The use of literary analysis focuses on comparing and contrasting fiction texts. This allows not only the consolidation of accumulated knowledge of literary mechanisms and their application in practice but also a deeper understanding of the themes and focal points of the works analyzed. This paper examines two texts authored by Native American authors. The first, “Two Songs (Aztec)” by Arthur J.O. Anderson, is one of the oldest texts written in the original Aztec language and translated by Anderson. The main message of this poem is an existential quest in which the Aztec people try to answer the question of the connection between soul and body; an excellent quotation reflecting this meaning is “Is it yet true there is living on earth?” (Anderson, line 11). The second poem is “Like Flowers Continually Perishing (Ayocuan Aztec)” by Birgitta Leander, also written by ancient Aztec peoples and translated into English. As with “Two Songs,” “Like Flowers Continually Perishing” seeks to explore existential meaning in the context of nature’s splendor and the human body’s earthiness. This paper explores the mechanical characteristics of the two literary works and compares them.
Literary Analysis
Themes
After reading the two poems, at first glance, it is evident that both explore similar phenomena and ask identical questions: what life is, what faith is, and the role of man and nature. However, both authors explore these issues from somewhat different angles. One of the most apparent comparisons is the thesis of man’s coming to life. The second poem contains the lines “In vain we come to this place, We come to live on earth,” the message of which lies in the insignificance of the physical life of the body with the hope for an afterlife of the soul (Leander, lines 37-38). Similar thoughts are captured in Anderson: “It is not so, it is not so, That we came to endure on earth” (Anderson, lines 3-4). Both quotations’ syntactic and semantic constructions are highly similar, and both authors lament the insignificance of human life compared with the divine extension of the soul. It is noteworthy that Anderson, unlike Leander, turned to the repetition “it is not so,” reflecting either the doubling of the negative meaning of life or the drawing of more attention in the following line. Repetition, in general, is one of the most common tools in both poems, with anaphora predominating in both cases. This representational strategy makes sense and helps the author keep the reader intrigued and build expectations that can either be shattered or satisfied.
Descriptions
The constructions of the two poems contain plenty of descriptive elements. Anderson uses nature as something purer and more pristine than man: “verdant spring,” “our bodies are like the flowers,” and “if it is jade, it shatters” (Anderson, lines 6, 9, 13-15). Leander has many more descriptive elements: “The beautiful flower, the beautiful song,” “The exotic perfume,” “belling bird,” and “branching flowers” (Leander, lines 2, 8, 15, 19). In both cases, they are intended to create the necessary atmosphere of a divine and magnificent nature, forming a contrast with the lowliness of human life in it.
Semantics
Also different are the semantic burdens prescribed by the role of flowers in both poems. Thus, Anderson compares human life to flowers: “But our bodies are like the flowers: Some blossom; they wither away” (Anderson, lines 9-10). Meanwhile, Leander contrasts the divinity of flowers with man’s destructiveness: “The beautiful flower,…, Our eagerness destroys them, Our diligence destroys them” (Leander, lines 2-4). The role of flowers in these contexts is almost opposite, as Anderson points to the vitality, the routine nature of such flowers (people), which can follow different paths of destiny, while Leander directly reports that man is not worthy of flowers, as he tends to destroy all the beauty of nature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is worth emphasizing that both literary works were written by representatives of the ancient Aztec peoples, and both are aimed at exploring the existential meaning of life. The poems are semantically and syntactically similar, as they contain many descriptive elements and anaphors. Although differences have been found between the texts, they seem natural and subjective and cannot outweigh the similarities between the two poems. This leads to the conclusion that the poems analyzed are characterized by identical thoughts and rhetorical devices of the same time and ethnicity.
This paper is aimed at examining three primary documents that can throw light on the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire. Two of them have been written by Spanish authors, namely Cortez (1986) and Diaz (1956), whose letters and books can be of great value to historians. In turn, the third one is attributed to an unknown Aztec chronicler.
These chronicles are collected by Miguel Portilla (1992) who wants to present the viewpoint of Aztec people. Overall, it is possible to say that Diaz’s account and The Broken Spears are more credible because the authors of these narratives had no incentive to justify their actions or conceal facts from the audience.
Moreover, these texts include details suggesting that the authors could recognize the power of their opponents. In turn, Cortez is more extreme in his account of the events. These are the main issues that can be considered.
One should first mention that Cortez’s account of these events was written immediately after the conquest. Therefore, it is possible to say that he had the opportunity to record every important detail if he had wanted to do it. In contrast, Diaz’s narrative was written approximately twenty years after the fall of the Aztec Empire. In turn, historians do not know precisely when the chronicles included in The Broken Spears could be composed. According to this criterion, Cortez’s account is more credible. It is critical to remember that this author could be very biased in his presentation of this event. This is one of the limitations that should be considered.
Finally, it is important to consider the personality of the authors. Cortez and Diaz represent the Spanish Empire or invaders, and these people try to omit the details that could lead to the sharp criticism of Spanish soldiers or their actions. This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about Cortez. In turn, historians do not know the names of people who wrote The Broken Spears.
The personality of the authors is closely related to their intentions. It should be kept in mind that these documents differ in terms of audience as well as the intention of the author. For example, Herman Cortez was intended for the Spanish monarch, King Charles V. To a great extent; he attempts to justify his actions and prove that he maintains full control over the situation. His word choice is very eloquent. For instance, while describing his attack, he makes the following statement, ‘so I left them pacified’ (Cortez 1). So, this author tries to describe Aztecs as some violent savages that had to be appeased.
Similarly, the purpose of The Broken Speaks is supposed to describe the experiences of Aztec people during the invasion. This manuscript was not supposed to embellish the Aztec state or its rulers. Moreover, this writer does not want to denigrate the Spaniards. They were described as “gods” (Portilla, 1992, p. 2). They were utterly astonished by the technological superiority of the conquerors. In this context, world superiority can be applied primarily to weaponry.
Furthermore, it is vital to speak about Diaz’s manuscript. This author attempts to create a historical narrative that could be read by educated people living in the Spanish Empire. Nevertheless, this author attempts to remain impartial and acknowledges the achievements of Aztec civilization. In particular, he says, ‘Gazing on such wonderful sights, we did not know what to say, or whether what appeared before us was real’ (Diaz 1).
Finally, it is crucial to speak about the tone of the author. Cortez’s letter is intended for the king; this is why he does not want to talk about the atrocities that Spanish soldiers committed. This author seeks to sound calm and resolute. He notes that “Finally, they offered themselves as vassals in the Royal service of Your Majesty and offered their persons and fortunes and so they have remained until today and will, I think, always remain” (Cortez 2).
In turn, the person, who wrote The Broken Spears, sounds quite nervous since he represents a community that faces invasion. Moreover, he writes about the various misfortunes encountered by Aztec people, for example, plagues. In his turn, Diaz strives to remain impartial while describing his encounter with Aztecs.
There are several similarities that can be identified. In each case, the author was a first-hand witness of the event. Secondly, in each case, the author had an opportunity to face a culture that was utterly unfamiliar to him. More importantly, The Broken Spears and Diaz’s book are aimed at creating a more balanced account of the conquest. This is why historians should pay more attention to these sources.
Overall, this discussion suggests that while analyzing primary sources, one should concentrate on the author’s background, his/her intentions, the audience, and other factors that can impair his/her impartiality. Overall, it is possible to say that The Broken Spears and Diaz’s account are more impartial. These are the main points that can be made.
Reference List
Cortéz, H. (1986). Second Letter to King Charles V of Spain. In A.
Pagden. Hernan Cortéz: Letters from Mexico (1-2). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Díaz, B. (1956). The True History of the Conquest of New Spain. New York, NY 1956.
Portilla, M. (1992). The Broken Spears. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Aztecs were Mesoamerican indigenous people who spoke the Nahuatl language and lived in the territory of modern Mexico. Throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, they created a sophisticated urbanized culture of city-states and came to dominate significant parts of Mexico, forming what is sometimes called an Aztec empire. Aztecs were a relatively militant people and often engaged the neighboring indigenous societies in raids and all-out wars to obtain loot and prisoners (Townsend, 2019). Politically speaking, the Aztec Empire was not particularly centralized because it did not have expansive bureaucracy, but the ruler of Tenochtitlan, as the most militarily powerful city-state, still came to dominate the politics (Townsend, 2019). Aztec religion revolved around the solar cycle and involved human sacrifices, although European sources tended to exaggerate the scope thereof (Townsend, 2019). Overall, the Aztecs formed a militaristic society that created well-developed city-states and was moving toward a centralized monarchy when the Europeans arrived.
In contrast, the Iroquois people comprised a league of five indigenous tribes – namely, Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, and Onondaga – who lived in the Great Lakes region in North America. Unlike the Aztecs, who created urban centers, the Iroquois lived in largely autonomous agricultural communities (Birch & Hart, 2018). They were famously communal, living in the longhouses that accommodated multiple families each. Archeological evidence of such longhouses goes back to the 13th century at least (Birch & Hart, 2018). While the Iroquois had their fair share of conflicts with neighbors, they were not as militant as the Aztecs. It was probably because the less-developed economy of the Great Lakes region offered fewer opportunities for obtaining valuable loot, and the prisoners were not as valuable because the Iroquois religion did not require human sacrifices. In political terms, the tribes and individual villages were relatively autonomous (Birch & Hart, 2018). Thus, unlike the Aztecs, the Iroquois were not yet an urban society and did not begin to form a fully functional centralized state.
References
Birch, J., & Hart, J. P. (2019). Social networks and northern Iroquoian confederacy dynamics. American Antiquity 83(1), 2018, 13–33. Web.
Townsend, C. (2019). Fifth sun: A new history of the Aztecs. Oxford UP.
The Incas became the mightiest people in South America during the fifteenth century. They were located in the Andes Mountains in Peru. They built roads and bridges for trade and communication purposes. They stored their information in knotted and colored systems known as quipu since they lacked the necessary writing skills. Their religious festivals were dominated by the cult of the sun, where predominantly guinea pigs’ and llamas’ sacrifices were offered to the gods.
They used bronze tools to build large and superb temples and fortresses. The elaborately constructed city they left at Machu Picchu clearly demonstrates the great masonry skills the Incas had. The city straddles two mountain peaks that are 9,000 feet above sea level.
The Aztecs were larger in number compared with the Incas. They initially were an insignificant tribe of warriors but after they moved into central Mexico in 1325, the will to conquer drove them into creating an empire that was made up of the entire of central Mexico and Mesoamerica to as far south as Guatemala. The Incas and the Aztecs adopted earlier Mesoamericans’ cultural traditions including the Maya. They honored the pantheon of nature deities that centered on the sun and offering human sacrifices. They also preserved the practice of temple construction, ceramics, weaving, stone-carving, and metalwork (Fiero, Week 2-3).
Spanish-Aztec Encounter
The Spanish soldiers, under the command of Hernan Cortes, overpowered the Aztecs in 1521 despite the fact that the Spanish army was outnumbered by the Aztec armies. The Spanish were able to overpower the Aztecs due to the superior technology of gunpowder and muskets. After a 75 day siege, the Spanish destroyed the city of Tenochtitlan to mere ashes. Religious prophecy, an outbreak of smallpox among the Aztecs, and support from rebellious Aztecs were other factors that helped the Spanish to gain victory.
The Spanish in the Americas: From Cortés’s Letters from Mexico
The Spanish were amazed by the practices and way of living of the Aztecs. Cortes sought to write a letter to Spain with the intention of assessing the differing reactions of Renaissance Europeans based on their initial encounters with natives of strange and remote regions. The letter by Cortes to Spain mainly gives a description of Aztec cultural achievement. It begins by describing the large and well-built Temixtitan city.
Cortes states his input into the city based on preparedness for betrayal by the natives. Cortes was quick to build four brigantines to link the city to the mainland. The letter acknowledges the spectacular market that is characterized by its great massiveness and variety of products and services. He also gives a detailed description of the practices of the natives. He talks about the idols’ temples/houses found in every district, lodgings available, priests found in the temples, and what goes on in these temples. In addition, Cortes has described the relationship between the Aztecs and their idols and how he gave the temples a new look by removing all the idols and urged them not to offer human sacrifices again.
Aftermath of Conquest
The Spanish not only benefited from the sources of wealth but they also enslaved the natives to miners and field laborers. The sixteenth century was a period when the Native American population was destroyed by the combined effects of smallpox and measles (termed as European diseases). European soldiers also obtained diseases from the natives such as syphilis. The population of the natives is deemed to have reduced from 25 million with Cortes’ arrival in 1600 to 1 million. Christianity and armory were introduced among the Americans.
The Columbian Exchange
The Columbian Exchange was the interchange of goods and products between the Western world of Europe and the Americas. This exchange was very useful because, through it, the Americans gained horses, cattle, pigs, horses, lettuce, fruits among a wide variety of related products. In the same way, the Europeans benefited from peanuts, pumpkins, avocados, potatoes, and tomatoes. The Columbian Exchange was responsible for the establishment of new vibrant cultures and people.
The mestizo for example was the product of the mixture between Europeans and Native Americans. This exchange is also deemed to be responsible for the generation of new developments in society involving technology, industrialization, diet, language, and dance. The Columbian Exchange was a platform for interaction and assimilation that led to shaping the future of a new world (Fiero, Week 2-3).
Aztecs have been one of the world’s greatest nations, fascinating people in the modern world with massive engineering constructions and specific religious differences. The Aztec empire appeared in North America on the territory of Mexico, and in the thirteenth century, they arrived in Mesoamerica (History). The beginning of the nation’s history is unclear as it is old and specific notes were not taken during the Aztec empire’s development. However, the story started has been explained when the Spanish occupied their territories and won the fight for the lands. This paper will show the key element which allowed the Spanish people to stay stronger compared to one of the greatest nations as Aztecs. According to History, the significance of the empire was valued by the number of states and citizens as around 6 million people were living on the territory of Mexico. People were divided into casts, and these systems allowed the nations to become the most civilized.
Aztecs were not prepared for the Conquistadors and were not prepared to fight for their territories as a lot of time was spent on developing citizens and expanding infrastructure. The Battle of Tenochtitlan became a planned strategy of Spanish leaders who used all their advanced innovations and strong animals to colonize one of the massive empires of the sixteenth century (Coe et al. 180). Aztecs suggested Conquistadors share and avoid fighting where people could die. However, Spanish people followed their initial plan. At the beginning of the battle, the strength of both nations was equal, and the Aztecs showed a positive result which could lead them to victory. However, the Spanish were well prepared for such outcomes and showed their strong sides when the Aztecs lost a significant part of their army.
Firstly, Spanish people had more advanced weapons, and their cavillation stepped forward in the development. When one of the most famous fights happened in the sixteenth century, the Spanish used guns and gunpowder while the Aztecs did not have this invention (Coe et al. 181). Secondly, the Spanish people’s military preparation improved, and they had more fighting experience than the Aztecs. The nation in central Mexico could build increasable buildings, but their fighting abilities were low. Thirdly, according to Coe et al., the Spanish had strong horses, and they were able to transfer animals to ensure their win (185). However, the Aztecs had llamas that were not load-bearing and could not help during the fighting.
Also, differences in medicine helped the Spanish people win the war with minimal loss. Europeans brought unknown diseases, which decreased the number of Aztecs. Lastly, the differences in body construction played a significant role in the victory of the Spanish people as European men had a more massive structure. Consequently, the army of Spanish was able to win one of the most massive empires in the world by using civilized strategies.
Even though Aztec defenders were fighting till the end, the Spanish knew their strong sides and prepared a strong strategy based on these aspects to win and receive more lands. Conquistadors have not fully controlled factors like strong horses and differences in medicine, but these factors benefited them. Consequently, even though the Aztecs were one of the most powerful nations in the sixteenth century, the Spanish managed to fight with them and colonize part of their lands using advanced innovations.
Works Cited
Coe, Michael D., Urcid, Javier, and Koontz, Rex. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs (Eighth edition). Thames & Hudson, 2019.
“Engineering an Empire: The Aztecs (S1, E3) | Full Episode | History.” YouTube, uploaded by History, Web.
Christopher Columbus unwittingly began one of the most thoughtful revolutions into the history of the world when he discovered America in 1492. This discovery was a milestone into the greatest transformation that has continued to puzzle the world to date. Among the historical transformation of America is the commonly known Spanish conquest of America- the New World and its rise and establishment of a lasting empire. This was after a series of battles with the Indians and the Aztecs for dominance and hegemony in the New World. One of the fiercest battles the Spanish fought before colonizing the wider areas of the Americas was that which involved the Aztecs and in which they won despite the size of their army. They established an empire historically regarded as one of the largest-larger than even the ancient Roman Empire1.The ability to conquer Aztec has continuously remained a mystery for scholars who wonder how it became possible for a small army to conquer a multitude of forces. This paper seeks to point out the single most important factor in allowing the Spanish to defeat the Aztec Empire and the reason as to why this happened.
The Spanish Cortez was able to conquer the Aztec Empire due to a number of reasons. This victory was possible despite the fact that the Spanish army was few numbering about 508 compared to the large Aztec forces. The Cortex’s historical military dominance helped them conquer Mexico. Since it was known for the large-scale production of steel, cavalry, and firearms, they had an advantage against the Aztec who had never seen powerful machines and cannons. In their possessions were spikes, Toledo steel, and swords that were durable and sharper than those of their combatants. This frightened the Aztec. To add to their advantage was the system of routine fighting in which they approached the Aztecs as a common enemy and with diverse backups, unlike the Aztecs who employed old systems like the Iberian. These regimented fighting techniques made them less vulnerable to sustaining fatal injuries as they also used armors to protect themselves against Aztec’s dangerous swords.
Decades later at the beginning of the American Revolution, Americans began to realize a sense of unity and identity as a new nation. However, the ideal colonial unity was far from the reality due to many factors. For instance, there was strong growth of resentment among the American colonists. However, everything took center stage when the colonies began to realize the importance of unity in order to fight for sovereignty from Britain. Colonial unity was thus seen as a tool necessary for the achievement of the struggle for liberation. During the French and the Indian wars, Americans used the situation as a platform for showcasing their solidarity as colonies since they were fighting alongside the British who emerged victorious afterward. The British made it an obligation for the American colonies to participate in the war because it was a litmus test for the British superiority abroad. Had the French won, it would have been an absolute loss to the Britons. The engagement into the war was equally significant for the American colonies as it marked a milestone for engaging in a common activity for the good of the nation and, therefore, it contributed towards the expansion of their territory under the British control2.
American colonies also began to identify themselves as a united nation due to the distance between Great Britain and America. The Atlantic Ocean in particular was a factor that assured the colonies that Britain would soon lose its grip on the New World because, in actual sense, the Atlantic Ocean made the British operations and exercise of authority into the American colonies very cumbersome. The three thousand miles, an eternal barrier, was thus instrumental in the growth of American identity.
Nevertheless, the British government took numerous reforms in attempts to firmly have all the American colonies under its rule. For instance, in 1763, the British passed the Proclamation Act which was geared towards preventing the eruption of any war with the Native Americans as it would be detrimental to her economy. This Act put a restriction on the European settlement, which required that they were not to settle along the Eastern side of the Appalachian Mountain. To further apply their authority, the British council passed another Act that restricted Americans from using paper money as a measure of legal tender in loan borrowing. More alarming were other laws passed such as the Sugar and the Quartering Acts which stipulated that colonial assemblies were to make provisions in form of housing and other supplies for the colonial masters’ troops3. Plans were also underway in Britain to impose a direct tax on the colonist. These propagated resentments within the colonies and therefore promoted a fresh sense of solidarity.
In retaliation to the laws passed, educated elites mounted a series of attacks on such policies. Guided by major intellectual traditions, they challenged the rationale in the declarations of such policies as they were not in line with the provisions of the English common law that defended subjects against any arbitrary imposition of acts by other foreign governments.
The opposition of the Stamp Act by the colonists started shortly after an incitement by Patrick Henry who begged the House of Burgesses to condemn it. Within the same period, Massachusetts’s head of assembly officiated over a meeting attended by nine out of the thirteen colonies with an aim of repealing the Stamp Act. The majority of investors within the 13 colonies called for a mass protest in which they swore not to import British goods as such laws were regarded as illegitimate.
The colonists’ revolution even became stronger and a number of reprisals followed the passing of the Townshend Act. This act required that most valuable goods such as glass and tea were to be taxed. British troops were immediately deployed in the area to disperse the rioting crowd resulting in several deaths. In response to these protests, most taxes were withdrawn leading to a reduction of the existing tension between the colonists and the British government.
The identity and unity of the American people coalesced in their fight against the British. During this war, the colonists once again showed their ability to unite regardless of their race, economic, and social affiliations to defend their territory. Most of the colonies comprised the Dutch, Jewish, and even mixed groups who stood for their identity as Americans.
During the period of war leading to the independence of America from the British colonial rule, all Americans participated in the revolution including the black slaves. The history of slavery is one of the oldest, worst, and most shocking relationships within a society. Slaves were considered as the basis for one’s wealth in antiquity. However, in the British American colonies, the slaves trade was used as a way of achieving the highest capitalist economy. The British used slaves in the production of raw materials for their industries. They worked on farms producing tobacco and other staple foods.
Despite the struggle for the emancipation of American territory, black slaves were not in a better position to enjoy their rights as Americans. In the beginning, due to the decrease in number and the increasing demand to grow cash crops, the British took Indians into captivity but they later shifted their search to other indentured slaves and poor Irish whose desire to enjoy a better life in America made them work as slaves for the colonialists.
The rights of slaves began to be advocated for after American independence under what was termed as the abolitionist movement which aimed at the complete liberation of all slaves. Putting an end to racial discrimination was a concern for the abolitionists whose policy was to terminate the slave trade. Their ambitions were parallel to those of the anti-slavery advocates whose major aim was to make an end to slavery, a slow and gradual process. The anti-slavery advocates wanted to put restrictions on existing areas or space in order to limit the spread of the slaves.
The abolition of the slave trade was further fueled by religious fervor during the Second Great Awakening. Acting on religious ground, religious leaders condemned the practice as inhumane, a terminology which did not augur well with the religious leaders from the South. This led to the beginning of the civil war in the 1830s. It is, however, important to acknowledge that even though there was strong antipathy for the slave trade when America was struggling for independence from British rule, the abolitionist movement emerged strongly in the 1930s.
The end to slavery was marked by many challenges and interpretations of the law and the Bible. It is even more surprising that the church was equally divided on the subject of the abolition of the slave trade as did some cultures4.Many Christian denominations borrowed some Biblical principles that the slave trade was not as bad as people made it to appear and that the practice was a result of the status of mankind. On humanitarian grounds, the slave trade was widely frowned upon as a poison to the community that held such practices. This is one of the reasons that led to the intense support for the abolition of the slave trade. From the 12th towards the 19th Century, even more, affirmative measures were put in place to ensure that slavery was completely gotten rid of as it was not in line with the principle of justice and human charity.
Slavery was entrenched because it was practiced and orchestrated all over the world and the rate of economic benefits improved proportionately with an increase in the number of slaves. It, therefore, became a challenge to root out slavery at once. Slaves helped in the production of cotton, tea, and other major cash crops that gave economies a promising outlook. The United States, for instance, was getting almost a million tons of cotton, produce that was made possible by the slaves. With the high economic benefits, slaves were associated with, the prize of their freedom was bound to be too expensive5.
Bibliography
Davis, David. The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Noll, Mark. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
Norton Mary Beth. A People and a Nation. Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2003.
Footnotes
Beth Norton Mary, A People and a Nation (Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2003), 144.
Beth Norton Mary, A People and a Nation (Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2003), 145.
Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 38.
David Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 65.
David Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 79.
The Conquest of Mexico is a notable event recorded differently by the Aztecs and the Cortes. According to Cortés, reports by the Aztecs exist since 1519, demonstrating their inventiveness (“Modern History Sourcebook: Hernan Cortés”, n.d.). They used sketch writing instead of the alphabetic method. The second letter to Charles, dated October 30, 1520, was published in November, 1524, and was interpreted from Spanish to Latin by Petrus Savorgnus (“Modern History Sourcebook: A Aztec Account”, n.d.). Cortés explains that it contains the first printed plan of the Aztec city, which Cortes and his soldiers attacked and destroyed in 1521 (“Modern History Sourcebook: Hernan Cortés”, n.d.). Cortes is more accurate in reviewing what happened in the Aztec capital. Exact descriptions provide affirmation that his letter is a primary source.
Aztecs’ presentation of the Conquest of Mexico discloses much about the conqueror, while Cortes describes the Aztec Capital events. Both accounts have biases and exaggeration and understate their native supporters’ encouragement. For example, the Aztecs overstated people’s support to the Conquest and ignored their companions, while the Cortes emphasized their faithfulness and significance to the Spanish’s success. However, Cortes’ letters sent back to Spain prompted Velazquez to name Hernan Cortes as the commander, which created jealousy and bitterness among the Spanish mob in their territory (“Modern History Sourcebook: Hernan Cortés”, n.d.). Moreover, licenses for expeditions permitted the crown to maintain sovereignty over recently defeated lands while not endangering its property in the enterprise.
The victory of Cortes over the Aztecs led to an unusual period of European growth in America. In the subsequent two centuries, the Spanish integrated their laws over many Native American communities. The Spanish establishment and the slavery led to negotiations in Europe about the power to enslave Native Americans. Europeans who relocated to the area replaced the native community. New foods initially unknown to Europeans were available in American society. European and American communities that initially were not aware of each other’s existence initiated communication. Opinions and skills were shared and facilitated the current world in which Europeans live today.
In conclusion, the accounts of the stories have different angles of interpretation from the Cortes’s and the Aztecs. However, one clear aspect is that both accounts describe biased and exaggerated documentation; however, they present a first-person account of the Aztec society’s culture and structure. Cortes also covered a notable amount of information about the Aztec philosophy by demonstrating the Aztec city events, making the Cortes account accurate.
Long before the Spanish expansion of America, there were tribes with highly developed cultures and politics. The Columbus arrival brought these peoples problems, complicated to the dissolution of their civilization. David Stannard devoted his book “American Holocaust” to the research of the question of Spanish interference into the Mayas’ and Aztecs’ life, and the war which led to the empires’ destruction. The point of this essay is to retrace the development of Mayas and Aztecs to their total extermination.
Fifteen centuries before the Columbian discovery of America, it was settled by the powerful and developed empires of the Maya and Aztecs. The Maya tribes occupied the territories of southern Mexico and North Guatemala jungles. Their culture was on a high level. They invented the exact solar calendar and created an advanced hieroglyphic script, they prognosticate the exact time of the eclipse of the Sun and the Moon. In the first centuries AD, they achieved staggering perfection in architecture and art. At the beginning of Spanish expansion in the sixteenth century, Maya Indians occupied vast and rich space. Spaniards were interested in gold and silver, gaining great wealth. But resources of precious metals in Maya lands were poor. Moving further to Mexico and Peru, the conquerors subdued the Indians for slave work. “The master was free to do what he wished with his people – have them plant, have them work in the mines, have them do anything without limit or benefit of tenure” (Stannard, 73). In Guatemala, the native population was the Aztecs. There was the Union of three city-states with the center in Tenochtitlan. This town underwent destruction by conquistadors in 1519-1521. A great number of the population died from starvation and diseases. In 1494 Spaniards suffered from the epidemic. The disease was rapidly spread among the Aztecs. “If, as the Spanish physician and medical historian Francisco Guerra now contends, the epidemic that ravaged Hispaniola in 1494 was swine influenza, it would have been a pestilence of devastating proportions” (Stannard, 68). A new wave of aggression was directed to Indians, as they were accused of contagion and were killed as infection carriers. The Aztecs were exposed to the holocaust, and Tenochtitlan was ruined. After three months of siege and vehement strife, the city was kept by Cortes in 1521. About the war experience of Indians Stannard writes, “The Aztecs’ battlefield experience was the result of complex political rivalries that had existed in the region for centuries, rivalries the Spanish under Hernando Cortes were able to turn to their advantage” (Stannard, 75). From the ruins of the Aztec capital Spaniards built a new city – Mexico City.
The result of Spanish expansion was the Holocaust of the native population of America. The World History names three cases of the genocide directed against Jews during World War II, Armenians during Turkish usurpation, and Ukrainians during starvation of 1932-33. But the work “American Holocaust” sets thinking about the real genocide of the native population of America. As a result of the expansionist policy of Spain, two of the most original and significant civilizations were wiped off the face of the earth.
Word Count – 514 words.
Works Cited
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
The Aztecs were a civilization that dwelled in Central Mexico. They constituted various ethnic groups who spoke Nahuatl language. They were structured in cities that joined to form Empires. Their cultures included economic activities such as maize cultivation and divisions among social classes. The major attributes of the Aztec civilization are as follows.
Pipiltin and Macehuaultin
The Pipiltin were referred to as the nobles in the Aztec society. They received tribute from commoners on their land. Macehualtin were the vast majority of the commoners in the Mexica Empire. They worked in the lands of calpulli called chinampas (Vigil 31). Both families maintained their rights over the land within the duration of its productivity, with the grace period of unproductivity set up to two years.
Mayeques, Tlacotins and Tlatoques
The macaques were commoners who worked on the private land that belonged to the nobles. The supreme master was not entitled to a tribute from them except if the land that they lived in belonged to him. Tlacotins were slaves who provided urban labor to the nobles. They achieved status through criminal acts and gambling. The Tlatoques were the leaders since they were the most familiar with people (Vigil 33). They, the natural leaders, are selected to make decisions with people’s consent.
The Triple Alliance, Calmecac, and Telpochcalli
The city-states involved in founding the Triple Alliance were Tlacopan, Tenochtitlan, and Texcoco. The armies expanded past the land and gathered vast resources and neighboring territories under their authority. The Telpochalli were places where young men were prepared for war and community service(Vigil 38). The Calmecac were schools attended to enhance intellect and spirit. The Calmecac brought together the sacred and political elites.
Death: The Three Afterlife Places
According to the Aztec society, the souls of the dead went to heaven, a neutral purgatory, and the Sun. The Souls of the fallen warriors would later dwell in heaven, where they would be awarded beautiful birds and sunshine (Vigil 41). Most souls would end up in a neutral purgatory. This is the place where people who would die of less glorious causes would end up.
The Fifth World of Creation and Four Previous Worlds
The Aztec Creation Myth states that the world has been created and destroyed four times. The current world was called El Quinto Sol or the Fifth Sun (Vigil 42). Inhabitants of the first world were giants and ended when they were devoured by jaguars. The second world was populated by humans and was brought to an end with massive floods and hurricanes. The third world was dominated by water and the people fed on seeds that grew on water and ended by raining fire. In the fourth world, people fed on maize and the world was ended by floods.
Human Sacrifice and Huitzilopochtli
Human sacrifices were part of the religious rituals performed in the Aztec culture. In a human sacrifice, the sacrificed individual would be cut by the priest in the abdomen (Vigil 42). The heart, which was still beating, would be held out to the sky in honor of Huitzilopochtli, the Sun god. The Aztecs believed that the hearts of the sacrificed would be fed to Huitzilopochtli, who kept the Sun moving to prevent darkness from winning to bring the world to an end.
Conclusion
The Aztecs practiced a rich culture in Central Mexico. The culture’s composition of social dominance hierarchies and governance methods guided the civilization through ages amidst war and calamities among other difficulties. It aided the pursuit of their economic activities and the preservation of their moral values.
Work Cited
Vigil, J. D. (2011). From Indians to Chicanos: The Dynamics of Mexican-American Culture, Third Edition. Amsterdam University Press.
“The Broken Spears” is a captivating book that provides a graphical account of Mexico’s destruction by the Spanish. The book offers an expressive and human perspective of the military confrontation events between the Spanish and Aztecs (Leon-Portilla 1992). Miguel Leon-Portilla wrote the literary text, which provides insights into the primary reasons behind the defeat of the Nahua. It is worth clarifying that the Nahua are the native people of Mexico who the Spaniards attacked. The main factors that contributed to the natives’ defeat include the natives’ ineffective leadership, superstitions, and artillery disadvantages that contributed to the Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs.
The Spanish conquest can be traced back to November 8, 1519, when the Spaniards approached the Aztec capital. Like all literary texts about the invasion and defeat of Aztecs by the Spaniards, Miguel León-Portilla’s book provides an account of actual events during and after the 1550s. This period is characterized by devastating epidemics and hardships that decimate the native population and scaled up contact between the Mexicans and Spaniards.
The author carefully selects events in this book and combines them to give the reader a more detailed and clear picture of the Aztecs’ downfall. León-Portilla provides a vivid account of the historical events from an oppressive and human perspective, which helps the targeted audience fully understand and empathize with the fear and violence the Spaniards unleashed on the natives. These happenings provide insights into the historical context of this document.
The purpose of the source is to provide a different perspective – the conquered point of view. The author utilizes first-hand accounts of native Aztecs, such as Sahagun’s native informants, to capture the natives’ viewpoints of events, such as the main temple’s massacre (Leon-Portilla 68). By drawing on the indigenous narratives, Portilla’s literary text achieves its primary purpose of giving voice to the vanquished. Moreover, Portilla’s narrations inspire interest, encourage a thought-provoking debate, and promote understanding by exploring the marked political, cultural, and demographic trends and transformations that take place during this period. The author manages to tap into a rarely explored area – the nature of native perspectives during the post-colonial period. This book recognizes and revaluates the natives’ accounts, which contributes hugely to the establishment of the Nahua people’s collective identity and culture. Understanding the native Mexicans’ statements and point of view on the Spanish invasion provides the reader with an excellent opportunity to gain a nuanced insight into some of the pressing concerns about the contemporary diverse, multicultural society. Leon-Portilla achieves this by unmasking the hidden historical insights into the Mexican war.
This source is exciting and insightful because it is the first-ever attempt to provide a first-hand account of how the Spaniards invaded Mexico and conquered Tenochtitlan from the defeated’s point of view. Many literary texts focus on exploring and presenting the perspective of the conquerors. In contrast, Leon-Portilla (1992) captures the ‘other side of the war by incorporating the native chroniclers. Thincorporatingenced by Aztecs’ initial heedless and mindless astonishment by the unmatched mighty of their raiders.
The target audience of “The Broken Spears” includes students, researchers, practitioners, and other professionals who are enthusiastic about the colonial period’s history, mainly the Americas’ Spanish colonization. Besides that, the book is intended for scholars and practitioners interested in learning about ancient cultures. The author draws on eyewitness accounts of the Aztecs to provide a clear description of the Aztec and Spanish cultures.
The book exhibits various tones, including historical, informative, and violent. This revolutionary literary text illuminates the shortcomings of the Mexicans that contributed to their defeat. Those shortcomings are evidenced by the Sahagun’s native informants’ account of the massacre (Leon-Portilla 71). The Spaniards ambushed their unsuspecting hosts during the celebrations. The Aztecs were not oblivious of their visitors’ true intentions and were caught by surprise and overwhelmed by the Spanish army. The book includes relevant information about the Aztecs’ misguided leadership, cultural beliefs, superstitions, and artillery advancement that define the two warring factions. One particular passage that caught my eye is as follows: “When they entered the hall of treasures, it was as if they had arrived in Paradise. They searched everything and coveted everything; they were slaves to their greed” (Leon-Portilla 68). The author incorporates old, scholarly literature and eyewitness accounts, making the source palatable and easy to read and understand. The visual demonstrations of the brutal events, such as the savage seizure of King Montezuma’s treasures and the vicious massacre in the main temple, reflect the violent tone.
Miguel’s major assumption is that Aztecs are ignorant, weak, and superstitious. Indeed, the Aztecs have some archaic values and traditions which partly contributed to their defeat. Their culture is deeply rooted in several practices, such as worshiping idols, building statues, and performing rituals. One fascinating belief is that the Spanish were ‘gods’ due to their physical appearance. That belief is evident in King Montecuhzoma’s welcoming of conquistador Herman Cortes with celebrations and presents. The king tells the Spanish leader, “Our, lord, you are weary. The journey has tired you, but now you have arrived on the earth” (Leon-Portilla 68). Such misconstrued ideas about the intruders expose the natives and lead to their ultimate defeat.
The perception that Spaniards are gods based on how they appeared physically contributed hugely to the Aztecs’ downfall. The unthinking natives welcome and accept their intruders with celebrations and offerings, which gives the Spaniards total control of their empire. The height of the Aztecs’ ignorance is when the natives offer a human sacrifice to celebrate the arrival of the ‘gods.’ The Spaniards perceive these uncalled-for acts as disgusting making them hate the Mexicans. With such ideas in mind, the Mexicans do not recognize the threat Spaniards pose.
Empathy is one of the most prominent values evident in the author’s stories. Leon-Portilla gives a graphical and textual representation of the ambiguous contrast and the ultimate conflict between the Spanish and Aztec cultures. For instance, while the natives were deeply engaged in worshiping ideas and ‘celebrating’ the arrivals of the Spanish gods, their guests were planning to ambush them. The author presents such cultural differences throughout this book, detailing how the Aztec’s uncivilized traditions fuel the disagreement with their Spanish counterparts. Leon-Portilla attributes the natives’ ultimate defeat to their ignorance, which evokes emotions such as empathy, remorse, and pity.
There seems to be no bias in Leon-Portilla’s assumptions considering the Aztec culture’s eyewitness accounts. A great deal of the fast-hand narrations provided by the Nahua informants supports, in general, the authors’ assertions. For instance, Sahagun’s native informants’ accounts describe how the Spaniards starts to take advantage of the Mexicans’ weaknesses, further depicting a clear picture of how the invaders were more advanced with unmatched military power compared to their native counterparts. Some truth that emerges prominently from the stories is that Montecuhzoma is a cored and weak leader due to his concern over personal welfare rather than the life and safety of the people he is leading.
The fascinating stories about Cortes attract a lot of attention. Leon-Portilla desists from judging the Spanish army commander in moral terms. The content historical context within which these happenings took place is critical to take into account. The reader may be easily distracted by the terror and injustices perceived through the lens of modern sensibilities and hence find such events shocking. There is a high risk of misjudging happenings or those involved, heightening the risk of missing the true purpose and significance of this informative text.
Overall, this book provides an account of how the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs. I almost thought that the Spanish general was an outstanding leader and master of conquest with an unmatched army and trounced Mexicans. However, after reading the eyewitness and graphical representation of what transpired during the war, I have realized that many factors disadvantaged the Aztecs, including lack of superior weapons, support from local allies, ravaging non-indigenous illnesses, and inaccurate interpretations of the Spaniards’ intentions. This book helps my topic’s historical study because it provides first-hand accounts of the Americas’ Spanish invasion and colonization. It also illuminates the sharp contrast and conflict between the Spanish and Aztec cultures. An in-depth exploration of these issues helps me gain nuanced insights into the research topic. Therefore, I strongly recommend this book to students and scholars interested in developing an in-depth understanding and appreciation of the history of Aztecs and the conquest of Mexicans by Spain.
Bibliography
Leon-Portilla, Miguel, eds. 1992. The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Boston: Beacon Press.