Leftbanker’s review of Conquistador: Hernán Cortés, King Montezuma, and the Last Stand of the Aztecs > Likes and Comments
49 likes · Like
Tiene muy buena pinta. Me lo apunto. Gracias
Carlos wrote: "Tiene muy buena pinta. Me lo apunto. Gracias"
El libro merece su alta calificación en Goodreads.
Well , it's not true that mesoamericans didn't record historical events. Of course they didn't used the latin alphabet to record these events but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. There were schools like the calmecac and the tepochcalli, there were people whose job was to record the events --the tlacuilos-- etc. Nowadays it's clear that even written language is not even the best way of conveying certain type of knowledge as we can conclude from reading statistical graphs.
Javier wrote: "Well , it's not true that mesoamericans didn't record historical events. Of course they didn't used the latin alphabet to record these events but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. There were sch..."
They had no written language.
Mesoamericans had writing. A few Maya codices still exist, see the Dresden Codex, Paris Codex, and Madrid Codex. Very few pre-contact Aztec codices still exist (if at all) but some have the Aztec script, like the Codex Boturini.
Unfortunately most codices were burnt by the likes of Diego de Landa.
Cavalry was of course very useful and powerful, but consider how few they had in the initial invasion, compared to the many thousands who were already fighting in a way against the Triple Alliance. From the accounts of the conquistadors that I've read, in the few engagements the Spanish fought without the assistance of the Tlaxcalans or other native allies, they did not do well - like when they had to flee Tenochtitlan and lost half their men, or when they had to beg the Tlaxcalans to leave them alive. It seems to me that the spanish were not significant as a military force (at least compared to Tlaxcala, who were already fighting the war before the Spanish came) as they were a political force and bringer of diseases.
Thank you for pointing this out. I was looking at the 1 star reviews of this book and found myself increasingly frustrated at how narrow minded such reviews were.
Zong massacre" motherfukers yourself
some great observations including that about no written language at the time ... thanks for reading!
This book was great and ratinh it poorly because it's written using mostly Spanish source material is dumb. That said the Aztecs did have a language and alternative perspectives abound. If you are interested in reading about these events from a different perspective "The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico"by Miguel León-Portilla would be a great companion to this book
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
V&C
(new)
Feb 23, 2021 11:53PM
Tiene muy buena pinta. Me lo apunto. Gracias
reply
|
flag
Carlos wrote: "Tiene muy buena pinta. Me lo apunto. Gracias"El libro merece su alta calificación en Goodreads.
Well , it's not true that mesoamericans didn't record historical events. Of course they didn't used the latin alphabet to record these events but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. There were schools like the calmecac and the tepochcalli, there were people whose job was to record the events --the tlacuilos-- etc. Nowadays it's clear that even written language is not even the best way of conveying certain type of knowledge as we can conclude from reading statistical graphs.
Javier wrote: "Well , it's not true that mesoamericans didn't record historical events. Of course they didn't used the latin alphabet to record these events but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. There were sch..."They had no written language.
Mesoamericans had writing. A few Maya codices still exist, see the Dresden Codex, Paris Codex, and Madrid Codex. Very few pre-contact Aztec codices still exist (if at all) but some have the Aztec script, like the Codex Boturini.Unfortunately most codices were burnt by the likes of Diego de Landa.
Cavalry was of course very useful and powerful, but consider how few they had in the initial invasion, compared to the many thousands who were already fighting in a way against the Triple Alliance. From the accounts of the conquistadors that I've read, in the few engagements the Spanish fought without the assistance of the Tlaxcalans or other native allies, they did not do well - like when they had to flee Tenochtitlan and lost half their men, or when they had to beg the Tlaxcalans to leave them alive. It seems to me that the spanish were not significant as a military force (at least compared to Tlaxcala, who were already fighting the war before the Spanish came) as they were a political force and bringer of diseases.
Thank you for pointing this out. I was looking at the 1 star reviews of this book and found myself increasingly frustrated at how narrow minded such reviews were.
Zong massacre" motherfukers yourself
some great observations including that about no written language at the time ... thanks for reading!
This book was great and ratinh it poorly because it's written using mostly Spanish source material is dumb. That said the Aztecs did have a language and alternative perspectives abound. If you are interested in reading about these events from a different perspective "The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico"by Miguel León-Portilla would be a great companion to this book