Hernan Cortes

[Mark Morin]

I finally got the Cortes figure done for Historicon.

 

One more Conquistador – Cortes. Back to painting!

Hernán Cortés de Monroy y Pizarro Altamirano, 1st Marquess of the Valley of Oaxaca

Mark A. Morin

[Gone Fishing]

Mark, your posts on the blog really are very good. I love how you cover each subject, discuss figure choice, etc., and even give what paints you used! Well done.

I agree with what you say about Cortez. The truth is he was actually one of the more humane of the big name conquistadors (keeping in mind what the word means, obviously); he could be absolutely ruthless if you got in his way or he felt you were messing with him, but those two things aside, he would often work to protect the Indians from the depredations of his more ruthless countrymen. No doubt this was of small comfort to the Indians themselves, who had lost an empire, their freedom, much of their culture and wealth and all the rest, but it’s worth remembering things could have been much worse. The poor Inca had to deal with a series of psychopaths.

 

[Kitfox]

Gone Fishing wrote:

The truth is he was actually one of the more humane of the big name conquistadors (keeping in mind what the word means, obviously); he could be absolutely ruthless if you got in his way or he felt you were messing with him, but those two things aside, he would often work to protect the Indians from the depredations of his more ruthless countrymen. No doubt this was of small comfort to the Indians themselves, who had lost an empire, their freedom, much of their culture and wealth and all the rest, but it’s worth remembering things could have been much worse. The poor Inca had to deal with a series of psychopaths.

I imagine the former inhabitants of Cholula may have disagreed with this view, had he not massacred them and handed the survivors over to their enemies as slaves and sacrifices?

Death to all fanatics!

[Mark Morin]

Thanks GF, I am glad you’ve liked the blog.  You make some good points and like I say, Cortes was a complex man – who did pull off some pretty incredible victories from the jaws of defeat.  Only in the end to get sidelined by the Spanish Crown.  I wonder if smallpox (and all the other diseases) had not so savaged the Aztecs would they have been more successful?  Given that a big part of his forces were Tlaxcalan, I wonder also why they were not so similarly devastated as the Aztecs were?  I eventually will be moving on to his cousin Pizarro and the Inca, but I want to finish off the scenarios book first (like the Battle of Lake Texcoco).

Mark A. Morin

[Mark Morin]

Kitfox wrote:

Gone Fishing wrote:

The truth is he was actually one of the more humane of the big name conquistadors (keeping in mind what the word means, obviously); he could be absolutely ruthless if you got in his way or he felt you were messing with him, but those two things aside, he would often work to protect the Indians from the depredations of his more ruthless countrymen. No doubt this was of small comfort to the Indians themselves, who had lost an empire, their freedom, much of their culture and wealth and all the rest, but it’s worth remembering things could have been much worse. The poor Inca had to deal with a series of psychopaths.

I imagine the former inhabitants of Cholula may have disagreed with this view, had he not massacred them and handed the survivors over to their enemies as slaves and sacrifices?

Like I said, it was a brutal era all around.

Mark A. Morin

[Gone Fishing]

Kitfox wrote:

Gone Fishing wrote:

The truth is he was actually one of the more humane of the big name conquistadors (keeping in mind what the word means, obviously); he could be absolutely ruthless if you got in his way or he felt you were messing with him, but those two things aside, he would often work to protect the Indians from the depredations of his more ruthless countrymen. No doubt this was of small comfort to the Indians themselves, who had lost an empire, their freedom, much of their culture and wealth and all the rest, but it’s worth remembering things could have been much worse. The poor Inca had to deal with a series of psychopaths.

I imagine the former inhabitants of Cholula may have disagreed with this view, had he not massacred them and handed the survivors over to their enemies as slaves and sacrifices?

Kitfox, I can only suggest you reread what I said above, especially the second to last sentence. You are almost quoting me. So fear not, I think we agree here. Much can be said, indeed, has been said, regarding the massacre at Cholula – it wasn’t as clear cut as you are making it sound – but as I sense an argument brewing I’ll say no more and leave the last comment to you if you wish.

[Gone Fishing]

And sorry Mark, I didn’t mean to distract from your excellent project and brushwork!

[Mark Morin]

Gone Fishing wrote:

And sorry Mark, I didn’t mean to distract from your excellent project and brushwork!

 

Thanks again – and discussion is good.  My take is that when it comes to sacrifice, slavery, massacre, etc. all parties in this era were certainly not free of guilt.  It’s history – and that’s what must be understood as context.  How these events happened and why is important – as we are the same species as 1518-1521 still.

Mark A. Morin

[Cacique Caribe]

Growing up a few decades ago on the opposite end of the Caribbean (P.R.*), far from Mexico, we were raised to view the Conquistadores as heroes who ended the constant flow of human sacrifices in Meso-America.

It’s one thing to slaughter combatants in battle, and another to slaughter unarmed and defenseless bound captives.  The Europeans did so on occasion, for sure, but the Meso-Americans had a virtual conveyor belt of them to their bloody altars, with massive bloodletting events on key religious feast days.  At least the Spaniards didn’t eat human flesh.

That said, I love your beautifully painted figures!

Dan

* Where hardly any of the native population survived the culture clash and the exchange of germs

Dan
Loads of WIPs: https://www.flickr.com/photos/9593487@N07/albums/with/72157710630529376

[Kitty Hay-Whitton]

I’m always struck by the way that each side viewed the cruelty of the other with genuine horror, and that they were both pretty justified in doing so.

 

(Actually, what I’m really struck by is the way my Mexicans always get thumped on the table, alas.)

[Gone Fishing]

Whilst I would lean to seconding what CC says, I nevertheless agree with you all – it was one of those crucibles of history, and, as we all know, those can get bloody, with few true heroes on either side.

Thinking a good deal about my Maya/Yucatan project today and listening to lots of 16th century Spanish music (which is pretty incredible), so this reminder came at a good time.

Keep up the great work, Mark!

Daryl

[Not Connard Sage]

Cacique Caribe wrote:

the Meso-Americans had a virtual conveyor belt of them to their bloody altars, with massive bloodletting events on key religious feast days.

Would that include the Tlaxcalla, who allied with Cortes, assisted in the massacre at Cholula, and allegedly murdered Moctezuma at Cortes’ behest?

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Mark Morin]

Cacique Caribe wrote:

Growing up a few decades ago on the opposite end of the Caribbean (P.R.*), far from Mexico, we were raised to view the Conquistadores as heroes who ended the constant flow of human sacrifices in Meso-America. It’s one thing to slaughter combatants in battle, and another to slaughter unarmed and defenseless bound captives. The Europeans did so on occasion, for sure, but the Meso-Americans had a virtual conveyor belt of them to their bloody altars, with massive bloodletting events on key religious feast days. At least the Spaniards didn’t eat human flesh. That said, I love your beautifully painted figures! Dan * Where hardly any of the native population survived the culture clash and the exchange of germs

 

Thanks Dan – I am happy that you are discussing this.  I always preface my games saying “there are no good guys here”, but certainly the Aztecs were brought down as much by Tlaxcalan and Totonac allies who were treated as resources to be exploited.  The Spanish were not angels here, but to your conveyor belt point, they were not that way.  Of course, one must consider the effects of smallpox, typhus, and slavery.  I say its history – and important to learn about.  Appreciate the kind words too on the figs.

Mark A. Morin

[Author]

Posts