Spanish Conquest of the New World

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
On a rainy day, 500 years ago, a small troop of Spanish soldiers conquered the city of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, after two long months of siege. The city did not fall due to the superiority that Guns, Germs and Steel afforded the Europeans; Cortés owed his victory to the massive support the Spaniards enjoyed among native tribes, all of which had soldiers (and motives) in abundance to end Aztec rule.

Since the Cortés’ arrival to Veracruz had occurred two years prior, in 1519, it is safe to assume that by 1521 every faction had had a chance to size up the others. Trade-offs had been calculated, and alliances had been built accordingly. The outcome must have not been a surprise for the participants, Spanish or Indian. In the subsequent centuries, the floating city would become Mexico City, the capital of the blossoming Viceroyalty of New Spain.

The Viceroyalty of New Spain was added to the Hispanic Monarchy through the Crown of Castile, and as such became the King’s private property. It was governed as a massive private estate, with the Viceroy as deputy manager. This means it was emphatically not a colony based on indirect rule, as per the French and British custom.

The people living in American possessions were subjects to the Crown, and more or less as miserable as their European counterparts – who were often quite miserable themselves. After all, 16th century Europe could be quite unpleasant for the commoner. Madrid or Seville were dirty, violent places to live in, while the countryside was poor and overpopulated, and the coasts faced constant raids by Moorish pirates and Ottoman-sponsored slavers.

This article reminds me of an interesting question. The percentage of people with native ancestry (both in percentage and raw numbers) is much higher in former Spanish colonies than in English part of America and yet the history teaches us that the Spaniards were the most bloodthirsty conquerors between Genghis Khan (Timurlane? Never heard of him) and Adolf Hitler. However there were also centuries of focused anti-Spanish propaganda by England and Netherlands, which greatly influenced how the world sees the Spanish conquest of America, compared to how it sees English/American conquest of North America. Of course it should be noted that Spanish were quite uneven in their approach to various regions, given the nature of how these endeavors were undertaken.
 

ATP

Well-known member
This article reminds me of an interesting question. The percentage of people with native ancestry (both in percentage and raw numbers) is much higher in former Spanish colonies than in English part of America and yet the history teaches us that the Spaniards were the most bloodthirsty conquerors between Genghis Khan (Timurlane? Never heard of him) and Adolf Hitler. However there were also centuries of focused anti-Spanish propaganda by England and Netherlands, which greatly influenced how the world sees the Spanish conquest of America, compared to how it sees English/American conquest of North America. Of course it should be noted that Spanish were quite uneven in their approach to various regions, given the nature of how these endeavors were undertaken.

Becouse spanish was catholic - so those who murdered indians instead of convert them was considered bad cathollics.
When England send puritans,which belived that America is new caanan,and indians caananities.When puritans are New Israel.
So they did what Israel was supposed to do with caananities - genocided them.
And those who do not genocided indians was consider bad puritans.

And why we belive in bad spaniards and noble England? becouse spaniards lost.If Germany win last war,we would belive in good germans and bad Allies.
 

ATP

Well-known member
It wasn't really a proper war too ... these were basically subjects of the Aztecs who were basically not allowed to put up real resistance. Oh, and it wasn't just sacrifice, it was cooking and eating them in human meat markets.

Exactly .gods get hearts and part of blood,but all good meat go for Aztecs.

And their ritual wars cost them - their generals was people who captured most prisoners,but do not knew how lead armies.
In Otumba battle they had 30:1 advantage over spaniards and their allies - but when Cortez killed general and his standart-bearer,entire army fled.

Could you imagine american army fleeing when their general die? or any other modern army?
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
This article reminds me of an interesting question. The percentage of people with native ancestry (both in percentage and raw numbers) is much higher in former Spanish colonies than in English part of America and yet the history teaches us that the Spaniards were the most bloodthirsty conquerors between Genghis Khan (Timurlane? Never heard of him) and Adolf Hitler.

More natives died from smallpox that by directly being killed by Europeans, or I've been told. Also, one should take into account the relative amount of immigration of Europe to each region, how populated it was beforehand anyway, and also how much it could bounce back.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
This article reminds me of an interesting question. The percentage of people with native ancestry (both in percentage and raw numbers) is much higher in former Spanish colonies than in English part of America and yet the history teaches us that the Spaniards were the most bloodthirsty conquerors between Genghis Khan (Timurlane? Never heard of him) and Adolf Hitler. However there were also centuries of focused anti-Spanish propaganda by England and Netherlands, which greatly influenced how the world sees the Spanish conquest of America, compared to how it sees English/American conquest of North America. Of course it should be noted that Spanish were quite uneven in their approach to various regions, given the nature of how these endeavors were undertaken.
Bear in mind a few major differences between the situation on the East coast of the US and Mexico.

Firstly, the Central American Natives had much higher populations and population concentrations than the North Eastern American Tribes. They were a settled, agrarian civilization, whereas the Native tribes on the East Coast were still nomadic to semi-nomadic hunter/gatherers with much more limited agriculture. They lacked major cities and had lower population density overall.

Secondly, the Small Pox pandemic that hit the Americas hit the East Coast especially hard, as such the already lower population density was further reduced, whereas the Central American tribes.

Thirdly, there was considerable intermarriage between English settlers and the Natives, the thing is, unlike Mexico where after the initial wave of Spanish colonists where things then settled down for the most part, the Eastern US saw multiple subsequent waves of mass European immigration into the region not just from England but across Europe. Further many of the decedents of the original settlers also moved farther west. This served to continually dilute native blood along the East coast preventing it from concentrating as happened in Mexico and diluting any admixture down as more and more different European ethnicities got mixed into the East Coast settlements.

Finally, the idea that the English genocided the Natives is severely overblown; however, there was a major ethnic cleansing that happened in the early to middle 19th century with the Trail of Tears that forcefully moved the remaining major native tribes that were still living on the East coast and moved them west into what is now Oklahoma. This pretty much ended up isolating what remained of the east coast tribes from being able to intermingle with the European descended peoples there.

However, there were entire Native tribes that got functionally absorbed into the European admixture of the East, or were absorbed by larger Native American tribes who also moved into the region. One thing a lot of people don't realize is that even as English colonists moved in from across the Atlantic, there was also a push by the Great Lakes tribes into the mid-Atlantic region that saw many tribes caught between the two, with those tribes disappearing and absorbed by one or the other.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Secondly, the Small Pox pandemic that hit the Americas hit the East Coast especially hard, as such the already lower population density was further reduced, whereas the Central American tribes.

Would it be correct to say that, whilst the Spanish conquest would have killed a lot of natives, the Smallpox pandemic was truly apocalyptic over there? IE, the Spanish did not set out to commit genocide? Because it sounds like a lot of what happened was just a horrible accident of biology and virology.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Would it be correct to say that, whilst the Spanish conquest would have killed a lot of natives, the Smallpox pandemic was truly apocalyptic over there? IE, the Spanish did not set out to commit genocide? Because it sounds like a lot of what happened was just a horrible accident of biology and virology.

In Mexico plagues killed almost 90% of populations,and it was worst then East coast becouse it hit cities harder.Spanards records told about towns when all inhabitants died.
Indians on East Coast had only big villages/Powhattan tribe about 200/
So,if you count how much natives survived after plagueas hit,there would be tha same in Mexico and current USA territory.
As long as Spain ruled,indians keep their lands - in Guatemala for example mayans was robbed from their land by USA supported junta in 20th century.

Anglosaxons ,unless spaniards genocided part of tribes/Peqot and others/ but in old Testament way - they keep attractive maiden girls for future use.Hence cosplayers who play as East indian tribes now - their white ancestors raped some surviving indian girls.
And,of course,they look white.
All tribes lost at least part of their lands,and in all cases USA broke their treaties with them doing so.Spanish crown do not did such things.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Becouse spanish was catholic - so those who murdered indians instead of convert them was considered bad cathollics.
When England send puritans,which belived that America is new caanan,and indians caananities.When puritans are New Israel.
Starting with the monk that went along with Columbus, members of the Catholic church were critical of mistreatment of American Indians. The relatively good treatment of American Indians by the Spanish can largely be attributed the deliberate political influence of the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church lost favor with the Spanish court, there was a noticeable worsening of the treatment of Indians.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Article said:
Since the Cortés’ arrival to Veracruz had occurred two years prior, in 1519, it is safe to assume that by 1521 every faction had had a chance to size up the others. Trade-offs had been calculated, and alliances had been built accordingly. The outcome must have not been a surprise for the participants, Spanish or Indian. In the subsequent centuries, the floating city would become Mexico City, the capital of the blossoming Viceroyalty of New Spain.

Ehhhh.... if Cortes died in The Night of Sorrows, I don't think any of his Lieutenants in all honesty would've have the force of personality, wisdom or strength of personal relationships to hold together the Expedition and their Native Allies. Especially if their translators (La Malinche and Geronimo Aguilar) died as well. Likewise if Narvaez wasn't such a pushover, that would've given the Aztecs similar respite and poor Alvarado in Tenochtitlan and his 200 person garrison could've ended up very dead as well.

It doesn't mean that the Spanish would've of made the Aztec Empire New Spain sooner or later, but for the participants Spanish or Indian, it was far from a foregone conclusion. I mean Hernan Cortes almost died at least once during the actual Siege of Tenochtitlan itself. One of several close encounters with death he had during the entire campaign. And the Alliance the Spanish had with the Natives was extremely tenuous. Several native allies abandoned the Siege at various times and there was always the chance that most of them would just bail if things weren't going well. Keep in mind, they were suffering as well, not just in battle but from Smallpox and other deprivations as well.
 

BlackDragon98

Freikorps Kommandant
Banned - Politics
Ehhhh.... if Cortes died in The Night of Sorrows, I don't think any of his Lieutenants in all honesty would've have the force of personality, wisdom or strength of personal relationships to hold together the Expedition and their Native Allies. Especially if their translators (La Malinche and Geronimo Aguilar) died as well. Likewise if Narvaez wasn't such a pushover, that would've given the Aztecs similar respite and poor Alvarado in Tenochtitlan and his 200 person garrison could've ended up very dead as well.

It doesn't mean that the Spanish would've of made the Aztec Empire New Spain sooner or later, but for the participants Spanish or Indian, it was far from a foregone conclusion. I mean Hernan Cortes almost died at least once during the actual Siege of Tenochtitlan itself. One of several close encounters with death he had during the entire campaign. And the Alliance the Spanish had with the Natives was extremely tenuous. Several native allies abandoned the Siege at various times and there was always the chance that most of them would just bail if things weren't going well. Keep in mind, they were suffering as well, not just in battle but from Smallpox and other deprivations as well.
The only one of Cortez's lieutenants I can remember is the guy who pole vaulted his way out of Tenochtitlan after he ordered an attack on unarmed Aztecs during a festival.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top