• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12

Strategy in Cortes' conquest of Mexico

Extracts from this document...


Kurt Wintje HIST 386R Prof. Brown 11/27/07 Strategy in Cort�s' Conquest of Mexico Informed primarily by Spanish accounts, the traditional historical view of Cort�s' victory over the Aztec Empire is that of the inherently superior and better-armed Spanish defeating the numerically superior, but technologically and morally inferior Aztecs forces. Inga Clendinnen, for one, explains the Spanish conquest in cultural terms. According to Clendinnen, the Aztecs were defeated because their traditional societal view on the nature of warfare and its modes of termination made them incapable of defeating the Spanish forces led by the innovative and cunning Cort�s.1 However, the recent availability of Aztec and other native accounts of the conquest call these interpretations into question. Concurrently, a new wave of contemporary Aztec scholars argue that the motivations for Aztec imperialism are complex and multifaceted, but political and economic concerns dominated, just like any other empire.234 Therefore, it is best to examine the Aztec Empire just as one would the Roman Empire, or any other imperial system. Viewed through this lens, it will be argued that Cort�s' successful employment of military strategy and techniques were the critical determinant in the battle for the Aztec Empire. Other historical interpretations overlooked the role of strategy in the Aztec response to Cort�s, but it will be argued that Cort�s, as well as the Aztecs, conducted war within an overarching strategic plan. As leader of the Aztec Empire, Montezuma's primary objective in the region was to consolidate and further expand his power base by bringing rival factions under Aztec control and compel the payment of tribute.5 The Aztecs used conquering wars, where Aztec warriors attacked and quickly overwhelmed the enemy and forced them into submission, but so called "flower wars" to achieve this end as well. Clendinnen and others have misinterpreted the "flower wars" as merely serving ritualistic aims, while other scholars described it as a training ground for Aztec soldiers. Hassig argues these "flower wars" were in fact a type of imperial war with important strategic objectives. ...read more.


The Emperor was not just 'he who commands', but also the 'heart of the city'."19 The power vacuum left the Aztec empire vulnerable not only to rebellion from the tributaries, but more critically, to organized attacks from Cort�s and his men. The military strategies and tactics of the Spanish and Aztecs became most apparent once the battle for Tenochtitlan commenced. This fighting began when Cort�s was away from the city and the Aztecs responded to the Spaniards' massacre of participants at a ceremony honoring the god Huitzilopochtl. Cort�s' deputy Pedro de Alvarado carried out the massacre in response to the report that there would be human sacrifices at the festival. Leon-Portillo's work contains a vivid account from the Aztec perspective of this massacre: "They attacked all the celebrants, stabbing them, spearing the, striking them with their swords...the blood of the warriors flowed like water and gathered into pools."20 Just as there was no strategic plan behind the Spaniards' attack on the celebrants, the Aztecs' response to the attacks occurred outside of the context of any organized plan or military strategy. The Aztec sources depict the uprising against the Spanish as an impromptu response to the slaughter. While hastily assembled, the Aztecs' response revealed signs of organization and clear purpose: When the news of this massacre was heard outside the Sacred Patio, a great cry went up: 'Mexicanos, come running! Bring your spears and shields! The strangers have murdered our warriors!' This cry was answered with a roar of grief and anger: the people shouted and wailed and beat their palms against their mouths. The captains assembled at once, as if the hour had been determined in advance.21 The Aztecs attacked the Spaniards with all available weapons. They also made an effort to lay siege to the Spanish by widening and deepening the canals, blocking the roads with walls, as well as erecting bulwarks to prevent the Spanish from breaking out. ...read more.


causes of Cort�s' defeat of the Aztec Empire have been a much debated topic among historians, but it is necessary to begin this investigation holding the assumption that the conflict consists of two relatively matched, rational opponents, both conducting warfare with an overarching strategic plan. In so doing, one will come to the conclusion that Cort�s' successful employment of military and techniques, as well as strategic mistakes by the Aztecs, were the critical determinant in the outcome which saw the Aztec Empire, and all its riches fall into the hands of Cort�s. Notes 1 Inga Clendinnen, "Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty: Cort�s and the Conquest of Mexico" Representations, No. 33 (1991): 93-94. 2 Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), 12. 3 Michael Smith, The Aztecs (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing, 1996), 15-16. 4 Hugh Thomas, The Conquest of Mexico (London: Hutchinson Publishing, 1993), 35. 5 Ross Hassig, "Aztec Flower Wars" Military History Quarterly, No. 8 (1996): 10. 6 Hassig, "Aztec Flower Wars", 20. 7 Hernando Cort�s , Five Letters of Cort�s to the Emperor, trans. J Bayard Morris (New York: W.W Norton & Co., 1969), 43. 8 Hassig, "Aztec Flower Wars", 11. 9 Smith, 71. 10 Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 55. 11 Smith, 78. 12 Smith, 80. 13 Hassig, Aztec Warfare, 242. 14 Hassig, Aztec Warfare, 243. 15 Cort�s, 53. 16 Cort�s, 73. 17 Hassig, Aztec Warfare, 244. 18 Thomas, 308. 19 Thomas, 309. 20 Leon-Portilla, 75. 21 Leon-Portilla, 77. 22 Thomas, 397. 23 Thomas, 400. 24 Thomas, 401-2. 25 Smith, 277. 26 Smith, 280. 27 Hassig, Aztec Warfare, 245. 28 Thomas, 488. 29 C. Harvey Gardner, Naval Power and the Conquest of Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1956), 192. 30 Gardner, 196. 31 Thomas, 490. 32 Hassig, Aztec Warfare, 141. 33 Leon-Portilla, 123. 34 Thomas, 407. 35 Hassig, Aztec Warfare, 149. 36 Smith, 283. 37 Smith, 283. ?? ?? ?? ?? 13 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent was warfare between Britain and France the main contributory factor in ...

    3 star(s)

    The American Revolutionary War started in 1775 with a dispute between Britain and the American colonies over the Stamp Act of 1765 which would have forced the Americans to pay a direct tax to Britain. Americans argued that their lack of influence in parliament which was so far away, was

  2. What was the impact of the Norman Conquest

    They were relatively quick and easy to build, and lots of them were erected at key strategic points on routes to the North and the Midlands, called 'the spine'.2 The first castles at Hastings and Pevensey were vital because they provided defensive points, and also acted as a base for further expansion.

  1. Why Did The Wartime Alliance Break Down?

    At this meeting, Churchill showed how Stalin would obtain the Eastern Border of Poland as a, "Buffer State". Stalin believed he would have power over Eastern Europe and be allowed to do as he pleased with it. Roosevelt did not explain this to Stalin and therefore Stalin believed he and Churchill were on the same page.

  2. The Indian Mutiny

    - The established a more personal relationship with British rule - 'littered Indian cities with her statues.' - Secretary of State for India to be appointed by PM. - Creation of the Minister's India Council. - Indian administration could now come under daily Parliamentary scrutiny (look closely).

  1. In this essay, I shall use primary sources to measure the short term significance ...

    They are to 'treat them in the most friendly & conciliatory manner,' inviting them to visit the United States. They are to come back if they are in danger for fear of losing 'the information you will have acquired' as much as for loss of life.

  2. Cities were the main driving force of the Reformation in Germany(TM) " explain whether ...

    As the Emperor was preoccupied with the threat of France posed in northern Italy and the rebellions in Spain, Lutheranism gained a grip, so when Charles did return to Germany, the problem that he had to deal with, was irresolvable.

  1. South African Heritage - Where we come from?

    Unit 7.2 Activity 1 1) Why are the fossils in the Karoo such a valuable record? The fossils found in the Karoo give us valuable insight into life millions of years ago.

  2. What was the short term significance of the Amritsar Massacre?

    The Muslims supported Gandhi not so much because of the Amritsar Massacre, but because Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement, which was important to many Muslims. Some local parties supported Gandhi because they found it attractive to appear 'extreme' under Gandhi's banner; the Marwaris in Calcutta were drawn by his religious

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work