Diaz is noted for his graphic descriptions and this documentation is a perfect example. It provides the reader with a sense of how the Aztecs lived, what the towns, cities and temples would have looked like as well as an introduction to their methods of worship. Bernal Diaz is also known for his crude and unrefined testimonies, especially in his referral to the sacrifices to the Aztec gods. He includes graphic details of the sacrifices, which he repeatedly touches on within this article. Although the descriptions are very specific and particular, one cannot help ponder that perhaps Diaz was so alarmed and passionate by the disgrace of it all that he may have sub-consciously attempted to over exaggerate and to embellish it, thus making it not as reliable a source. A major theme develops throughout his account – the use of manipulation. Diaz reveals Cortes’ heroism and leadership and both these qualities flourished out of his main objective. This objective was to manipulate Indians and rule over their large nation by eliminating their head of state, Montezuma.
Bartolome de Las Casas’ abbreviated account provides the reader of all the atrocities committed by the Spaniards to the innocent Indians. In descriptive detail, he outlines how thousands were not only treated as animals and used for slaves, but also how the women were treated as sexual vessels. Killings were deemed as a necessary evil and thousands (possibly embellished) executed or mutilated without the slightest bit of remorse. Although his depiction of the events may be skewed and filtered from a second or third-hand account, one theme emerges from his writings – a theme of fear. Las Casas does mention how the main reason or purpose for the expedition was Christianize the polytheists, their savage treatment and killing of the Indians truly exhibited how fear was their main tool to accomplish this task. These killings were aided by the use of guns and horses, but most importantly, as allowing the Indians to interpret the Spaniards as devils or gods that were part of their polytheistic religion.
An example of how Diaz’ theme of manipulation and Las Casas’ theme of fear becomes translucent is when the Spaniards arrive at Cholula, a state of the Aztecs. The soldiers are nearly massacred and determine to make an example of the Cholulans. They want to prevent similar occurrences by other Indians who might ponder about killing the Spaniards to please Montezuma. Diaz’ account illustrates the Spaniards manipulation. “This speech dumbfounded Montezuma. In reply he said that he had never ordered his people to take up arms against us, and that he would at once send to summon his captains so that the truth should be known and they be punished” (Diaz, 246). The same event occurring in Las Casas’ account has a radically different tone and view of the incident. “Among divers other slaughters, this one was done in a large cit of above thirty thousand inhabitants, which is called Cholula…And seeing this, the Spaniards resolved among themselves to make a slaughter there, or a punishment, in order to cast and sow fear of them and of their ferocity through-out every corner of those lands. For this was always the Spaniards’ resolve in all the land that they have entered…” (Las Casas, 30).
From Diaz's graphic recollections one must wonder how reliable they are especially since there is an extensive period of around fifty years between witnessing these events to actually writing them down. One could assume his memory would have lapsed slightly, as he was about seventy-one years old when he began his narrative. As the time of writing is an important factor in determining its reliability, it is equally important to consider the writers intentions and underlying prejudices. The possible reasons behind Diaz’ intent to write his narrative is that Diaz set out to correct the inaccuracies made by other authors and therefore may assume it to be more reliable. Moreover, Diaz was born into a poor class and thus may not have received much education. His account may not contain certain information or occurrences which he deemed unnecessary. Therefore, his bias which his account exhibits was not only because he was a Christian Spaniard, but that he was also a poor individual who may have received little education. Bartolome de Las Casas is not excluded from this bias. He is not writing from first-hand experience. Moreover, his heavily Christian views provide a drastically skewed account of the Conquest. It is much harder to find the true, historical core through his many filters. When it is found, it is very succinct. Lastly, both writers are men. Their prejudice and unfairness toward focusing on the male-centered activities and events leave the historian with little information about roles and responsibilities woman and children had during the transpiring events.
After reading and comparing the Conquest according to Bernal Diaz and Bartolome de Las Casas, the amateur historian should have attained a few important lessons. One must establish who is writing the account and where the information was ascertained – establishing whether it was a first hand account or passed on from explorers or missionaries are vitally important. The audience and purpose of the historian is also a key factor in studying historical articles. By knowing the historians purpose and what s/he hopes to accomplish helps to explain why certain information may be excluded, or even embellished. Multiple sources are another fundamental dynamic. By collaborating different accounts, a true and pure historical core and emerge from varying reports. The culture and religious identity of the historian also informs the reader of certain biases that may exist, since the historian may force contemporary or extraneous ideologies into their account.
Bibliography
Diaz, Bernal. The Conquest of New Spain. London: Penguin Books, 1963.
De Las Casas, Bartolome. An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 2003.
