What do you think?
Rate this book
History of the Conquest of Mexico
Book by
1010 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1843
373 people are currently reading
2781 people want to read
About the author
William Hickling Prescott
575 books40 followersUnited States historian. Born to a prosperous family, Prescott graduated from Harvard University in 1814 but was prevented by poor health and eyesight from a career in law or business. His friends, including Washington Irving, led him to his life's work: recounting the history of 16th-century Spain and its colonies. He is best known for his History of the Conquest of Mexico (1843) and History of the Conquest of Peru (1847), for which he made rigorous use of original sources, and which earned him a reputation as the first scientific U.S. historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
May 3, 2022
The thing I like about this book is both its strong narrative, almost novelistic, thrust, and its heavy footnoting throughout (at the end of most chapters there's a little bibliographic essay). Prescott's familiarity with his sources seems exhaustive. Reading him is a little bit like reading Gibbon. One has to make provision for the passage of time and the change of values. "Conquest" is hardly the word we would use today. Today the word is the neutral contact--pre-contact, post-contact.
The book to my mind does not really begin until chapter 6 (p. 122 in this edition) when we learn about the golden age of Tezcucan civilization. This was one of three affiliated Aztec city states living in close allegiance in the Valley of Mexico. All that precedes this is a rather patchy look at state religion (hideous, of course), law, regional politics, astronomy, the famous calendar, etc. I don't recommend skipping the beginning though for it contains essential information you'll need in later reading.
About halfway through, when Cortés and his men climb from the buggy, malarial gulf coast, up to the tableland (7,500 feet) on which the Valley of Mexico sets, the writing becomes incredibly vivid. How Prescott, a partly blind man, was able to do this — it couldn't have been easy for a sighted person — makes his achievement all the more astonishing. He's particularly good at showing us the pristine-looking Aztec state among its network of lakes. Along the way the Spaniards are welcomed by a jubilant public which line the road and celebrate their progress.
Unfortunately for the Aztecs, a myth told the story of Quetzalcoatl, god of the air, who, incurring the wrath of one of the principal gods:
A few favorite quotes. The first on Aztec religious practices:
About the early career of Hernando Cortés:
On the forced conversion of the Indians:
The picture drawn here of Aztec religious practice and its attendant cannibalism is appalling. At one point Cortés' small force comes upon several priests at a local ziggurat or teocalli smeared black with blood from head to toe. The inner sactum held a tray under a depiction of the god of war Huitzilopotchli containing human hearts ripped from the chests of unfortunate victims. At another point they come upon a cache of 130,000 human skulls. In light of such revelations, the prostelitizing Christianity they force feed the natives seems tame. And much as I dislike the depredations of Christianity, its hard to deny that part of what Spain did here -- in addition to enriching itself enormously, and enslaving millions -- was to stop a carnage that may have been without precedent in human history.
I have to admit that I think Prescott was something of a naïve puppy. The worst depredations of the Spanish he never believes and argues away. He hagiographizes Cortés. His was the Great White Male school of historiography, which is not to be entirely disdained because of its great literary merit. One wonders though if this good man, Prescott himself, wasn't simply too good to believe in the great evil perpetrated by Cortés et al. Sometimes he does not hesitate to question claims of past historians, but then he'll produce a quote from one of his fellows like this, with regard to the "conqueror's" desperate fighting retreat from the Mexican capital:
Really? How about the Greeks at Thermopylae?-- to chose the first example that springs to mind. And then again:
But knights as a class, as Steven Runciman and others have shown, were predacious and murderous thugs who used the cross as the ultimate justification. I mean, it's not as if examples of this don't occur in the present text. Such teeming cognitive dissonance seems bizarre at times, especially in a scholar of the Spanish Empire.
By the way, you may also wish to consult Nigel Davies' The Aztecs: A History. Moreover, I would lay odds that Euclides da Cunha's Backlands: The Canudos Campaign--about a late 19-century millenarian revolt in Brazil--was at least in part inspired by Prescott, whose history was translated into ten languages not long after its 1843 publication.
The book to my mind does not really begin until chapter 6 (p. 122 in this edition) when we learn about the golden age of Tezcucan civilization. This was one of three affiliated Aztec city states living in close allegiance in the Valley of Mexico. All that precedes this is a rather patchy look at state religion (hideous, of course), law, regional politics, astronomy, the famous calendar, etc. I don't recommend skipping the beginning though for it contains essential information you'll need in later reading.
About halfway through, when Cortés and his men climb from the buggy, malarial gulf coast, up to the tableland (7,500 feet) on which the Valley of Mexico sets, the writing becomes incredibly vivid. How Prescott, a partly blind man, was able to do this — it couldn't have been easy for a sighted person — makes his achievement all the more astonishing. He's particularly good at showing us the pristine-looking Aztec state among its network of lakes. Along the way the Spaniards are welcomed by a jubilant public which line the road and celebrate their progress.
Unfortunately for the Aztecs, a myth told the story of Quetzalcoatl, god of the air, who, incurring the wrath of one of the principal gods:
. . . was compelled to abandon the country . . . When he reached the shores of the Mexican gulf, he took a leave of his followers, promising that he and his descendants would revisit hereafter . . . . The Mexicans looked confidently to the return of the benevolent deity and this remarkable tradition, deeply cherished in their hearts, prepared the way . . . for the future success of the Spaniards. (p. 53)
A few favorite quotes. The first on Aztec religious practices:
Scarcely any author pretends to estimate the yearly sacrifices [of captive pow's] throughout the empire at less than twenty thousand, and some carry the number as high as fifty. (p. 64)
About the early career of Hernando Cortés:
He became familiar with toil and danger, and with those deeds of cruelty which have too often, alas! stained the bright scutcheons of the Castilian chivalry in the New World. (p. 174)
On the forced conversion of the Indians:
The sword was a good argument, when the tongue failed; and the spread of Mahometanism had shown that seeds sown by the hand of violence, far from perishing in the ground, would spring up and bear fruit to after time. (p. 196)
The picture drawn here of Aztec religious practice and its attendant cannibalism is appalling. At one point Cortés' small force comes upon several priests at a local ziggurat or teocalli smeared black with blood from head to toe. The inner sactum held a tray under a depiction of the god of war Huitzilopotchli containing human hearts ripped from the chests of unfortunate victims. At another point they come upon a cache of 130,000 human skulls. In light of such revelations, the prostelitizing Christianity they force feed the natives seems tame. And much as I dislike the depredations of Christianity, its hard to deny that part of what Spain did here -- in addition to enriching itself enormously, and enslaving millions -- was to stop a carnage that may have been without precedent in human history.
I have to admit that I think Prescott was something of a naïve puppy. The worst depredations of the Spanish he never believes and argues away. He hagiographizes Cortés. His was the Great White Male school of historiography, which is not to be entirely disdained because of its great literary merit. One wonders though if this good man, Prescott himself, wasn't simply too good to believe in the great evil perpetrated by Cortés et al. Sometimes he does not hesitate to question claims of past historians, but then he'll produce a quote from one of his fellows like this, with regard to the "conqueror's" desperate fighting retreat from the Mexican capital:
"There was no people so capable of supporting hunger as the Spaniards, and none of them who were ever more severely tried than the soldiers of Cortés." (p. 607)
Really? How about the Greeks at Thermopylae?-- to chose the first example that springs to mind. And then again:
The period which we are reviewing was still the age of chivalry; that stirring and adventurous age, of which we can form little conception in the present day of sober, practical reality. The Spaniard, with his nice point of honor, high romance, and proud, vainglorious vaunt, was the true representative of that age. (p. 715)
But knights as a class, as Steven Runciman and others have shown, were predacious and murderous thugs who used the cross as the ultimate justification. I mean, it's not as if examples of this don't occur in the present text. Such teeming cognitive dissonance seems bizarre at times, especially in a scholar of the Spanish Empire.
By the way, you may also wish to consult Nigel Davies' The Aztecs: A History. Moreover, I would lay odds that Euclides da Cunha's Backlands: The Canudos Campaign--about a late 19-century millenarian revolt in Brazil--was at least in part inspired by Prescott, whose history was translated into ten languages not long after its 1843 publication.
July 20, 2025
The author, William Hickling Prescott, is brilliant and even if I hadn't been interested in the subject as much as I was, I would have finished the entire book just to read his writing. I felt I could trust Prescott as his research was so meticulous, presentation so well-executed as to provide all sides of a situation, dealing with common prejudices and then refuting/confirming the facts. He certainly set me straight about Cortes, who I had thought much more violent and pragmatic than he was. In fact, the conquistador bent over backwards to give the Aztecs every chance to surrender with honor, less bloodshed, destruction, etc. It was they who refused. Also, the Aztec's defeat was accomplished with very few Spanish and a majority of the local native enemies of the Aztecs, those tribes who had been supplying victims (for years) to be sacrificed for holocaust and cannibalism, who not only did most of the fighting but also committed most of the atrocities of which Cortes has been accused.
Also, although not a Catholic himself, Prescott did not shy away from reporting Spanish Catholic devotions in a factual manner. It was a breath of fresh air to find them reported simply and straightforwardly, neither in an exaggerated way as Catholics of the time usually did, nor in a disparaging way as Protestants of that era did. Prescott also explained the evolving understanding within Cortes' own cadre as to how to best share their beliefs. Initially their horror of the Aztec's 'practices' so overwhelmed them, they could not fathom, them as being serious and were all for forcing Christianity on them. Gradually, however, their interaction with the other tribes, who took to Christian conversion in various degrees, taught the Spaniards respect for the beliefs of the native populations.
Prescott's writing was subtle, well-researched and left me wanting to read everything I can by him.
Also, although not a Catholic himself, Prescott did not shy away from reporting Spanish Catholic devotions in a factual manner. It was a breath of fresh air to find them reported simply and straightforwardly, neither in an exaggerated way as Catholics of the time usually did, nor in a disparaging way as Protestants of that era did. Prescott also explained the evolving understanding within Cortes' own cadre as to how to best share their beliefs. Initially their horror of the Aztec's 'practices' so overwhelmed them, they could not fathom, them as being serious and were all for forcing Christianity on them. Gradually, however, their interaction with the other tribes, who took to Christian conversion in various degrees, taught the Spaniards respect for the beliefs of the native populations.
Prescott's writing was subtle, well-researched and left me wanting to read everything I can by him.
March 24, 2024
This was very good in my opinion. It is considered the concrete writing that sets the standard for the Aztecs and the conquest of Mexico. It is divided into seven books. The first book gave the extensive history of the pre-exploration Mexican region. This included the history of primitive Mexico and the growth of tribes in the region, the rise of the Aztec people into an empire state, internal organization, Aztec nobility, Mexican mythology, religion and spiritual temples, manuscripts and hieroglyphics, agriculture, chronology, astronomy, mechanical arts, architecture, and a lot more.
The second and third books told about Spain under Charles V and the Age of Exploration. It mentioned Spain's conquest of Cuba and its movement intonthe Yucatan region. The discovery of Mexico eventually led to the establishment of the region as a colonial administration. Hernan Cortés and his military incursions were mentioned in great detail. These included the infamous sinking of his fleet, his march into the interior, and conquest of Montezuma and the Aztecs with a combined coalition force of Spaniard and local tribes who hated the Aztecs.
The fourth through seventh books told about the prolonged military engagements and violence with the Aztecs, ongoing war and expulsion of the Aztecs, the siege and Aztec surrender of Mexico, and the look at gradually increasing the sphere of influence from Spain into the region to eradicate the indigenous population within Mexico.
I really liked this one and I thought it was very detailed. William H. Prescott wrote an unbiased and fact-driven account of the conquest of Mexico. I've seen a few documentaries on YouTube and they only give the abbreviated version of what happened. I would recommend this anyone interested in colonial America or the Age of Exploration. Thanks!
The second and third books told about Spain under Charles V and the Age of Exploration. It mentioned Spain's conquest of Cuba and its movement intonthe Yucatan region. The discovery of Mexico eventually led to the establishment of the region as a colonial administration. Hernan Cortés and his military incursions were mentioned in great detail. These included the infamous sinking of his fleet, his march into the interior, and conquest of Montezuma and the Aztecs with a combined coalition force of Spaniard and local tribes who hated the Aztecs.
The fourth through seventh books told about the prolonged military engagements and violence with the Aztecs, ongoing war and expulsion of the Aztecs, the siege and Aztec surrender of Mexico, and the look at gradually increasing the sphere of influence from Spain into the region to eradicate the indigenous population within Mexico.
I really liked this one and I thought it was very detailed. William H. Prescott wrote an unbiased and fact-driven account of the conquest of Mexico. I've seen a few documentaries on YouTube and they only give the abbreviated version of what happened. I would recommend this anyone interested in colonial America or the Age of Exploration. Thanks!
August 27, 2015
Questo è un argomento su cui non mi stancherò mai di leggere: riunisce insieme così tanti aspetti affascinanti (viaggi, avventura, ignoto, incontro con l'altro, gusto del romanzesco, passione, caso, tragedia) da essere irresistibile. La mia collezione di libri è ancora piccola, ma sta crescendo.
Una delle aggiunte più "preziose" è questo La Conquista del Messico dello storico americano William H. Prescott (1796-1859), che forse compariva nella bibliografia dei saggi di Levy o di Miralles sullo stesso argomento. Se dovessi recensirlo in poche parole, direi che è tutto ciò che Cortés di Miralles non era: tanto quel libro era sì dottissimo ma arido, pedantesco e faticosissimo da leggere, quanto questo è una goduria per il lettore. Prima di acquistare o mettere in lista un libro, controllo sempre qualche recensione su Goodreads... In questo caso, per un saggio di quasi 1000 pagine scritto nel 1843, sono rimasta stupita di fronte al livello di entusiasmo dei lettori (per citare un po' qua e là: "Insanely good. The most impossible-to-put-down history book I've ever held in my hot little hands. And it's over 100 years old.", "This is the absolute best! What an exciting story.", "This book is astounding!", "Shakespearean. Biblical.", "This was written in *sit yourself down* eighteenfortythree and it reads brilliantly."). Diciamo quindi che i pareri erano molto incoraggianti... e, ho potuto verificare, assolutamente veritieri. Davvero, se volete far appassionare qualcuno alla lettura di saggi storici, dategli questo libro: 881 pagine che scorrono in un lampo (magari ditegli di saltare l'introduzione con la biografia dell'autore: è interessante pure quella, eh, ma meglio non esagerare, come prima volta!).
Chiaramente, non è in un saggio del 1843 che si cercano le ultime novità in fatto di interpretazione storiografica dell'avvenimento. Non aspettiamoci da Prescott una lettura "terzomondista" o "antimperialista" della conquista del Messico. Il suo presupposto di partenza è che la storia sia un continuo progresso, e che le civiltà più evolute soppiantino "naturalmente" quelle rimaste a un grado inferiore di civiltà. Oltre tutto la civiltà azteca è stata, secondo lui, "giustamente" sconfitta e cancellata dalla storia per l'abominio imperdonabile dei sacrifici umani... Tuttavia egli non è mai del tutto indifferente di fronte alle conseguenze devastanti della Conquista di lì a venire per la popolazione americana, come non è privo di ammirazione verso le vette della civiltà azteca e il coraggio e l'irriducibilità degli ultimi resistenti (ad esempio l'ultimo imperatore Cuauhtémoc) e non nasconde, a parte l'evidente fascino per il protagonista della sua epopea, Cortés, gli eccessi più violenti dei conquistadores (d'altra parte neanche la cattolica Spagna era per lui, anglosassone e protestante, la vetta della civiltà, sebbene sia il paese che, da storico, più l'interessò), mentre stigmatizza con ironia gli eccessi trionfalistici e nazionalistici, o ultra-apologetici e agiografici, degli storici, soprattutto spagnoli, che l'hanno preceduto (accanto alle pagine piene d'azione e, come si dice, "appassionanti come un romanzo", non mancano approfondimenti sulle fonti consultate, criticamente vagliate, e schede biografiche degli autori).
Insomma, bellissimo e, inutile dirlo, subito messi in lista anche History of the Conquest of Peru, dello stesso autore, e, perché no?, anche il suo History of the Reign of Philip the Second, King of Spain (si trovano tutti gratuitamente in lingua originale, in ebook).
4/5
https://moloch981.wordpress.com/2015/...
Una delle aggiunte più "preziose" è questo La Conquista del Messico dello storico americano William H. Prescott (1796-1859), che forse compariva nella bibliografia dei saggi di Levy o di Miralles sullo stesso argomento. Se dovessi recensirlo in poche parole, direi che è tutto ciò che Cortés di Miralles non era: tanto quel libro era sì dottissimo ma arido, pedantesco e faticosissimo da leggere, quanto questo è una goduria per il lettore. Prima di acquistare o mettere in lista un libro, controllo sempre qualche recensione su Goodreads... In questo caso, per un saggio di quasi 1000 pagine scritto nel 1843, sono rimasta stupita di fronte al livello di entusiasmo dei lettori (per citare un po' qua e là: "Insanely good. The most impossible-to-put-down history book I've ever held in my hot little hands. And it's over 100 years old.", "This is the absolute best! What an exciting story.", "This book is astounding!", "Shakespearean. Biblical.", "This was written in *sit yourself down* eighteenfortythree and it reads brilliantly."). Diciamo quindi che i pareri erano molto incoraggianti... e, ho potuto verificare, assolutamente veritieri. Davvero, se volete far appassionare qualcuno alla lettura di saggi storici, dategli questo libro: 881 pagine che scorrono in un lampo (magari ditegli di saltare l'introduzione con la biografia dell'autore: è interessante pure quella, eh, ma meglio non esagerare, come prima volta!).
Chiaramente, non è in un saggio del 1843 che si cercano le ultime novità in fatto di interpretazione storiografica dell'avvenimento. Non aspettiamoci da Prescott una lettura "terzomondista" o "antimperialista" della conquista del Messico. Il suo presupposto di partenza è che la storia sia un continuo progresso, e che le civiltà più evolute soppiantino "naturalmente" quelle rimaste a un grado inferiore di civiltà. Oltre tutto la civiltà azteca è stata, secondo lui, "giustamente" sconfitta e cancellata dalla storia per l'abominio imperdonabile dei sacrifici umani... Tuttavia egli non è mai del tutto indifferente di fronte alle conseguenze devastanti della Conquista di lì a venire per la popolazione americana, come non è privo di ammirazione verso le vette della civiltà azteca e il coraggio e l'irriducibilità degli ultimi resistenti (ad esempio l'ultimo imperatore Cuauhtémoc) e non nasconde, a parte l'evidente fascino per il protagonista della sua epopea, Cortés, gli eccessi più violenti dei conquistadores (d'altra parte neanche la cattolica Spagna era per lui, anglosassone e protestante, la vetta della civiltà, sebbene sia il paese che, da storico, più l'interessò), mentre stigmatizza con ironia gli eccessi trionfalistici e nazionalistici, o ultra-apologetici e agiografici, degli storici, soprattutto spagnoli, che l'hanno preceduto (accanto alle pagine piene d'azione e, come si dice, "appassionanti come un romanzo", non mancano approfondimenti sulle fonti consultate, criticamente vagliate, e schede biografiche degli autori).
Insomma, bellissimo e, inutile dirlo, subito messi in lista anche History of the Conquest of Peru, dello stesso autore, e, perché no?, anche il suo History of the Reign of Philip the Second, King of Spain (si trovano tutti gratuitamente in lingua originale, in ebook).
4/5
https://moloch981.wordpress.com/2015/...
March 30, 2021
History of the Conquest of Mexico by William Hickling Prescott is hands down one of the best nonfiction books I’ve ever read. One of Prescott’s goals was for this to be informative and entertaining at the same time, and I’d say he definitely accomplished that.
This history is also a full life biography of Spanish explorer and Conquistador, Hernan Cortes, because the conquest of Mexico was, more or less, his life’s work. He was an interesting character in world history and it was fascinating to read and learn about how he brought his conquest into fruition.
I thought William Hickling Prescott did a very good job of being balanced and fair to both sides of this story. I learned a lot about the Aztecs and their culture, and the behind-the-scenes political machinations that Cortes contended with from his own side was very well explained by Prescott. He was quoted as saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that dealing with his own side was more difficult than the actual conquest itself.
One person in this story that I found very interesting was Cortes’ native interpreter, Dona Marina, (who was sort of a Mexican Pocahontas).
I’ll definitely re-read this again sometime. Highly recommended!
This history is also a full life biography of Spanish explorer and Conquistador, Hernan Cortes, because the conquest of Mexico was, more or less, his life’s work. He was an interesting character in world history and it was fascinating to read and learn about how he brought his conquest into fruition.
I thought William Hickling Prescott did a very good job of being balanced and fair to both sides of this story. I learned a lot about the Aztecs and their culture, and the behind-the-scenes political machinations that Cortes contended with from his own side was very well explained by Prescott. He was quoted as saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that dealing with his own side was more difficult than the actual conquest itself.
One person in this story that I found very interesting was Cortes’ native interpreter, Dona Marina, (who was sort of a Mexican Pocahontas).
I’ll definitely re-read this again sometime. Highly recommended!
July 7, 2016
So beautifully written I hardly noticed it was a history book. What a journey Cortes took his followers on. What a determined man. The writing was poetic, absolutely unique. Thank you Feliks for recommending it to me.
A tragic history, this country, and the Mexicans rose up against the Spanish with such dignity and power. It was a perfect back drop for my travels through Yucatan and Mexico (City). And especially for my understanding of this country when I walked through the Anthropological Museum.
I could not put the book down. Gripping and intriguing story for me, who knew nothing of the conquest. Prescott - gosh what a writer - I didn't realise till I was half way through (and he mentioned "the aborigines of our country" - I wanted to know more about him right then and there because I thought only Australians referred to their native indigenous peoples as aborigines) That he was American in fact - a 19th century historian! Died in 1859 or thereabouts. That really surprised me. His writing was indeed classic but also very modern. Clearly a man beyond his time
A tragic history, this country, and the Mexicans rose up against the Spanish with such dignity and power. It was a perfect back drop for my travels through Yucatan and Mexico (City). And especially for my understanding of this country when I walked through the Anthropological Museum.
I could not put the book down. Gripping and intriguing story for me, who knew nothing of the conquest. Prescott - gosh what a writer - I didn't realise till I was half way through (and he mentioned "the aborigines of our country" - I wanted to know more about him right then and there because I thought only Australians referred to their native indigenous peoples as aborigines) That he was American in fact - a 19th century historian! Died in 1859 or thereabouts. That really surprised me. His writing was indeed classic but also very modern. Clearly a man beyond his time
March 6, 2014
read by Kerry Shale**See also The Royal Hunt of the Sun by Peter Schaffer**
Those chief Aztec bods wore gold shoes with pearls studded on, even the soles were made of gold. This was written in *sit yourself down* eighteenfortythree and it reads brilliantly.
Such a gruelling part of history; no matter how many times I come across Montezuma's incarceration and death it is still very hard to take. sad, sad, sad.
As all adherents of history have to have a sturdy stomach by default I have no problem in recommending.
November 19, 2014
This is the absolute best! What an exciting story.
July 8, 2024
What a banger. It's elegant, majestic history like Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Prescott starts out with some prefatory material about Aztec culture and the European situation before quickly falling into a detailed, intensely personal narrative of the conquest from 1519-1527.
I didn't know a ton about this topic other than the general idea that Cortes invaded Mexico, burned his ships, and eventually beat Montezuma and company. I guess I had the general picture of a relatively advanced European army mopping up tribal warriors; guns and artillery vs spears and arrows. If you ask around for other ideas you'd get the modern anti-colonial viewpoint from an oppression lens that has the Europeans raping and pillaging, brutally infecting the natives with smallpox via syringes, lying and deceiving, overthrowing the peace and prosperity of an untouched continent, etc.
The reality was pretty different. Cortes landed in Mexico with a tiny force and quantities of horse and artillery that you could count without needing a pen and paper. He was after two things: finding gold and spreading the Roman Catholic religion. To achieve this he wanted to reach the Mexican capital and meet Montezuma to pitch him on Jesus and the Virgin Mary as well as becoming a vassal of Emperor Charles V; he came under attack on the way and the operation sort of snowballed from there.
Throughout it all, Cortes and company come off pretty well in a moral evaluation based on the context of their time. Cortes passes over multiple chances for more violence and revenge. Just think of the standards of the 16th century. Compare this to the brutality and wickedness of the 30 Years War in Europe! Later conquistadores and European colonial governance would prove to be significantly less magnanimous than Cortes, so it seems particularly unfair to treat him as some sort of synecdoche of the evils of colonialism when the record from both European and Aztec writers paint a picture of a relatively honorable warrior. Cortes came from the class of religious Spanish knighthood and followed higher standards than most warlords, especially those of our time.
I think you can even take the skeptical view that Prescott whitewashed the campaign and you will still have an operation that, by world-historical standards, was more respectable than most.
The Aztecs, it turned out, were a warlike tribe sitting on top of an entire mountain of other tribes that had been subjugated through war and forced into arrangements of tribute - both of wealth and bodies for sacrifice. They literally pulled still-beating hearts out of tens of thousands of people over the years, Temple of Doom style. Cortes didn't have to try very hard to find tribes willing to sign up for an operation of overthrowing the Aztecs. Did the Europeans end up being better masters? That's a different question, but the point that surprised me was that there was no love lost for the Aztecs and there was no shortage of tribes willing to ally themselves with Cortes for a shot at revenge. Without this, Cortes wouldn't have had a chance at doing what he did. In many of the battles with the Aztecs, it was the Aztecs vs. a handful of Europeans and thousands of allied warriors.
Cortes conducts this entire campaign largely without reinforcements from Europe. Several times he's defeated so soundly that it seems there's no hope he can continue. At one point, after La Noche Triste (the episode is a highlight of Prescott's limpid writing style and on par with the best battle narratives of The Lord of the Rings or any other work of swords-and-sorcery fantasy you can find) he has lost most of his men, equipment, and horses. But he keeps on going.
The biggest surprise to me was how obviously Providential this whole operation was. Cortes won because God wanted him to. This isn't saying that Cortes was a personally righteous person or sinless. He didn't have to be for God to use him against the Aztecs. We know from the observations of history and explicit passages in the Old Testament that God uses nations - even evil ones! - to punish other evil nations. It's just clear that in 1519 the time was up for the Aztecs. Their own prophecies predicted their downfall and Cortes was the one chosen to deliver it. The whole narrative is filled with absurd unlikely events, with massive wins against all odds, etc. Cortes seemed to have been walked through the campaign by the hand of fate, step by step.
Reinforcing this idea is the fact that as soon as his God-mandated job was over and the Aztecs were beaten, Providence turns against Cortes and all his efforts seem to start blowing up in his face. He goes from unbeatable to having no luck at all. Ships founder. Political enemies backstab him. Friends and allies die of disease at the worst times. He runs out of money, etc.
But that one campaign! Is there anything else like it in world history? What a story.
I didn't know a ton about this topic other than the general idea that Cortes invaded Mexico, burned his ships, and eventually beat Montezuma and company. I guess I had the general picture of a relatively advanced European army mopping up tribal warriors; guns and artillery vs spears and arrows. If you ask around for other ideas you'd get the modern anti-colonial viewpoint from an oppression lens that has the Europeans raping and pillaging, brutally infecting the natives with smallpox via syringes, lying and deceiving, overthrowing the peace and prosperity of an untouched continent, etc.
The reality was pretty different. Cortes landed in Mexico with a tiny force and quantities of horse and artillery that you could count without needing a pen and paper. He was after two things: finding gold and spreading the Roman Catholic religion. To achieve this he wanted to reach the Mexican capital and meet Montezuma to pitch him on Jesus and the Virgin Mary as well as becoming a vassal of Emperor Charles V; he came under attack on the way and the operation sort of snowballed from there.
Throughout it all, Cortes and company come off pretty well in a moral evaluation based on the context of their time. Cortes passes over multiple chances for more violence and revenge. Just think of the standards of the 16th century. Compare this to the brutality and wickedness of the 30 Years War in Europe! Later conquistadores and European colonial governance would prove to be significantly less magnanimous than Cortes, so it seems particularly unfair to treat him as some sort of synecdoche of the evils of colonialism when the record from both European and Aztec writers paint a picture of a relatively honorable warrior. Cortes came from the class of religious Spanish knighthood and followed higher standards than most warlords, especially those of our time.
I think you can even take the skeptical view that Prescott whitewashed the campaign and you will still have an operation that, by world-historical standards, was more respectable than most.
The Aztecs, it turned out, were a warlike tribe sitting on top of an entire mountain of other tribes that had been subjugated through war and forced into arrangements of tribute - both of wealth and bodies for sacrifice. They literally pulled still-beating hearts out of tens of thousands of people over the years, Temple of Doom style. Cortes didn't have to try very hard to find tribes willing to sign up for an operation of overthrowing the Aztecs. Did the Europeans end up being better masters? That's a different question, but the point that surprised me was that there was no love lost for the Aztecs and there was no shortage of tribes willing to ally themselves with Cortes for a shot at revenge. Without this, Cortes wouldn't have had a chance at doing what he did. In many of the battles with the Aztecs, it was the Aztecs vs. a handful of Europeans and thousands of allied warriors.
Cortes conducts this entire campaign largely without reinforcements from Europe. Several times he's defeated so soundly that it seems there's no hope he can continue. At one point, after La Noche Triste (the episode is a highlight of Prescott's limpid writing style and on par with the best battle narratives of The Lord of the Rings or any other work of swords-and-sorcery fantasy you can find) he has lost most of his men, equipment, and horses. But he keeps on going.
The biggest surprise to me was how obviously Providential this whole operation was. Cortes won because God wanted him to. This isn't saying that Cortes was a personally righteous person or sinless. He didn't have to be for God to use him against the Aztecs. We know from the observations of history and explicit passages in the Old Testament that God uses nations - even evil ones! - to punish other evil nations. It's just clear that in 1519 the time was up for the Aztecs. Their own prophecies predicted their downfall and Cortes was the one chosen to deliver it. The whole narrative is filled with absurd unlikely events, with massive wins against all odds, etc. Cortes seemed to have been walked through the campaign by the hand of fate, step by step.
Reinforcing this idea is the fact that as soon as his God-mandated job was over and the Aztecs were beaten, Providence turns against Cortes and all his efforts seem to start blowing up in his face. He goes from unbeatable to having no luck at all. Ships founder. Political enemies backstab him. Friends and allies die of disease at the worst times. He runs out of money, etc.
But that one campaign! Is there anything else like it in world history? What a story.
November 3, 2017
This book is a sad and biased recount of the events of the conquest of Mexico. The writer repeatedly romanticizes the Spanish while demonizing the natives for equivalent behaviors as far as religious fervor, politics, bloodshed and self preservation. Not only is this book Euro-centric but it constantly uses lavish language while describing the supposed virtues of the "civilized" liberators while dismissing the bloodthirsty barbarians in order to elevate the narrative to the level of a fairy tale. The author is clearly ignorant of the pain and suffering brought to the land by the Spanish who institutionalized slavery, racism and religious indoctrination. While the basic series of the events is consistent with the well known narrative, the motivations, character of the protagonists, and author's remarks have more in common with an adorned tale than a factual presentation of events.
I would recommend you skip this book (that was originally published in 1841) and look for a more neutral and anthropological description of the events. This cerdo has too much lipstick but you can still smell the muck.
I would recommend you skip this book (that was originally published in 1841) and look for a more neutral and anthropological description of the events. This cerdo has too much lipstick but you can still smell the muck.
June 3, 2018
This book is incredibly interesting both from the standpoint of the author, a man from 1841, and the history of the conquest of the Aztecs. In most modern history books written nowadays, the Aztecs are portrayed as victims and the conquistadors as villains. Prescot is able to show the good and bad of both group from a Euro-centric viewpoint, which is how the conquistadors also thought. Prescot's use of European references and American (USA) stereotypes, makes the conquistadors into a news story of real people, and NOT a story of purely evil men.
The conquistadors had a worldview that we today can't 100% recognize, because of two things
1. Their unwavering belief in their own superiority.
And
2. That Christianity is the only way.
The second one is clearly shown by Prescot by how he explains how even when the conquistadors would benefit from not pushing Christianity on the Mexicans, they rarley didn't push.
Sadly, I doubt that many modern historians can convey the conquistador mindset as well as Prescot did.
P.S.
Prescot also made a point of writing how bad slavery is, and he lived in the US before the Civil War. He clearly had some morals and they show in his writing.
The conquistadors had a worldview that we today can't 100% recognize, because of two things
1. Their unwavering belief in their own superiority.
And
2. That Christianity is the only way.
The second one is clearly shown by Prescot by how he explains how even when the conquistadors would benefit from not pushing Christianity on the Mexicans, they rarley didn't push.
Sadly, I doubt that many modern historians can convey the conquistador mindset as well as Prescot did.
P.S.
Prescot also made a point of writing how bad slavery is, and he lived in the US before the Civil War. He clearly had some morals and they show in his writing.
Read
November 11, 2024Okay, lets get the question of why, out of the way first. How did I come to read a history of the conquest of Mexico by some half-blind historian (he was actually blinded by a crust of bread) from the 19th century? Through a coincidence actually. A few months ago, I was watching a series on Youtube on the “Top 100 best books” (or something close to it). Somewhere around number 60 this book came up and fast forward a few days later, I found a beautiful Modern Library hardback reprint of it in a used bookstore in Bern. The condition was great, but its price at 9 CHF (expensive when compared to other used books!) put me off at first and I did not buy it. However, over the next few days I could not get it out of my mind and began regretting that I did not buy it. About a week after the initial visit I went back again and there it still was, seemingly untouched. I grabbed it, took it home and put it on my shelf not to be touched again until a few months later. But lets get to the book itself now.
History of the Conquest of Mexico was written in 1843 by William H. Prescott. It tells how Hernando Cortés and his fellow conquistadores conquered Mexico around the 1520s. Prescott starts out with an introductory chapter on what is known about the people and their cultures living there before Cortés. Afterwards he tells the story of how Mexico was “discovered” by the kingdoms of Europe and from then on closely follows Cortés’ adventures and conquests in Mexico, from his initial landing, to the siege of the floating Tenochtitlan, up until his death back in Spain. Prescott describes it best himself as a story “[…] - too startling for the probabilities demanded by fiction, and without a parallel in the pages of history.”
It took some effort to start reading this book, due to how big it was and when it was written. But once I started, I was really surprised with how much I enjoyed it. The language used is at times plain, but quite as often beautiful and poetic, importantly however always understandable and not too different from todays English. The story of the conquest itself is fascinating, almost unbelievable and written in a way that is really gripping. To give you an idea of what I considered to be beautiful writing here is an example of Prescott talking about the Aztecs, showing simultaneously a more problematic side of the book: “The light of civilization would be poured on their land. But it would be the light of a consuming fire, before which their barbaric glory, their institutions, their very existence and name as a nation, would wither and become extinct! Their doom was sealed, when the white man had set his foot on their soil.”
As seen in the excerpt before, the book is not without its flaws, even though I do not think any of them take a toll on the engagement and reading experience. However, as the passage quoted above makes clear, Prescott readily assumes European civilization to be superior to the one found in Mexico. The same superiority is also assumed when talking about religion, christianity being the only true and right faith as opposed to the paganism of the Aztecs and other tribes. However even though Prescott is a Christian himself, he does not refrain from critizising the way in which christianity was “introduced” at times. Additionally there are racist descriptions found in many parts of the book. Interestingly though they do not often describe the Mexican tribes themselves, but are more obvious and occur more when comparing them to their “inferior Northern cousins”. But it goes without saying that Prescott is also racist towards the tribes living in Mexico, even if this was mostly confined to his view on their civilization as barbaric as shortly described above. Furthermore it is important to keep in mind, that the book mostly relied on European sources (most probably because many writings of the Mexican tribes were destroyed). Prescott himself is aware of this fact and cautions: “It is a Spaniard, we must remember, who tells the story.” Even though I started out calling the racism and eurocentrism in this book flaws of it, I think this is wrong. Prescott himself warns repeatedly of measuring the past with the standard of today. Prescott describes and tells of things the conquistadores did, thinking themselves to be in the right, which 300 years later are morally appalling. He condems some of these actions, but only when measured with the standards of their time. The massacre of hundreds of Aztec nobles by Alvarado can be considered cruel and wrong even in the 16th century and Prescott calls it that. However, the execution of a Mexican chief without a trial after rumours of treason, whilst obviously wrong in 1843 and today’s time, would be more difficult to judge with the standards of their time. We have to read this book the same way as Prescott does his sources, attentively and aware of the fact of when it was written and by whom. When reading a description of the natives of Mexico, we have to be aware that it is very likely tainted with racism and be on the lookout for it. But in my opinion that does not take away anything from the book, considering it was written nearly 200 years ago.
I promise I’m nearly done with this review. My copy of History of the Conquest of Mexico also contains History of the Conquest of Peru but before reading that I need a break. But a review of the latter will surely also make its way on the internet someday. However, in the meantime if you can get your hand on a copy of History of the Conquest of Mexico, be it physical or electronic, give it a try. If you enjoy reading about history as I do, you will very likely enjoy this book as well.
History of the Conquest of Mexico was written in 1843 by William H. Prescott. It tells how Hernando Cortés and his fellow conquistadores conquered Mexico around the 1520s. Prescott starts out with an introductory chapter on what is known about the people and their cultures living there before Cortés. Afterwards he tells the story of how Mexico was “discovered” by the kingdoms of Europe and from then on closely follows Cortés’ adventures and conquests in Mexico, from his initial landing, to the siege of the floating Tenochtitlan, up until his death back in Spain. Prescott describes it best himself as a story “[…] - too startling for the probabilities demanded by fiction, and without a parallel in the pages of history.”
It took some effort to start reading this book, due to how big it was and when it was written. But once I started, I was really surprised with how much I enjoyed it. The language used is at times plain, but quite as often beautiful and poetic, importantly however always understandable and not too different from todays English. The story of the conquest itself is fascinating, almost unbelievable and written in a way that is really gripping. To give you an idea of what I considered to be beautiful writing here is an example of Prescott talking about the Aztecs, showing simultaneously a more problematic side of the book: “The light of civilization would be poured on their land. But it would be the light of a consuming fire, before which their barbaric glory, their institutions, their very existence and name as a nation, would wither and become extinct! Their doom was sealed, when the white man had set his foot on their soil.”
As seen in the excerpt before, the book is not without its flaws, even though I do not think any of them take a toll on the engagement and reading experience. However, as the passage quoted above makes clear, Prescott readily assumes European civilization to be superior to the one found in Mexico. The same superiority is also assumed when talking about religion, christianity being the only true and right faith as opposed to the paganism of the Aztecs and other tribes. However even though Prescott is a Christian himself, he does not refrain from critizising the way in which christianity was “introduced” at times. Additionally there are racist descriptions found in many parts of the book. Interestingly though they do not often describe the Mexican tribes themselves, but are more obvious and occur more when comparing them to their “inferior Northern cousins”. But it goes without saying that Prescott is also racist towards the tribes living in Mexico, even if this was mostly confined to his view on their civilization as barbaric as shortly described above. Furthermore it is important to keep in mind, that the book mostly relied on European sources (most probably because many writings of the Mexican tribes were destroyed). Prescott himself is aware of this fact and cautions: “It is a Spaniard, we must remember, who tells the story.” Even though I started out calling the racism and eurocentrism in this book flaws of it, I think this is wrong. Prescott himself warns repeatedly of measuring the past with the standard of today. Prescott describes and tells of things the conquistadores did, thinking themselves to be in the right, which 300 years later are morally appalling. He condems some of these actions, but only when measured with the standards of their time. The massacre of hundreds of Aztec nobles by Alvarado can be considered cruel and wrong even in the 16th century and Prescott calls it that. However, the execution of a Mexican chief without a trial after rumours of treason, whilst obviously wrong in 1843 and today’s time, would be more difficult to judge with the standards of their time. We have to read this book the same way as Prescott does his sources, attentively and aware of the fact of when it was written and by whom. When reading a description of the natives of Mexico, we have to be aware that it is very likely tainted with racism and be on the lookout for it. But in my opinion that does not take away anything from the book, considering it was written nearly 200 years ago.
I promise I’m nearly done with this review. My copy of History of the Conquest of Mexico also contains History of the Conquest of Peru but before reading that I need a break. But a review of the latter will surely also make its way on the internet someday. However, in the meantime if you can get your hand on a copy of History of the Conquest of Mexico, be it physical or electronic, give it a try. If you enjoy reading about history as I do, you will very likely enjoy this book as well.
April 18, 2025
Monumental obra, escrita en el siglo XIX, pero que es bastante mejor que muchas actuales. El autor, políglota y polihístor, se vale de todas las fuentes escritas hasta ese momento, así como lleva a cabo su propia recolección de fuentes en el archivo español y el mexicano. Bellamente escrita, con un estilo propio de un autor romántico (movimiento en el que normalmente se encuadra al propio Prescott), demuestra una capacidad para ser imparcial, separar el grano de la paja, y querer juzgar sin presentismo las acciones tanto de las tribus de México como de los conquistadores y exploradores españoles de la época (esta imparcialidad ya la quisieran para sí otros historiadores actuales).
De las figuras que recorren la obra, lógicamente merece especial atención la de Hernán Cortés, que parece surgir como de la nada. Un hidalgo desconocido, que ocupa un puesto secundario, pero que en un momento determinado, a su propia cuenta y riesgo, se lanza a la aventura, topándose nada más y nada menos con una nueva civilización imperial en un nuevo continente, pero al que sorprendentemente nada de esto le queda grande, sino que va tomando una serie de decisiones que se muestran fundamentales a la hora de tener éxito, lo que es sorprendente por la capacidad de improvisación y la sabiduría que demuestran. Estamos, como deja claro el pincel del autor del libro, ante uno de los grandes estrategas militares de todos los tiempos, con una capacidad para la toma de decisiones estratégicas, de adaptación a los inconvenientes y una perseverancia, a pesar de todos los obstáculos que encontraba, digna de admiración (la ratio de soldados mexicas-soldados españoles era de 99 a 1, casi nada. Por otro lado, figura fundamental demuestra ser también Doña Marina "Malinche", gracias a su fidelidad, su conocimiento de los idiomas y su labor como intérprete).
Por otra parte, se agradece la honestidad de Prescott, cuando reconoce el mérito a los historiadores españoles, algunos de ellos coetáneos de los propios conquistadores, e incluso participantes ellos mismos en la conquista (como Bernal Díaz del Castillo, López de Gómara, Gonzalo de Oviedo o el propio Cortés, en sus "Cartas de relación"), a los que agradece su aportación tanto a la antropología cultural como al mejor conocimiento de las diferentes tribus indígenas de México (especial reconocimiento a Bernardino de Sahagún, que convivió con los indígenas, y que llevó a cabo una de las primeras traducciones del mexica al castellano, dejando por escrito en su historia de México gran parte de sus costumbres y cultura).
De las figuras que recorren la obra, lógicamente merece especial atención la de Hernán Cortés, que parece surgir como de la nada. Un hidalgo desconocido, que ocupa un puesto secundario, pero que en un momento determinado, a su propia cuenta y riesgo, se lanza a la aventura, topándose nada más y nada menos con una nueva civilización imperial en un nuevo continente, pero al que sorprendentemente nada de esto le queda grande, sino que va tomando una serie de decisiones que se muestran fundamentales a la hora de tener éxito, lo que es sorprendente por la capacidad de improvisación y la sabiduría que demuestran. Estamos, como deja claro el pincel del autor del libro, ante uno de los grandes estrategas militares de todos los tiempos, con una capacidad para la toma de decisiones estratégicas, de adaptación a los inconvenientes y una perseverancia, a pesar de todos los obstáculos que encontraba, digna de admiración (la ratio de soldados mexicas-soldados españoles era de 99 a 1, casi nada. Por otro lado, figura fundamental demuestra ser también Doña Marina "Malinche", gracias a su fidelidad, su conocimiento de los idiomas y su labor como intérprete).
Por otra parte, se agradece la honestidad de Prescott, cuando reconoce el mérito a los historiadores españoles, algunos de ellos coetáneos de los propios conquistadores, e incluso participantes ellos mismos en la conquista (como Bernal Díaz del Castillo, López de Gómara, Gonzalo de Oviedo o el propio Cortés, en sus "Cartas de relación"), a los que agradece su aportación tanto a la antropología cultural como al mejor conocimiento de las diferentes tribus indígenas de México (especial reconocimiento a Bernardino de Sahagún, que convivió con los indígenas, y que llevó a cabo una de las primeras traducciones del mexica al castellano, dejando por escrito en su historia de México gran parte de sus costumbres y cultura).
September 27, 2021
Reasonable recounting and summary of The Conquest. The writing is eloquent and clear. The narrative, if a little lopsided, is well constructed and was considered prescient and thoughtful-for its time.
At the time of the book’s publication, the reader would have been well aware which side was the right side and the one he was on-so the usual criticisms and caveats will apply: enlightened Christian warriors subjugating the barbarian hordes, white men who meant well but the natives pushed their luck, conquistadors who had god on their side, but the locals were so damned disagreeable that they had to be put down to be shown who was boss.
This account gives one a small inkling of just what a struggle to subjugate and destroy a whole race of people must have been like and the amount and nature of the bloody work that went into it.
Leaves the reader with the desire for someone with the talent and ability to do the needed work to come along, do this point in history and its aftermath the justice it deserves.
At the time of the book’s publication, the reader would have been well aware which side was the right side and the one he was on-so the usual criticisms and caveats will apply: enlightened Christian warriors subjugating the barbarian hordes, white men who meant well but the natives pushed their luck, conquistadors who had god on their side, but the locals were so damned disagreeable that they had to be put down to be shown who was boss.
This account gives one a small inkling of just what a struggle to subjugate and destroy a whole race of people must have been like and the amount and nature of the bloody work that went into it.
Leaves the reader with the desire for someone with the talent and ability to do the needed work to come along, do this point in history and its aftermath the justice it deserves.
January 16, 2015
Shakespearean. Biblical. The somewhat archaic sounding language only adds to the oomph of this story. Due to the publication date, 1843, there's some un-pc wordage like "savage", but overall this is a surprisingly balanced (for the time) look at the clash of two cultures, i.e., the Spanish and Aztec empires. The story spans about two years, and focuses upon the machinations of Hernan Cortez as he undermines the Aztec power structure and eventually destroys the capital city of Tenochtitlan. A good introduction to the story that still defines Mexico. I think I'll follow it up with something more recent to see how the accounts compare.
January 19, 2013
Very vivid action writing. Seems very modern apart from the author's taking for granted that the Aztec's are savages who worship a devil and should be saved. This book is a play by play of events, so no real history analysis, but an interesting read just the same. It really illustrates that Cortez was a real dick, which is funny as he is clearly the hero of the tale.
May 27, 2025
This one took me a while to get through, but I enjoyed it. Cortés and his boys have a remarkable story.
As a side note, I have read brief assertions that Solomon’s Ophir was somewhere in Central America. After reading the comparisons with Mexico and the Ancient World in the appendix, I’m convinced that’s the case.
As a side note, I have read brief assertions that Solomon’s Ophir was somewhere in Central America. After reading the comparisons with Mexico and the Ancient World in the appendix, I’m convinced that’s the case.
March 10, 2011
Insanely good. The most impossible-to-put-down history book I've ever held in my hot little hands. And it's over 100 years old.
Want to read
November 24, 2012Loving these C19th sentences.
June 24, 2022
The history of the Conquest of Mexico is very interesting.
The culture of the mexicans in the prehispanic times makes me very curious and now I want to know more about their way of living,their religions,etc.
The culture of the mexicans in the prehispanic times makes me very curious and now I want to know more about their way of living,their religions,etc.
February 2, 2019
Výborná věc! :)
Read
July 22, 2021An old childhood interest of mine was the Aztec Civilization. And Despite it's heavily anachronistic writing (it was written in the 1840's) with lots of talk of 'barbarians', 'savages', 'civilized' etc Prescott's entertaining narrative has re-kindled this old interest of mine.
It's uwful what brutality was unleashed when the Spanish and Aztecs met, I was reading it wanting to focus on what an amazing adventure and meeting it must have been initially when these two unknown human worlds met.
Despite knowing the broad details have how the Aztec Empire fell, it's still boggling to hear the details about how a small troop of Spanish soldiers using their advantage in steal weaponry, guns, horses and germs gathered, united and led the malcontent vassals and enemies of the Aztecs and ended their great Empire at the height of their power against huge odds and many reversals that almost ended in annihilation of the Spanish Conquistadors themselves a few times. Prescott puts much of the success of the Spanish conquest down to the character of Hernan Cortes himself and makes the reader wonder whether a less Caesar-like man have achieved what he did.
Some other things I learned ...
- Prescott calls Cortes's Tlaxcalan allies 'the Switzerland of Mexico' - It was interesting to hear that this was an independent nahuatl speaking nation that was right on the Aztec's doorstep that had resisted muliple invasions from their Empire building cousins.
- Montezuma came across as a very weak and confused Aztec Emperor and his successors seemed much fiercer, this had not been my previous idea of him ... I am not sure how accurate this is because I have heard their is much historical dispute about the Spanish capture of him and his killing.
- There was so much backbiting and infighting among the Spanish Conquistadors, Starting with Cortes himself who left for his expedition to Mexico against the wishes of the Cuban governor! It seems the recent Caribean colonies of Spain were in fierce competition with each other over when, where, and who get the newley discovered lands of central america.
- Cortes kept exploring after he had conquered the Aztecs --- To the Pacific coast and a disastarous expedition up to the 'Sea of Cortez' and he went on a multi-year march to Honduras, I had no idea he did all that exploring after the conquests
- Pedro de Alvarado the conquerer of Guatemala was a key figure in Cortes's troop who orders the Temple Massacre of Aztec nobles which leads to the Spaniards being beseiged within Tenochtitlan.
It's uwful what brutality was unleashed when the Spanish and Aztecs met, I was reading it wanting to focus on what an amazing adventure and meeting it must have been initially when these two unknown human worlds met.
Despite knowing the broad details have how the Aztec Empire fell, it's still boggling to hear the details about how a small troop of Spanish soldiers using their advantage in steal weaponry, guns, horses and germs gathered, united and led the malcontent vassals and enemies of the Aztecs and ended their great Empire at the height of their power against huge odds and many reversals that almost ended in annihilation of the Spanish Conquistadors themselves a few times. Prescott puts much of the success of the Spanish conquest down to the character of Hernan Cortes himself and makes the reader wonder whether a less Caesar-like man have achieved what he did.
Some other things I learned ...
- Prescott calls Cortes's Tlaxcalan allies 'the Switzerland of Mexico' - It was interesting to hear that this was an independent nahuatl speaking nation that was right on the Aztec's doorstep that had resisted muliple invasions from their Empire building cousins.
- Montezuma came across as a very weak and confused Aztec Emperor and his successors seemed much fiercer, this had not been my previous idea of him ... I am not sure how accurate this is because I have heard their is much historical dispute about the Spanish capture of him and his killing.
- There was so much backbiting and infighting among the Spanish Conquistadors, Starting with Cortes himself who left for his expedition to Mexico against the wishes of the Cuban governor! It seems the recent Caribean colonies of Spain were in fierce competition with each other over when, where, and who get the newley discovered lands of central america.
- Cortes kept exploring after he had conquered the Aztecs --- To the Pacific coast and a disastarous expedition up to the 'Sea of Cortez' and he went on a multi-year march to Honduras, I had no idea he did all that exploring after the conquests
- Pedro de Alvarado the conquerer of Guatemala was a key figure in Cortes's troop who orders the Temple Massacre of Aztec nobles which leads to the Spaniards being beseiged within Tenochtitlan.
May 17, 2013
"History of the Conquest of Mexico." William H. Prescott 1843. Although reputedly blind and having never traveled to the Americas, Prescott's seminal account of the conquest of the Aztecs is as highly respected by historians today as it was in the 19th century. Cortez's clash with the Aztecs is arguable one of the most dramatic histories of the age of exploration. Drawing from numerous first hand accounts from both the Spanish and the Aztecs, Prescott, like the majority of anthropologists of today, was quick to expound upon the high sophistication of Aztec culture. The curator of Chicago's Field Museum states that "Aztec civilization was as sophisticated as ancient Rome". This is a very bold statement indeed. The Aztecs never discovered the wheel. They did not posses a system of measurements. Their architecture was heavy, unsophisticated, their art work, especially in the representation of the human form was crude, garish, difficult to gaze upon. Their written language was, in actuality, simple, primitive pictographs. Hernin Cortez and a band of four hundred adventurers, without the luxury of support by the government of Spain, were able to manipulated Montezuma like a child, toppling a civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Although the Romans knew few bounds in the realm of cruelty to their fellow man, this is the one arena in which the Aztecs easily outclassed the ancients of the European world or even the Spanish conquistadors. Aztec armies were mustered in, not for territorial or economic gain, but for the sole purpose of capturing humans for sacrifice, of which incredibly, in the upward of twenty to forty thousand victims were butchered and cannibalized annually. Precott's, graphic descriptions of captured men, women and children, having their beating hearts cut from their body and then consumed at banquet like festivals is not an easy read. Sixteenth century Mexico was clearly not Ancient Rome. Chicago's Field Museum does the public a disservice by disseminating inaccurate information.
October 4, 2007
This is a great read. It was written in the early 19th century and so has a charming archaic feel to it. But it is not so old as to read as if it were written in Olde English. The author strikes a nice balance between the demands of epistemic responsibility and vivid prose. At many points it reads like a novel, with excited descriptions of this battle or that, but it is also pretty scrupulous about evaluating its source material.
It is also animated by a dramatic ambivalence. Prescott is not afraid to pass judgment on both the conquistadors and their future subjects. Additionally, he has a kind of protestant distaste for Catholicism and Spaniards. Thus the question of the justice of the conquest (and of particular actions that were part of the conquest) is frequently on his mind. It is pretty clear that Cortes is the hero of the story, though. And, moreover, the Aztecs (and other future subject peoples) don't look very good -- viz. their prodigious human sacrifice and cannibalism.
The events portrayed are amazing. Cortes, with only several hundred Spaniards, conquered an empire defended by many thousands. There are great successes, sudden set-backs, betrayals, near disasters... the works.
Finally, the book is rich with material on the history and culture of the pre-Columbian Mexicans. Among this material is an interesting appendix full of very primitive speculation on the origins of human occupation and civilization in the Americas. It is state of the art, 1820.
It is also animated by a dramatic ambivalence. Prescott is not afraid to pass judgment on both the conquistadors and their future subjects. Additionally, he has a kind of protestant distaste for Catholicism and Spaniards. Thus the question of the justice of the conquest (and of particular actions that were part of the conquest) is frequently on his mind. It is pretty clear that Cortes is the hero of the story, though. And, moreover, the Aztecs (and other future subject peoples) don't look very good -- viz. their prodigious human sacrifice and cannibalism.
The events portrayed are amazing. Cortes, with only several hundred Spaniards, conquered an empire defended by many thousands. There are great successes, sudden set-backs, betrayals, near disasters... the works.
Finally, the book is rich with material on the history and culture of the pre-Columbian Mexicans. Among this material is an interesting appendix full of very primitive speculation on the origins of human occupation and civilization in the Americas. It is state of the art, 1820.
February 26, 2015
Un libro maravilloso, imprescindible para cualquiera que quiera conocer la historia de México, de los aztecas, de España en la época de los grandes descubrimientos y, por supuesto, la vida de ese personaje mítico, tan fascinante llamado Hernán Cortes. Me avergüenzo de no haberlo leído antes, pues ignoraba prácticamente todo lo que ahí se cuenta. La lectura ha sido algo dificultosa, pues son unas 1000 páginas en letra pequeña, con cientos de notas en letra aún más pequeña, pero ha merecido la pena. El autor denota una gran honestidad y objetividad e imparcialidad en sus juicios. Nada es gratuito en este libro. Todo está medido y contrastado. Aunque el autor no puede disimular su simpatía por el héroe, al que considera un auténtico "caballero andante", simpatías que inevitablemente transmite al lector. El trabajo de recopilación de información que realizó Prescott es asombroso. Más aún si tenemos en cuenta que se había quedado ciego. Parece increíble que pudiera escribir semejante libro en su situación. También es asombroso su dominio de los diversos idiomas en que investigó las fuentes: latín, español (moderno y antiguo), francés, italiano, además del inglés. El hombre, pienso, debía de ser un superdotado. Este libro maravilloso puede leerse como una novela, al tiempo que obtiene uno información veraz sobre una de las páginas más terribles y apasionantes de nuestra historia, de la historia de la humanidad habría que decir.
June 20, 2012
Other reviews can be found of this book in other formats, but all agree that it is an astonishing achievement.
William H Prescott was an American historian whose sight had reduced him to near blindness, and who had never visited Mexico, yet researched and reconstructed original documents to produce a thrilling account of an epic seriesof events. The year is 1520. Cortes embarks from Cuba with the aim of claiming Mexico for Spain. Arriving in the capital, he is made welcome by the divine ruler, Montezuma, and the two men become friends. Montezuma comes to believe that Cortes is, in fact, the ancient Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl.
Cortes' attempts to convert Montezuma to Christianity fail. He takes his counterpart prisoner, but within chivalrous limits. The arrival of a new body of Spaniards, seeking to overthrow Cortes, whom they see as a vainglorious rebel, screws up the tension. Eventually, Montezuma dies and a fierce, bloody battle ensues.
Prescott told the story in five volumes, published in 1843. Professor Sir John Elliott has skilfully extracted the account of Cortes and Montezuma to present for modern readers a vivid portrayal that seems often like the scenario for a Hollywood blockbuster. We should be grateful to Prescott and to Sir John in equal measure.
William H Prescott was an American historian whose sight had reduced him to near blindness, and who had never visited Mexico, yet researched and reconstructed original documents to produce a thrilling account of an epic seriesof events. The year is 1520. Cortes embarks from Cuba with the aim of claiming Mexico for Spain. Arriving in the capital, he is made welcome by the divine ruler, Montezuma, and the two men become friends. Montezuma comes to believe that Cortes is, in fact, the ancient Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl.
Cortes' attempts to convert Montezuma to Christianity fail. He takes his counterpart prisoner, but within chivalrous limits. The arrival of a new body of Spaniards, seeking to overthrow Cortes, whom they see as a vainglorious rebel, screws up the tension. Eventually, Montezuma dies and a fierce, bloody battle ensues.
Prescott told the story in five volumes, published in 1843. Professor Sir John Elliott has skilfully extracted the account of Cortes and Montezuma to present for modern readers a vivid portrayal that seems often like the scenario for a Hollywood blockbuster. We should be grateful to Prescott and to Sir John in equal measure.
May 29, 2019
Prescott transmutes mere facts into immortal romance.
"[At the bitter end of the long war Cortez] ascended the [last pyramid], from which the standard of Castile, supplanting the memorials of Aztec superstition, was now triumphantly floating. The Conqueror, as he strode among the smoking embers on the summit, calmly surveyed the scene of desolation below. The palaces, the temples, the busy marts of industry and trade, the glittering canals, covered with their rich freights from the surrounding country, the royal pomp of groves and gardens, all the splendors of the imperial city, the capital of the Western World, for ever gone,—and in their place a barren wilderness! How different the spectacle which the year before had met his eye, as it wandered over the scenes from the heights of the neighboring [temple], with Montezuma at his side!"
"[At the bitter end of the long war Cortez] ascended the [last pyramid], from which the standard of Castile, supplanting the memorials of Aztec superstition, was now triumphantly floating. The Conqueror, as he strode among the smoking embers on the summit, calmly surveyed the scene of desolation below. The palaces, the temples, the busy marts of industry and trade, the glittering canals, covered with their rich freights from the surrounding country, the royal pomp of groves and gardens, all the splendors of the imperial city, the capital of the Western World, for ever gone,—and in their place a barren wilderness! How different the spectacle which the year before had met his eye, as it wandered over the scenes from the heights of the neighboring [temple], with Montezuma at his side!"
May 30, 2021
Una monumental obra acerca de la conquista de México. Como lo menciona el autor, el nombre de Cortés estará siempre ligado a la caída del Imperio por eso este libro relata las hazañas de este general para derrocar al Imperio Azteca. El libro cuenta detalladamente el inicio de la campaña de Cortes y sus seguidores, el camino hacía la capital del Imperio, las alianzas con los enemigos de los Aztecas y culmina con la toma de Tenochtitlán. Sin duda este libro amplia el panorama histórico acerca de lo aprendido en la escuela (una historia resumida), para no caer en el patriotismo que genera desprecio hacía los conquistadores, en particular a los españoles.
June 5, 2011
I listened to this book as an audiobook and the story was enthralling. I travel to Mexico often and have some understanding of Mexican history. But I had no idea what an incredible and improbable and cunning feat the conquering of the Aztecs and the valley of Mexico by Cortes was. Nor did I feel bad for the downfall of the Aztecs given how brutal and oppressive their culture was, which was of course a key ingredient in their downfall that Cortes so famously exploited.
December 21, 2017
An interesting story, of course, but also one written how historical books should be. It’s thoughtful, factually accurate and a real page turner. Hard to believe from the prose that it was written over a hundred and fifty years ago.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews