Hernán Cortés

What does mexicans think of this man? Neutral (In the sense he just did his job for his country)? Good because he "brought civilisation" (I think this is wrong but this is just my opinion)? Bad (for obvious reasons) ?

Did nothing wrong ;)

DO IT AGAIN

"Lo que no fue en tu año que no te haga daño".
Basically, he wronged the Aztecs but since it didn't happen when I was alive I don't have a reason to dislike the guy.
He was just greedy and obsessed with gold. Anyone would be in his position.

The same applies with Americans being all "Remember the Alamo, spic!".
They stole our territory and kicked our ass, but that happened a while back so I don't really give a fuck.

Live and learn and forget desu.

Cortés wasn't even among the top 10 bloodthirstiest conquistadores. I don't understand why he's so famous as a barbaric gold-grabber when there were scary motherfuckers like Núñez de Balboa, Valdivia, Almagro, Ovando, etc.

Agreed.
The one who killed the Incan Emperor was a bigger douche.

I blame Hollywood desu. Cortés was more honourable than the average 16th century invader. He legitimised his half-nahua son Martín, he respected his ally Tlaxcala to the point that it was an autonomous associated state until Mexican independence, he always insisted on peaceful vassalisation unlike that bastard Alvarado and so on.

More like liberated central america from aztec oppression, though he was probably a cruel slave monger, too.

>it was an autonomous associated state until Mexican independence
Which spaniards ruined with cultural bullying, enslaving its people, and dispersing too many to the north to start towns using latinized tlaxcsltecs as an "example" to the northern nomads, who were all brutally enslaved and massacred anyway.

>though he was probably a cruel slave monger, too.
He wasn't, actually.

Not according to people who weren't him and wrote about him.

>In the sense he just did his job for his country
he had no permission from the kings to invade mexico tho

>be Indian
>get liberated from Aztec oppression
>get subjected to Spanish oppression

can't win

They didn't care when the gold started flowing in.

Enslavement but with the possibility of having mestizo offspring that may fare better than you or frequent war and tradd blockade with a side of ritual sacrifice, you choose.

>What happens in the past has no affects on me
>They stole our territory
>kicked our ass
>so i dont really give a fuck

They need to ban all Mexican posters, at this point there is no saving you fucking cucks. Whats worse is that you add that shitty weeb gif to your past. Pathetic.

Kek Núñez was not bad. The guy was friendly towards natives (this is how he was able to get to the Mar del Sur after all) Pedro Arias Davila was another story, thought.

T. Read Núñez de Balboa by Octavio Méndez Pereira

There was a scandal, investigation, and cover up over him killing his first Spanish wife, Catalina. She was of no use to him in attaining power as she was not a doña. He took care of his indian wives at least, or he'd provoke trouble with his indian allies that gave them to him. Seems that perhaps his fatherhood instincts were the only thing that could overcome his greed, though I would need to read up on how his children grew up.

They had no control over the lands anyway, anglos could make better use of them. Their government screwed up.
Or do you mean to sympathize with chicanos that are separatists?

Do you guys have any good books on that Era? (Spanish conquest of America)
The preference in Spanish, since I'm learning the language

>Good because he "brought civilisation"
There was already civilization though.

this post is going to get good replies :)

I know, but some cucks must think like that

Look for books about the conquistadores and clergy (that spent time in the Americas) of that era to get their points of view.

>Cortés was more honourable
Stopped reading there, Cortés was considered a dishonourable man even by his contemporaries and particularly by the Crown and the court, it's the reason he was never made viceroy of New Spain.

He lied, he cheated, he tortured, he was cruel. Cortés did have some admirable qualities, he was intelligent and a brilliant strategist, he was charismatic and an effective leader, he was brave and accomplished acts of greta daring. You may even argue he was sensible nough to understand the gravity of what he was doing and appreciate what he was destroying. But he was not honorable and all men who knew him and left record of him are quick to point it out.

A civilization that needed to be destroyed, changing sacrifice of children for baby Jesus is well worth the price.

>enslaving its people
Do you know that you have niggers there because we ban to enslave Native Americans?

>sacrifice of children
???

Yes, they did sacrifice children sometimes, I don't agree with and much less with but there's a point to be made that Spaniards were trying to save the Aztecs from themselves, it was by no means their main purpose, which was greed, but to Christians of that era the Aztec religion would be seen as downright satanic and let's face it, it wouldn't be acceptable today either.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo dice que el tlatoani mismo compartía el canibalismo de su época. «Oí decir que le solían guisar carnes de muchachos de poca edad» para Moctezuma, y en esa misma página se lee que «nuestro capitán le reprendía el sacrificio y comer carne humana, que desde entonces mandó que no le guisasen tal manjar».

He never had the permission of the Spanish Crown to go into Mexico. He pretty much "stole" the Cuban governor's expedition party and fought against the reinforcements the governor sent to try and get things under control.

That was after he went through the country making allies, fighting, looting and finally at the end (probably) killing the emperor, of course.

He never really did it for his country. He did it for gold, fame and approval from his peers, who as the story goes elected/persuaded him to lead them deeper into Mexico.

As for civilization he didn't really bring anything besides disease. It was everyone who came afterwards who built up the country. Bringing "civilization" in general is quite a stretch, as the Aztecs has the largest civilization in the west. Tenochtitlan was in Cortes's and his soldiers own words ~"As beautiful and large as the city of Venice. With beautiful gardens and architecture etc." They also made comparisons to some Spanish churches.

There are a few of his contemporaries to considered him honorable and talked him up. Bernal Diaz del Castillo for one, a soldier in his army who made it to captain eventually

"A True History of the Conquest of New Spain"

By Bernal Castillo

It's an interesting perspective as he was a soldier in Cortes's army, talks him up in his book and starts the book by trying to de-legitimize Cortes's critics and Spanish enemies.

>They had no control over the lands anyway, anglos could make better use of them

No they couldn't. Don't spout your obvious bullshit lad, you aren't fooling anyone.

He is a lovely guy ok

My mistake, I should have written most. Díaz del Castillo is hardly someone unbiased however, his work was expressly meant to support the claims of the son of Cortés and he's suposed to have written his work at 85 without having personally witnessed much of what he writes about and describing in full conversations he couldn't have possibly understood, it's long been suspected his work was in fact authored by Cortés himself or derived from his writings. But yeah, I stand corrected.

Castillo just sounds like another bigoted spaniard. The inquisitors and some of the conquistadors portrayed what happened back then in their own, embellished view, and they went out of their way to demonize the natives and justify genocide. The church would discourage any of their lergy from documenting indian culture at all, and one priest that organized the aztec intellectuals that wrote about their culture had his work scrubbed for "mistakes and omissions" by church folks that knew ansolutely nothing about aztecs or mexico.
Corrections have been made in modern times, but we'll ultimately be guessing forever on the exact sequence of events of the era.

Yeah, i went into his book fully aware of the potential biases. Though im curious what are the important conversations he couldn't have understood. Some of the government stuff in the beginning I can see him not being around to hear, but I guess he asked around right after they happened.

Also, as far as i remember Cortes himself didn't write much about the events, besides those few letters to the crown which were pretty one dimensional stories. "We did good, that governor is a douche, here's some gold, give us your support". You can correct me though

I find Castillos opinions on the natives surprisingly not that bad. He writes about how he respected the emperor and sympathized with him as well as the beauty of Tenochtitlan and other cities. He values the allies they make, and about the sacrifices and rituals his criticisms amount to pretty much "It was pretty gross and smelled bad".

Yeah he probably embellished their battle prowess and the way conflict started and ended, but when directly talking about the natives he doesn't express hatred or general disgust.

Knowing that human sacrifice was rampant in all europe and the middle east in the bronze age, even several cultures practiced it in the iron age.

I would agree, massacring all european civilizations and populations and mixing them with australians would be the best decision.

t. mongrel chicano