Diverging Perspectives on Guzmán's Conquest of Mexico

This week’s reading covered the topic of Guzmán’s conquest of western Mexico. Included were two accounts that showed the conquest in starkly contrasting lights. The first was an account of the expedition written by Cristóbal Flores for the audiencia in Mexico City. The second was a letter written by Guzmán for his majesty while on the expedition. The accounts written by the two men differ sharply in how they portray the events that occurred during the expedition. An example of this can be seen in how they describe the execution of Cazonci, the lord of Michoacán. However, the authors did agree on a few points, including the nature of the indigenous allies’ actions. In order to better understand the nature of this expedition it is important to both examine the contradictions within the accounts and examine where they were in agreement. The execution of Cazonci, whom had been held as a hostage by Guzman, is portrayed very differently in the two accounts.

However, they clearly portray the events in very different lights. It is important to examine where these accounts agree and where they disagree. In doing so, it is possible to both gain a better understanding of the events that occurred and the motivations behind the accounts. Guzman’s account is a good example of a source that attempts to portray the subject in the best possible light in order to build favor. This can be seen in how Guzman describes the state of the expedition and the motivations that he claims lead to his decisions. Flores on the other hand is a soldier that served under Guzman, possibly as a captain. His report does not attempt to build an idealized vision of the expedition. However, it is important to still examine his clearly negative views of Guzman. The conquest of western Mexico by the Spanish is an important step in the building of modern Mexico and these accounts help illustrate how it was