The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico
 

Has anyone else here ever read the Discover & Conquest of Mexico, written by Bernal Diaz?

I know he wrote it a good 30 years after the incidents in question, and that there are some occasional inaccuracies in his timeline (which appear to all be documented in the footnotes). However, I also remember one of my professors telling us that many people deem it to be largely inaccurate. After reading about half of it, I'm not sure how anyone who wasn't actually there could possibly know how accurate/inaccurate the book is. Anyone have any insight on this?

Good question, but certainly not my area of expertise.

...and apparently no one else knows what I'm talking about either. For those of you that like history let me just recommend doing some reading about the sun kingdoms of the Americas. It's absolutely fascinating, although a little on the creepy side at times. Very interesting, I think particularly from a Mormon perspective (and no SU, I'm not claiming that it proves the BofM is true.)

Wow. I looked this book up on Amazon. It looks facinating. It sounds like something creekster may have read. As far as its accuracy, there are some concepts to keep in mind.

First, because the writer lived not long after the events in question, indeed while many eyewitnesses still lived, his account shouldn't be dismissed as largely inaccurate. Herodotus was not an eyewitness to the momentous events described in his "Histories," but historians accept them as providing generally the best available record of what happened and as such the narrative is accepted as history with caveats including that some facts are contrary to logic or common sense.

Second, some assertions can be tested with logic. For example, Herodotus says 700,000 or some such huge number of Persians under Xerxes' command invaded the Greek Isles. But we know that logistically it would have been impossible for an army of anything close to this size to migrate vast distances as a cohesive unit, that transporting enough food and other provisions would be impossible, and that the Greek countryside could not have supported such a vast army. I understand scholars have pegged the number at closer to 30,000 to 80,000 Persians.

Third, archeological discoveries test the accuracy of an account. For example, we know that the ancient, highly civilized Greek society described by Thucydides really existed because of the massive ruins, and, indeed, Roman civilizaion itself and to a large extent ours is built on this culture. There has even been loose corroboration of the Iliad, a story that is clearly fanciful in many if not most respects, from archeological digs evincing Minoan cities destroyed by seige warfare during the time in question including a particularly large one on Asia Minor believed to be Troy (far from conclusive).

Fourth, truth for truth's sake was not assigned the same value as it is in our society. Telling a good story or prapaganda may have been more the objective. Often we see that a story is uncannily derivative of a myth or chronicle from an earlier epoch.

Fifth, linguistics play a critical and perhaps the most conclusive role in testing accuracy of ancient chronicles and histories. Jared Diamond discusses, for example, how traces of dialect in South Seas languages establishes indigenus people from the isles came from the south of China in pre-history.

This is a totally lay perspective, and I undoubtedly missed some considerations.

It is fascinating.
Some of what he has written is clearly backed up by archeological finds. There are other things he talks about that are really interesting that aren't the sort of things that archeology can confirm or dispute.

When I'm done with this I'm going to read the Popol Vuh, which I hear is also very interesting. Although someone did tell me once that it was a bit like reading the BofM on LSD.

I am reading a fascinating historical fiction based the research of the author of the pre and post Columbian Aztec empire.

It is simply called Aztec, by Gary Jennings who passed away in 1999. Great historical information which he researched and revealed through the form of a story.

The USA conquered Mexico today in Chicago as it defended the Gold Cup.

USA! USA! USA!

Okay Aztec ritulistic killings leave a little to be desired:

"the priest suddenly lowered the arrow and jabbed it with all his strenght upward, twisting it, int the lbue man's genital organs. The victim, however, much he might have thought he desired that release from life, gave a scream. He howled a scream, he ululated a scream that overrode the sound of flutes, drum and changting. He screamed, but he did not scream for long.

The priest, with the bloody arrow, drew a corss on the man's chest for a target, and all the prieensts pranced about him in a circle, each carrying a bow and many arrows. As each passed in front of the xochimiqui, he trummed an arrow into the man's heaving breast. When the pra ncing was done and the arrows used up, the dead man looked like an overgown specimen of the animal we call the prickly little boar."

Okay, the Aztecs were brutal cruel.

I thought there was still question as to whether this kind of stuff ever happened? Largely invention/exaggeration to justify the mission/conquest?

The Mayans will tell you that when you visit Chichinitza, but there is plenty of evidence that it did happen. The question is with what frequency.

The Mayan guides inform you, it was only old and mortally-ill "volunteers". Perhaps, but ancient societies viewed volunteers differently than do I.

Here's some stuff.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

http://cdis.missouri.edu/previews/2065/lesson01.htm

hm, dju read those articles, Archie? The first one's unavailable, as anything from JSTOR will be.

Second one is interesting, it indicates slaves were sacrificed in order to instill fear and help suppress the masses.

I am more interested in how they are drawing these conclusions. I suppose I should "look it up," as we librarians are wont to say.

Interesting
 

I have read some of Diaz's writings and they are fascinating. I think that his accounts are accurate from his biased point of view. He openly challenges Cortes' account of the events of the conquest and states that his account is the only accurate one. His words should be viewed as accurate but with the understanding that he is biased (he writes from the view of a common soldier).

More interesting to me are the Nahua and Mexica accounts (See Florentine Codex). Specificaly interesting to me is the Nahua viewpoint of the purpose of war. (Not for conquest but to gather worthy warrior / sacrifices to their gods).

The second source actually looked at Emic and Etic sources to explain the conclusions Babs. I'm going to look at the Florentine Codex now that it's been mentioned.

I'd read the second source before I posted.

It does explain how it draws conclusions regarding the purpose of sacrifice. When I said I was curious how "they" were drawing conclusions, I had intended to convey that I'm curious about how others are figuring out the frequency and nature (cruelty) of human sacrifice, aspects which you alluded to in your earlier post. The second source, unless I missed something, didn't address that.

Since I'm mostly aware of emic, not etic sources, I can't opine how frequent these events were, but if Aztecs conducted war to obtain more sacrifices, one might suppose the frequencey were regular if not often.

Oh yeah, I read snippets of some of that when I was at BYU, fascinating stuff. This is the bit about where they killed the princess, skinned her and then one of the priests showed up dressed in her skin right?

Well they had flower wars with some of the surrounding peoples. They were arranged wars, scheduled, and the purpose was to acquire live prisoners to use for sacrifices.

Arch, I thought that was a novel you're reading?

I am reading a novel, but my natural curiosity has me reading supporting archaeology and some linguistics concerning the Nahautl language. It's a fascinating language complete with pictographs and all. The pluraliization is a bit weird.

I just want to verify the research of the novelist to determine the legitimacy and authenticity of the work.