Talk:Hernán Cortés/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Narvaez

Cortez had to defeat the men of Narvaez is in pitched battle before they joined with him for the siege of baby bohoos They did not simply come over to his side.

Done. Someone ought to create a page for Narvaez, the great loser conquistador, no offense to any descendants. :-) YankeeInCA 23:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Pánfilo de Narváez page was created in June 2004 Richard 06:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that everybody in Mexico hates Cortés, but this is an encyclopedia

I have corrected some highly-colored anti-spanish affirmations, which are absolutely folkloric perceptions and myths. The article, is still not neutral. For instance:

“Spanish crossbows, broadswords, battle axes, horses, war dogs and firearms quickly won the battle” The battle axes, the broadswords and the firearms, among other things, had not legs or arms, so they can not make a formation and fight back by itselves, unless some miracle occurs. The only weapons that can fight by itselves are the temporized bombs, ant they are a modern invent. Oh, and they still needing some human being to program them. The Spaniards had not temporized plastic explosives, but they had efective, well-trained and valiant soldiers. Furthermore, the Cortés had not wardogs in the New World. This seems a battle description taken from The Lord of the Rings, in which the troll Cortés attacks the good Hobbits and the Aztecs.

Ok. No war dogs... Will brave dogs will sufice?... In the Tlatelolco Codex we have description of people killed by Cortez dogs. More seriously, The spanish had superior technology, but as you say, it is not just Hardware, but also training, tactics, and organization. The Mesoamerican way of fighting was to resort to individual combat, and to impress the enemy. None of this worked to fight against a good military unit. Nanahuatzin 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

“La Malinche relayed a rumor that the locals planned to murder the Spaniards in their sleep” This was not a “rumour” but a true danger for the Spaniards. That was logic, the Aztecs were being invaded and they wanted to kill the invaders. And “La Malinche” is a despective nick used by the Hispanic folklore to name “Marina”, who was the lover of Cortés.

The aztec wanted to deterr the spanish advance, not to kill them. Cholula was a sacred city, with a very small army, acroding the aztec, the prist of Cholula intend to used the power of Quezalcoatl. The Tlaxcalteca on the other hand did not want Cortez to go Trhoug Cholula. The later put a story about an Ambasador mistreated by Cholula, and they claim Cortez was avenging him. There are three diferent acounts of this story. Sapnish, Tlaxcalteca, and Azteca. Since there is no way to know the trut, the three must be mentioned. Nanahuatzin 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

“set fire to the city and killed an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 of the inhabitants” This is absolutely delirious, the number of victims is megaoversized. We found again a folkloric tale, rather than a Historic fact.

Agreed. Cortez resported to kill 3,000 people in three hours. Other estimates ares folkloric tales Nanahuatzin 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

“Terror was one of his many powerful tools, though much of his military genius can be ascribed to La Malinche, who had her own motives for revenge.” Marina was only the translator and lover of Cortés, and she can be regarder probably as a traitor, not as a military genious. Cortés, despite the Hispanic folkloric hate towards him, was actually a military genious. He even purposed the invasion of China with a combinated force of Aztec and Spanish soldiers. If the Catholic Kings had given Cortés a military position in Europe, the History of the World could had been very different.

Little is known from Marina, Malinalli or Malintzin (later corrupted as Malince). To know if she had any motives. That is just speculations. To describe Cortez as a military genius, i thinks is beyond this. The facts should speak by themselves. Nanahuatzin 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

“Surely it was the most magnificent city in the world. How could God allow heathens such splendor?” Again a laughable folkloric perception. It was a great city that impressed the Spaniards, but it was not the “most magnificent city in the World". In fact, Cortés said that it was great, “almost as great as Seville”

Cortez wrote that the market of Tenochtitlan was bigger than Sevilla. (He estimated 40,000 people there. Sevilla had 30,000 inabitants. The population of tenochtitlan is estimated from 130,000 to 220,000 (I prefer 130,000). In Europe, only Paris, Venice and Constantinopla were comparable in size. But... i agree, unless is put as a cite (with references) from Cortez or Bernal, i Think the "splendor" can be ommited. Nanahuatzin 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the article still highly folkloric.

Mostly agree. But not all mexicans hate Cortez. While i think most of the History of the conquest has an eurocentric view... we should not go to the oposite extreme. It was a most complex process to view just in black and white (note: please, ignore my typos. I am writng in a hurry.. ).Nanahuatzin 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend to read the article about the Black Legend. We could learn a couple of things about this.

You are entirely right, but I'm afraid you just need to accept the dynamics of such topics. Entries like "Cortes" are not worked on by disinterested scholars, but by interested advocates. The same dynamics apply on many of the topics I watch, eg. Alexander the Great, where ethnic feelings runs high, and topics in ancient religion (eg., Delphic Oracle), where scholars of ancient religion with, say, language competence, are overruled by proponents of the "mother goddess." There's a vicious cycle of course, as competent people throw up their hands and leave such entries even more securely in grips of "useful" myth. Lectiodifficilior 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Says that the superior technology of the Spaniards won the war is nonsense. What we ended up with the Mexicas (not with the Aztecs, which is something diferent) was the huge army of indigenous subjugated by the Mexicas and political enemies of Huey Tlatoani (Great king of mexicas) Motecuhzoma II who supported the Spaniards confident that these would give them power in exchange for wealth or other "gifts". The internal crisis of the Empire and a weak tlatoani manipulated make impossible any defense of this great civilization. LasMatas01 21:06, 13 Sep 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.160.255 (talk)

One of the most wide spread folkloric tales in Latin America is that about "la Malinche"

First, to talk about “La Malinche”, refering to Doña Marina, is improper. "Malinche" (or "Malintzin") was the name given by Moctezuma to Cortés. "Malinche" was Cortés himself. The name given by the Aztecs to Doña Marina was "Malinalli", the genitive form of "Malintzin" (meaning "Malintzin's").

Second, when Cortés met her, she was the slave of some leading person bound to the Aztec empire. Why should she be considered a traitor? she just fought to recover her freedom. Nothing more and nothing less.

OK, but as far as I know, the whole of Latin America now uses "La Malinche" to talk about this lady, and all kinds of things (birds, trees, flowers) are named after her. So perhaps a shorter version ot this dislaimer would be useful in the actual article...

Just a thought. Vcrs (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

style?

When the Spaniards saw the island city of Tenochtitlán for the first time, from the ring of volcanoes around the Valley of Mexico, they asked each other if they were dreaming. Surely it was the most magnificent city in the world. How could God allow heathens such splendor? The expedition arrived in the Mexica-Aztec capital on November 8, 1519. Moctezuma welcomed Cortés to Tenochtitlán on the Great Causeway into the "Venice of the West", probably the largest city on earth, and many people mark this moment – when two high civilizations met after 40,000 years of isolation – as the true discovery of the New World. The two halves of the planet had found one another.

looks unencyclopedic? (clem 17:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC))

Cortés could not have been born in Medellín (Columbia)

Medellín (Columbia) was founded in 1675 and Cortés died in 1547. (Threshold 09:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

Medellín (Colombia) was named after Medellín (Spain) where Cotés was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cortés was born in Medellín, Extremadura, Spain

There are several time related inaccuracies in the article in regard to the place where Cortés was born. As it is now, the article reads: Cortés was born in Medellín, Extremadura province, in the Kingdom of Castile in Spain. It should actually read, either: Cortés was born in Medellín, Extremadura, province of Spain or Cortés was born in Medellín, Extremadura, in the Kingdom of Castile, in Spain. In both cases Columbia (in South America) is excluded, so there is no need for "Medellin, Spain". There was no province termed "Extremadura" in the former Spanish Kingdom of Castile by the time when Cortés was born; and, today, there is not a Kingdom of Castile at all, while Extremadura is one of the autonomous communities (or self-governed political entities) of the current Kingdom of Spain. On the other side the term "Spain" can be used in both cases, since it denotes, at the same time, the nation and political entity corresponding to the current Kingdom of Spain and a supranational concept, covering the whole Iberian peninsula; in fact, as the Portugese Luís de Camões (Os Lusiadas) once said: "... Castilians, Portugeses or Aragoneses, it does not matter, ... in the end, we all are Spaniards".

(Threshold 09:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

Not disputing in which Medellin Cortes was born

Threshold, "Spain" was contained in the Wikilink, not in the text. The result of you removing "Spain" is that if someone clicks on Medellin, they get directed to Medellin in Columbia, when they should get directed to Medellin in Spain. I agree that if the text displayed to a user said "Medellin (Spain), Extremadura, in the Kingdom of Castile, Spain", then that would be ridiculous. But it doesn't. You have twice changed the link to point to the city in Columbia which is simply incorrect. Furthermore, I have now created a Medellin (Spain) article. Please be constructive and add to that, rather than point the link back to Medellin (Columbia), which, as I say, would be incorrect.

Gsd2000 12:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Neil Young's Song

Neil Young may have written a song "Cortez the Killer" but does this really belong in an article on an important historical figure in the history of Spanish colonial America? Popular musicians write about a lot of things, but that does not mean that we need to mention them in every article sharing the same subject matter as their songs. I am minded to remove the section on this topic, but was wondering what others thought.

Gsd2000 00:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of other examples on wikipedia where articles talk about the representation of important figures in popular culture, a wikipedia search on the phrase "popular culture" yields 2398 articles, for some examples see Hitler in popular culture, Saddam Hussein in U.S. popular culture,References to Odin in popular_culture, Napoleon in popular culture. This is one of the main differences between encyclopaedias and history books. The content should stay. --Brendanfox 02:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If a historical figure has made a deep impression on a society, like Hitler or Napoleon, then I agree this kind of information is warranted. Information about how Cortes is represented in modern culture in the countries he particularly affected - especially Mexico, less so Spain - would be worthwhile to record. However, mentioning one song by a not especially famous Canadian singer seems a bit groupie-ish to me, and lowers the tone of the article. Anyway, I created a new page for Hernán Cortés in popular culture, in the same fashion as the pages you mention. Gsd2000 23:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe an entire article should be created for the content. Whilst I disagree that Neil Young isn't well known, and I've seen so many examples of equally un-notable trivia in wikipedia articles, you seem to have worked on this article for some time, and I really don't mind, so okay, the content should go. --Brendanfox 09:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Cortés" and "Cortéz"

In both Americas (North and South) the Spanish speaking people keeps using the old fashioned semi-fricative sound, formerly represented by the letter "ç" as in "coraçón" (heart). This "ç" sound evolved into the current "z" sound used in modern Spanish (as in "corazón"), as it is spoken today in Spain except in some parts of Andalucia and the Canary Islands. This change in the use of the sound "ç" has induced a lot of confusion (“s” versus “z”) even in words that just used the sound "s" and never used "ç", althought "s" is closed to "ç" but rather disimilar. (See the difference in English between "sugar" and "suit"). This is reason why words like "Cortés" are sometimes pronounced and written as "Cortéz". (Threshold 07:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

"-ez" means "Son of" in the Spanish naming system and is an extremely common ending for Spanish family names and is likely part of the reson for this confusion. I'm changing one "Cortéz" that I see to "Cortés" for consistency, but I´m not totally sold on which way this should be. Can anyone point me to a document in which Cortés signs his own name to satisfy my own scepticism? -Diabolic 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with "son of" in this case. The right spelling is "Cortés". "Cortéz" is nothing but a common American misspelling. See above.--Threshold 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

La Noche Triste: 120.000 - 240.000 killed?

This seems a VERY high number. In fact that would make it the bloodiest battle in the history of mankind by a long way. Are there reliable sources on this? Also, maybe this day deserves a separate page, it doesn't quite belong on a page about Hernan Cortes. Piet 15:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right! Who could have killed those 120.000 to 240.000? The Spaniards were barely a few hundreds, and got nearly annihilated by the Aztecs. From the Bernal Diaz del Castillo description of the event, I do not think the Aztecs casualties would have gone above a few hundreds too. (Threshold 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC))

It seems that Cortés lost some 900 Spaniards and perhaps 3.000 or 4.000 Tlaxcaltecas, at most (according to Jean Descola - Les Conquistadors, 1957). No mention about how many Aztecs died, but it could be presumed they could have lost no more than 2.000, since that night they were the attackers and the situation seemed to be clearly in their favor. (Threshold 07:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

I have simply removed this, as your sources seem to indicate the figure is incorrect. Maybe someone could replace it by "thousands" or something, but in my opinion the best thing would be either to quote an estimate from some reliable source or to get a description which would show the bloodiness and cruelty of the day without giving an exact number. I suppose a reliable estimate will be difficult to obtain anyway. Piet 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

La Noche Triste: 120.000 - 240.000 killed? (aditional remark)

Pietdesomere: Sorry! It seems there is some confussion about this

Your initial remark objecting the figures was under the title “La Noche Triste”, so my figures were about “La Noche Triste” event, itself. In that “Sad Night” (July 1st, 1520), Cortés and his troops fled from Mexico - Tenochtitlan chased to death by the Aztecs, and lost 900 Spaniards and some 2.000 or 3.000 Tlaxcaltecas in the struggle. Only 440 Spaniards escaped the killing along with a few thousand of allied Indians. The Aztecs insisted in chasing Cortés in his retreat as to destroy the weak remnants of his army. But, a few days later, Cortés, went suddenly back to confront the Aztecs with the scanty rest of his troops, and smashed them in the Otumba Valley (Otampan), where (probably) more than 20.000 Aztecs were killed and the rest of their army was disbanded. After this, Cortés returned to his base in Tlaxcala to build up the “Final Battle to Tenochtitlan”. So, this paragrgaph is about "La noche Triste", its figures and its inmediate side affects.

On the other side, after reading the article, I found that the figures (120.000 – 240.000) you mentioned as belonging to “La Noche Triste” do really belong to the “Final Battle to Tenochtitlan”. In this “Final Battle” the figures were quite different from those for “La Noche Triste”. In May 1521, when the “Final Battle to Tenochtitlan” began, the army of Cortes was made up of 550 Spaniards and some 25.000 Tlaxcaltecas (during the siege this figure grew up to nearly 100.000 Indians). Under the siege, the Aztec population in Tenochtitlan seemed to account for about 300.000 people; how many warriors? who knows. (No neighboring vassal states or tribes wanted to come to defend the Aztecs, despite Cuauhtemoc calls). With this figures, one could conjecture that the casualties of the attackers could not have accounted for more than 35.000 (most of them Indians) and those for the defenders for something between 50.000 and 65.000, according to Jean Descola (Les Consquistadors). Following Jean Descola’s figures, the Aztecs had suffered some 50.000 fatal casualties by the time the attackers had broken into the city (the Aztecs surrendered the city on August 13, 1521), and, in the aftermath, the Tlaxcaltecas killed another some 15.000. Anyway, I cannot figure out how anyone could have gathered the figures. (Threshold 11:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

First of all, I would like to note that most of the aztecs died from the diseases that the Spainards introduced such as Smallpox, Measles, and Typhiod Fever. Furthermore, when Henando attacked Tenochtitlan, he blockaded the food routes out of the city and thus caused the aztecs in the city to starve and sucuumb to diseases such as dysentry or smallpox. Larger numbers of aztecs died in the battles, but there still were spainsh casualities. Besides, much like every conflict in the Americas, most of the americanindians died from the diseases of the white man, not from battle. If it was not for the diseases, nobody would of settled in the Americas, because the Americanindians resisted anyway.

Nice research, Treshold. Now I think we have to put this all in an article about the downfall of the Aztec empire and clean up the Hernan Cortes article. I've done a quick check and I don't see any article that describes these events, maybe you know one? Otherwise I think we could create an article "Fall of the Aztec Empire". I'll give it a try one of these days although I'm not sure when. Piet 12:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Piet, that could be interesting, but it will probably take some time. In fact, there is a great deal of reliable information, from both sides: Aztecs and Spaniards, on the developments that led to the "Fall of the Aztec Empire", its background and its reasons. Nevertheless, condensing all that in two o three pages would not be an easy task. And be prepared to deal with a strong controversy.(Threshold 16:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC))

It doesn't have to be complete or even 100 % accurate from the beginning, everyone disagreeing can always comment or change information. As for controversy: Wikipedia has a lot of experience and ways of (trying to) deal with it. The main thing is that both sides of the story are presented. A short and imperfect entry will be better than no entry. Piet 12:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, then let us begin, in a few days I will post e brief remark here, in the talk page, as the preparation to a possible layout for the subject. (Threshold 06:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

Too Pro-Cortés

• I edited some entries which seemed to show a redemptive side to Cortés' conquests, but in a highly speculative manner. It is not an established fact that Cortés genuinely loved Tenochtitlán, nor is it a fact that Cortés hanged Cuauhtémoc to alleviate his own guilt for crippling him. I found some of these points to be too pro-Cortés in ways that are no substantiated by evidence.

	(MisterQuickly 04:30, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC))

Also, someone fix this sentence: "In Mexico today he is condemned as a modern-day damnatio memoriae, with only one statue – but half a million descendants, and one of the most remarkable stories in history."

What does this mean? His sperm sponsored this many people? Poor sentence structure. (MisterQuickly 05:11, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC))

Does not conform to source material.

I have never read that Cortés fought in Italy subsequent to his conquests in the Western Hemisphere. I have read that he died old and penniless, defending himself in Spain against various lawsuits. He had previously been tried and acquitted for having killed his wife - the Spanish woman who followed him from Cuba some time after the conquest of Mexico. This is in Conquest by Hugh Thomas. In Cortés' letters to the Emperor, which are a typical curriculum item for fourth-semester Spanish classes in the US, he describes Tenochtitlán in great detail with a considerable amount of affection and admiration. Before the city fell he was trying to talk it up to the emperor, to increase Cortés' own glory and fame: look at the beautiful city I have won for you. The last thing he wanted to do was destroy it, which the Mexica defenders forced him to do through tenacious urban guerrilla warfare. So the statement that "it has never been proven that Cortés loved Tenochtitlán" is somewhat off the mark. glasperlenspiel 04:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have moved the whole Tenochtitlan section to La Noche Triste. Someone should cleanup these articles: Hernán Cortés, Tenochtitlan, La Noche Triste. Piet 13:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done some significant clean up on Hernán Cortés Richard 00:33, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Reorganizing this article into subsidiary articles

I think it is a mistake to have moved the La Noche Triste section from Hernan Cortes. I agree that both articles need quite a bit of editing but I think we should consider moving some or all of the La Noche Triste article back to the Hernan Cortes article. I'm not going to do that at this time but I think the idea deserves discussion. It is true that some of the text is "not encyclopedic" but most of the content of the La Noche Triste article is and so the "not encyclopedic" criticism is not sufficient to warrant moving this out of the Hernan Cortes article.

If it make sense to move La Noche Triste out of the Hernan Cortes article, then it would also make sense to move other descriptions of military campaigns e.g. the defeat of the Tlaxcaltecas or the Destruction of Cholula. Richard 00:33, 26 March 2006 (PST)

Please don't just move the article back, but if there is information that should be in the Hernan Cortes article, move the information. I have been bold in moving the whole section out, and it probably has made the two articles a bit inconsistent. I am sorry that no one has fixed it yet but I think the reason is that the articles need an almost complete rewrite, which scares many editors off (It surely scares me off). I don't feel knowledgeable enough on this subject. Please fix what you can, but don't remerge the two articles as that makes it even more difficult to edit and maintain.

Indeed, the destruction of Cholula could be under Cholula and the defeat of Tlaxcaltecas could be moved to Tlaxcaltecas. In this article we need information on Hernan Cortes. If relevant we need a short description of the campaign and a link to the main article using the "main" template:

Main article: La Noche Triste

In conclusion, splitting up makes the article more maintainable and in time hopefully better. Piet 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the article, you've done a lot of good work. I've structured it a bit and moved a few sections. The article is getting long however, so please consider moving parts to separate articles. Piet 10:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is my first real contribution to Wikipedia other than a few minor edits to other articles. I'm still chewing on the question of whether this should be one long article or a shorter one with stuff pulled out and put in other articles. I will probably go with putting more stuff in other articles. As Piet comments, the articles needed a lot of rewriting. We've made some significant progress in the last couple days but more needs to be done. Richard 22:42, 26 March 2006 (PST)

OK, I've given this some thought and I agree with Piet that the article is getting too long. My guess is that the description of the Mexican campaign deserves its own article. However, I found that the title Spanish Conquest of Mexico was being redirected to History of Mexico. This is a bad idea since the Spanish Conquest of Mexico is only a small part of the history of Mexico. I moved the whole Conquest of Mexico section out of the Hernan Cortes article into a new article entitled Spanish Conquest of Mexico and left a note in the Talk Page requesting that it NOT be redirected to History of Mexico again. I am going to put a link in History of Mexico to the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article.

Oh, one more thing. As a result of pulling the Conquest of Mexico stuff out of the Hernan Cortes article, the section in the Hernan Cortes article on the Conquest of Mexico is really anemic now. I threw in a placeholder but we need someone to write a paragraph or two that gets the point across that the Conquest of Mexico is the most important thing about Cortes and then references the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article.

Richard 23:08, 26 March 2006 (PST)

OK, I'm back again. I've just spent two hours moving stuff around. Hopefully, this is a more logical organization of stuff across multiple articles.

The Hernan Cortes article now provides background information about Cortes' life leading up to and after the Mexico campaign but not much about the campaign itself. For that, the reader is referred to the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article.

I discovered that there was already an article entitled Siege of Tenochtitlan so I moved everything related to that battle from the Hernan Cortes and Spanish Conquest of Mexico articles.

I also moved the stuff about "La Noche Triste" into the Siege of Tenochtitlan article because there were only a few paragraphs about "La Noche Triste". Most of the other stuff that Piet moved into the "La Noche Triste" article was really stuff about the Siege of Tenochtitlan.

I'm sure a longer article could be written about "La Noche Triste" but the text we have now is not quite long enough to warrant an article of its own (IMHO). I'll leave the writing of a longer article to some other intrepid soul.

That's enough for one weekend. See you all later and Happy Wiki-ing.

Over and out.

Richard 01:28, 28 March 2006 (PST)

Thanks for all the work, I'm glad someone finally did it. La Noche Triste indeed belongs with the Siege of Tenochtitlan (I didn't know of that article). I'll try to finish this (just some minor cleanup + your remarks). And I'll keep it on my watchlist because there has been quite a lot of vandalism here. Piet 12:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've removed the cleanup tag. There's still some work to be done but I would say the emergency has passed. Piet 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Conquest of Mexico vs. Spanish conquest of Mexico

Hi,

Piet pointed out that there is a Wikipedia convention that only the first word in a title be capitalized unless the word is a proper noun. Sheesh, I'm glad he explained that to me. I've been going around capitalizing subsequent words like crazy. Now I'll have to go back and put things right.

He also said he was going to move the article back to Spanish conquest of Mexico to set things right but it doesn't look like that's been done yet.

I tried to do it via the "move" tab which he explained to me but I can't do it because my account is "too new".

So here's what we need to do. Someone needs to move the stuff in Spanish Conquest of Mexico to Spanish conquest of Mexico and then make Spanish Conquest of Mexico to Spanish conquest of Mexico by inserting #REDIRECT Spanish conquest of Mexico.

Now, frankly, I think we ought to just delete the article Spanish Conquest of Mexico but I don't know how to do that.

Please bear with me. I'm a newbie and I guess I shoulda read the user manual first but Wikipedia just invites you to "jump in and learn to swim by flailing around".

Finally, if you're interested, you might look at the Talk Page for Aztec. My next Wikipedia project is going to be to rationalize the Fall of the Aztec Empire section in the Aztec article. I have made a proposal to this effect on the Talk page of the Aztec article. If no one objects in the next few days, I might take a whack at it.

Richardshusr 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait Richard, there's a procedure for moving an "unmovable" page (I only found out five minutes ago), I've left a note on the talk page, an administrator will solve it for us. Also, articles should not be deleted in a case like this, but changed to redirects. That way someone using the wrong capitalization will end up at the correct page through the redirect. Thirdly, don't worry about making mistakes, we've all been new here. Piet 21:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Montezuma or Moctezuma?

I've moved this discussion to the Aztec page.

Richard 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just found this page Talk:Montezuma. I have moved this discussion there. Please read it and state your opinion there about the spelling that we should use. Once there is some resolution on that page, we should undertake an effort to regularize the spelling across all the relevant pages (there are many pages and many references to Moctezuma. Ouch!

Richard 20:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Cortes die wealthy or in debt?

Different sources say different things. Anybody able to weigh in on which description is more accurate? Richard 06:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Article size: 38kb

This article is now 38kb and getting long. I can't see any obvious sections to pull out into a separate article. If you are planning to add any significant chunks of text, it would be a good idea to review the overall structure of the article and see if there is a way to keep it from getting much longer. Richard 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

History rhymes

The introduction to the "History rhymes" article has been revised for clarity and focus, and the article retitled "Historic recurrence." My apologies for any inconvenience. Also, my compliments on a fine "Hernán Cortés" article. logologist|Talk 08:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

It is unnecessary to either attack or defend Cortés as to if he was a glorious hero or a murderous villain. Personal opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia, regardless of how he's depicted. Wolfdog 21:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion moved here from my Talk page... (--Richard 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Your comment on Talk:Hernan Cortes was a bit terse. Are you saying that the section entitled "Assessment" should be dropped altogether? I would agree if the assertion is that everything there is personal opinion (i.e. OR) because everything in that section probably is personal opinion. However, if those opinions were supported as being expressed in verifiable sources, would you change your mind? --Richard 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize if my comment seemed harsh. I simply wanted to get my point aross that the conquistador should not be viewed as either heroic or evil. Yes, I would accept sources, I was just scared that the section was from the opinions of a writer who obviously never personally knew Cortés and so was making false assumptions. Again, I'm sorry if you felt insulted. Wolfdog 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your conciliatory message. Actually, I wasn't insulted but I was confused. By saying your message was terse, I meant that you wrote such a short message that I wasn't clear what you were objecting to. The history of this problem is that an earlier version of the article had an Assessment section that was highly critical of Cortes and made him sound like the Hitler of the 16th century Mexico. I balanced that out with a more favorable assessment but without removing the negative stuff. This was meant to find a NPOV way of stating both viewpoints. However, the entire section is personal opinion both the original author's text and my own. I have no citations for his point of view OR for mine.

What I wanted to understand was whether you were objecting to the existence of the Assessment section or just to the lack of citations.

--Richard 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• With citations, I will definitely allow it. Again, I just hoped you weren't saying how you thought of him to be yourself. I guess that without the sources, I was confused. Wolfdog 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mexican Conquest

This is the most important event that Cortés took part in. It MUST be greatly expanded. Wolfdog 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that some expansion might be useful. We moved discussion of that topic out of this article to keep the article length manageable but it is arguable that what we left behind was too terse and needs to be expanded to maintain flow of the article. However, I don't agree that the "Conquest of Mexico" section should be "greatly expanded".

Here's the problem. The article Spanish conquest of Mexico is almost entirely about Cortes' exploits in Mexico. If you expand the "Conquest of Mexico" section in this article, all you will wind up doing is duplicating what is in the Spanish conquest of Mexico article. Some duplication is necessary in case the reader wants a brief overview of Cortes' campaign against the Aztecs without having to read the detailed Spanish conquest of Mexico article. However, most of the detail should be left in the Spanish conquest of Mexico article. It was moved there because this article was getting way too long and that was the only section in this article that merited being made into an article unto itself.

Feel free to expand the "Conquest of Mexico" section in this article but please bear in mind the considerations outlined above and don't go overboard with too much detail.

--Richard 04:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed two sections due to copyright violations

I found that the Cortés great insight and Cortés as a military strategist sections were directly pulled from elsewhere on the web and I completely deleted them (I had always thought that the Assessment section was a little choppy and disconnected). This article could be improved by a smaller and more concise and more consistent Assessment section. Thanks, Madman 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

The Good article nomination for Hernán Cortés has failed. Here are some suggestions for improving the article:

• Currently, the lead section is far too short. It needs to give a brief summary of Cortes' life and actions instead of just noting that he conquered Mexico.
• There is no in-line citation, even for controversial statements. See WP:CITE.
• The websites that are linked to throughout the article have no context and sometimes seem unrelated to the immediate sub-topic at hand. Personally, because of the length of this article, I think it could benefit enormously from footnotes.
• Several sections have POV issues which need to be sorted out:

"...probably spending most of his time in the heady atmosphere of Spain's southern ports, listening to the tales of those returning from the Indies, who told of discovery and conquest, gold, Indians and strange unknown lands."

"It is extremely difficult to characterize this particular conquistador – his unspeakable atrocities, his tactical and strategic awareness, the rewards for his Tlaxcalteca allies along with the rehabilitation of the nobility (including a castle for Moctezuma's heirs in Spain that still stands), his respect for Indians as worthy adversaries and family members."

"Cortés' dealings with the Native Americans were almost always honorable."

"The impression has prevailed that Cortés was treated by the Spanish Government with base ingratitude."

"It is not at all unlikely that the Mexican chieftain was party to a plan to exterminate the Spaniards while they were floundering through the forests and swamps, but even if this were so, his execution was not necessary. By restraint the same object might have been achieved. But Cortés had an exaggerated conception of the power and influence of Cuauhtemotzin's office, as he had in the case of Montezuma. "

Overall, though, this is a very thourough, interesting, and well written article. Good work everyone! A few fixes (mostly citation-related) and it could definitely become a GA. --Alex S 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your good words and suggestions for improvement. We'll work on them.

--Richard 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing it needs to become GA is a section explaining which are the sources to the life of Cortés, which are the contradictions between them and the viewpoints of them. This article is not at all critical of the rather few and rather biased sources that we have to the biography of Cortés.Maunus 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

His dealings with the Native Americans: POV

This section seems unreasonably glorifying of Cortés. There are no references and the entire section seems to be based on some source that has the explicit aim of washing all the blood of the hands of the spanish conquistador. It is likely that the source is a mixture of Gomara who wrote the biography of Cortés as cortés would have it (because he was paid by him) and cortés' own letters which of course try to put him in the most favourable light towards the King. Anyway a look at other sources do not corroborate this view of Cortés as honorable, just and fair towards the natives. I suggest reading Bartolome de las Casas descriptions of the "destruction of the indies" and the native descriptions of the Florentine Codex, also Restalls "seven myths of the spanish conquest" would provide nice additional sources to the description. This section is definitely unbalanced, while we of course should avoid painting Cortés as the devil there is absolutely no need and less truth in picturing him as a saint.Maunus 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Acording to "La relacion anonima de Tlatelolco" Cortez asked for a tribute of gold, food and women of clear skin to acept the surrender of Tenochtitlan. Of course, that was not an uncommon tribute, but paints a different picture. And while Cortez was not responsable of the masacre of Toxcal, he ordered the masacre of Cholula. An intelligent man, not a saint, but also not a devil. Nanahuatzin 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then we should write a section that captures the different perspectives from different sources. It is reasonable to say that, while Cortes and Gomara painted a rosy picture, other sources contradict that picture. We should depict him neither as a saint nor a devil but rather "more saintly according to Cortes himself and Gomara" AND "more like a devil according to de las Casas and the Florentine Codex". We are not asked to find the truth but rather to tell what other reliable sources have said and let the reader find his/her own truth. --Richard 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

--Richard 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

exactly. But this article doesnt even mention which sources exist to the life of Cortés nor in which ways they differe. Maunus 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the interesting part... is that the aztec sources report the atrocities, they do not put him as evil, since that is not an mesoamerican concept. Historian Shep Lenchek wrote :"What is most remarkable is that the Aztec account of the Conquest, is almost completely non-judgmental. Although they describe Spanish atrocities in gory detail, it is done factually, with little emotion. … Nowhere in the Aztec accounts of the Conquest do we find any effort to paint the Spaniards as monsters.". So, we should do the same. Cortez can be considered responsible of "war atrocities" and of not maintain his word with the Tlaxcalteca. But he can not be held complety responsable of the atrocities reported by Las Casas. He was ambicious, and wanted to control the aztec empire, but he also reported admiracion of it. Nanahuatzin 05:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Section "Deteriorating relations with the Spanish government"

Much the section headed "Deteriorating relations with the Spanish government" apparently inadvertently quotes verbatim from "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (published in 1913 and now in the public domain) without attribution. The section does cite a "Hispanos Famosos" web page which asserts 1986-2006 copyright to the material, but the entire "Hispanos Famosos" entry on Cortes is a verbatim transcription of the Cortes entry in "The Catholic Encyclopedia".

The Hispanos Famoses entry is here: http://coloquio.com/famosos/cortes.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04397a.htm

I believe that much of the wikipedia entry under this section heading should be placed within quotation marks, and attributed to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Dlbarber 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I'll change the section and attribute to the right source. Maunus 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote a bunch

The mid part of the article was (and still is) full of repetitions and verbatim quotes from the catholic encyclopedia. I took out the most blatant plagiarisms and rewrote and restructured some, but it still needs a loving hand to restore a sense of chornology within the article.Maunus 16:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cortes vs. Cortez

User:68.119.81.99 changed Cortés to Cortéz. I reverted it but, to tell the truth, I am at a loss to explain why Cortés is the preferred spelling over Cortéz. Can someone explain this?

--Richard 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hernán(do) vs. Hernándo

User:Ramirez72 changed Hernán(do) to Hernándo. Since the article has used the Hernán(do) for at least 6 months, I thought this was a bit too bold a change to make without discussion. I have to say that I don't know enough to argue for or against either formulation so I figured I'd open the discussion here and ask for opinions from editors who might be more knowledgeable than I am about this sort of thing. --Richard 05:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In Castillan Spanish /z/ and /s/ are different sounds, Cortés' name has the s sound not the /z/ which sounds like english {th}. That is why Cortés should be preferred over Cortéz. Also Cortés himself spelled his name with an s. As for Hernán or Hernando or Fernando all are equally correct, the latter two were most commonly used during his life time but the former short form has become most common in both the spanish and the english language in modern times which means that people are most likely to know him by this name. The english language version of his letters for example is called "Hernán Cortés:letters from Mexico" etc. Maunus 09:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the above explanation as a comment at the beginning of the article to hopefully deflect some well-intentioned editors who might otherwise want to change the name.

Some follow-up questions.

1) If Cortés preferred Cortés over Cortéz, then why would anybody want to use Cortéz? That is, what context makes people think that Cortés is a misspelling and Cortéz is the "right" spelling?

2) Are you saying that Hernán is a more common name for Spanish children born in the 20th and 21st centuries than Hernando or Fernando? I would think it's just the opposite although my opinion is worth little. As an American, I am familiar with the name Fernando and I can understand Hernando as being a variant thereof. I had assumed that Hernán was the formal name and that Hernando was a dimunitive familiar variant of it (e.g. Juana and Juanita). Is it possible that there is a difference between Spanish names and Mexican names?

3) Just out of curiousity, the variant that is missing is Fernán. Why is that not a legitimate variant of Cortés' name?

--Richard 15:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cortéz is often used for Cortés because the name is more common in that spelling, it is just not correct for this person. No, Fernando is the more common name today, truth is I have no idea why Hernán has become the standard way of referring to him in modern times. Maybe exactly because it sounds a little more "special" than just plain fernando. Why Fernán is never used I also don't know but I don't think I've ever seen it in my life. So basically I just know that Fernando was what he was called during his lifetime and that Hernán is how he is normally called now. The why's and how's I simply can't answer. :)Maunus 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this great explanation of why Cortes is Cortés and not Cortéz in the article on Iberian naming customs Maunus 10:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Velázquez + México

Various editors keep changing Anglicized spellings like Velazquez and Mexico to Velázquez and México. I can see an argument to use Anglicized spellings dropping the accents because this is the English Wikipedia. However, that doesn't jibe with the spelling of Hernán Cortés with the accents. Are we being inconsistent here? What does the relevant style guideline say?

--Richard 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sinking of own ships to quel mutiny in 1519

Robert Greene's 33 Strategies of War mentions Cortez on page 42, stating that Cortez had his expedition's ships sunk in response to a brewing mutiny. Some felt that 500 men taking on the Mexican empire was insane and were instead planning on going back to Cuba with the weath they had captured. According to the book, Cortez had the ship's pilots drill holes in the boats to proclaim that the were not seaworthy, and then later sunk. Greene goes on to say that Cortez later admitted that he was responsible for the disaster but had done so in order to focus the men; the boats served as a crutch to the men. With the boats sunk the men became ruthless and conquered Tenochtitlan some 2 years later.

Can anyone verifiy this? Greene quotes 'Hernan Corets: Conqueror of Mexico, Salvador de Madariaga, 1942

Elohim 17:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He did sink the ships. However it was done because some of the men were supporters of Diego Velazquez the Cuban governor against whose authority Cortés had gone to Mexico. He sank the ships after discovering a plot by these Velazquez supporters to send a ship back to warn him. He executed the traitors and sank the ships and marched inland with both sailors and soldiers. Cortés did write in his letters that he did it to inspire courage in his men and make it an all or nothing adventure. Scholars have cst this version into doubt as pure self dramatization (read Restall's seven myths of the spanish Conquest)Maunus 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Hernán Cortés

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support the creation of such a separate list page. I'm no fan of cluttering up otherwise-informative articles with every trivial mention that can be dredged up, but can understand that some at least see a use in having such references. IMO such modern cultural references tell you more about modern culture than they do the topic at hand, and so it would seem best to have these listed separately. There'd also need to be some level of discrimination and notability threshhold applied- is it really necessary to list every dime-a-dozen computer game which derivitively references real-world figures? Such concerns are not restricted to Bios either- articles such as Quetzalcoatl frequently accumulate reams of game- and fictional-related cruft.--cjllw | TALK 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion about organizing.

I think that we should try to organize all the information into the right order someday. It isn't really helpful when you have to go through tons of things just to find one short piece of information. NorthD 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected

People were changing the biography pic to random pictures of Wrestlers. I wanted to protect the page from random people on with out accounts from changing it. --Ranix 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Outline

Below is a possible outline format on Cortez. All sources come from Wikipedia pages; the information is just summarized and reorganized into a timeline for Cortez's life. Please check for factual accuracy.

Timeline for Cortés Early Life 1485- Cortés born in Medellín, Extremadura, Castile, Spain. Second cousin of Francisco Pizarro. Sickly child. 1499- Cortés goes to study at Salamanca. Studies law and Latin. 1501- Returns home. Restless, haughty, and mischievous. Frustrated by provincial life. 1502-1503- Cortés set to go to Hispaniola with governor Nicolás de Ovando, but injured fleeing from married woman’s house. Wanders the countryside. 1503- Arrives in Hispaniola with Alonso Quintero who deceives superiors to get to the New World faster. Registered as citizen. Ovando gives Cortés a repartimiento in Azuza. Town notary. Until 1508- Becomes established in the colonies. Contracts syphilis from Indian woman. Aids in conquest of Cuba and Hispaniola and gains large estate. 1511- Goes with Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar to conquer Cuba. Clerk to the treasurer. Velázquez is governor of Cuba. Impressed by Cortés, makes him alcalde of capital, Santiago de Cuba. Until Feb. 18, 1519- Relations between Cortés and Velázquez become strained. Cortés jailed twice, but escapes. Cortés courts Velázquez’s sister-in-law Catalina Juárez. Displeased b/c thought Cortés was playing w/ her emotions. Also involved w/ one of Catalina’s sisters. Under pressure, Cortés married Catalina. Conquest of the Aztecs Feb. 8, 1517- Failed expedition of Francisco Hernández de Córdoba departs under Velázquez’s authority to explore Yucatan. April 1518 and Beyond- Juan de Grijalva explores Tabasco under Velázquez’s authority. Cortés appointed for new expedition Oct. 23, 1518, but plans are made even before Grijalva’s departure. To be a trading expedition, but through manipulation using experience in law, Cortés provided for use of “emergency measures.” Velázquez funds half of the expedition and Cortés most of his fortune. Velázquez wary of Cortés’s motives. Luis de Medina sent to replace Cortés, but murdered by Cortés’s brother in law. Feb. 18, 1519- Cortés sets sail for Mexico. Velázquez, determined to stop Cortés to be able to conquer the mainland personally, arrives at the docks to revoke his commission for Cortés. Cortés quickly departs saying, “Time presses.” 11 ships, 530 soldiers (including 30 crossbowmen and 12 harquebusiers), 100 sailors, a doctor, 13 horses, 8 women (including María de Estrada, wife of Alonso de Estrada, an important leader in New Spain later on), several carpenters, and several hundred Indian and African slaves and freemen set sail from Santiago de Cuba. Expedition includes Pedro de Alvarado, second-in-command; Cristóbal de Olid, future conqueror of the Tarascans and traitor; Bernal Díaz del Castillo, future chronicler of the expedition and a rodelero; Gonzalo de Sandoval, an important lieutenant to Cortés and future important leader in New Spain's government; and Bartolomeo de Olmedo, the expedition's priest. Until April 1519- Cortés lands at Cozumel. Attempts to convert locals to Christianity. Hears rumors of white men in Yucatan. Scouts find Gerónimo de Aguilar and Gonzalo Guerrero in Chetumal. They lived with the Mayans. Alguilar joins as Mayan-Spanish translator for the expedition, but Guerrero refuses. April 1519- Landing at Potonchan. Fight with 400 natives after they ask Cortés to leave. Malintzin becomes Nahuatl-Mayan translator as one of 20 women cooks given as peace offering. Cortés leaves his ships which agree to meet him further up the coast at a later date. Arrival in Cempoala, capital of powerful Totonac kingdom, a city of 80,000 people. Xicomecoatl, tlatoani, will join the Spaniards with 20 war chiefs and 200 natives. April 20, 1519- Teudile and other diplomats of the Aztecs scared and returned from Cortés to Motecuhzoma II after a display of his forces. They possibly believe him to be the returning Quetzalcoatl. Until Sept. 18, 1519- Founds La Villa Rica de La Vera Cruz, modern day Veracruz out of fear retribution from Spain upon his return. Sandoval is left in charge. Several of his men conspire to steal ships and return to Cuba as supporters of Velázquez. He scuttles his ships minus one for communication. 20% of his current treasure is sunk with it for legal purposes. They are scuttled under the pretext of not being seaworthy. Skirmishes as he moves into Tlaxcalan territory, but peace is finally made. Sept. 18, 1519 and Beyond- Cortés enters Tlaxcala, largest city-state in Tlaxcala. Maxixcatzin, Xicotecatl the Elder, Citalpopocatzin and Temiloltecutl, leaders of Tlaxcala, convert to Catholicism becoming Don Lorenzo, Don Vicente, Don Bartolomé and Don Gonzalo and form a true friendship with Cortés. The Spaniards respect the Tlaxcala and take only what they receive and don’t touch their temples. Xicotecatl the Younger doesn’t like the Spaniards. Oct. 12, 1519- Aztec ambassadors urge Cortés to visit the holy city of Cholula, the second largest Aztec city with a population of 100,000. The Tlaxcala call for him to visit Huexotzinco. Alvarado and Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia will visit Huexotzinco instead of Cortés to prevent a premature war with the Aztecs and Cortés goes to Cholula. He takes 3,000 Tlaxcala with him. Until Nov. 8, 1519- In Cholula, Motecuhzoma tells the Cholulan priests to call upon Quetzalcoatl to stop Cortés. They plan to murder the Spanish in their sleep. Malintzin warns Cortés of this. Cortés starts a preemptive strike that kills 3,000 and burned much of the city in three hours. Other possible reasons exist for the massacre. The Tlaxcala claim that their ambassador Patlahuatzin was seized and tortured and Cortés began the attack to free him. The Aztecs claimed that the Tlaxcala started it to vent anger at Cortés’s choice of Cholula over Huexotzinco. During the attack, Cortés seized the leaders Tlaquiach and Tlalchiac and then ordered the city set fire. His troops started the fire at Xacayatzin, and then on to Chialinco and Yetzcoloc (what are these places? Could not identify them.) Cortés would later vow to rebuild the famed city of 365 temples with a church for every temple (a church/temple for every day of the year.) Nov. 8, 1519- Cortés arrives in Tenochtitlan, the capital and one of the largest cities in the world with a population of 300,000. Motecuhzoma meets Cortés on the great causeway. Welcomed Cortés, giving him the great honor of flowers from his personal garden and necklaces of gold and precious stones. Cortés gave Motecuhzoma necklaces of pearls and glass and tried to embrace Motecuhzoma, but was halted by Motecuhzoma’s litter. (Should not be forgotten the controversy of Quetzalcoatl and Motecuhzoma's restrictions and the possibility of a Nahuatl rhetorical argument.) Motecuhzoma had the palace of his father Axayacatl prepared to house the Spanish and the Tlaxcala. Nov. 16, 1519 and Beyond- Cortés seizes Motecuhzoma in his palace and makes him his prisoner as insurance against Aztec revolt and demanded a huge ransom in gold. Cortés asks Motecuhzoma to subject himself to Charles V. Cortés also demands that the two large idols be removed from the Templo Mayor, the blood scrubbed off, and shrines to Mary and St. Christopher be set up in their place. All his demands are met, though Motecuhzoma suggests images be set up next to the idols. The Spanish are besieged in their palace and are reluctantly supplied by Aztecs angry at both Cortés and Motecuhzoma. April 1520 to May 24, 1520- Pánfilo de Narváez is sent by Velázquez to arrest Cortés. Cortés goes to Veracruz where he has landed to defeat him leaving only 140 men with Alvarado. Cortés by the time of his arrival had 260 men while Narváez had 900. Meanwhile, many of Narváez’s troops defected to Cortés or are captured by Sandoval. He was defeated in a night attack on May 24, 1520. Sandoval is the one who captures Narváez. Cortés places Narváez in prison for 2 years. Narváez lost an eye and his surviving troops join Cortés. They march back in a laborious trek to Tenochtitlan over the Sierra Madre Oriental. Meanwhile, on May 10, 1520, Alvarado and his men intervene in the Toxcatl festival to Tezcatlipoca, leading to the Massacre in the Main Temple. Many versions exist as to why it occurred. June 1520 to July 1, 1520- On June 25, 1520, Cortés returns to find the Spanish besieged and without supplies. The Aztecs force him to fight his way to the palace to reach safety. All supplies are cut off and the city’s causeways are closed. Cuitlahuac, Motecuhzoma’s brother, becomes huey tlatoani after frustration with Motecuhzoma leads to his death on June 30, 1520. Cloudy events lead to Motecuhzoma’s death and La Noche Triste. His body is found three days later in the streets. La Noche Triste occurs the following night on July 1, 1520. It is rainy. The conquistadores, especially Narváez’s former men, load themselves with gold and prepare to flee the city via the western Tlacopan causeway whose guards have abandoned their posts due to the rain. Trapped at the gaps in the causeway, the Spanish are preparing make-shift bridges when they are spotted by two women and Aztec war canoes secretly attack. Perhaps 600 of the 1,100 Spaniards still living are killed along with 2,000 of the 3,000 Tlaxcala. Every man is injured and only 20 wounded horses survive. Cortés, Malintzin, Sandoval (in the lead vanguard), Alvarado, Alvarado’s mistress, and 2 of Motecuhzoma’s 3 daughters and the third daughter’s infant María (later in Cortés’s will) under Cortés’s care are important survivors (Alvarado survives by a leap over the water with a spear; he was in the rear guard.) The fighting was fierce enough to allow many Spaniards to escape by crossing over the dead bodies of their comrades. Many Spaniards die weighted down with gold and armor, drowning in the lake. Cortés wept when he made it across to safety by a tree at an Aztec temple for his losses. To July 8, 1520- Cortés maneuvers around to the northeast around Lake Zumpango to attempt to reach Tlaxcala. Battle of Otumba occurs as Cortés, being pursued, turns around for a prepared for a last stand against 40,000 Aztecs, the entire Aztec army who are closing in on him east of Teotihuacan. He and his men vow victory or death for fear of human sacrifice if captured. He smashes the Aztecs with a frightening cavalry charge of his few horses and captures their general Cihuaca. Half of the army is destroyed and the rest disband. Cortés soon returns to Tlaxcala. Until December 1520- Smallpox begins to attack the Aztecs in September and lasts until November. Cuitlahuac dies of it and is followed in the throne by Cuauhtemoc, his cousin. Aztec forces constantly raid Tlaxcala while promising peace if they ally against the Spanish. They refuse hoping Cortés will lead them to defeat the Aztecs. Xicotecatl the Younger meets with ambassadors to ally, but the elders overrule him and ally with the Spanish who, with few options, agree to have the Tlaxcala not pay any taxes to Charles V and be given a fort in Tenochtitlan and control of Cholula after the war. Cortés accepts with few choices left. His men’s morale is extremely low. Most want to forget their endeavor and return home. Cortés is harsh with his troops to entice them to remain. Reinforcements trickle in from Veracruz numbering 200 men, 80 horses, ammo and weapons, and 12 full brigantines. Dec. 1520 to Mar. 1521- Cortés and the Tlaxcala break out of their defensive perimeter and begin to annihilate opposition. Eventually, they have encircled the capital and smallpox continues to ravage the population. By the end of the fighting, smallpox alone will have killed 40% of Tenochtitlan’s populace. A Basque named Martín López builds Cortés 13 more strange makeshift brigantines for use on Lake Texcoco. The 25 ships are taken by porters to the lake as preparations begin for the final assault. Sandoval directs their transportation. During this time, Sandoval levels a town they had nicknamed poblado morisco (Moorish Town) near Calpulalpa or Sultepec upon finding the strung up remains of Juan Yuste's horse (a soldier under Narváez.) March 1521 to May 1521- Cortés begins the Battle of Tlacopan as a springboard assault on Tenochtitlan. Cortés holds an army of 80,000 with less than 600 being Spaniards and only 40 cavalry. Cuauhtemoc leads an army against him and the fighting is long and bloody and mainly hand-to-hand as the Aztecs realize that Cortés’s weakness is his slow and inaccurate guns. Cortés emerges victorious and cuts off the aqueduct from Chapultepec, the main source of fresh water to the city. Brigantines destroy the Aztec canoe fleet. Most of the Aztec fighting force is ravaged by smallpox. Until August 13, 1521- Cortés begins the Siege of Tenochtitlan. He has cut off all supplies to the Aztecs with control of the causeways. However, he cannot cross the causeways which the Aztecs have destroyed themselves. In one instance to assault the causeways, Olid refuses to aid Alvarado and Olid is forced to flee in exile for a year. Cortés also fails in using his brigantines to assault the city by sea and transport because of the mass uprising within the city by the populace against him. Many Aztecs flee to Tlatelolco, the twin city of Tenochtitlan. Cortés sends Indian emissaries to convince the city to defect, but they refuse. Slowly, Cortés enters the city. Unfortunately, the Aztecs rise en masse. Every citizen takes up arms and Cortés levels nearly every square inch of the city through ten weeks of street to street fighting. He sets fire to much of it. In the end, he destroys what survives his ravages after the conquest because there is so little left. Tlatelolco is the last city to be defeated where even women join the fighting after cutting their hair. Aug. 13, 1521- Omens convince many to surrender. Cuauhtemoc is caught by García Holguín, a captain of a brigantine under Sandoval, while leaving the city by canoe to gain support outside the city. He surrenders on the causeway. He asks for death. Cortés treats him nobly, but refuses to kill him, and demands gold, light skinned women, and food. Cortés especially demands gold, but is told none is left but a trifle in Cuauhtemoc’s canoe. Cortés realizes most was lost in La Noche Triste. The Aztec Empire is defeated. Cuauhtemoc is tortured with fire under his feet to reveal the location of the gold. Motelchiuhtzin, second puppet ruler; Tetlepanquetzal, the tlatoani of Tlacopan; Coanacoch of Texcoco; and Tlacotzin, Cihuacoatl and future first puppet ruler of Tenochtitlan, are too. They ask Cuauhtemoc to divulge its location, but he says, “Do you think I’m in a bath of pleasure?" later modified into, "do you think I’m in a bed of roses?" Tlacotzin, Cuauhtemoc, Motelchiuhtzin, and Tetlepanquetzal are imprisoned. Coanacoch is killed. Colonial Era 1521- Cortés de facto ruler of new territories. Cortés will own many lands and be one of the first sugar growers in Mexico. He will have at least 200 slaves. He is responsible for rebuilding Tenochtitlan into Mexico City. Cortés is loved in Spain. His power is questioned after events which will foreshadow Cortés's future of power struggles. Note: I am confused over dates of the following event due to the fact that my information shows that the Consejo de Indias was not established until 1524 and Fonseca's life's dates disagree with these facts, though the former appears to be the source of the problem due to definite support for Fonseca's dates. Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca, an enemy of Cortés and president of the Consejo de Indias until his death on Mar. 4, 1524, sends Cristóbal de Tapia to inspect Cortés's rule, calls for Narváez's release from prison, and begins legal action for Velázquez against Cortés. Essentially, he calls for Cortés's arrest. Tapia is a weak, greedy, and meek man. Charles V is busy in Germany and has left Adrian of Utrecht in charge of Spain temporarily (he will later be pope.) On Apr. 11, 1521, he approves these measures. Tapia departs in Dec. 1521 with 2 ships from Santo Domingo where he had been a gold foundry inspector (veedor.) On Dec. 24, 1521, he meets Olid and Sandoval at Veracruz. He doesn't even make it to Cempoala to meet Cortés in Tenochtitlan because by Dec. 30, 1521, he has been persuaded by Sandoval to leave and give power to Cortés after being bought off with gifts. 1522- Cristóbal de Olid conquers the Tarascans w/o a fight. Caconzi Tangaxuan II, tlatoani, and Cortés rule jointly, but Tangaxuan begins to regain autonomy. Nuño Beltrán de Guzmán, ruthless conquistador and soon to be arch nemesis of Cortés in a power struggle, will later come to destroy them. Sandoval founds a settlement in Veracruz, Villa del Espíritu Santo, modern Coatzacoalcos, and helps subjugate many southern Mexican tribes. Oct. 15, 1522- Cortés officially appointed governor-general of Mexico by Charles V. However, due to Velázquez who was constantly calling for Cortés's arrest and trial for insubordination to remove him from power, five officials will be appointed to work for observe and work for him to judge the fitness of Cortés's rule. They are Estrada as treasurer, Albornoz as contador (accountant or auditor), Pedro Almíndez Chirino as inspector, Zuazo as justicia mayor, or assessor and juez de residencia (judge) in the case of impeachment by Velázquez against Cortés, and Gonzalo de Salazar as factor (tax collector.) All arrived to take power at different times, but all were at the capital by 1524. 1523 to 1527- Alvarado sent by Cortés to conquer Guatemala. 1523- Martín Cortés is born to Cortés and Malintzin, his mistress. Olid sent by Cortés to conquer Honduras. While resupplying in Havana, Velázquez convinces Olid to conquer the Honduras for himself. He lands at Puerto Caballos and by May 3, 1524 he had conquered most of the Honduras and rebels against Cortés founding Triunfo de la Cruz. Cortés sends Francisco de Las Casas (not the later reformer) with two warships to stop Olid. Both ships are destroyed in a storm and many of Las Casas's men defect to Olid, but he manages to defeat Olid. He is captured and beheaded at Naco by Las Casas. Juan de Garay is sent by Fonseca to conquer parts of northern Mexico around Pánuco to lessen Cortés's power. Cortés stops this action in one of his letters to Charles V by complaining of conspiracy against him by Fonseca, Velázquez, Fonseca, and even Diego Colón, Columbus's son. 1524- Consejo de Indias begins functioning. Powerful government organization over the New World; it will not gain true authority over the New World until the end of the 1500s. Cortés further estranges himself from Spain by calling for Velázquez's arrest over Olid's revolt. Jun. 12, 1524- Death of Velázquez. Oct. 12, 1524 to Jun. 25, 1526- Cortés's disastrous and infamous Honduras expedition. Sandoval, Chirino, and Salazar come. Malintzin is translator again. Cuauhtemoc, Tlacotzin, and Tetlepanquetzal are taken to prevent insurrection. During his departure, various power struggles would ensue. He left the following of his counselors in charge: Alonso de Estrada, Rodrigo de Albornoz, and Alonso de Zuazo. They would rule from Tenochtitlan and share power with the local city government, the ayuntamiento, composed of Cortés's partisans. Estrada was a violent and forceful man with possible royal parentage. Albornoz came along to capture Cortés with Narváez. Zuazo was originally to observe Cortés for Charles V and Velázquez should his arrest be necessary. He had also been in Santo Domingo observing the toll of slavery on the colonies (he believed that the Indians should be replaced by African slaves.) He was incorruptible and a friend of Cortés. Problems arose between Estrada and Albornoz during the election of a bailiff. Cortés discovers this while at Coatzacoalcos and sends Salazar and Chirino back with two orders: to join the government and if the two are unable to settle their issues, to replace them. Seeing the opportunity presented, Salazar and Chirino reveal only the second decree, ousting Albornoz and Estrada from the triumvirate with a vote from the ayuntamiento on Dec. 29, 1524. A scandal followed after it was discovered that Salazar and Chirino had hidden the first decree and Estrada and Albornoz were readmitted to power on Feb.17, 1525. Salazar gained the most power, and then came Chirino, Estrada, Albornoz, and Zuazo. Zuazo had been the architect allowing all of them into power to make peace and he acted as an arbitrator. However, hostility came between Albornoz and Estrada and their new enemies Salazar and Chirino. Apr. 20, 1525 brought Estrada and Albornoz being ousted from power by a document designed by Salazar and Chirino and signed by Zuazo, Cervantes, Luis de la Torre, Sotomayor, Rodrigo de Paz (an ayuntamiento member and relative of Cortés), and a clerk named Pérez. Anyone who acknowledged the authority of Estrada or Albornoz would be punished by 100 lashes and confiscation of all property. Estrada and Albornoz began to flee for Medellín (possible error if referring to Colombia as Medellín was not established until the 1600s.) They are captured 24 miles out by Chirino's men and sent to a fortress to be imprisoned. Salazar and Chirino ruled without Zuazo after May 23, 1525 who they arrested and prepared to send to Spain for trial on false charges. He escaped and fled to Santo Domingo. Meanwhile, believing Cortés dead, they began a reign of terror over the country, confiscating property of conquistadores. On Aug. 19, 1525, they tried to take Cortés 's property. Rodrigo de Paz was tortured to give the location of Cortés's treasure trove. Early in 1526, Cortés, hearing of the problems in his government, had Martín de Orantes, a messenger, sent to replace Salazar and Chirino with Alvarado and Francisco de Las Casas. However, both were absent at the time. On Jan. 28, 1526, Orantes and citizens of Mexico City rose against Salazar and Chirino, shouting, "¡Viva Cortés!" with ayuntamiento support. Salazar was arrested and Chirino captured in Tlaxcala later. Estrada and Albornoz ruled in their place. They ruled until Cortés arrived on Jun. 25, 1526 and even tried to keep power by forbidding his entrance to the city. Also worth noting is that on Dec. 15, 1525, Albornoz wrote to Charles V urging the expulsion of Cortés from power. During all of these events, trouble was brewing in Spain. Cortés was feared dead and the rumors of Salazar's reign caused Charles V to send Luis Ponce de León (not the Floridian explorer) to establish a juicio de residencia (court of inquiry) as to the state of affairs in Mexico. On Jul. 5, 1526, he arrived in Mexico City and took power as governor from Cortés. It appears Cortés poisoned him and he died on Jul. 20, 1526, leaving his assistant Marcos de Alguilar in power 4 days earlier. The ayuntamiento and Cortés opposed Alguilar and tried to make his rule difficult, but he exerted his authority. Cortés also possibly poisoned him and he died on Mar. 1, 1527, passing power to Estrada, Sandoval, and de la Torre. By Aug. 22, 1527, only de la Torre and Estrada remained in power. Cortés refused to exert any authority in retaking power for a time due to allegations of his poisoning. Feb. 28, 1525- Cuauhtemoc and Tetlepanquetzal executed during Honduran expedition. Tlacotzin becomes puppet ruler, but will never serve in Tenochtitlan because he dies on the expedition. Circumstances for execution are controversial. 1526- Diego Velázquez Tlacotzin dies. Puppet Don Andrés de Tapia Motelchiuhtzin Huitznahuatlailotlac established. Palacio de Cortés begins to be constructed in Cuernavaca, Morelos 50 miles south of Mexico City. 1527- Malintzin has married Juan Jaramillo, left Cortés, and had a daughter, Marina, in the Yucatan. Dec. 13, 1527- First Real Audencia in Mexico established to take over government at Charles V's behalf. It is a court with vast power. Juan Ortiz de Matienzo, Diego Delgadillo, Diego Maldonado and Alonso de Parada are oideres (judges) and Guzmán is president. Fray Juan de Zumárraga (need more information also on Zumárraga in his article), the first bishop of Mexico (appointed Dec. 20, 1527) and protector of the Indians, left with the group in Aug. 1528. Zumárraga arrived Dec. 6, 1528. The Real Audencia took power on Dec. 8, 1528 except for Guzmán who arrived a little later at the capital and Parada and Maldonado who became sick and died Dec. 19, 1528. The remaining auditors are instructed to conclude investigations on Alvarado, Estrada, Albornoz, Salazar, and Chirino within 90 days. Cortés has just left for Spain. 1528 to 1530- Cortés visits Spain and is given title of Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca and Order of Santiago by Charles V. He comes to plead against exile given by Estrada after he complained about one of his follower's hands being cut off. Cortés is pardoned by Charles V. Salazar and Chirino are released at Albornoz and Estrada's behalf. During his absence, hell breaks loose under the auditors of the Audencia. They commit atrocities against the natives. Zumárraga attempts to communicate to Spain, but all communication is silenced by the Audencia until a Basque sailor sneaks a letter in a wax cake immersed in an oil barrel. Guzmán, now de facto ruler, arrests Alvarado for questioning Salazar's loyalty and puts up coats of arms to show that loyalty belonged to the king and not Cortés in an attempt to lose popular favor of Cortés. Guzmán and Cortés had been enemies since they'd squabbled over governing Pánuco. The 3 auditors took lands for themselves, illegal acts for judges. They would in the end be stripped of their lands and forced to pay fines. In any case, Guzmán realized Cortés would return soon and on Dec. 21, 1529, Guzmán left the city to conquer the Tarascans with 300 conquistadores and 6,000 Indians. His expedition became a holocaust. He destroyed everything in his path. Upon arrival in Tarascan lands, Caconzi Tangaxuan II welcomes him, but was captured and tortured to death for gold which he did not have. On Mar. 7, 1530, Zumárraga places Mexico City under interdiction until Easter and excommunicates the auditors for a year due to the quartering and torture of priests and a servant of Cortés taking refuge in a church. Meanwhile, Guzmán continues operations against the Tarascans and various Chichimec tribes. He ruled the regions he conquered, Jalisco, Zacatecas, Nayarit and Sinaloa (Nueva Galicia) in bloody tyranny, finally ending with his arrest in 1536. His actions eventually led to the Mixtón Rebellion and Chichimeca War. He died in prison in Spain in 1544. 1529- Malintzin dies. 1530- Cortés returns from Spain on July 15, 1530. He retires to his palace after reestablishing order. He remains the military leader of New Spain. Catalina Juárez dies under suspicious circumstances. Cortés very likely murdered her. The government remained silent on the issue to due continually deteriorating relations with Cortés and fear of rebellion. Don Pablo Xochiquentzin is next Aztec puppet. Jan. 12 1530- Charles V had already heard of the disaster in Mexico and established a second Audencia under Sebastián Ramírez de Fuenleal, Vasco de Quiroga, Juan de Salmerón, Alonso de Maldonado, and Francisco Ceinos. Jan. 10, 1531- The second Audencia takes power. They will rule until Mendoza and the true establishment of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. They prosecute the first Audencia. 1532- Cortés sends two ships to look for the island of California and Strait of Anián. They disappear. 1533- Martín Cortés, half-brother to the other son of Cortés is born to Cortés and Juana de Zúñiga, his second wife. He will become the second Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca. The other Martín will live in his half-brother's shadow. The mestizo Martín was said to have been Cortés's favorite son. All will be naturalized by the pope by Cortés's orders before his death. A follow up mission from Cortés to Baja California ends in mutiny and failure and the founding of La Paz. Jul. 8, 1533 to 1540- Francisco de Ulloa explores Baja California and names the Gulf of California the Sea of Cortés for his patron. Apr. 17, 1535- Antonio de Mendoza appointed by Charles V as the first viceroy of New Spain. His job was to rule for the king w/o angering Cortés, the captain-general, military leader. 1539- Don Diego de Alvarado Huanitzin first Aztec puppet not referred to as a tlatoani. 1541- Don Diego de San Francisco Tehuetzquititzin puppet ruler of Aztecs. Cortés returns to Charles V's court. He is not recognized at court until he says who he is. Alvarado killed Jul. 4, 1541 during the Mixtón Rebellion. Oct. 1541- Cortés and Andrea Doria attack Ottoman Algiers to end Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha's sea superiority in the Mediterranean under Charles V's orders. Both Cortés and Andrea Doria disapproved of the attack. Storms stopped the attack's success. 1542- Las Casas gains support to pass the New Laws which restrict the encomiendas. They are not enforced, not officially passed in Mexico until Mar. 25, 1544 and are retracted by Charles V on Oct. 20, 1545 due to a war in Peru started because of the reforms. Feb. 1544- Cortés has spent most of his fortunes on expeditions and rebuilding the damage he created. He puts a claim on the royal treasury and is given a runaround until 1547. Disgusted, he decides to return to Mexico. Dec. 2, 1547- While preparing to return to Mexico, Cortés dies of pleurisy after contracting dysentery at 62 in Castilleja de la Cuesta, Sevilla.

--TDS 22:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The assertion:

His next five years seem to have served to establish him in the colony, though he managed to contract syphilis from Indian women in the area[citation needed] (a disease new to Europeans).

is questionable, in regards to syphilis. Didn't Alexander the Great die of syphilis?

69.7.197.98 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a much more virulent strain of syphilis existed in the New World (see Population history of American indigenous peoples).

Vcrs (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Probable vandalism

Section = Arrival in the New World

In 1506 he took part in the conquest of Hispaniola and Cuba and got a large estate of land and Indian slaves for his yummy candy and steak.

I'm fairly certain this did not happen.

--Steelbreze 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It did happen except for the yummy candy part.Maunus 22:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So you mean the steak part is accurate then? :-) --216.229.227.143 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Under final days and death it states: "Having spent a great deal of his own money to finance expeditions, he was now heavily in debt." Yet the next paragraph states: "Like Columbus, he died a wealthy but embittered man.".

When he died was he wealthy or in debt? Could someone please correct one way or the other, with a citation? Thanks. --Mike Infinitum 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1989 at the age of eighteen, Cortés ...

From article "In 1989 at the age of eighteen, Cortés sailed in a convoy of merchant ships bound for Santo Domingo, the capital of Hispaniola." 1989? What? --88.88.207.155 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

obviously a a vandal snug in a fake year.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 09:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo

In "The Invasion of Mexico", this sentence appears: But the Spaniards and their allies prevailed: with reinforcements arriving from Cuba, Cortés began a policy of attrition towards the island city of Tenochtitlan cutting of supplies and subduing the Aztecs allied cities thus changing the balance.

"cutting of supplies" should be "cutting off supplies".

Emptystorage 20:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric 2/5/07

Thanks Eric, that typo is now corrected.--cjllw | TALK 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Move???

I Believe That The Page Should Be Mobed BACK To "Hernan Cortes" As There Are Unicode Characters In The Title That Are Dificult To Type On An English Keyboard... LAPS ^{'''(<font color="blue">[[user:LAPS/Guestbook|Guest Book</font>)'''}]] 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been at Hernán Cortés since at least 2003. Typing "Hernan Cortes" into a wiki searchbar brings you right to this article, so those averse to using diacritics are not inconvenienced. There should be no problem in leaving things the way they are.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CJLLW. No need to move.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cortés & British Columbia?

I've removed the following unreferenced passage, which seems to make the claim that Cortés made landfall in British Columbia:

According to Bob ward, Cortes explored, establishing bases for his Armada along the American West Coast with the objective to discover unknown northern territories and landeded on the coast of British Columbia while searching for the North West Passage. Around 2001-2002 two ships that went missing from the Savedra Ceron expedition that Cortes sent out from Mexico in 1527 were found in British Columbia (3m depth). Those ships were astonishingly found in good conditions and the cannons were carrying the H. Cortes logo. Apparently Cortes asked King Charles V to be indemnified for the loss he had incured (he had been funding all the expeditions and had been reimbursed by the King for the costs incurred), but this time, the King did not repaye him. So effecively the ships were the property of Cortes' heirs (as on this side of the Ocean the Treaty US-Mexico does not apply) who apparently are part of a very famous Noble family originating from Naples). So History of the discovery of the North Passage should be revisited (he even had testimony from an indian Tribe of British Columbia who had kept the story by word of mouth and had even kept a Conqueror's helmet as further evidence of the unknown exploration).

AFAIK this is something completely absent from any standard reference work, and so would need a great deal more substantiation than presently on offer. And while Saavedra did lose two ships when sent out by Cortés across the Pacific, I'm sceptical that their remains have been positively identified, in BC or anywhere else. Cortes Island in BC may be named after the conquistador, but that's not because he went there; the Saavedra Is in BC appear to be named after an eponymous late 18thC spanish commandant, not the one Cortés dispatched.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

definite vandalism

The opening lines of this article say cortes was famous for "eating poo"... he never ate poo, and if he did, he's not famous for it209.125.200.34 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Parts of this entry have been copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Surely some more modern sources can be found than that, which is almost a century old. Tazmaniacs 16:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The clunky block quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is symptomatic of a more general problem: more than should really be acceptable, this article reads like a rough-draft committee report. Unless someone who has been working on this tells me not to, I will do a once over copy-edit (without changing or rearranging factual information). Llajwa 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to copy-edit for improvement, Llajwa.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Who was called "Malinche"

Bernal Diaz states at least 50 times that Cortez was called "Malinche" by the natives of Mexico, and the translator/lover was Dona Maria. This article, and others states that the indian woman was called Malinche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.161.234 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cortés was called Malinche. The Indian woman's name was Malinali, but she was so closely associated with Cortés that she was known as La Malinche ("La" is the Spanish feminine form of "The" -- sort of like "Mrs. Malinche"). The Spaniards also called her Doña Marina (not Maria) so as to give her a title of nobility plus a Christian name. See [1] for historical discussion. The article there I believe is historically accurate, but the screenplay it mentions (almost completed at this time) is partly fictionalized. Dave Fafarman 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC) (Corrected the tilde.)

When did Cortés die?

In the article, two different dates of Cortés's death are given: 1541 in the introduction and 1547 in the ending section about his death. Which one is correct? AlaskaWorks (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the sentence makes sense to me now, but it is in my opinion maybe a bit unclear. "Cortés returned to Spain in 1541 where he died peacefully but embittered." I took that to mean that Cortes dies in 1541. Maybe someone could reword it? AlaskaWorks (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC Link

There is a show called Heroes and Villains that featured an episode on Cortes. Is there somewhere we can add it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b009j9nk Rachelskit (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

error

Hi I have just noticed that one of the words in the text of his children is wrong can some one please FIX IT

March 12, 2008 (6:40 WST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.40.155 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline is a mess

It says he planned to sail to the Americas in 1504, but couldn't go; then he wanders around for a year; then he finally reaches Santo Domingo - in 1503! Later it says that "his next five years seemed to have served to establish him in the colony," but hte next date is 1506... and still later it says he went to conquer Cuba in 1910... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcrs (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How old was Cortez when he died?

This article claims 62, but when you click through to the pleurisy article it says he died at the age of 65.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.183.249 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2008

Sixty-two would be more accurate, given the usually accepted birth year of 1485. Have corrected the annotation in pleurisy article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Change from Spain to Castile

Why was everything changed to Castile? When Ferdinand and Isabella united Aragon, Castile and Navarre, my understanding is they were known as monarchs of "the Spains". Certainly Carlos V (their grandson) was known as Carlos I of Spain, not of Castile, contrary to the editing comment that the term "Spain" didn't come into being until the 19th century. Also note that the mainland colony was known as "Nueva España". Do we have some references indicating that the united kingdom was known as Castile at the time of the Conquista?

Tarlneustaedter (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated in his talk page [2] such changes of deleting Spanish are a fruit of WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS, and they do not agree with the secondary sources, which use really the word Spanish. Trasamundo (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is locked, but there is extant vandalism within the article...

The section "Name" features a subsection "Early history" which begins with the phrase "He had a vagina." Now, I'm no fan of Cortes, but somehow I doubt the veracity of this claim!

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up. Tarlneustaedter (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay-like?

• I couldn't help but notice that many parts of this article (particularly the introductory paragraph) read like an essay. A few examples include sentences like; "This was probably a fair description of a 16-year-old boy who had returned home only to find himself frustrated by life in his small provincial town", and "Part of Velázquez' displeasure seems to have been based on a belief that Cortés was trifling with Catalina's affections". These are examples of some of the unsourced conjecture that occurs in this article. It would be hard to rate this article as "encyclopedic" when considering this and other items that make unverified claims. Although large parts of this article appear to be sourced: There also appears to be large sections that are left wanting for proper referencing. I'm placing a "refimprove" template to encourage our fellow registered users to add verification to this article.bwmcmaste (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mestizo and White

Restored comments about Cortés leaving behind many Mestizo and White children. Mestizo is a racial category, the antonym (in this case) is White, not Spanish. The fact that he left behind many children of both ethnicities is culturally significant, and the fact that they were generally well-provided for is equally so. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rich and In Debt?

In the Later Years section. First, this sounds a bit pedestrian: Having spent a great deal of his own money to finance expeditions, he was now heavily in debt. In February 1544 he made a claim on the royal treasury, but was given a royal runaround for the next three years.

Then, the top of the next paragraph: Like Columbus, he died a wealthy but embittered man.

Which is it? Rich or Poor?Krycheq (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the answer is both. He died rich in properties (the Marquisate of the Valley of Oaxaca was immense wealth), but due to the financial environment at the time, had cash flow problems and seems to have had numerous debts. That was a far from uncommon situation with nobility at the time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Crest"

The picture of Cortes' "crest" is in fact a picture of his full coat of arms. The "crest" is the part on top of the helm. 71.167.246.30 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)i`m a pendejo

Cortez, rather than Cortés

The article could do a way better job of indicating that we traditionally call the man Cortez, with a zed, in English. Varlaam (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't do that traditionally in English or any other language - because it's not his name. When it is done (as I admit it is occasionally) it is a simple mistake - they are distinct Spanish names with distinct Spanish pronunciations - and Cortés only ever used the one with an s - as do all authoritative biographers and historians. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Time of death

When the article mentions his death, it says he died at the age of 62. However, higher up on the sidebar thing on the top right, it says 61-62. Is it actually 62, or around 62? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itssnowing (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

His exact age at death isn't known, because his exact birthdate isn't known. He was probably born in 1485, which means an age of either 61 or 62, depending on whether he was born after December 2nd. Given that range, it's over 90% probability that he was 62 at death - but not knowable with the information we have. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.231.250.228, 9 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I am a college student and I recently took an anthropology class with Dr. R.Farrow, at Greenriver Community College, where I learned that H. Cortez was never a conquistador. Also that his endeavor into Mexico was an act of piracy and against the King of Spain's Law. As a result the king had an arrest order for cortez to bring him to justice and possibly be hung for piracy. H. Cortez apparently killed the commanding officers of the Spanish Navel fleet sent to arrest him and took control of the ships and the men and returned to his already begun actions in Mexico. The stolen gold he returned to Spain with along with the territories in Mexico were his method of paying for his pardon and life, in a sense. This I learned from a man with a PHd. in Anthropology. Please review your article on H. Cortez and please do not refer to him as a Conquistador. In this day and age where information is at ones finger tips let us collaborate together to discontinue the practice of misinforming our youth. Crispin Prado

71.231.250.228 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While I am not saying that I doubt the professor, I'm sure that if you talked to him, he would agree that, in scholarly articles and encyclopedias, information must be verified with reliable sources. If you can contact the professor and get details about his sources, or if he provided those to you, please let us know. Then we can determine how to incorporate that info into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The perspective given by your professor is mostly correct. Cortes did violate the king's law and acted beyond the explicit authority granted to him in the name of the king by Gov. Velasquez. Yet he did not kill other Spaniards that we know of. The encounter your professor mentioned mentioned was between Cortes and Panfilo de Narvaez who had been sent to arrest Cortes. That was a bloodless event in which Cortes convinced the arresting expedition to join his cause. Ultimately, Cortes called himself a conquistador which makes it perfectly reasonable to call him one. Additionally, after the siege and conquest of Tenochtitlan the King retroactively granted Cortes full rights to conquer the region nullifying any earlier insubordination. He was subsequently made governor of the region. You professor I believe was emphasizing the fact that the Spanish conquest was not a monolithic event in which Spaniards were sent out 'en mass' for a specific goal. Rather it was a complex process in which competing goals and rivalries existed. Cortes did commit treason, he did oppose other Spaniards, but he was also a conquistador. Grin20 (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Do contents of Cortés' letters belong in this article?

The entire contents of his 2nd letter to Charles V was recently added to the article - does it belong here? I'd guess that it belongs (with other letters) in its own article, or simply as an external reference. There may be copyright problems as well, while the original letters are long since past copyright, the translation was from 1986 and probably is still under copyright. If we do keep the letter in the article, we need to at a minimum reformat for readability. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone answered my question by simply deleting the text in question, so question is moot. Thanks. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

HERNÁN CORTES WAS SPANISH.

Hernan was Spanish. From the union of the crown of Castilla and the crown of Aragon in 1492 is born Spain. Always we never speak about Spanish Empire, about Castilian Empire, it is an incongruity to speak about Spanish empire and to say that Hernán Cortes was Castilian, to modify the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. We do indeed speak of the Spanish empire, not the Castilian empire. Hernán Cortés was born when Castile and Aragon were separate kingdoms, albeit the two crowns married to each other, and died when they were unified under a single king. The Kingdom of Castile continued to formally exist on paper into the 18th century, but generally, the boundary is considered to be when Carlos V ascended the throne, unifying the two crowns into a single person. Cortés probably thought of himself as Castilian, but the possessions brought into the empire were definitely thought of as Spanish - witness the mesoamerican region being known as "New Spain". It's not uncommon to end up with this kind of dichotomies during times of national upheaval. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

The last sentence of the second paragraph reads, "Cortés returned to Spain in 1541 where he died peacefully but embittered six years later." It is clunky and confusing due to its lack or punctuation. It should read, "Cortés returned to Spain in 1541, where he died, peacefully but embittered, six years later."

Me2-BFD (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, although I found your rewrite overly punctuated, so I modified it a bit. — Bility (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Encomienda not Repartimiento

Under early life, after Cuba. He was given an Encomienda - no land was given to the early conquistadors, just Indian labor. The Repartimiento does not come around until after the New Laws as a response to the abuse of the Encomienda. This mistake is made frequently throughout Wikipedia. (Heck even the Repartimiento page dates it after the New Laws!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.159.120 (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I swapped the two instances and edited the second one for clarity. Good catch!Grin20 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Link to Diego Velázquez

In the section, "Appointment to governorship of Mexico and internal dissensions" there is a link to Diego Velázquez the Spanish Painter.

"In 1523, the Crown (possibly influenced by Cortés's enemy, Bishop Fonseca),[11] sent a military force under the command of Francisco de Garay to conquer and settle the northern part of Mexico, the region of Pánuco. This was another setback for Cortés who mentioned this in his fourth letter to the King in which he describes himself as the victim of a conspiracy by his archenemies Diego Velázquez, Diego Columbus and Bishop Fonseca as well as Francisco Garay."

I believe this link is meant to be to Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar the Governor of Cuba as Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez the painter was not born until 1599. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.83.254 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In July 1519, his men took over Veracruz (FOUNDED)

This article references the Good Friday 1519 landing at and subsequent founding of the 'City of the True Cross' Veracruz. Though indigenous people lived in the area the modern settlement was founded not taken over by Cortes. A source is The Penguin History of Latin America page 17 and the Wiki article on the city (rather than state) of Veracruz also states as much ("his was the place where he founded a city with the name Villa Rica de la Vera Cruz, referring to the area’s gold and the fact he landed on a Good Friday."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.145.73 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling of Cortez

In the other names section under Cortez's photo, his name is spelled "Cortes." Although it is correct to spell it with either an "s" or "z", if you go with the "s" ending need the "e" to be "é". So it should say "Cortés." Also I would recommend instead of using "Cortés," use "Cortez" because it is another way to correctly spell his name and it is under the other names section.

Done. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that it is not correct to spell it with Z. Cortéz and Cortés are two different names with different pronunciations and different etymologies in Castillean Spanish (Cortéz means "son of Corto", Cortés means "courtly") - he never himself wrote it with a z, although other sources frequently do. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lagentepotente (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)I would also recommend that the IPA spelling after the first appearance of the name "Cortés" in this section be changed to reflect the actual pronunciation of the name. Currently, the IPA shows the sign for the unvoiced "th" sound 'θ', when it is actually just an 's'.

"headed by Villafana, who was hanged"

"In January 1521, Cortés countered a conspiracy against him, headed by Villafana, who was hanged."

The article never mentions Villafana before this, nor who he is. ScienceApe (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Antonio de Villafana. His sole claim to fame appears to have been the mutiny which resulted in his death. See (in spanish) http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/solis/19_5.html Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Another problem "Fearing that Cuauhtémoc might head an insurrection in Mexico, he brought him with him in Honduras and hanged him during the journey."

The article introduces these random people in the article without any warning. Who is Cuauhtemoc? He was never mentioned before, but the article just introduces him and confuses the reader. These two issues should be resolved. ScienceApe (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cuauhtémoc is mentioned earlier, as the last Tlatoani (emperor) of the Aztecs, whose capture by Cortés ended their empire. In that mention, there is a wikilink to his page. In the context of the Aztec Empire, Cuauhtémoc is one of the two most recognizable names (his predecessor Moctezuma being marginally better known outside Mexico), so probably does not require more mention here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I had considered changing the following line: There, he encountered Geronimo de Aguilar, a Spanish Franciscan priest who had survived a shipwreck a period in captivity of the local Maya before escaping.

I considered changing the line to: There, he encountered Geronimo de Aguilar, a Spanish Franciscan priest who had survived a shipwreck and a period of captivity by the local Maya before escaping.

I could find no edit button for no clear reason and therefore the article remains unchanged. -not signed (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.133.50 (talk)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hernán Cortés/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations plange 02:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The section "After the fall of Tenochtitlan" needs work

I am really not very comfortable with the following text but I'm not ready to remove it without a better understanding of the events described therein.

<begin quoted text> Bernal Diaz del Castillo tells us that other Spaniards supported him on his brutal decision to execute Cuauhtémoc. The execution eventually had to be carried out by Tlaxcallan soldiers. Notarized testimony at his many subsequent trials (for murdering his legal wife, etc.) has abundant testimony from friends and enemies alike that this crime ruined Cortés. He never forgave himself and seems to have gone somewhat mad.

Cortés took off on a senseless, death-defying expedition through Guatemala to Honduras to punish a fellow Spaniard who had betrayed him, and with his departure all shadow of personal authority left Mexico. He became paranoid as well, having Cuauhtémoc hanged over the strong objections of his men. <end quoted text>

My basic problem is that the above text is highly derogatory of Cortes and I just haven't seen any support for this assessment of his post-Tenochtitlan behavior. A more neutral discussion of his exploration of Baja California seems to be in order. I'll do try to do some research and then improve this section.

Link to online version of Cortez's first letter is wrong

Hi there,

I have noticed that the link provided to the online version of Cortez's first "Carta de Relacion" does not lead to the document (this is under "Writings"). Could someone change it? Please find below the correct link.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/IbrAmerTxt/IbrAmerTxt-idx?type=header&id=IbrAmerTxt.Spa0015&pview=hide

Thank you very much in advance.

March 12, 2008 (4:11 EST)

Irrelevant or inaccurate passage

The text reading "Estrada sent Diego de Figueroa to the south; but de Figueroa raided graveyards and extorted contributions, meeting his end when the ship carrying these treasures sank" should have either a [citation needed] or be removed entirely. The bearing of the information on the article is not clear, and the story does not appear under Diego de Figueroa's article.

wz354xe6ctr7ygviubho jk;ljbgivyfcx6e5dr7ft8gybiohj ugyftdxretc6fvygbuiojlk hgctyvjbhk nm