What do you think?
Rate this book
When Montezuma Met Cortés: The True Story of the Meeting that Changed History
A dramatic rethinking of the encounter between Montezuma and Hernando Cortés that completely overturns what we know about the Spanish conquest of the Americas
On November 8, 1519, the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés first met Montezuma, the Aztec emperor, at the entrance to the capital city of Tenochtitlan. This introduction—the prelude to the Spanish seizure of Mexico City and to European colonization of the mainland of the Americas—has long been the symbol of Cortés’s bold and brilliant military genius. Montezuma, on the other hand, is remembered as a coward who gave away a vast empire and touched off a wave of colonial invasions across the hemisphere.
But is this really what happened? In a departure from traditional tellings, When Montezuma Met Cortés uses “the Meeting”—as Restall dubs their first encounter—as the entry point into a comprehensive reevaluation of both Cortés and Montezuma. Drawing on rare primary sources and overlooked accounts by conquistadors and Aztecs alike, Restall explores Cortés’s and Montezuma’s posthumous reputations, their achievements and failures, and the worlds in which they lived—leading, step by step, to a dramatic inversion of the old story. As Restall takes us through this sweeping, revisionist account of a pivotal moment in modern civilization, he calls into question our view of the history of the Americas, and, indeed, of history itself
On November 8, 1519, the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés first met Montezuma, the Aztec emperor, at the entrance to the capital city of Tenochtitlan. This introduction—the prelude to the Spanish seizure of Mexico City and to European colonization of the mainland of the Americas—has long been the symbol of Cortés’s bold and brilliant military genius. Montezuma, on the other hand, is remembered as a coward who gave away a vast empire and touched off a wave of colonial invasions across the hemisphere.
But is this really what happened? In a departure from traditional tellings, When Montezuma Met Cortés uses “the Meeting”—as Restall dubs their first encounter—as the entry point into a comprehensive reevaluation of both Cortés and Montezuma. Drawing on rare primary sources and overlooked accounts by conquistadors and Aztecs alike, Restall explores Cortés’s and Montezuma’s posthumous reputations, their achievements and failures, and the worlds in which they lived—leading, step by step, to a dramatic inversion of the old story. As Restall takes us through this sweeping, revisionist account of a pivotal moment in modern civilization, he calls into question our view of the history of the Americas, and, indeed, of history itself
560 pages, Hardcover
First published January 30, 2018
323 people are currently reading
2829 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Restall
33 books74 followersMatthew Restall is a historian of Colonial Latin America. He is an ethnohistorian and a scholar of conquest, colonization, and the African diaspora in the Americas. He is currently Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Latin American History and Anthropology, and Director of Latin American Studies, at the Pennsylvania State University. He is President of the American Society for Ethnohistory, a former editor of Ethnohistory journal, a senior editor of the Hispanic American Historical Review, editor of the book series Latin American Originals, and co-editor of the Cambridge Latin American Studies book series.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews
March 18, 2018
This book's mission is actually a very cool one: it exposes the story of "Montezuma welcoming Cortez as the reincarnation of Quetzalcoatl" as a long, storied fabrication that actually began with the confusion of the conquistadors themselves. Evidence is presented that Cortez was neither a hero nor a villain, but merely a quick-witted con man who was possibly putting a Quixotic spin on the events around him to his fellow conquistadors even as they wandered around in Tenochtitlan. The author also presents evidence that the real Spanish-Mexican War didn't start until long after Montezuma's fictional "surrender." The fact that the conquistadors themselves never really had any curiosity about the actual politics of their warfare attests to the persuasiveness of Cortez's narrative.
The basic idea of weaving in all our centuries of Cortez myth is also interesting at least in theory. The difficulty of establishing an origin for all the different aspects of the myth, and the questions of whether elaborations from centuries later might offer some insight on the real history, is reminiscent of the difficulties surrounding the story of Christ.
The problem is that while the author "presents evidence" and data as I have just said, the framing for that data which I have just offered is mine. In my opinion I've just offered a better summary of the book than it ever offers for itself. The author's own framing of Cortez and Monetzuma is extremely uninspiring and the entire book is a disaster of almost unreadable disorganization. There is no need to mention roller coasters or random news articles that come up in a Google search for Monetzuma. I think the author wanted to write for a popular audience but had completely forgotten how popular books work. Awful.
The basic idea of weaving in all our centuries of Cortez myth is also interesting at least in theory. The difficulty of establishing an origin for all the different aspects of the myth, and the questions of whether elaborations from centuries later might offer some insight on the real history, is reminiscent of the difficulties surrounding the story of Christ.
The problem is that while the author "presents evidence" and data as I have just said, the framing for that data which I have just offered is mine. In my opinion I've just offered a better summary of the book than it ever offers for itself. The author's own framing of Cortez and Monetzuma is extremely uninspiring and the entire book is a disaster of almost unreadable disorganization. There is no need to mention roller coasters or random news articles that come up in a Google search for Monetzuma. I think the author wanted to write for a popular audience but had completely forgotten how popular books work. Awful.
March 2, 2018
It's meticulously researched and Restall brings up some interesting ways in which to think about history, I'll give him that.
But if I had known the book was going to amount to a 350 page literature review with no real narrative to speak of (for example, the book starts with The Meeting, then shifts to pre-Cortez Aztec life, then jumps to Cortez's early life, then to Montezuma's death, then Cortez's legacy and later life then...you get the picture) I would have skipped it.
But if I had known the book was going to amount to a 350 page literature review with no real narrative to speak of (for example, the book starts with The Meeting, then shifts to pre-Cortez Aztec life, then jumps to Cortez's early life, then to Montezuma's death, then Cortez's legacy and later life then...you get the picture) I would have skipped it.
May 10, 2018
Likely a polarizing title. OK, back up. All stories of conquest are polarizing; victor writes the history, etc., until recent pushback has gotten more vanquished tales in print. Columbus / Cortés are taking their kickings these days. But this one is likely to create a rift between scholars of Mesoamerica and everybody else, not because of the content but the way it's put together.
The first third of the book is essentially a review of the literature; an apologia. It turns into the longest straw-man argument I can recall, largely because Restall focuses on the tellings of the tale of Montezuma from the late 1500s to approximately the early 20th century; I kept waiting for some recognition that more of us grew up listening to Neil Young's Cortez the Killer than have heard all the operatic renditions combined. But Neil (and virtually everyone else who has written about the conquest of the Aztecs in a negative light) has to wait until the second and later parts of the book (and then is dismissed as a romantic). Restall breezes past "the indigenes" who are demonizing Cortés with barely a nod. This guts the overall message of Part One, which argues that Cortés has been viewed as a romantic hero, at worst an anti-hero. But to do that, Restall's got to ignore the past half-century and it weakens his argument unbelievably.
He also has an annoying habit of putting the "why" ahead of the "what," often with a teaser that we'll get to that later. So he discusses Montezuma's death from a dozen angles before describing the events of his death; several outcomes of the arrival and stay of the conquistadors in Tenochtitlan are addressed dozens and dozens of pages before he describes how that took place; and he repeatedly discusses peoples' motives and legacies before he actually gets around to their biographies. (Malintzin / La Malinche appears throughout the book but her story is almost in the epilogue; he never actually does get around to detailing the Noche Triste or the details of the feud with Veracruz but gives each a couple of dozen glancing references.)
Which is why I suggest the book may be polarizing. Mesoamerican scholars don't need to be told what happened, so it's likely going to be less annoying for them to read than somebody like myself who only knows the story in broad strokes and picked this up hoping to learn more (still unclear on many details, thanks for asking).
And parts of it feel ... dishonest. One suspects that one of the reasons Restall has delayed the telling of some of the events is that the details are lost to history. Montezuma's death, for instance, is clouded by unreliable narrators on both sides. So setting out an unclear event and drawing a book's worth of conclusions from it would seem sketchy. But responding in detail to 500+ years of histories, romances, novels, paintings and sculptures ... there's plenty of grist for the mill. And then a couple of paragraphs of Restall's best (and convoluted) guess as to what happened.
Worse is the way he chooses data selectively while criticizing those who came before for doing the same thing. For example, the relative importance of the Spaniards in the fall of the Aztec empire varies from page to page. At one point, the Spaniards are a tiny percentage of an army, essentially a spare part of the regular Aztec calendar (which includes "war season" when the crops aren't due). A few pages later, and historians have failed to recognize just how large the invading army was. Which is it? Tiny or huge? Montezuma's pets or a rapacious horde?
Another, perhaps more telling, example is the chapter that ends with Cortés having achieved nothing -- because the "Dynastic Vine" proves Montezuma's family still ruled decades and decades after the conquistador died. It's immediately followed by a chapter that details the horror and ruin of total war brought to Mexico by the invaders. If the Aztecs were still in control, as Restall argues, why would they have turned over dozens of the daughters of the ruling classes to be sex slaves to the invaders, which Restall also argues. And why, if they had any power, was tribute flowing out of Mexico to Castile, instead of into Tenochtitlan from the surrounding countryside? And don't even get me started on the claim that the Aztecs didn't believe in human sacrifice -- right before describing how the Aztec would get all their captives stoned on hallucinogens and then ritually kill them and tear their hearts out, which Restall wants to call "executing." OK, execution by ritual murder and heart-cleaving. It's a fine point.
The true answer is still the simplest -- the Aztecs on the throne were puppets. Their beliefs included human sacrifice. Cortés probably did have his translator read the articles of surrender to Montezuma but the meaning likely changed by the time it went both directions through two translators -- the latter of whom would be familiar with the power of the huey tlatoani and who might well not have wanted to tell the emperor in so many words that it was time to hang 'em up and let the white man have his job. Nobody really knows how Montezuma died (although Restall's conclusion that the conquistadors showed the king to the combatants in order to get him killed by an Aztec seems far-fetched. It could just as easily have caused a huge rescue attempt by emotional subjects). That said, in Restall's defense, it was a bloody war of conquest, not a quick capitulation and Montezuma almost undoubtedly didn't just hand over the whole empire to Cortés just because he was such a charming fellow.
Look, it's an fascinating subject, and Restall's key point (Montezuma didn't abdicate, he was the huey tlatoani until he was the dead huey tlatoani. Long live the huey tlatoani!) is a valid one and well-made. And it's a good enough book that I've just bothered to write the guts of a decent college paper about it (sans footnotes because I have my degrees and I don't have to touch another style manual as long as I live, nyah-nyah-nyah). But in attempting to dismiss pretty much everything ever composed about Montezuma as "mythistory," Restall has written himself in circles. One dust jacket critic enthuses that Restall has changed the way history will be written. If this is the future of history, give me its past.
Two stars for a general reader; likely a must-read for Aztec academia.
PS What's with his hangup over the Angry Aztec jigsaw puzzle? Is he as concerned about the Rotten Romans and Awful Egyptians?
The first third of the book is essentially a review of the literature; an apologia. It turns into the longest straw-man argument I can recall, largely because Restall focuses on the tellings of the tale of Montezuma from the late 1500s to approximately the early 20th century; I kept waiting for some recognition that more of us grew up listening to Neil Young's Cortez the Killer than have heard all the operatic renditions combined. But Neil (and virtually everyone else who has written about the conquest of the Aztecs in a negative light) has to wait until the second and later parts of the book (and then is dismissed as a romantic). Restall breezes past "the indigenes" who are demonizing Cortés with barely a nod. This guts the overall message of Part One, which argues that Cortés has been viewed as a romantic hero, at worst an anti-hero. But to do that, Restall's got to ignore the past half-century and it weakens his argument unbelievably.
He also has an annoying habit of putting the "why" ahead of the "what," often with a teaser that we'll get to that later. So he discusses Montezuma's death from a dozen angles before describing the events of his death; several outcomes of the arrival and stay of the conquistadors in Tenochtitlan are addressed dozens and dozens of pages before he describes how that took place; and he repeatedly discusses peoples' motives and legacies before he actually gets around to their biographies. (Malintzin / La Malinche appears throughout the book but her story is almost in the epilogue; he never actually does get around to detailing the Noche Triste or the details of the feud with Veracruz but gives each a couple of dozen glancing references.)
Which is why I suggest the book may be polarizing. Mesoamerican scholars don't need to be told what happened, so it's likely going to be less annoying for them to read than somebody like myself who only knows the story in broad strokes and picked this up hoping to learn more (still unclear on many details, thanks for asking).
And parts of it feel ... dishonest. One suspects that one of the reasons Restall has delayed the telling of some of the events is that the details are lost to history. Montezuma's death, for instance, is clouded by unreliable narrators on both sides. So setting out an unclear event and drawing a book's worth of conclusions from it would seem sketchy. But responding in detail to 500+ years of histories, romances, novels, paintings and sculptures ... there's plenty of grist for the mill. And then a couple of paragraphs of Restall's best (and convoluted) guess as to what happened.
Worse is the way he chooses data selectively while criticizing those who came before for doing the same thing. For example, the relative importance of the Spaniards in the fall of the Aztec empire varies from page to page. At one point, the Spaniards are a tiny percentage of an army, essentially a spare part of the regular Aztec calendar (which includes "war season" when the crops aren't due). A few pages later, and historians have failed to recognize just how large the invading army was. Which is it? Tiny or huge? Montezuma's pets or a rapacious horde?
Another, perhaps more telling, example is the chapter that ends with Cortés having achieved nothing -- because the "Dynastic Vine" proves Montezuma's family still ruled decades and decades after the conquistador died. It's immediately followed by a chapter that details the horror and ruin of total war brought to Mexico by the invaders. If the Aztecs were still in control, as Restall argues, why would they have turned over dozens of the daughters of the ruling classes to be sex slaves to the invaders, which Restall also argues. And why, if they had any power, was tribute flowing out of Mexico to Castile, instead of into Tenochtitlan from the surrounding countryside? And don't even get me started on the claim that the Aztecs didn't believe in human sacrifice -- right before describing how the Aztec would get all their captives stoned on hallucinogens and then ritually kill them and tear their hearts out, which Restall wants to call "executing." OK, execution by ritual murder and heart-cleaving. It's a fine point.
The true answer is still the simplest -- the Aztecs on the throne were puppets. Their beliefs included human sacrifice. Cortés probably did have his translator read the articles of surrender to Montezuma but the meaning likely changed by the time it went both directions through two translators -- the latter of whom would be familiar with the power of the huey tlatoani and who might well not have wanted to tell the emperor in so many words that it was time to hang 'em up and let the white man have his job. Nobody really knows how Montezuma died (although Restall's conclusion that the conquistadors showed the king to the combatants in order to get him killed by an Aztec seems far-fetched. It could just as easily have caused a huge rescue attempt by emotional subjects). That said, in Restall's defense, it was a bloody war of conquest, not a quick capitulation and Montezuma almost undoubtedly didn't just hand over the whole empire to Cortés just because he was such a charming fellow.
Look, it's an fascinating subject, and Restall's key point (Montezuma didn't abdicate, he was the huey tlatoani until he was the dead huey tlatoani. Long live the huey tlatoani!) is a valid one and well-made. And it's a good enough book that I've just bothered to write the guts of a decent college paper about it (sans footnotes because I have my degrees and I don't have to touch another style manual as long as I live, nyah-nyah-nyah). But in attempting to dismiss pretty much everything ever composed about Montezuma as "mythistory," Restall has written himself in circles. One dust jacket critic enthuses that Restall has changed the way history will be written. If this is the future of history, give me its past.
Two stars for a general reader; likely a must-read for Aztec academia.
PS What's with his hangup over the Angry Aztec jigsaw puzzle? Is he as concerned about the Rotten Romans and Awful Egyptians?
June 10, 2025
La idea de esta obra, intentar explicar el errático comportamiento de Moctezuma que nos describen las fuentes de 1519-1520, me parece interesante, pero choca con las limitaciones de esas mismas fuentes. Lamentablemente, aunque es razonable suponer que el emperador azteca tenía motivos para actuar como lo hizo, estos nos son completamente desconocidos. Sospecho que influyeron razones de política interna, pero no deja de ser una conjetura.
El problema de esta publicación es que, de la misma manera que se dice que la naturaleza aborrece el vacío, Restall parece aborrecer no poder contar una historia. Se lanza a construir una complicada trama en la que todo responde a un complejo plan del Huēi Tlahtoāni, que juega a una especie de ajedrez tetradimensional que nadie es capaz de percibir, salvo el propio autor. Esto se encuentra con dos problemas principales. El primero es que construye todo esto sobre la nada; al carecer de información clara sobre el tema, Restall se lanza a una lectura selectiva de las fuentes. Según le conviene, las descarta en su totalidad o toma de ellas los fragmentos que le interesan. Esto ya sería una objeción importante, pero creo que la segunda es más seria: de toda esta construcción de un "brillante" plan que termina con su organizador muerto y su imperio destruido, la conclusión más evidente es que el pobre Moctezuma sería un completo idiota que destruyó la Triple Alianza a consecuencia de sus caprichos de coleccionista. Para esta defensa, es mejor quedarse con las críticas tradicionales.
La obra tiene aciertos, como enfatizar la política de los estados mesoamericanos: los conflictos internos en Tetzcuco, los de los tlaxcaltecas con la Triple Alianza, el mantenimiento de una autoridad Mexica sobre Tenochtitlán en las décadas siguientes, etc... Sin embargo, les da tanto peso y, al mismo tiempo, insiste en negarle todo protagonismo al mismo Cortés, que al final el texto afirma llegar a la conclusión de que no hubo tal conquista. Esto contradice los últimos capítulos sobre los terribles (y comprobados) efectos de esta sobre los pueblos de la región.
Por otra parte, este trabajo tiene un rasgo bastante común en las obras de historias "del relato": asume que el lector conoce los acontecimientos principales. Continuamente alude a hechos que no describe, por lo que quien aborde esta obra debería conocer mínimamente la cronología tradicional de la conquista; de lo contrario, mucho de lo que se menciona le resultará incomprensible.
Pese a todo, creo que Restall tiene el mérito de llamar la atención sobre aspectos menos conocidos (al menos a nivel popular) del período, por lo que es un complemento útil para el tema. Aunque, en mi opinión, lo hizo mucho mejor en su anterior obra: "Los siete mitos de la conquista española".
Mi conclusión sería que es un libro fallido, pero que falla de forma interesante, por lo que es una lectura que puede ser valiosa para los interesados en la Conquista, siempre que tengan un cierto conocimiento mínimo sobre el tema.
El problema de esta publicación es que, de la misma manera que se dice que la naturaleza aborrece el vacío, Restall parece aborrecer no poder contar una historia. Se lanza a construir una complicada trama en la que todo responde a un complejo plan del Huēi Tlahtoāni, que juega a una especie de ajedrez tetradimensional que nadie es capaz de percibir, salvo el propio autor. Esto se encuentra con dos problemas principales. El primero es que construye todo esto sobre la nada; al carecer de información clara sobre el tema, Restall se lanza a una lectura selectiva de las fuentes. Según le conviene, las descarta en su totalidad o toma de ellas los fragmentos que le interesan. Esto ya sería una objeción importante, pero creo que la segunda es más seria: de toda esta construcción de un "brillante" plan que termina con su organizador muerto y su imperio destruido, la conclusión más evidente es que el pobre Moctezuma sería un completo idiota que destruyó la Triple Alianza a consecuencia de sus caprichos de coleccionista. Para esta defensa, es mejor quedarse con las críticas tradicionales.
La obra tiene aciertos, como enfatizar la política de los estados mesoamericanos: los conflictos internos en Tetzcuco, los de los tlaxcaltecas con la Triple Alianza, el mantenimiento de una autoridad Mexica sobre Tenochtitlán en las décadas siguientes, etc... Sin embargo, les da tanto peso y, al mismo tiempo, insiste en negarle todo protagonismo al mismo Cortés, que al final el texto afirma llegar a la conclusión de que no hubo tal conquista. Esto contradice los últimos capítulos sobre los terribles (y comprobados) efectos de esta sobre los pueblos de la región.
Por otra parte, este trabajo tiene un rasgo bastante común en las obras de historias "del relato": asume que el lector conoce los acontecimientos principales. Continuamente alude a hechos que no describe, por lo que quien aborde esta obra debería conocer mínimamente la cronología tradicional de la conquista; de lo contrario, mucho de lo que se menciona le resultará incomprensible.
Pese a todo, creo que Restall tiene el mérito de llamar la atención sobre aspectos menos conocidos (al menos a nivel popular) del período, por lo que es un complemento útil para el tema. Aunque, en mi opinión, lo hizo mucho mejor en su anterior obra: "Los siete mitos de la conquista española".
Mi conclusión sería que es un libro fallido, pero que falla de forma interesante, por lo que es una lectura que puede ser valiosa para los interesados en la Conquista, siempre que tengan un cierto conocimiento mínimo sobre el tema.
May 15, 2021
Allow me to give to you the deafening bias that so stains every conclusion of this author that, after only a few pages, makes it difficult to see anything else:
Cortes = Bad
Honestly, this “dramatic rethinking of the encounter between Montezuma and Cortes” is a clear illustration of what is wrong with much of modern scholarship: That every single bit of history needs to be given a new look, not with the added variables of new evidence, but with the lens of modern palatability and modern sensibility.
Let’s be clear - Cortes is not a hero or an example that we wish for any person to emulate. However, Restall takes every possible angle through which one could possibly study Cortes and goes well past the realm of reason to try to make the case that this historical figure was a witless, gutless, murderous, and weak leader whose every historical accomplishment and notation is undeserved.
The personal bias against Cortes is so incredibly tone deaf that when, in Chapter 9, Restall makes a strangely out-of-place plea for partiality when looking at Cortes, I actually laughed out loud. I jokingly wondered if his editor felt the need to go rogue and try to save things with some kind of balance.
I have no issue with taking a fresh look at historical figures when new evidence grants us new perspective. One wonderful example of this is the new biography written about Grant by Ronald C. White Jr. - new conclusions as a result of new evidence. Restall foregoes the use of any kind of new evidence and simply assumes that all others who have given us any kind of perspective on Cortes have simply been wrong.
As for readability, this book was described by a critic as “readable” - a credit with which I, after reading all 560 pages, have to strongly disagree. The book’s path and paralleling to the historical storyline is chaotic and very difficult to follow.
When taking the time to write a review, I do like to find something an author did well. Restall’s chapter (12, I believe) on the issue of new world slavery in the aftermath of the Conquistadors appearing on the scene is easily the high water mark of this book. The style seems to shift for this chapter and the way it is written is compelling.
The problem is that in the very next chapter, Restall goes back into his strange journey through this character study and begins comparing this era of Spanish conquest with American atrocities in Vietnam. I would say that this is where it gets most bizarre, but the epilogue wants the microphone.
In the last gasp of his writing, this author comes straight out and promotes a work that Photoshops a Cortes-free account of the Spanish arrival. It baffles me how any person can take the most important character in this story, attempt to tell this story without him, and expect the world to see this retelling as remotely accurate. Restall’s interpretation (earlier in the book) of the meeting between Cortes and Montezuma is so poorly made that he returns to the meeting in the epilogue and tries to make another attempt at giving us a look at that moment that withholds any credit for Cortes (Montezuma was actually accepting the surrender of Cortes - what???).
The meeting between Cortes and Montezuma is one of history’s pivotal moments, one for which fresh evidence would serve fresh perspectives quite well. Restall’s lack of it, combined with a fierce and unveiled bias makes for a volume of historical interpretation that is not worth reading.
Cortes = Bad
Honestly, this “dramatic rethinking of the encounter between Montezuma and Cortes” is a clear illustration of what is wrong with much of modern scholarship: That every single bit of history needs to be given a new look, not with the added variables of new evidence, but with the lens of modern palatability and modern sensibility.
Let’s be clear - Cortes is not a hero or an example that we wish for any person to emulate. However, Restall takes every possible angle through which one could possibly study Cortes and goes well past the realm of reason to try to make the case that this historical figure was a witless, gutless, murderous, and weak leader whose every historical accomplishment and notation is undeserved.
The personal bias against Cortes is so incredibly tone deaf that when, in Chapter 9, Restall makes a strangely out-of-place plea for partiality when looking at Cortes, I actually laughed out loud. I jokingly wondered if his editor felt the need to go rogue and try to save things with some kind of balance.
I have no issue with taking a fresh look at historical figures when new evidence grants us new perspective. One wonderful example of this is the new biography written about Grant by Ronald C. White Jr. - new conclusions as a result of new evidence. Restall foregoes the use of any kind of new evidence and simply assumes that all others who have given us any kind of perspective on Cortes have simply been wrong.
As for readability, this book was described by a critic as “readable” - a credit with which I, after reading all 560 pages, have to strongly disagree. The book’s path and paralleling to the historical storyline is chaotic and very difficult to follow.
When taking the time to write a review, I do like to find something an author did well. Restall’s chapter (12, I believe) on the issue of new world slavery in the aftermath of the Conquistadors appearing on the scene is easily the high water mark of this book. The style seems to shift for this chapter and the way it is written is compelling.
The problem is that in the very next chapter, Restall goes back into his strange journey through this character study and begins comparing this era of Spanish conquest with American atrocities in Vietnam. I would say that this is where it gets most bizarre, but the epilogue wants the microphone.
In the last gasp of his writing, this author comes straight out and promotes a work that Photoshops a Cortes-free account of the Spanish arrival. It baffles me how any person can take the most important character in this story, attempt to tell this story without him, and expect the world to see this retelling as remotely accurate. Restall’s interpretation (earlier in the book) of the meeting between Cortes and Montezuma is so poorly made that he returns to the meeting in the epilogue and tries to make another attempt at giving us a look at that moment that withholds any credit for Cortes (Montezuma was actually accepting the surrender of Cortes - what???).
The meeting between Cortes and Montezuma is one of history’s pivotal moments, one for which fresh evidence would serve fresh perspectives quite well. Restall’s lack of it, combined with a fierce and unveiled bias makes for a volume of historical interpretation that is not worth reading.
August 9, 2018
Next year will be the 500th anniversary of Cortes's entrance into Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec peoples of Mesoamerica. Such a long span of time helps explain the story's blurring. Much of what we think we know of the Aztecs and the Spanish conquest of Mexico is wrong. Restall calls his history a revisionist one because he tries to correct the misperceptions and exaggerations which have grown from the various histories written about those events. He explains that those blurred lines are history.
In effect his book explains how the Cortes story has hurdled history to become mythohistory.
Restall doesn't tell the story chronologically until the end of the book. Nevertheless, all the essential elements are here as he spends time with the particular facts which make it up. So here are detailed discussions of Cortes's mission, the famous burning of the boats, who Marina, Cortes's Nahua translator/lover was, the politics of Mesoamerica and the politics of the Spanish, conquistador mentality, and much more. Most interesting and surprising is the description of what's perhaps the most famous event of the conquest, the moment on 8 Nov 1519 when Montezuma met Cortes on the causeway leading into the city situated on an island in what was then Lake Texcoco and how what the Spanish called a surrender was in fact a captivity. And how the 2-year war unfolded from the Aztec and Spanish misunderstanding of their respective cultures and intentions, resulting in, essentially, the destruction of both.
Restall excavates many layers of history and legend to get to the bedrock he calls the truth. Much of his history is explaining how the events of the past are remembered and chronicled in ways reflecting the agendas of the many factions involved. His history is a sifting through the inventions and inadvertent distortions and inevitable blanks in the record to get at the bedrock of what really happened. Restall writes, "I have had to describe the myth in detail, to expose history as mythistory, in order to bust it." His meditation on history and his retelling of the conquest of the Aztecs by Cortes and company is convincing, fascinating reading.
In effect his book explains how the Cortes story has hurdled history to become mythohistory.
Restall doesn't tell the story chronologically until the end of the book. Nevertheless, all the essential elements are here as he spends time with the particular facts which make it up. So here are detailed discussions of Cortes's mission, the famous burning of the boats, who Marina, Cortes's Nahua translator/lover was, the politics of Mesoamerica and the politics of the Spanish, conquistador mentality, and much more. Most interesting and surprising is the description of what's perhaps the most famous event of the conquest, the moment on 8 Nov 1519 when Montezuma met Cortes on the causeway leading into the city situated on an island in what was then Lake Texcoco and how what the Spanish called a surrender was in fact a captivity. And how the 2-year war unfolded from the Aztec and Spanish misunderstanding of their respective cultures and intentions, resulting in, essentially, the destruction of both.
Restall excavates many layers of history and legend to get to the bedrock he calls the truth. Much of his history is explaining how the events of the past are remembered and chronicled in ways reflecting the agendas of the many factions involved. His history is a sifting through the inventions and inadvertent distortions and inevitable blanks in the record to get at the bedrock of what really happened. Restall writes, "I have had to describe the myth in detail, to expose history as mythistory, in order to bust it." His meditation on history and his retelling of the conquest of the Aztecs by Cortes and company is convincing, fascinating reading.
July 24, 2019
Leer este libro justo el año cuando se cumplen 500 del inicio de la expedición de Cortés que terminaría con la Conquista de México fue algo bastante revelador.
Y es que conocemos mil historias sobre la Conquista: existe la visión pro-hispánica, la indigenista, la que aprendimos en la escuela, la visión que tiene la gente de otros países y otras más. Y al final, ¿cuál de todas es correcta? El principal problema es que la versión "oficial" (o al menos la más extendida) se encuentra tan llena de mentiras, malos entendidos, errores de interpretación y sobretodo, cargada hacia el lado español, que realmente se necesita revisar y analizar con otros ojos lo que pasó en esos días de 1519. Y es lo que intenta este libro.
Intentando dar una visión en donde se le despoja a Hernán Cortés de toda esa falsa aura de "Héroe de leyenda" y quitarle a Moctezuma de esa personalidad "cobarde y entreguista" que los ha distinguido a través de los tiempos, nos encontramos con que la historia de la Conquista y, sobre todo, la historia del Primer encuentro entre ambos, se vuelve en un juego complejo donde intervienen muchos personajes que antes veíamos como secundarios o con un papel muy distinto del que la historia tradicional les da.
Los mexicanos, como dobles herederos de la tradición mexica y española, deberíamos leer este libro para darnos cuenta de lo pobre que es nuestra visión sobre el origen de la conquista. No estoy diciendo que debemos creer ciegamente lo que dice Restall (al final, nadie puede saber la verdadera historia porque no existe suficiente material de la época) pero sí que debemos ser muchísimo más críticos con nuestras ideas preconcebidas al respecto.
Y es que conocemos mil historias sobre la Conquista: existe la visión pro-hispánica, la indigenista, la que aprendimos en la escuela, la visión que tiene la gente de otros países y otras más. Y al final, ¿cuál de todas es correcta? El principal problema es que la versión "oficial" (o al menos la más extendida) se encuentra tan llena de mentiras, malos entendidos, errores de interpretación y sobretodo, cargada hacia el lado español, que realmente se necesita revisar y analizar con otros ojos lo que pasó en esos días de 1519. Y es lo que intenta este libro.
Intentando dar una visión en donde se le despoja a Hernán Cortés de toda esa falsa aura de "Héroe de leyenda" y quitarle a Moctezuma de esa personalidad "cobarde y entreguista" que los ha distinguido a través de los tiempos, nos encontramos con que la historia de la Conquista y, sobre todo, la historia del Primer encuentro entre ambos, se vuelve en un juego complejo donde intervienen muchos personajes que antes veíamos como secundarios o con un papel muy distinto del que la historia tradicional les da.
Los mexicanos, como dobles herederos de la tradición mexica y española, deberíamos leer este libro para darnos cuenta de lo pobre que es nuestra visión sobre el origen de la conquista. No estoy diciendo que debemos creer ciegamente lo que dice Restall (al final, nadie puede saber la verdadera historia porque no existe suficiente material de la época) pero sí que debemos ser muchísimo más críticos con nuestras ideas preconcebidas al respecto.
October 6, 2019
Un interesante contraste de todas las historias que se escribieron de La Conquista durante La Conquista, y cómo fue la construcción de mitos y leyendas desde entonces. Es, por momentos, tedioso y algo repetitivo, pero vale muchísimo la pena.
March 31, 2024
When I picked this book up I wasn’t expecting it to be so radically anticolonialist 🔥🔥🔥🔥 Whew, what a cathartic read. If I knew how to insert gifs in my reviews I would add the Elmo with flames one.
The brilliance of this book is that Restall uses the same Spanish sources that everyone uses but gets a completely new history out of them. That being said, it’s not a perfect book.
I’ve seen several negative reviews that criticize its all-over-the-place structure or complain about the misleading title. I can’t fault any of those reviews 😅 The structure is, in fact, all over the place. The title is, in fact, misleading.
Here’s the thing: I think there are three books in this one book.
The first is about questioning the official narrative of the conquest by reframing our perspective of the mexica (aztecs). He uses the meeting of Cortés and Moctezuma as a focus point and he constantly comes back to “the meeting”, but the structure is not linear and he bounces around from different time periods, topics, primary sources, historians and even poems, paintings and operas.
(I know non linear narratives don’t work for everyone, but they really work for me).
The next section should be titled “Cortés Was An Ordinary Man”. Restall REALLY drills that point. Over and over and over. He doesn’t offer Cortés the same nuance that he offers Moctezuma, which I think hinders the amazing critical work of the first part of the book… Which is sad because I think it’s a very important read.
The repetition and jumping to conclusions of part 2 lost me for a bit, thankfully part 3 is also excellent.
The final part should be titled “Race war, genocide and slavery in Mesoamérica”. Wow. Conquest books never talk about this. Again, such an important read.
The epilogue made me want to cry. I don’t think I’d ever wanted to cry over a history book before 😅
In conclusion: Not perfect, definitely not perfect… Blew my mind anyway.
Would I recommend it as an introductory book to the topic? No. But if you have at least a vague idea about the story, definitely pick it up.
The brilliance of this book is that Restall uses the same Spanish sources that everyone uses but gets a completely new history out of them. That being said, it’s not a perfect book.
I’ve seen several negative reviews that criticize its all-over-the-place structure or complain about the misleading title. I can’t fault any of those reviews 😅 The structure is, in fact, all over the place. The title is, in fact, misleading.
Here’s the thing: I think there are three books in this one book.
The first is about questioning the official narrative of the conquest by reframing our perspective of the mexica (aztecs). He uses the meeting of Cortés and Moctezuma as a focus point and he constantly comes back to “the meeting”, but the structure is not linear and he bounces around from different time periods, topics, primary sources, historians and even poems, paintings and operas.
(I know non linear narratives don’t work for everyone, but they really work for me).
The next section should be titled “Cortés Was An Ordinary Man”. Restall REALLY drills that point. Over and over and over. He doesn’t offer Cortés the same nuance that he offers Moctezuma, which I think hinders the amazing critical work of the first part of the book… Which is sad because I think it’s a very important read.
The repetition and jumping to conclusions of part 2 lost me for a bit, thankfully part 3 is also excellent.
The final part should be titled “Race war, genocide and slavery in Mesoamérica”. Wow. Conquest books never talk about this. Again, such an important read.
The epilogue made me want to cry. I don’t think I’d ever wanted to cry over a history book before 😅
In conclusion: Not perfect, definitely not perfect… Blew my mind anyway.
Would I recommend it as an introductory book to the topic? No. But if you have at least a vague idea about the story, definitely pick it up.
June 8, 2023
A Ph.d thesis disguised as clever consumer nonfiction. Citation after citation, it is hard to read.
Not a history, but an argument that the commonly understood history of the Meeting is wrong and the Aztecs unfairly “stereotyped.” But the author undercuts his argument by failing to acknowledge basic facts. For example, in arguing that European estimates of sacrifice were exaggerated, he fails to acknowledge that, in fact, the Aztecs actually did conduct human sacrifice. He even prematurely argued that there was no evidence of widespread human sacrifice at the Tempo Mayor excavation when in 2018 archaeologists discovered just that, and the racks described by Cortez. He also is mad at “stereotypes “ about cannibalism in the Caribbean in the age of discovery and again fails to acknowledge that there was in fact cannibalism. So whatever argument he’s making is hard to digest because the author is engaging in the very “confirmation bias” he accuses of other historians in engaging.
Not a history, but an argument that the commonly understood history of the Meeting is wrong and the Aztecs unfairly “stereotyped.” But the author undercuts his argument by failing to acknowledge basic facts. For example, in arguing that European estimates of sacrifice were exaggerated, he fails to acknowledge that, in fact, the Aztecs actually did conduct human sacrifice. He even prematurely argued that there was no evidence of widespread human sacrifice at the Tempo Mayor excavation when in 2018 archaeologists discovered just that, and the racks described by Cortez. He also is mad at “stereotypes “ about cannibalism in the Caribbean in the age of discovery and again fails to acknowledge that there was in fact cannibalism. So whatever argument he’s making is hard to digest because the author is engaging in the very “confirmation bias” he accuses of other historians in engaging.
January 16, 2018
Matthew Restall certainly does his research. I find myself skipping parts, going ahead and then going back. This book should be of interest to any history buff. A whole different perspective on the Spanish invasion of Mexico. Not a quick read but very enlightening.
March 24, 2023
I read this back in December shortly after a trip to Mexico for a conference — a few days in Mexico City and a few days in Cholula — both locations being key places discussed in this book. For some reason, one of the most memorable things I encountered in this book was that a very large portion of what is now Mexico City used to be under a giant lake and the Spanish fucking drained the whole thing because floods were damaging colonial property (floods btw that were in large measure caused by Spanish deforestation). But so wild to me that so much of Mexico City that I walked through while visiting used to be under water back when it was called Tenochtitlan.
The book basically challenges the racist presumptions that Montezuma was a cowardly leader that cowed to colonial power and handed over his kingdom to Spanish conquistadors with little resistance. It is fascinating how Christian eschatology was projected onto Aztec spiritual narratives and divinities like Quetzalcoatl. Spanish conquistadors liked to imagine Indigenous peoples and rulers like Montezuma thought the conquistadors were gods incarnate. There is still a popular myth that Montezuma handed over power to Cortés because he was thought to be Quetzalcoatl incarnate that goes back to 16th century Spanish accounts which Restall finds rather improbable:
“A god named Quetzalcoatl was thus part of the pantheon of the Aztecs, associated in particular with the town of Cholollan (Cholula, a pilgrimage site for more than a millennium, with the world’s largest pyramid; it was devoted to Quetzalcoatl). Meanwhile, during the first decades after the Spanish invasion, two unrelated concepts began to circulate in Mexico and Europe: one was the idea, put into Montezuma’s mouth by Cortés when he wrote his account of the Meeting, that the Aztecs believed the descendants of ancient lords of the land would one day return to claim their kingdom; the other was the idea, first written down by Durán, that St. Thomas reached Mexico and preached there in ancient times.
By the late sixteenth century, the first of these had merged with the tale of Quetzalcoatl’s return. It is significant that the linking of the two stories had not been made by the conquistadors; Cortés never once mentions Quetzalcoatl in his writings of the 1520s and ’30s, and Gómara’s mention of Quetzalcoatl follows Tapia, who only refers to him as a man-god founder of Cholollan who wore a white robe covered in red crosses and who banned human sacrifice. Despite this incipient Christianization of the god by the 1540s, it was not until Sahagún compiled his Historia a few decades later that the legends of the returning lords and of Quetzalcoatl’s return were merged into one (“They say he lives, and will return and reign . . . and when don Fernando Cortés came, they thought he was him”).”
When visiting the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, just outside the Chapultepec zoo and garden, I had a chance to see a reconstruction of the exterior of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent which depicts Quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent divinity, to which the pyramids at Cholula are also dedicated to).
Contrary to the common narrative of Montezuma’s fear of Cortés as Quetzalcoatl incarnate, Restall’s argument in this book is that actually Cortés and his contingent were brought into Tenochtitlan as a new addition to his imperial zoo — the Spaniards were in fact an exotic species that Montezuma proudly added to his impressive collection of captive fauna. Restall writes that eventually:
“Of course, the Aztec genesis of the modern zoo was soon forgotten; the concept became seen as a European invention. Those courtly menageries evolved in the eighteenth century into a handful of public, urban zoos, the earliest of which was in Vienna (from 1752). Zoos then opened across European capitals in the early nineteenth century (starting in Paris in 1793), spreading to North America with the founding in 1859 of the Philadelphia Zoo (which labels itself “America’s First Zoo,” with nary a nod to Montezuma). The concept eventually returned to Mexico City with the opening of the zoo in Chapultepec in 1924.”
The book also pushed back against the racist justifications for colonialism that the Spanish propagated about how the Indigenous peoples of this area were a supposedly blood-thirsty group committing large-scale human sacrifices. Restall doesn’t deny that state sanctioned violence occurred in these societies, but only that it is highly unlikely they were any more violent than most other societies of that size, and almost certainly not as violent as European colonial powers. Oon the legacy of Cortés, Restall writes:
“Over the last two centuries, Mexicans have sought to come to terms with the Conquest and Spanish colonialism as part of the process of forging a national identity. This process has been a complex political and cultural one, and is still very much ongoing, articulated in sophisticated terms by generations of intellectual figures from Lucas Alamán to José Vasconcelos, from Eulalia Guzmán to Octavio Paz. Along the way, Cortés has been tossed back and forth, denounced and defended in numerous ways, but in the end persisting as a highly ambiguous figure. Even the great muralists of the Mexican Revolution gave him varying treatment, from Diego Rivera’s deformed and syphilitic Cortés to the naked Cortés elevated by José Clemente Orozco into the Adam of a Mexican genesis. On the five hundredth anniversary of Cortés’s birth, Paz commented on the paradox of Mexican feelings toward the conquistador as both violator and founder: “hatred of Cortés is not even hatred of Spain. It’s hatred of ourselves.”
Though Cortés is remembered as a ‘great’ figure, in terms of influence, Restall argues in his time he was a rather insignificant and peripheral figure who tried to project his greatness and influence at times, often to little effect. The mundane and peripheral initiatives he was involved in later in his life suggest he was not as admired a figure as he later came to be in both Spanish, American, and Mexican imaginations.
One of the other fascinating details of this book was about Cortés’ time in Cuba. It’s strange the Taino people are so often written about in the past tense when there are communities that strongly assert their Taino identity and records show that they were brought as enslaved persons to different places, including from Cuba to Mexico by Spanish conquistadors like Cortés (who fathered a child with a Taino woman later Christianized as Leonor Pizarro). It is interesting that Cortés as a figure of Spanish colonialism connects Cuba to Cholula and then Mexico City, and it is revolutionaries like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara who connect Mexico City to Cuba centuries later as they navigated on the Granma into Cuba to overthrow the Batista regime. As far as stories of advent and eschatology go, I’m much more interested in those of liberation than subjugation, but it’s also important to understand these histories of oppression to understand where present oppressive structures come from and what we can collectively do about it.
The book basically challenges the racist presumptions that Montezuma was a cowardly leader that cowed to colonial power and handed over his kingdom to Spanish conquistadors with little resistance. It is fascinating how Christian eschatology was projected onto Aztec spiritual narratives and divinities like Quetzalcoatl. Spanish conquistadors liked to imagine Indigenous peoples and rulers like Montezuma thought the conquistadors were gods incarnate. There is still a popular myth that Montezuma handed over power to Cortés because he was thought to be Quetzalcoatl incarnate that goes back to 16th century Spanish accounts which Restall finds rather improbable:
“A god named Quetzalcoatl was thus part of the pantheon of the Aztecs, associated in particular with the town of Cholollan (Cholula, a pilgrimage site for more than a millennium, with the world’s largest pyramid; it was devoted to Quetzalcoatl). Meanwhile, during the first decades after the Spanish invasion, two unrelated concepts began to circulate in Mexico and Europe: one was the idea, put into Montezuma’s mouth by Cortés when he wrote his account of the Meeting, that the Aztecs believed the descendants of ancient lords of the land would one day return to claim their kingdom; the other was the idea, first written down by Durán, that St. Thomas reached Mexico and preached there in ancient times.
By the late sixteenth century, the first of these had merged with the tale of Quetzalcoatl’s return. It is significant that the linking of the two stories had not been made by the conquistadors; Cortés never once mentions Quetzalcoatl in his writings of the 1520s and ’30s, and Gómara’s mention of Quetzalcoatl follows Tapia, who only refers to him as a man-god founder of Cholollan who wore a white robe covered in red crosses and who banned human sacrifice. Despite this incipient Christianization of the god by the 1540s, it was not until Sahagún compiled his Historia a few decades later that the legends of the returning lords and of Quetzalcoatl’s return were merged into one (“They say he lives, and will return and reign . . . and when don Fernando Cortés came, they thought he was him”).”
When visiting the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City, just outside the Chapultepec zoo and garden, I had a chance to see a reconstruction of the exterior of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent which depicts Quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent divinity, to which the pyramids at Cholula are also dedicated to).
Contrary to the common narrative of Montezuma’s fear of Cortés as Quetzalcoatl incarnate, Restall’s argument in this book is that actually Cortés and his contingent were brought into Tenochtitlan as a new addition to his imperial zoo — the Spaniards were in fact an exotic species that Montezuma proudly added to his impressive collection of captive fauna. Restall writes that eventually:
“Of course, the Aztec genesis of the modern zoo was soon forgotten; the concept became seen as a European invention. Those courtly menageries evolved in the eighteenth century into a handful of public, urban zoos, the earliest of which was in Vienna (from 1752). Zoos then opened across European capitals in the early nineteenth century (starting in Paris in 1793), spreading to North America with the founding in 1859 of the Philadelphia Zoo (which labels itself “America’s First Zoo,” with nary a nod to Montezuma). The concept eventually returned to Mexico City with the opening of the zoo in Chapultepec in 1924.”
The book also pushed back against the racist justifications for colonialism that the Spanish propagated about how the Indigenous peoples of this area were a supposedly blood-thirsty group committing large-scale human sacrifices. Restall doesn’t deny that state sanctioned violence occurred in these societies, but only that it is highly unlikely they were any more violent than most other societies of that size, and almost certainly not as violent as European colonial powers. Oon the legacy of Cortés, Restall writes:
“Over the last two centuries, Mexicans have sought to come to terms with the Conquest and Spanish colonialism as part of the process of forging a national identity. This process has been a complex political and cultural one, and is still very much ongoing, articulated in sophisticated terms by generations of intellectual figures from Lucas Alamán to José Vasconcelos, from Eulalia Guzmán to Octavio Paz. Along the way, Cortés has been tossed back and forth, denounced and defended in numerous ways, but in the end persisting as a highly ambiguous figure. Even the great muralists of the Mexican Revolution gave him varying treatment, from Diego Rivera’s deformed and syphilitic Cortés to the naked Cortés elevated by José Clemente Orozco into the Adam of a Mexican genesis. On the five hundredth anniversary of Cortés’s birth, Paz commented on the paradox of Mexican feelings toward the conquistador as both violator and founder: “hatred of Cortés is not even hatred of Spain. It’s hatred of ourselves.”
Though Cortés is remembered as a ‘great’ figure, in terms of influence, Restall argues in his time he was a rather insignificant and peripheral figure who tried to project his greatness and influence at times, often to little effect. The mundane and peripheral initiatives he was involved in later in his life suggest he was not as admired a figure as he later came to be in both Spanish, American, and Mexican imaginations.
One of the other fascinating details of this book was about Cortés’ time in Cuba. It’s strange the Taino people are so often written about in the past tense when there are communities that strongly assert their Taino identity and records show that they were brought as enslaved persons to different places, including from Cuba to Mexico by Spanish conquistadors like Cortés (who fathered a child with a Taino woman later Christianized as Leonor Pizarro). It is interesting that Cortés as a figure of Spanish colonialism connects Cuba to Cholula and then Mexico City, and it is revolutionaries like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara who connect Mexico City to Cuba centuries later as they navigated on the Granma into Cuba to overthrow the Batista regime. As far as stories of advent and eschatology go, I’m much more interested in those of liberation than subjugation, but it’s also important to understand these histories of oppression to understand where present oppressive structures come from and what we can collectively do about it.
May 27, 2021
A rich and skeptical history of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. The book isn’t really a dual biography; it mostly looks at how their cultures interacted and how the story of their meeting evolved over time.
Restall’s work is pretty revisionist, and he presents some theories in the book, but as the narrative goes on, he seems to refer to these theories as if they are established fact. He makes a big deal out of the question of whether or not Montezuma “surrendered” to Cortés. Montezuma did allow him into the city, but did he really surrender? You might not think this question is very important to the story of Cortés’ conquest, but Restall will let you know over and over again how interested he is in this pet obsession of his. Among some of Restall’s “revelations” are the conquistador’s greed (you don’t say) and Cortés’ self-promotion (who would have guessed?)
Restall doesn’t seem to think much of Cortés; in this book he comes off as second-rate con man who was easy to manipulate, but this portrait isn’t entirely convincing (although it is true that Cortés spent the rest of his life dealing with lawsuits, official investigations, and other people’s accusations) Restall devotes a lot of space to the Spaniards’ native allies, but he also downplays the role of the Spanish in the Aztec collapse; maybe this is why he basically ignores the question of how the Spanish managed to defeat and enslave so many natives and build a whole empire out of their land. Also, it seems like Restall tries to downplay the importance of human sacrifice to the Aztecs, despite the large scale of it in that society.
The narrative itself can also get a little convoluted or redundant, however.The writing can get a bit dry, and Restall’s theories can get a little boring. Still, a well-researched and mostly readable work.
Restall’s work is pretty revisionist, and he presents some theories in the book, but as the narrative goes on, he seems to refer to these theories as if they are established fact. He makes a big deal out of the question of whether or not Montezuma “surrendered” to Cortés. Montezuma did allow him into the city, but did he really surrender? You might not think this question is very important to the story of Cortés’ conquest, but Restall will let you know over and over again how interested he is in this pet obsession of his. Among some of Restall’s “revelations” are the conquistador’s greed (you don’t say) and Cortés’ self-promotion (who would have guessed?)
Restall doesn’t seem to think much of Cortés; in this book he comes off as second-rate con man who was easy to manipulate, but this portrait isn’t entirely convincing (although it is true that Cortés spent the rest of his life dealing with lawsuits, official investigations, and other people’s accusations) Restall devotes a lot of space to the Spaniards’ native allies, but he also downplays the role of the Spanish in the Aztec collapse; maybe this is why he basically ignores the question of how the Spanish managed to defeat and enslave so many natives and build a whole empire out of their land. Also, it seems like Restall tries to downplay the importance of human sacrifice to the Aztecs, despite the large scale of it in that society.
The narrative itself can also get a little convoluted or redundant, however.The writing can get a bit dry, and Restall’s theories can get a little boring. Still, a well-researched and mostly readable work.
September 28, 2018
wow
eye opener shedding away all the legends
genocide to the tenth power
no spoiler alerts here--
The author brilliant detective work--
eye opener shedding away all the legends
genocide to the tenth power
no spoiler alerts here--
The author brilliant detective work--
September 14, 2018
Interesantísimo libro que desmitifica los hechos alrededor de la conquista de México.
Basado mucho en la lógica y en una profunda investigación, Restall trata de discernir cómo debieron suceder los eventos que llevaron a la conquista de México, haciendo un énfasis especial en desmentir la pobre visión que se tiene de Moctezuma y la desproporcionadas reacciones (algunas muy positivas y otras muy negativas) sobre la figura de Cortés.
Básicamente llega a la conclusión de que Moctezuma fue un gran tlatoani, que nunca se rindió ni temió a los españoles, y que por el contrario hizo todo lo posible por someterlos (coleccionarlos es su teoría), mientras que Cortés jamás tuvo control de nada, y fue más bien un militar común cuyas hazañas se debieron a otras personas y factores más que a méritos propios. La conquista no fue una campaña ordenada y estructurada, sino dos años de guerra y genocidio entre las poblaciones indígenas promovida por los españoles.
El gran problema del libro es que no es una lectura fácil. Restall incluye demasiadas referencias y se pone demasiado académico por momentos, además de que no hay una narrativa bien establecida y saltamos de un tema a otro sin mucho orden. Intenta hacer un libro para todo público, pero se le olvidan los detalles que hacen que estos libros funcionen. Así que uno arrastra bastante los pies para llegar a las conclusiones, y tiene que unir las piezas de información regada por todos lados. Me tardé bastante en terminarlo.
Aún así, se trata de información y conclusiones muy interesantes. A mí me gusta mucho la historia de las culturas prehispánicas y la de la conquista, y este libro me ha abierto los ojos a muchos hechos y contradicciones de los que estaba consciente, pero que nunca había profundizado.
Lectura obligada para quienes gustan de esta etapa de la historia de México.
Basado mucho en la lógica y en una profunda investigación, Restall trata de discernir cómo debieron suceder los eventos que llevaron a la conquista de México, haciendo un énfasis especial en desmentir la pobre visión que se tiene de Moctezuma y la desproporcionadas reacciones (algunas muy positivas y otras muy negativas) sobre la figura de Cortés.
Básicamente llega a la conclusión de que Moctezuma fue un gran tlatoani, que nunca se rindió ni temió a los españoles, y que por el contrario hizo todo lo posible por someterlos (coleccionarlos es su teoría), mientras que Cortés jamás tuvo control de nada, y fue más bien un militar común cuyas hazañas se debieron a otras personas y factores más que a méritos propios. La conquista no fue una campaña ordenada y estructurada, sino dos años de guerra y genocidio entre las poblaciones indígenas promovida por los españoles.
El gran problema del libro es que no es una lectura fácil. Restall incluye demasiadas referencias y se pone demasiado académico por momentos, además de que no hay una narrativa bien establecida y saltamos de un tema a otro sin mucho orden. Intenta hacer un libro para todo público, pero se le olvidan los detalles que hacen que estos libros funcionen. Así que uno arrastra bastante los pies para llegar a las conclusiones, y tiene que unir las piezas de información regada por todos lados. Me tardé bastante en terminarlo.
Aún así, se trata de información y conclusiones muy interesantes. A mí me gusta mucho la historia de las culturas prehispánicas y la de la conquista, y este libro me ha abierto los ojos a muchos hechos y contradicciones de los que estaba consciente, pero que nunca había profundizado.
Lectura obligada para quienes gustan de esta etapa de la historia de México.
July 14, 2019
De este libro lo único que sabía era el título y que la edición en español salía a finales de mayo de 2019. Pensé que trataría sobre todo el proceso de la Conquista, pero no, su título resume el contenido: documenta el Encuentro entre Moctezuma (o Montezuma) y Cortés. A partir de ese suceso Restall explica por qué debemos repensar lo que nos cuenta la historia tradicional que habla de una Rendición del emperador mexica ante el conquistador español.
De Cortés habla sobre la mitohistoria que se fue escribiendo sobre él desde el siglo XVI -se nota que no es su personaje favorito...-, tal vez como una forma de justificar las atrocidades cometidas con los pueblos indígenas.
En cuanto a Moctezuma... si aún viviera creo que le daría un fuerte y largo abrazo a Restall y le diría con un suspiro: “GRACIAS, por fin alguien me hace justicia”.
Me gustó que analice la historia no solo a partir de documentos escritos, sino también a través de pinturas y literatura de los siglos XVI a XXI.
Conviene leerlo en papel porque trae fotos a color, mapas y un árbol genealógico que apoyan demasiado la lectura.
Esperaré nuevos libros de otros autores sobre el mismo tema porque es muy pronto para que descarte los “mitos” que he aprendido desde la escuela primaria... aunque confieso que con gusto lo haría.
De Cortés habla sobre la mitohistoria que se fue escribiendo sobre él desde el siglo XVI -se nota que no es su personaje favorito...-, tal vez como una forma de justificar las atrocidades cometidas con los pueblos indígenas.
En cuanto a Moctezuma... si aún viviera creo que le daría un fuerte y largo abrazo a Restall y le diría con un suspiro: “GRACIAS, por fin alguien me hace justicia”.
Me gustó que analice la historia no solo a partir de documentos escritos, sino también a través de pinturas y literatura de los siglos XVI a XXI.
Conviene leerlo en papel porque trae fotos a color, mapas y un árbol genealógico que apoyan demasiado la lectura.
Esperaré nuevos libros de otros autores sobre el mismo tema porque es muy pronto para que descarte los “mitos” que he aprendido desde la escuela primaria... aunque confieso que con gusto lo haría.
May 31, 2018
Rethinking “the conquest of Mexico” from the native point of view—the “Spanish-Aztec War.” It’s fascinating but very tough because there is so little to go on from the Aztec side since they had no formal written language and records. And the Spanish preserved few if any memories of how things really were before their arrival, wiping it all clean. No religious texts, no history books, no philosophy treatises, no gossip and tales. No nothing. The truth will never be known. All irretrievably lost. Cultural genocide to go along with all the thorough rest. A great shame and pity.
March 20, 2021
This seems very well researched and academically rigorous. But that "true story" never actually makes it into any sort of narrative - it's mostly just a very convincing debunking of misconceptions. I was hoping to learn more about the Aztecs and contact, but instead I learned a lot about what *didn't* actually happen.
Also, I feel like an editor should have had a talk with the author about the number of quotes pasted onto the beginning of each chapter, and also the number of times the word "mythistory" is used.
Also, I feel like an editor should have had a talk with the author about the number of quotes pasted onto the beginning of each chapter, and also the number of times the word "mythistory" is used.
February 4, 2023
I’ve been reading Spanish history for 25 years, many different books obviously. This is one of the worst. I couldn’t even finish it. So there are some inaccuracies in the legend, wow that never happens! I’m sick of hearing how bad the conquistadors and Columbus were. In this day and age we all know that conquering other civilizations is wrong, and that their behavior was wrong. BUT THEY LIVED OVER 500 YEARS AGO! That’s the way the world was then. And also LONG before the Spanish were doing it! Say what you will about them, but it takes balls to attack huge empires with a handful of men.
July 18, 2020
I had high hopes that were dashed completely.
This reads like a history essay that’s desperately trying to hit a word count by meandering through distractions and sidebars hoping no one will notice the lack of substance. I couldn’t get past the first quarter of the book cause the author can’t get out of his own way.
This reads like a history essay that’s desperately trying to hit a word count by meandering through distractions and sidebars hoping no one will notice the lack of substance. I couldn’t get past the first quarter of the book cause the author can’t get out of his own way.
January 13, 2020
What if everything you heard about the Conquistor Hernando Cortés and the Aztec emperor Montezuma was incorrect? This book is a work of superb historical scholarship that goes against the grain of mainstream narrative that often glorify Cortés. In peeling back the myth we get closer to the truth of what actually happened in history between Cortés and the Aztecs. This book makes a strong case of how people even today have not look at him and his claims critically enough even by those who teach history.
For myself a fascinating part of the book is the looks at who the Aztec emperor name Montezuma was. I didn’t know much about him before the book. I thought it was interesting how the author documents Montezuma was a big collector and even had a zoo collection that show what he prized and control. From this observation author Robert Greenberger noted the proximity of where Montezuma placed the Spanish Conquistors near the zoo and argued that when Montezuma fed and provided shelter to these Europeans it wasn’t a concession of defeat but a way for Montezuma to say he has added them to his other collection of creatures, people and things and that he had them in order to further study them. The book talks about the myth of Aztec surrender in the beginning of Cortés trip. Even with this story we see that there’s a clash of two cultures when Cortés met Montezuma. I appreciated how the book document the way people communicated in Aztec court was formal and a characteristic of formal Aztec language was humility. Even as powerful a king as Montezuma cannot risk not being humble in which strengths are downplayed and even stated in terms of its opposite as weakness. This may have contributed to Cortés’ misunderstanding of Montezuma as weak or giving in to the Spaniards when it was otherwise.
Of course there is more documentary sources on Cortés than Montezuma and here the book gives us a less than flattering look of Cortés but the tone one gets from the author is not that this is a hit piece but the author wanting to peel back the layers of myths from the man. So much of the mainstream narrative paints Cortz as a great controller of his destiny but historical analysis reveal otherwise. Even in the beginning Cortés was not in charge as much as he thinks but he was appointed leader as a result of rivalries between various leaders and factions so the less remarkable Cortés was appointed. The book also made a point that Cortés was played by the indigenous peoples themselves against their traditional foes whether they be the Aztecs who used the Spaniards to fight their enemies or vice versa. Furthermore contrary to the popular idea that Cortés’ small forces conquered numerically superior native Americans with their technology and tactics the book goes over facts of how there were alliances with bigger native forces that brought about the huge bloodshed rather than it being inflicted by the Spaniards alone. Sixty to seventy percent of casualties was due to arrow wounds which indicates Cortés was not the superior military genius and tactician that the myths has made him out to be. Quite convincingly for me is the argument made by the author towards the end of the book that Cortés was not as exceptional and important as he thinks of himself. In his later years Cortés wanted to be made governor but was never appointed as one but instead as a mere captain and never got the lucrative financial fall out he was hoping to achieve with his adventure and exploration. Again the book is not a “hit piece” but was quite balanced and made the point that Cortés can bring brag about surviving when most people landing in North America did not at that time.
The book does discuss the darker side of the Conquistors. Readers must be advised that there’s the uncomfortable subject of rape and slavery. The author is not making conjectures here but looks at the archive record with details of conquests and booty acquired from fighting including records about “pretty women.” A lot of justification for imperialism and colonialism of the Aztecs and other people in America during that time is the fact that the people were pagans and participants of human sacrifice. The author makes it clear one don’t have to pick either/or and between the choice of military conquests and supporting the status quo of human sacrifice one doesn’t have to support either. That’s a good point that the author spelled out explicitly towards the end of the book in discussing about the legacy of Montezuma meeting Cortés.
Fascinating book and well researched historical work. I recommend it.
For myself a fascinating part of the book is the looks at who the Aztec emperor name Montezuma was. I didn’t know much about him before the book. I thought it was interesting how the author documents Montezuma was a big collector and even had a zoo collection that show what he prized and control. From this observation author Robert Greenberger noted the proximity of where Montezuma placed the Spanish Conquistors near the zoo and argued that when Montezuma fed and provided shelter to these Europeans it wasn’t a concession of defeat but a way for Montezuma to say he has added them to his other collection of creatures, people and things and that he had them in order to further study them. The book talks about the myth of Aztec surrender in the beginning of Cortés trip. Even with this story we see that there’s a clash of two cultures when Cortés met Montezuma. I appreciated how the book document the way people communicated in Aztec court was formal and a characteristic of formal Aztec language was humility. Even as powerful a king as Montezuma cannot risk not being humble in which strengths are downplayed and even stated in terms of its opposite as weakness. This may have contributed to Cortés’ misunderstanding of Montezuma as weak or giving in to the Spaniards when it was otherwise.
Of course there is more documentary sources on Cortés than Montezuma and here the book gives us a less than flattering look of Cortés but the tone one gets from the author is not that this is a hit piece but the author wanting to peel back the layers of myths from the man. So much of the mainstream narrative paints Cortz as a great controller of his destiny but historical analysis reveal otherwise. Even in the beginning Cortés was not in charge as much as he thinks but he was appointed leader as a result of rivalries between various leaders and factions so the less remarkable Cortés was appointed. The book also made a point that Cortés was played by the indigenous peoples themselves against their traditional foes whether they be the Aztecs who used the Spaniards to fight their enemies or vice versa. Furthermore contrary to the popular idea that Cortés’ small forces conquered numerically superior native Americans with their technology and tactics the book goes over facts of how there were alliances with bigger native forces that brought about the huge bloodshed rather than it being inflicted by the Spaniards alone. Sixty to seventy percent of casualties was due to arrow wounds which indicates Cortés was not the superior military genius and tactician that the myths has made him out to be. Quite convincingly for me is the argument made by the author towards the end of the book that Cortés was not as exceptional and important as he thinks of himself. In his later years Cortés wanted to be made governor but was never appointed as one but instead as a mere captain and never got the lucrative financial fall out he was hoping to achieve with his adventure and exploration. Again the book is not a “hit piece” but was quite balanced and made the point that Cortés can bring brag about surviving when most people landing in North America did not at that time.
The book does discuss the darker side of the Conquistors. Readers must be advised that there’s the uncomfortable subject of rape and slavery. The author is not making conjectures here but looks at the archive record with details of conquests and booty acquired from fighting including records about “pretty women.” A lot of justification for imperialism and colonialism of the Aztecs and other people in America during that time is the fact that the people were pagans and participants of human sacrifice. The author makes it clear one don’t have to pick either/or and between the choice of military conquests and supporting the status quo of human sacrifice one doesn’t have to support either. That’s a good point that the author spelled out explicitly towards the end of the book in discussing about the legacy of Montezuma meeting Cortés.
Fascinating book and well researched historical work. I recommend it.
March 14, 2021
This book is a well-researched revisionist history of the meeting between the Aztec emperor Montezuma and the Spanish Conquistador Hernando Cortez. Though this has a story that has been told and retold for 500 years, this book attempts to dissect and demystify the legend and mythology behind this traditional narrative. Indeed, after 500 years, the characters of Montezuma and Cortez are surely not who we think them to be.
This book makes a convincing argument that Cortez was not the great, esteemed, ambitious, larger than life adventurer praised and exalted in so many books, plays and movies. Nor was Montezuma the coward who gave away his empire upon first meeting the Spaniard, having mistaken him for a returned God. Indeed, reviewing the primary and secondary texts (which this book has quoted richly), these conclusions seem obvious. Why would a powerful emperor, known for conquering and subjugating many towns and peoples, submit his kingdom so readily to a stranger. Why should we take Cortes at his word, when his letters to the king of Spain are so obviously self-promoting and self aggrandizing? We shouldn't.
After reading this book, my understanding of the history of the conquest has been greatly expanded. Though perhaps some of the revisionist claims may be a little too fanciful (Montezuma was actually luring Cortes and his Spaniards so as to add them to the zoo collection in Tenochtitlan), the book does a good job of reviewing the historical documents to paint a more likely account of the encounter that changed the fate of the entire world. Cortes was a mediocre and very lucky man, with many enemies and a petty nature. Montezuma was a calculating, successful, and very unlucky man, also with many enemies. This book is not just the story of these two men, but also of the countless other people that contributed to and influenced the events that led up to the meeting, and the war of conquest and extermination that followed.
I was especially intrigued by the geopolitics of pre-conquest Mexico, of the political alliances and rivalries, and of the networks of trade and tribute. I give this book 3 stars only because it was a bit too heavy on quoting of historical documents, to the point of redundancy, from my perspective. It took a while to slog through the first chapters, which made the point of quoting, emphasizing, and reemphasizing how the traditional narrative of the meeting was told and retold for hundreds of years. The pace picked up in the second half, when the author began to retell the story from a more realistic and indigenous perspective. But even then it was hard to follow, just because the text is so dense with references and quotes. This book is well researched, though I found the narrative style difficult to follow. Nonetheless, it was informative and I would recommend to those interested in a sober, well-researched account of this most fateful of meetings.
This book makes a convincing argument that Cortez was not the great, esteemed, ambitious, larger than life adventurer praised and exalted in so many books, plays and movies. Nor was Montezuma the coward who gave away his empire upon first meeting the Spaniard, having mistaken him for a returned God. Indeed, reviewing the primary and secondary texts (which this book has quoted richly), these conclusions seem obvious. Why would a powerful emperor, known for conquering and subjugating many towns and peoples, submit his kingdom so readily to a stranger. Why should we take Cortes at his word, when his letters to the king of Spain are so obviously self-promoting and self aggrandizing? We shouldn't.
After reading this book, my understanding of the history of the conquest has been greatly expanded. Though perhaps some of the revisionist claims may be a little too fanciful (Montezuma was actually luring Cortes and his Spaniards so as to add them to the zoo collection in Tenochtitlan), the book does a good job of reviewing the historical documents to paint a more likely account of the encounter that changed the fate of the entire world. Cortes was a mediocre and very lucky man, with many enemies and a petty nature. Montezuma was a calculating, successful, and very unlucky man, also with many enemies. This book is not just the story of these two men, but also of the countless other people that contributed to and influenced the events that led up to the meeting, and the war of conquest and extermination that followed.
I was especially intrigued by the geopolitics of pre-conquest Mexico, of the political alliances and rivalries, and of the networks of trade and tribute. I give this book 3 stars only because it was a bit too heavy on quoting of historical documents, to the point of redundancy, from my perspective. It took a while to slog through the first chapters, which made the point of quoting, emphasizing, and reemphasizing how the traditional narrative of the meeting was told and retold for hundreds of years. The pace picked up in the second half, when the author began to retell the story from a more realistic and indigenous perspective. But even then it was hard to follow, just because the text is so dense with references and quotes. This book is well researched, though I found the narrative style difficult to follow. Nonetheless, it was informative and I would recommend to those interested in a sober, well-researched account of this most fateful of meetings.
February 13, 2023
Es un trabajo de investigación exhaustivo, basta ver la bibliografía y de todas las fuentes a las que recurrió Matthew Restall, probablemente miles de horas; Vale la pena la reconstrucción de la invasión de los españoles a tierras mexicanas, la invensión de las mitohistorias para poder justificar su invasión, su imposición religiosa, sus actos de piratería y la destrucción de una gran cultura desvirtuandola con exageraciones de los hechos, los sacrificios y canibalismo a tal punto de compararlo conel mismísimo infierno.
La mentira orignal creada por los conquistadores (piratas) y los padrecitos franciscanos lo hicieron de manera reiterativa a través de los siglos hasta que todo el mundo lo creyó.
Las prácticas europeas ironizan la matanza y genocidio de los pueblos Prehispánicos con los millones y millones de muertos en las grandes guerras por decisiones económicas y políticas y esto no es mas que irónico, hipócrita y etnocentrico.
Es por esto y más que se ha convertido en el mejor libro de este genero que he leído (ya llevo varios) en mi favorito; muy recomendable.
La mentira orignal creada por los conquistadores (piratas) y los padrecitos franciscanos lo hicieron de manera reiterativa a través de los siglos hasta que todo el mundo lo creyó.
Las prácticas europeas ironizan la matanza y genocidio de los pueblos Prehispánicos con los millones y millones de muertos en las grandes guerras por decisiones económicas y políticas y esto no es mas que irónico, hipócrita y etnocentrico.
Es por esto y más que se ha convertido en el mejor libro de este genero que he leído (ya llevo varios) en mi favorito; muy recomendable.
September 11, 2019
I was lured in by the step pyramid of these at the Denver Airport. Paper books being relegated to the few privileged people who can afford to travel by air.
I love first contact sci fi, and this history book caused me to think about this fabled meeting in that context. Two different cultures, with different value systems, a double translator incapable of communicating all of the social nuance, unintended consequences, and a careful retelling of events to achieve the desired point of view on the home planet...I mean Spain.
The author is very good about establishing fact and primary sources from secondary sources and interpetation through the lens of time and current mores, which I appreciated.
I was a little disturbed at how little Mexican history I have at my command, so some of the primary sources will probably make their way to my reading list.
I love first contact sci fi, and this history book caused me to think about this fabled meeting in that context. Two different cultures, with different value systems, a double translator incapable of communicating all of the social nuance, unintended consequences, and a careful retelling of events to achieve the desired point of view on the home planet...I mean Spain.
The author is very good about establishing fact and primary sources from secondary sources and interpetation through the lens of time and current mores, which I appreciated.
I was a little disturbed at how little Mexican history I have at my command, so some of the primary sources will probably make their way to my reading list.
February 17, 2020
A bit redundant at times, but still a fascinating look at the traditional narrative of the "conquest" of Mexico from multiple perspectives. Beyond the detailed exploration of one historical narrative, the author brilliantly demonstrates how historical narratives are molded to shape multiple agendas.
June 6, 2022
The author of this book offers a very undiluted, unbiased perspective of a time where so little was written down. Makes you wish you had a time machine to see exactly what happened back then...though I get the feeling I would crash land in 1512 and immediately get my ass disemboweled.
April 22, 2023
Rating: 3.5/5 stars
~
Reading for my History thesis. The book is a well-constructed domino set; I purposely pushed one of the pieces.
~
Reading for my History thesis. The book is a well-constructed domino set; I purposely pushed one of the pieces.
August 29, 2025
Restall reexamines the historical record and provides a compelling skewering of the myths that have been created to paint Cortes' invasion of Mexico as noble and justified.
February 9, 2021
I think this is an important one. I recommend reading it before reading "Fifth Sun" by Camilla Townsend. Where "Fifth Sun" is detailed about the the Nahua and Indigenous historical perspective, Restall takes a broad and comprehensive perspective. I wish I had read this book before Townsend's, I feel it would have helped me understand the environment and circumstances more clearly.
Restall has cracked my heart open, but this time it's a healing. A healing of history and memory. His research is extensive and well documented leaving a fourth of the book to notes, references and bibliography. Restall expertly draws not only on first person historical, and legal documents, but he also evaluates the historical record through its art, performance, and culture, giving us a grounded perspective in ideas, and the social psyche.
I am Mexican, born and raised on stolen and raped land and I have always been mystified and angry about the "conquest". Restall has given me an understanding my whole self and my ancestors can rest with.
Restall reviews the evidence and repositions conquest as war, the Spanish-Aztec war. As well, he reveals the genocidal and racist motives that undergirded that war and devastated one of the most civil and advanced societies in the Americas.
This book is literally a work of decolonial action.
Restall has cracked my heart open, but this time it's a healing. A healing of history and memory. His research is extensive and well documented leaving a fourth of the book to notes, references and bibliography. Restall expertly draws not only on first person historical, and legal documents, but he also evaluates the historical record through its art, performance, and culture, giving us a grounded perspective in ideas, and the social psyche.
I am Mexican, born and raised on stolen and raped land and I have always been mystified and angry about the "conquest". Restall has given me an understanding my whole self and my ancestors can rest with.
Restall reviews the evidence and repositions conquest as war, the Spanish-Aztec war. As well, he reveals the genocidal and racist motives that undergirded that war and devastated one of the most civil and advanced societies in the Americas.
This book is literally a work of decolonial action.
May 17, 2023
this was a whole ass history book and idk why that surprised me
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews