their testimony is surely sincere since it comes from the heart. Finally, the question of which of those documents is the more reliable remains very open, and no one can really give an objective opinion. Indeed, those who think that the Spaniards were violent and led to the extermination of the Aztecs would definitely rely on the Broken Spears document, while the others who view the Native Americans as savages who needed to be civilized would trust Cortes' words. As regards Diaz's
Comment [SH11]: Whoa! An important point, huh? Comment [SH12]: Wait, so the Broken Spears is pretty reliable then?

Comment [SH13]: Im not too convinced by your argument here.

Racha Salha account, it would be generally believed by those who are in the middle, and who don't really hold an opinion on the subject, and don't take side.