History of the Conquest of Mexico & History of the Conquest of Peru.
Average Rating: 4.5 Total Reviews: 5
More Information
 On: 2007-08-06
William Prescotts histories of the conquests of Mexico and Peru in the 16th Century are classic, extremely well-written accounts. Prescott was one of the great American historians of the 19th Century and he describes historical events whose effects still resonate today in the Americas. His histories read like novels and are are backed up by footnotes giving references to sources and additional facts. Prescott has a 19th Century view of events, but thats when he was writing. I highly recommend this book, which combines both histories in a single volume.
 On: 2006-06-18
Alright, we, the Europeans are right and everyone else is wrong. We are smart, they are ignorant. We have God on our side. They worship satan. That was the attitude born of centuries of darkness after the start of the CE. Now this same attitude can be in front of you in pages of drivel by someone who takes cheap and ignorant shots at the native peoples of the Americas.
I was pretty shocked to read some of what the author says about the Inka for instance:
"It is impossible to contemplate without interest the struggles made by different nations, as they emerge from barbarism, to supply themselves with some visible symbols of thought,--that mysterious agency by which the mind of the individual may be put in communication with the minds of a whole community."
"The patronage of the government did not stop with this cheap display of royal condescension"
"But their ignorance of the first principles of astronomical science is shown by their ideas of eclipses"
"It may seem strange that a nation, which had proceeded thus far in its observations, should have gone no farther; and that, notwithstanding its general advance in civilization, it should in this science have fallen so far short, not only of the Mexicans, but of the Muyscas, inhabiting the same elevated regions of the great southern plateau with themselves.
And knocks upon the Aztecs:
"The little true science possessed by the Aztec priest supplied him with a key to unlock the mysteries of the heavens, and the false system of astrology which he built upon it gave him credit as a being who had something of divinity in his own nature."
The author shows his great ignorance of these peoples and sounds like someone in the court of Carlos I mocking the pitiful savages. One of the rules of serious archeology is not to pass value judgements upon a culture which you do not participate. This book makes a mockery of native peoples, and by extension, all peoples who live upon the Earth Mother.
If you have read this book and are not offended by the authors tone then please find another planet.
by: jlind555 On: 2004-04-19
William Prescotts "History of the Conquest of Mexico" and "History of the Conquest of Peru" are brought together in one volume that provides a solidly researched and detailed account of the Spanish conquest of the Americas. The first volume, describing the Mexican conquest, is the better of the two. In the first chapters, Prescott describes the life and culture of the native Mexican tribes, concentrating on the dominant Aztecs, their religion, customs, achievements in literature, astronomy, agriculture and mechanical arts, and discusses the infighting among the various native princes that set them up for a fall when the Spanish conquistadores landed in the New World. Prescott writes about the efforts of Bartolomé de las Casas to protect the natives from slavery and how this was rejected on the specious grounds that the Indians had to be brought into contact with the Spaniards in order to be converted to Christianity and slavery was the only way to achieve this end. Prescott describes the conquest of the Caribbean islands of Cuba, Santo Domingo and San Juan de Puerto Rico (as it was then known) as a precursor of the conquest of the Mexican mainland, and how some Indians like Montezuma thought the Spaniards were there for their benefit, whereas others, like Xicotencatl, the Tlascalan chief, were suspicious of the Spaniards motives from the beginning and tried to unite the native tribes against them. The Noche Triste, brought on by the arrogance and cruelty of the Spanish captain Pedro de Alvarado, is described in such detail that the reader is totally caught up in the narrative. One finishes this volume filled with admiration at Prescott as an historian and a writer, and regretting what a great civilization was destroyed out of pure greed and lust for gold."The History of the Conquest of Peru" is as well-written and detailed as the first volume, but it seemed a little drier to this reader, possibly because I was already familiar with the history and culture of the Incas from reading the "Comentarios Reales" of the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, the son of a Spanish father and an Incan princess. Prescott gives several pages to Garcilasos talents as a historian, which he doesnt think much of; he notes that Garcilaso, writing as a spokesman for his defeated countrymen, painted a picture of Incan civilization that bordered on the panegyric. But Prescott quotes from Garcilaso here and there throughout his own book. Prescott presents the history of the Pizarro brothers march through Peru, the defeat of the Incas and the death of Atahualpa, all in scrupulously researched detail. The Pizarros comes across as much less sympathetic figures than Cortes; while Cortes was able to appreciate the humanity of the native Mexicans, and tried to rein in some of his more rapacious captains, Alvarado among them, the Pizarro brothers and their captains, notably Carbajal and Almagro, seemed to be trying to outdo each other in cruelty. We end up feeling nothing but disgust for the avarice and ambition of these people, and the devastating effect it had on the native civilizations that were unfortunate enough to be in their way. Prescott wrote his history over two hundred years ago and its still the gold standard of early Latin American historiography. Taken as a whole, the volumes present a panoramic view of the clash of cultures that continues to reverberate to this day throughout Central and South America. Prescott is a vivid narrator and an excellent storyteller; his account grabs the reader early and sweeps you along from the first page to the last. Its a terrific read and a grand tour through two lost civilizations.
On: 2002-05-29
Im not a historian. I just like to read history and historical fiction. I first discovered William Prescotts Conquest of Peru in the back of a used bookstore. My kids are from Peru so I decided I should check it out. The first section was about the Inca civilization; their society, customs, politics, and more. It was certainly interesting and readable, but a bit dry. Once the narrative turned to Pizzaro and his band of adventurers, however, I was hooked. They dont call Prescott a romantic historian for nothing. He blends detailed accounts of absolutely outrageous courage, hardship, audacity, greed, ignorance, politics, faith, slaughter, naiveté, and more with vivid insights into the lives, characters and motives of the people involved. The story reads like excellent historical fiction, and yet its meticulously researched fact. Prescotts Conquest of Mexico is every bit as good as Conquest of Peru. The book starts with a section on the Aztec civilization, then turns to Cortez and his men. These adventurers behaved as though they were invincible, they believed their faith in God made them so, and one almost comes to believe that they were as they beat unimaginable odds over and over and over again. I was on the edge of my seat through all three volumes. No offense to Lewis & Clark (or Stephen Ambrose), but Prescotts Conquest of Mexico and Conquest of Peru make Undaunted Courage sound like a family picnic. Remarkable events told by a remarkable author. Its no wonder these books are still popular more than one and a half centuries after they were written.
On: 2001-08-02
My review concerns only the first part of the book, "The Conquest of Mexico." What a treat, to read this after reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I think that only this book, couldve made my transition from the ethereal realm of great books to the earthly realm of good books. Prescotts Conquest of Mexico is a long read, but a rewarding one. It is an excellent narrative history, where depth and pathos are brought to Cortez, his men, Montezuma and the many more that are an intrigal part of this history. A recount of a band of a few hundred Spainards, commanded by a man, Cortez, who is alternatively driven by proselytizing the indians of the central mexico and his lust for gold. Slowly and in a beautiful, novel-esque way, Prescott, reveals the heart of Cortez and the 16th century conquistadors, the clash of cultures and the terrible outcomes the result. Neither are the Indians ignored, and much time (especially for a 19th century author) is spent on the rituals, customs, habits and political and religious life of the Natives. A truly dramatic tale with a tragic ending, all told with the poetic elegance of Prescott, its a great read.
On: 2001-01-17
I concern myself only with the first part only (the Conquest of Mexico), and compare it to its twentieth-century equivalent, Hugh Thomass THE CONQUEST OF MEXICO. The obvious difference is in language, since Prescotts long clausulae and cadences are, to us moderns, harder to read. (There is an "updated for modern readers" version of Prescott available elsewhere on amazon, which I have not seen.) One might have expected Thomas would have the advantage of modern research, but the sad fact is that we know litle more now than we did 150 years ago -- both Prescott and Thomas had to use the same source material.Specifically looking at the famous event of July 1 1520, the "Noche Triste", I see that Prescott and Thomas differ (in the following I will put Thomas inside parentheses). Prescott says the Spaniards chose to retreat on the Tlacopan causeway which was different from the one they came on (Thomas calls it the Tacuba causeway and says that its the one they came in on); Prescott says Cacama the Lord of Texcoco came along (Thomas says Cacama was killed a month earlier); Prescott says Tlaxcalans were distributed throughout the column (Thomas says they were in the centre); Prescott says "several Indian sentinels" saw the Spaniards leaving (Thomas says it was one woman fetching water); and finally Prescott says that Pedro de Alvarado pole-vaulted over a break on the causeway (Thomas says that cant be true). Also Prescotts passage on the Noche Triste is longer than Thomass, not just because hes more verbose (which he is), but because he includes details that Thomas omits. Now, for the question "which account is true?" I am unqualified to judge two such thorough scholars, but I know that Prescott is right about Cacama, more believable about the sentinels, and less believable about Alvarados Leap, so Id call it a tie in that respect. And so, which account was simply more interesting? Prescott.
|
