
Why was it believed that the Aztecs greeted Cortés as a deity? - benbreen
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/inventing-god
======
nestorD
My understanding, after reading the memoir of Bernal diaz Del Castillo[0] (who
was an eye witness of the conquest of Mexico), is that it was Montezuma II who
purposefully spread rumors saying that the conquistador were returning gods so
that people would stop fighting them and start trading with them.

It was not superstitious belief from ignorant savages, it was a political
move.

[0]: which I highly recommend, they are available on project Gutenberg for
free:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32474/32474-h/32474-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32474/32474-h/32474-h.htm)

~~~
freddie_mercury
> My understanding, after reading the memoir of Bernal diaz Del Castillo[0]
> (who was an eye witness of the conquest of Mexico)

Diaz's account was written 50 years after it had happened and is generally
considered by modern scholars to be of dubious accuracy and primarily intended
as a self-serving defense of his own wealth later in life.

As Adorno writes, "At issue were not the wars long since won or lost but
rather the rights to the rewards of conquest. Should royal grants to
conquistadores endure in perpetuity? Was it legitimate to enslave Indians when
they had not been captured as enemies in war? Did the natives of the Antilles
owe further royal or personal service to the Spaniards or should they be
allowed relief in order to rebuild their dwindling populations?"

The linked article has the benefit of 400 years of additional scholarship
beyond Diaz's account.

~~~
romaaeterna
> The linked article has the benefit of 400 years of additional scholarship
> beyond Diaz's account.

Scholarship on what documents? If you don't have new evidence, all you have is
every generation's new academic fads applied to the same old text. This isn't
Physics. Progress is unlikely.

~~~
freddie_mercury
The linked article discusses the additional documents beyond Diaz's account.

------
proc0
European technology was just that much more advanced. It's like joining a game
of Civ around turn 60 when your opponents have already researched, traded, and
discovered a bunch of tech. When your civilizations meet you will just not
have a chance. The whole mediterranean was a meeting grounds for dozens of
civilizations, if not more, where for millenia people traded goods and
technologies. It was really a matter of luck that the ancestors of the Aztecs
picked a far away land that was tough to farm and little animals to
domesticate, and no one else around to share information with.

------
ianai
That was a pretty good read. There may be lessons there for today - the power
of shared stories on social media and advertisement. Flood a communication
channel with a message that reinforces your political objectives and they
become seemingly almost inevitable.

------
627467
I'm surprised not to find any mention to the diseases brought by the
conquistadores.

Quick glance at literature seems to indicate a consensus on the outsized
importance of diseases in demographic changes in the Americas. Just over 100
years before the arrival of Cortés, Europe was going through similar epidemic
disaster with the Black Plague also brought through intercontinental contact
between people's. Then, the plague was also seen by many as divine
intervention.

While it does seem self serving to propagate the message that Europeans were
seen as gods it does not seem unusual for people to turn to religious
explanations when faced with existential threats.

edit: misspellings

~~~
jcranmer
The diseases do not appear to have been a particularly major factor in the
defeat of the Aztec Triple Alliance, mostly occurring after the polity had
already collapsed.

~~~
wayoutthere
Disease was indeed a huge factor, but like all imperial conquests, the
technology advantage (steel weapons / armor in this case) likely made the
biggest difference.

~~~
jcranmer
No, the biggest advantage was uniting all the disaffected neighbors to do the
dirty work of fighting the war. There were at least 80,000 native allies of
Cortes fighting the Aztecs, without whom the Spanish would have been
slaughtered.

Most imperial expansion in the New World tended to rely on "ally with my
neighbors' neighbors to defeat my neighbors, and now that my neighbors'
neighbors are now my neighbors, turn against them using _their_ neighbors" as
the primary strategy for expansion. The technological advantage is often
grossly overstated, especially since natives were eager buyers of European
military arms, and Europeans were eager sellers of them.

------
spanxx
According to [1], slaved population by Aztec was sacrificed by the thousands,
so I could see the slaved people treating the newcomers as gods, or more
likely liberators and joining them in the war against Aztec Empire.

[1] [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/feeding-gods-
hundred...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/feeding-gods-hundreds-
skulls-reveal-massive-scale-human-sacrifice-aztec-capital)

------
BlameKaneda
I feel like if I were an Aztec and came across a mysterious figure covered
from head to foot in silver plates and on top of a massive beast, I'd be
highly intimidated albeit curious as to what he was. If I saw him off the
creature and possibly out of the silver plates, then I'm not so sure that I'd
see him as a deity.

------
electrichead
Malcolm Gladwell also talked about it in the book "Talking to Strangers." It
revolved around a breakdown on communication between the two and assumptions
that they each had for the other.

------
trumbitta2
Wait, how come "teotl" shares a similar radix and meaning as "theos"?

~~~
bitwize
For the same reason the Aborigine word for "dog" is "dog" \-- it's just a
coincidence.

------
trevyn
For the same reason why children who have a near-death experience sometimes
report the “white light” as “meeting Santa Claus.”

An encounter occurred between people with vastly different levels of
technology and ability, and it was contextualized in the most comprehensible
way.

------
Svip
Because it makes the Conquistadors' conquests of the New World seem more
appetising? Because it downplays the indiscriminate conquering of the
Americas?

Spain commemorates the day Columbus discovered America as its national day, as
it ushered in a golden age for Spain, which is true enough. But with the
atrocities inflicted by Spain (along with the other European powers) on the
natives in the New World, it may have become harder to feel that such a moment
should be celebrated.

And tales that the Aztecs simply handed their lands to the Spanish, rather
than the Spanish conquering it, may help people feel a little less weary about
the celebration.

But I am merely speculation. Plenty of retelling of history tends to decorate
it as best possible (or omit the bad parts) for our side. In much the same
fashion, I'd imagine Austrian history classes simply stops in 1866.

~~~
werpon
Spaniard here. I don't think I've ever read or heard a sugarcoated version of
the conquest. In fact it's usually the opposite.

October 12 is indeed the day Columbus set foot on the New World and also our
national holiday, but I fail to see how it's different from other holidays
such as Thanksgiving.

~~~
saiya-jin
I would be _really_ surprised if you actually got raw version of history as it
happened at school. Very few countries actually admit properly their past
mistakes (Germany and WWII might be rather an exception).

Raw version would be somewhere along the lines of "our ancestors were among
the most horrible arrogant ignorant humans that ever lived if measured by the
amount of evil done unto the others, and we are deeply ashamed to be their
descendants". The fact that you actually celebrate Columbus' discovery as
national day strongly indicates against that.

I mean, go to places like Potosi in Bolivia to see all the horror and misery
caused by spanish slavers. 8 freaking million human beings were basically
butchered by spanish just in this one single spot to mine silver to make spain
richer. Not that it helped them in long run considering current state of
spanish economy.

~~~
spanxx
Do you have any sources of that? Claiming 8 million people were slaved is a
bit of stretch, don't you think?

~~~
saiya-jin
Literally the first thing that comes from google search of this. Plus they
claim this number when you are actually there in their museum dedicated
specifically to this horrible part of their history. Visited last year, some
'jobs' around smelting had survivability in mere weeks because of all the
toxicity.

Plus took a trip quite deep into the mines themselves. Imagine mountain that
is almost 4800m high, drilled through like a proper swiss emmental cheese
(they claim around 500 different entrances to tunnel system).

