Talk:Fall of Tenochtitlan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Fall of Tenochtitlan was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

Major additions[edit]

I have added (as well as edited) the entire article, as I saw it was too brief and missing much crucial information. I have left out (and removedjdfjgijdjgjdjdjgdnnng) much of the "opinion" which was on the article and the way the tale is told. Its all factual, and if anyone feels the need to check any of it, by all means do so (in case I have made an error somewhere). I was going to add other battles and more events, but I know little of them and they would end up being very brief, besides I think this is well in its perpotions as it is. Enjoy (or dont I dont care).

Removed Moctezuma II from the Commanders box and added Cuitláhuac[edit]

If we consider the siege of Tenochtitlan as having started in 1521 when Cortes returned to Tenochtitlan after having escaped during La Noche Triste, then Moctezuma II was long dead by the time the siege began.

I made the mistake of including him as a commander because I was thinking of the conquest of Tenochtitlan which arguably began in 1519 when Cortes first arrived at the city.

I am adding in Cuitláhuac as a commander since he was tlatoani before Cuauhtemoc. Richard 17:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Strength of the Aztec side[edit]

There is a problem with the number on the Aztec side of the Strength box. The total population of Tenochtitlan is estimated to be between 60,000 and 300,000. Cortes estimated 60,000 but, based on what I've read, it seems that 200,000 to 250,000 is a better guess. I would use 250,000 as the estimate for population but that makes 150,000 - 300,000 way too high a number for "troop strength" (i.e. able-bodied fighting men).

Interesting question. The most common estimate y have seen for the population in the "moetropolitan" area of tenochtitlan was about 130,000, but we can accept a higer estimate of 200,000 asuming that people form the surrounding islets wents to their city., . While all male population was trained a warriors only some of them became full time warrior and the other became artisans. If we discount females, children and old men, a "guestimate" of the available man power would be one third of the population. And of course there are the allies of the Tenochca; The Tlatelolca who probably could contribute with another 30,000 warriors, altough in the end, the Tlatelolca women took the military symbols , cut their hair and join the battle. I will look if someone has a better "guesstimate".... Nanahuatzin 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps 100,000-150,000 would be a better estimate for "troop strength". I admit that I'm "pulling a number out of thin air" but, based on the argument above, 100,000-150,000 is a lot better number than 150,000-300,000.

Now, for casualties, it's hard to say. 100,000 isn't bad, it might be too low. Tenochtitlan was practically empty when Cortes entered. Much of the population had been decimated by hunger and disease (smallpox). The canals were filled with dead bodies. The remainder probably fled into the jungle. How many actually died? I'm sure nobody counted the bodies. Richard 18:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

when the city became inabitable, the survivors went to Tlatelolco, where the last battle was lost. From he book of the "informantes anonimos de tlatelolco" we can infeer the last battles were fougth mainly by the Tlatlolcas, since the Meshica were already to weak and decimated to fight. Unfortunatelly neither the spaniard, tlatelolca, mexica or tlaxcalteca cronicles give numbers. Se heres to se if you can have any conlcusion... (note: here we do to have jungle, but coniferous forest) I ofunt an estimation of 30,000 inahitants of Tenoctitlan in 1520, but there is no source mentioned. I will search to see if i can found something. Nanahuatzin 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Defeat of Narvaez section needs some work[edit]

The sentence about Cortes learning of another landing party does not explain that Narvaez had been sent to arrest Cortes. I will try to rework this section when time permits. Richard 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Focus of article[edit]

I hope it is realized that recent additions have roamed far beyond the topic of this article. Things like La Noche Triste and the battles of Tacuba and Otumba all merit their own articles. I am taking steps now to correct this. Albrecht 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle but the reason that "La Noche Triste" has its own article and the battles of Tacuba and Otumba don't is that I had insufficient information on the battles of Tacuba and Otumba with which to create articles. This will have to go on the "to do" list.
--Richard 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change Moctezuma to Montezuma[edit]

Please consult Wikipedia:Wikiproject Aztec/Terminology first. If you wish to dispute the decision to use Moctezuma over Montezuma, please do so but do not arbitrarily change Moctezuma to Montezuma without building a consensus first.

--Richard 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

no, dont change it. if we have to use any incorrect names then let it be the latter one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination Failed[edit]

I would pass this for GA nomination, bu the lead section is too short and there aren't enough inline references. If this were speedily fixed, I might consider passing it.--Esprit15d 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Came here to review since I didn't see it on hold on the candidates page and have some additional points.

  • Agree that lead needs to be expanded
  • Well written: failed -- "Alvarado ordered to close the door on the recint" what's a recint? also, that whole sentence is not well-worded. Another example: "In June 1520, Cuitláhuac mounted a determined resistance to the Spaniards." and "The Aztecs insisted in chasing Cortés in his retreat as to destroy the weak remnants of his army" It needs a good grammar check
    • Too many one line paragraphs
    • Several redlinks to Main articles
    • Too many qualifiers in parentheses; work these into the prose.
  • References - though inline citations are not required, you should definitely have them for the instances where you say "according to one source" etc.

Normally I would put this on hold, but since the first request to expand the lead was over 7 days ago and that hasn't happened, I'm failing this. Please resubmit when you've worked on these issues. plange 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Indian" title[edit]

Can someone go through the article and change "Indian" to either "Native American" or "Amerindian"? The "Indian" nomenclature is rather obsolete and is not really used for indigenous americans anywhere anymore.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While this is an english encliclopedia. I wish to coment that a least in Mexico, Native american or amerindian are never used. Here most comon word is simple indigenous (indigena). Nanahuatzin 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That is true, in most countries south of the United States, Indians is mostly used. The terms "Native American" or "Amerindian" are practically only used in the US and Canada for absolutely unknown purposes, but most probably for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:41, 8 August 2007

Actually, the reasons are far from unknown. It's not for political reasons, but for reasons of political correctness. "Indians" is inappropriate, as it more correctly applies to people from India. The natives of the Americas were not from India, so that term is not used. "Amerindian" is an attempt to reconcile the old term "Indians" with a desire to represent these peoples accurately. Rather, "Native Americans" is really no different from "Americanos indigenos" or "personas indigenas", and is a simple descriptor referring to those people who are native/indigenous to America. Incidentally, I've been told that Canadians tend to use the term "First Nations" most commonly, as a show of respect. LordAmeth 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "indigenous" in the whole article. Let me know if you take issue with this. Stormchaser (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cortés as Quetzalcoatl"[edit]

The initial Aztec association of Cortés with the god Quetzalcoatl is subject to academic dispute.

It is true that Quetzalcoatl was a god, but the Quetzalcoatl the Mexica believed Cortes to be was a ruler from the ancestral home of Tula that exiled himself and left towards the east on a raft of snakes. When this ruler's return was scheduled on the Mexica calendar, Cortes of course landed from the west in a location similar to where Quetzalcoatl left. Furthermore, there is an account of Moctezuma explicitly telling Cortes he does not believe him to be a god.

Please cf. "Moctezuma Controversy"[[1]] and decide if the reference should be reworded.

As an aside, in the 5th(?) paragraph of "Tlaxcalteca remain loyal to Cortés" [[2]], the reference to Velazques is something of an orphan - Velazquez is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and there is obviously some backstory there. Either the backstory should be referenced (in another Wiki page, if it exists), or the mention should be stricken from the article.

Also, "And his Tlaxcalan allies were still loyal." is a sentence fragment and should be connected to the previous sentence instead.

All-in-all though, this is a finely written article in many ways... useful, informative, and fun to read.

you are right that the article in its current form misrepresents the Quetzalcoatl myth. I would support changes in this direction although I would reword your version slightly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

change of title and addition of details[edit]

Within the next week, I intend to add some more details to the article, particularly about the events leading up to the siege in order to make the article more complete. Because of these additions, I would like to change the title of the article to "Fall of Tenochtitlan," because I feel it would be more pertinent. MRB15 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"At the same time, Cortés learned of another Spanish landing force, under Pánfilo de Narváez, and gained their allegiance with promises of the vast wealth of Tenochtitlan. He then led a small contingent of men to battle Narváez, and assimilated Narváez' army into his own force."

Does this make sense? He gained their allegiance, then battled against them? Am I missing something?

The wording here is perhaps not clear enough, but I believe that what happened is Cortez simply betrayed Narvaez. He either gained the allegiance of Narvaez' men, who turned against their leader in mutiny fashion, or he allied with them, then reversed course and seized control of the contingent for himself. LordAmeth 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not what happened. What happened is that Cortés marched to Pánuco with a small force of spaniards and fought against Narvaez' men and won. In a short skirmish Cortés men managed to take hold of Narvaez' cannons and capture Narvaez himself, the remainder of his army surrendered. After that Narvaez and the other commanders were put in chains and his men were assimilated into Cortés' army. It is all in Cortés' letters and the cronicle of Bernal Díaz. I have changed the wording into something more correct.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I was just speaking from memory, from what I read when I originally worked on this article, but apparently I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing that up. LordAmeth 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am finally ready to post my changes/additions to the article; sorry it's a little later than I expected! I am still planning to change the title of the article to "Fall of Tenochtitlan," unless anyone has any suggestions how to better make my article fit into what has already been written. Thanks! MRB15 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Fall of Tenochtitlan is a better title. You're certainly welcome to make changes and add details, as long as they're referenced, etc. Madman 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The proposed change seems rather arbitrary. "Siege" should be kept unless you can demonstrate that a dominant body of scholarly literature uses "fall" (which is actually a much more specific event—the culmination of the siege—so I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that it reflects a broader topic). Remember, for example, that even the common "Fall of Yorktown" gives way to Siege of Yorktown. Albrecht 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I made my proposed changes (of course, not while I was signed in...I'm still trying to get the hang of Wikipedia, but I'm kicking myself for that one!). I followed the directions for moving a page and redirecting the links, and it seems to have worked, though I had trouble understanding the directions for doing so. Unfortunately, I changed the title before reading Albrecht's post; I would be completely open to renaming it from "Fall of Tenochtitlan." I guess I just thought that with the background I added about the events leading up to the actual siege, maybe the title "Siege of Tenochtitlan" didn't make as much sense, or the title could be clearer. Does anyone have any other ideas for the title or is "Siege of Tenochtitlan" still the best option after my changes? Thanks again for all your input! MRB15 04:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you have done a fantastic job in rewriting this article. Congratulations!
The reason that I like the Fall of Tenochtitlan is that it is similar in scope to the Fall of the Roman Empire. This article is decidedly not about one battle or one siege but about the events that lead to the fall of the Aztec empire. I would support Fall of the Aztec Empire over a return to Siege.
Again, a wonderful and much much needed rewrite. Keep up the good work. Madman 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite wrong, I'm afraid. This page outlines the pursuit of military operations against one city. The article you're describing, incidentally, already exists: Spanish conquest of Mexico. (I'm a bit baffled by your palpably forced comparison to the fall of the Roman Empire, an immense field of historical study spanning hundreds of years and dozens of fundamental social, political, demographic, economic, and military causes and theories). What you're proposing sounds an awful lot like an original synthesis of things in history you find interesting. And in any case, you would be on less shaky ground if you had any evidence that the titles you proposed enjoyed any currency in the historiography of the Conquest (i.e. even if this page were transformed into something else—a demonstrably foolish and conterproductive aim—we would still need an article on the Siege (or rather, Battle) of Tenochtitlan [3]) Albrecht 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Guys, I am concerned about the nuetrality dispute on this page. Below, Cesar Tort wants the section to be based on Bernal Diaz and Cortez; these are primary sources. However, the Identifying Reliable Sources page urges that research be based on reliable secondary sources. I am going to use Buddy Levy's Conquistador and Hugh Thomas's Conquest to revise the section.

    Sereniak (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Sereniak

Hi guys,

I have no intention whatsoever to disrupt the page but I have just read Bernal Díaz’s The Conquest of New Spain and many passages of the present article strike me as pov.

The massacre section for one looks like OR: it doesn’t cites its sources. Have you read The Conquest of New Spain? It’s pretty clear from that account that the Spaniards were at peril in Tenochtitlan. They were repeatedly warned about an attack so they made the first move. Thousands of Aztec victims in the massacre and no RS? I very much doubt that, as it stands today, this may qualify as a good encyclopedic article. Please source the article throughout and NPOV the massacre section by quoting Díaz or Cortés.

What the Spanish did here in downtown Mexico City is exactly what they had done in Cholula and for the same reasons claimed by Díaz: an imminent Aztec attack. In Cholula it was so evident that the attack ordered by Moctezuma was imminent that, Díaz writes, he and his colleagues saw the rods with leather necklaces at the side of a temple (the same we saw in Apocalypto) to carry the Spanish captives to Tenochtitlan for sacrifice. I wonder if the present editors have read the primary sources?

Cesar Tort 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • “This is now widely-believed to be a post-conquest invention, and most scholars agree that the Aztecs were quite aware that Cortés wasn't a god.”

This is pov or bad scholarship. The first impression that the natives at the coast (which were not Aztecs) got was that the white men on horses were teules, kind of semigods. Of course, after the natives killed some Spaniards and their horses they saw them more like humans. (BTW, The native people of Tlaxcala did not enter the city —section "The road to Tenochtitlan").

  • “It is uncertain why Moctezuma cooperated so readily with the Spanish. It is possible he feared losing his life or political power. Or, perhaps it was a tactical move...”
  • “This may have been due to the fact that their military infrastructure was severely damaged after the attack on the festival, as the most elite and seasoned warriors were killed...”

These two passages look like an OR High School essay. Please, cite and paraphrase the RS, such as Hugh Thomas’s book.

  • “The Aztecs asserted that Moctezuma was murdered by the Spanish. This is not unlikely... ...”

I’m afraid I have to place a pov tag for this one. Both Díaz and Cortés had Moctezuma in high esteem. Again, nobody seems to have bothered to read the primary sources.

Cesar Tort 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are again using only two very biased sources as the source of your statements. Díaz and Cortés are both obviously conquest apologetic. A balanced view is only reached by using several of the MANY sources describing the aztec conquest, many of which are in nahuatl. You seem to have not followed any aztec scholarship after 1960: 1. there is a wide consensus that aztecs did not believe that any spaniards were gods and that this is a fiction built by principally franciscan friars in the 16th century. Read Susan D. Gillespies The Aztec Kings, Matthew Restalls "Seven myths of the Spanish Conquest" and James Lockharts introduction to his translation fo Sahaguns book 12 in "We people here". And numerous other analysis debunking the cortés/quetzalcoal myth. 2. ALL Nahuatl language sources agree that the spanish attack on Cholula was completely unprovoked. Have you thought that maybe Díaz and Cortés had something to gain by positing a fake reason for attacking the largest city and most important of city supporting the triple alliance? 3.Only spanish sources state that motecuzoma was killed by his rebelling country men, nahuatl sources say spaniards killed him or that he was just found dead in a ditch after the spaniards fled form mexico. Why believe the spaniards without posing question? You are simply incorrect in your descriptions of which statements are unfounded or bad scholrship and your statements illustrate a lack of overview of the existant sources form your side and a onesided belief in two very problematic sources namely Bernal Díaz and Cortés. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article looks like OR. It has to be sourced thoroughly. If you think that the XVI century sources are biased use Hugh Thomas’s Cortés, Montezuma, and the Fall of Old Mexico instead. The WP article is very biased: it sides the Aztec’s account. I did not say that the Aztecs believed that Spaniards were gods. Please don’t put words in my mouth that I have not uttered. You are siding to the Nahua side of the story about Cholula and the lie that the Spaniards killed Moctezuma. I side to Diaz’s account. A NPOV encyclopedia should cite both views. It’s just that simple. —Cesar Tort 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs citations, but I disagree that it represents any bias. Furthermore I certainly do not take any side, I merely point out that there is a different side to the description of the spanish conquest something which you have been consistently disregarding. The conclusions drawn in the article are supported by and parallel to those drawn by the foremost ethnohistorians of the time such as Gillespie, Restall, Lockhart, Lopez Luján, Ortíz de Montellano etc. these sscholars represent the balanced viewpoint that should be in the article. Hugh Thomas however is not a specialist in mesoamerican studies, or in the use of the mesoamerican ethnohistorical sources. It will take some time to find the quotes but they are there. Instead of an POV-tag you should insert [citation needed]-tags. The citations will come.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As long as the article states the lie that the Spanish killed Moctezuma it will be POV and unencyclopedic. We have to check out how Britannica and other encyclopedias recount these events and maybe follow their lead. —Cesar Tort 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you know which of the versions is a lie? There are no lies and truthes in the work with historical sources just different versions. If the article were to state that one version was a fact then that would be a bias. Thats not what it does at present.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "There are many different accounts of what next occurred. It seems that Alvarado feared for the safety of the Spanish forces, and thought the Aztecs were planning an attack. However, this is unlikely as the..." (my bold type) —Cesar Tort 05:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It proceeds to decribe several alternative scenarios, particularly focusing on the spanish accunts. Furthermore the sentence you find POV only states that the warriors dressed in regalia were unlikely to be used for a planned attack since they were unarmed for battle. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let’s wait and see if other editors think that the section needs to clarify such matters. In my opinion the Encyclopaedia Britannica quoted below is a good example of NPOV writing in this controversial topic. —Cesar Tort 07:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. As the author of this article, I will make whatever changes necessary for it to be unbiased and well cited.
I can see my citation methods were not correct; I only listed a full citation at the end of the article, but had no in-text citations. The original author(s)used footnotes as their method for in-text citation, but I wasn't sure if this was just for important additional info they wanted to provide. In my article, I tried to incorporate important points from the old article while "fleshing it out" a little more and providing some more details (I did not just erase the old "Siege of Tenochtitlan" article and put in something completely new), so when I posted my full citation at the end of the article, I just added it to what was already there. The first four books under secondary sources were added by me, while the original author and myself both made use of The Broken Spears. I, too, also used PBS's Conquistadors website, Conquistadors, with Michael Wood. In any case, it seems like I need to completely overhaul the article's full text citation (since some of the information used and cited by the original author may not still be in the article, in which case the source could be removed from the bibliography) and provide in-text citations, which should help clarify some of the contested portions of the article. I looked at the Wikipedia guide for citations, and I feel like Harvard referencing would be the best way for me to show where everything in my article came from. If that method sounds acceptable, I will go through the article ASAP and cite everything...though I think I will need to reread the Wikipedia manual for citations!
As to the concern that my article is biased, I can see that language like "it is not unlikely," etc. are not the most impartial way of stating the facts. I can go through and change that sort of language if that would be helpful. I really did try to provide both sides of the major issues, such as the death of Moctezuma, and the sources I used to write the article were also unbiased. None of the ideas are mine own OR; I simply gathered information from multiple sources and organized it. Thanks again for being patient with me, and I will try to make any important changes suggested ASAP! MRB15 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I added my in-text citations, so hopefully that should clear up any doubts about OR. I tried to clean up the language to make the POV section a little more clear and impartial. However, as I have not read works that focus more on the Spanish perspective, such as Diaz's or Thomas's works, and might not be able to do so for some time, maybe if anyone else wants to add more detail about the Spanish perspective to make the article present both sides better, that would be a good solution, since I know there is some concern that my revisions side too much with the Indians. I did feel, though, that Hassig's book was a good, twentieth-century, unbiased analysis of the events that unfolded. MRB15 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica’s NPOV articles[edit]

I am copying and pasting excepts from Britannica’s 2007 articles “History of Latin America” and the full article on “Montezuma”. As you can see, a NPOV encyclopedia doesn’t lean toward the Aztecs’ account: it just mentions both sources, as wikipedians should do:

History of Latin America[edit]

Moving inland, the invaders encountered the second power of the region, the Tlaxcalans. Tlaxcala briefly engaged the Spaniards in battle but, suffering heavy losses, soon decided to ally with them against their traditional enemy, the Aztec. As the Spaniards moved on toward Tenochtitlán, many of the local subordinate states (altepetl) also came to terms. Even in Tenochtitlán itself fighting did not ensue immediately; the Spaniards as usual seized the cacique (that is, the king of Tenochtitlán, often called the Aztec emperor, Montezuma or Moteucçoma) and began to exercise authority through him.

The expected secondary reaction was not long in coming, and fighting broke out in the capital. At this point the most unusual part of the process began, for Tenochtitlán was on an island in the midst of a lake, shot through with canals and extensively built up. Here the Spaniards lost much of their usual advantage. They were forced from Tenochtitlán with severe casualties. Although they retained their superiority in the open country, they had to retire to Tlaxcala, accumulate reinforcements, and then come back to Tenochtitlán to carry out a unique full-scale siege, including the use of European-style vessels with cannon on the lake. After four months the Spaniards captured the Aztec capital and began turning it into their own headquarters as Mexico City.

Montezuma II[edit]

born 1466

died , c. June 30, 1520, Tenochtitlán, near modern Mexico City also spelled Moctezuma ninth Aztec emperor of Mexico, famous for his dramatic confrontation with the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés. In 1502 Montezuma succeeded his uncle Ahuitzotl as the leader of an empire that had reached its greatest extent, stretching to what is now Honduras and Nicaragua, but that was weakened by the resentment of the subject tribes to the increasing demands for tribute and victims for the religious sacrifices. Although Montezuma was commander of the army and organized extensive expeditions of conquest, he was also profoundly influenced by his belief in the god, Huitzilopochtli. Through astrologers, the god instilled in the Emperor a kind of fatalism in the face of an uncertain future. The Aztecs feared and expected the return of Quetzalcóatl, the white, bearded god who would rule over the empire. Instead, the white, bearded Cortés arrived; he was aware of this fear and used it to his advantage in his expedition across Mexico. Montezuma tried to buy off Cortés, but the Spaniard made alliances with those subject tribes who hated Aztec rule. Welcomed into the capital city of Tenochtitlán by Montezuma, Cortés realized it was a trap and, instead, made the Emperor his prisoner, knowing that the Aztecs would not attack as long as he held Montezuma captive. Montezuma's submission to the Spaniards, however, had eroded the respect of his people. According to Spanish accounts, he attempted to speak to his subjects and was assailed with stones and arrows, suffering wounds from which he died three days later. The Aztecs, however, believed the Spaniards had murdered their emperor, and Cortés' force was nearly destroyed as it tried to sneak out of Tenochtitlán at night.

("Montezuma II." from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite, 2007).

Cesar Tort 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two sides to every story[edit]

This is an Amazon book review by Tiddlywinks of Bernal Díaz’s book. [4] :

Cesar Tort 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In-text Citations[edit]

I just finished going through the article and putting in footnotes and trying to clear up some language for POV. However, when I saved my changes, only half my article appeared, cutting off around "The Aztec Revolt." Why would this happen, especially when the complete article was still in the edit box? In any case,I reverted the article to the complete version without foot-notes and saved my changes in a file on my hard drive, so the in-text citations are still ready for me to post them...I just want all of my article to be there when I do! Any ideas on why this would happen? I'll take another look myself, too. MRB15 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi MRB15. It happened because you mispelled an endnote. It happened to me when I was a newbie in WP. Just use the preview button lots of times until you learn the trick. —Cesar Tort 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! All set! MRB15 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Tag removed. Now please take a look at Hugh Thomas's Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés and the Fall of Old Mexico (1994). He feels much respect for Latinamerican cultures. —Cesar Tort 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strength and casualties on the Spanish-native allies side[edit]

This section needs citations... the numbers are wrong. Alva Ixtlilxóchitl (descendant of the Tezcocan king Ixtlilxóchitl, allied to Cortez), in his narration of the Conquest says:

"Murieron de la parte de Ixtlilxóchitl y reino de Tezcoco más de treinta mil hombres, de más de doscientos mil que fueron de la parte de los españoles, como se ha visto; de los mexicanos murieron más de doscientos cuarenta mil, y entre ellos casi toda la nobleza mexicana, pues que apenas quedaron algunos señores y caballeros, y los más niños, y de poca edad."[5]

Accoding to this, the numbers increase in 200.000 texcocan allies, with 34.000 casualties between them (and this only in reference to the texcocans involved in the battle, nothing for the tlaxcalan and other native allies), while the aztec casualties are in the range of 240.000.

Also, there is no reference in the article's table to the spanish casualties in the Conquest which are estimated at least various hundreds (some fonts, like Prescott, gives near 500 just for La Noche Triste's spanish deaths) even to more than a thousand, what would not be rare, taking in account, for example, the reports of dozens of spaniards getting sacrificed during the conflict, even 53 (and four horses) in a single occasion...[6] --Ozomatli-Tepoztli 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sea war in the siege[edit]

I just included this aspect in the Strength box. It was necessary to mention them as they were the key for the spanish control of the lake and the isolation of Tenochtitlan by naval blockade. Their number (13) is widely known, so i think it's not necesary to give a citation. In the other hand, the aztec war canoes (acallis) were so relevant, for example in the Noche Triste's battle (as they give the aztecs the advantage of naval and land attack against the spaniards in the lake's causeways). War-acallis weren't simple standard canoes but major canoes which could transport 60 warriors over them... --Ozomatli-Tepoztli 04:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Just added what happened in Texcoco (in the Shifting alliances section). --Ozomatli-Tepoztli 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

metal shields?[edit]

There is a reference to the Spanish troops using metal shields. I was wondering if someone has a reference, of the quick research I've done I can only source references to leather covered shields. Is this a reference to bucklers or targes? Master z0b (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete link?[edit]

In the section "La Noche Triste and the Spanish flight to Tlaxcalan", the sub-heading refers to a "main article" on "Battle of Otumba". But the article Battle of Otumba contains essentially no content (and never did, see the revision history). SInce the section in question contains an adequate description of the Battle of Otumba, maybe that article (and the reference to it) should be deleted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"As this practice was generally not done in European warfare, it suggests that Cortés’s indigenous allies had more power over him than he suggested or he simply could not control them in the final days of the siege."[edit]

"Aztecs fled the city as the Spanish forces, primarily the Tlaxcalans, continued to attack even after the surrender, slaughtering thousands of the remaining civilians and looting the city. The Spanish and Tlaxcalans didn't spare women or children: they entered houses, stealing all precious things they found, raping and then killing women, stabbing children.[16] As this practice was generally not done in European warfare, it suggests that Cortés’s indigenous allies had more power over him than he suggested or he simply could not control them in the final days of the siege."

Not sure what the bolded passage is meant to mean. Which practice was not done in European warfare? Stealing? Raping? Killing everyone? Killing children? AnarchistMatt (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The passage means that after an enemy surrendered in European warfare there was generally no stealing, raping and killing. If this is true I think it needs a reference.

Dates in Julian Calendar[edit]

In this article the given dates like August 13, 1521, which does not have a citation, belongs to Julian Calendar since their source comes from Cortez or Bernal which at that time used the Julian Calendar, therefore all dates in this article have to be correlated with the Gregorian Calendar in used nowadays. [1] Olin233 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Final statement[edit]

"It is well accepted that Cortés’ indigenous allies, which may have numbered as many as 200,000 over the three-year period of the "conquest," were indispensable to his success. Their support was not acknowledged until much later, and they derived little benefit from their sacrifices, aside from being rid of the Aztecs."

Well, they got to keep their borders and autonomy under Spanish rule. That's why Tlaxcala is today Mexico's smallest state. I presume they also got other privileges compared to other natives, didn't they?--Menah the Great (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ For reference see FAMSI Date Conversion,