Matthew Restall's The Seven Myths Of The Spanish Conquest

In Matthew Restall’s book The Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, he argues that many of the widely accepted modern beliefs about the Spanish Conquest are misguided or skewed. These myths more importantly show how dependent history is on the perspective of the one who is writing it, and how the writer perceives the events happening around them. One example, is the myth of white Spaniards going to a foreign land on the decree of a king and finding barbarous natives who are inferior to these so-called great men. Using documentation written from both sides, and taking into account the context of the time period, Restall explores the myths of the Spanish Conquest in order to frame a less romanticized, well-rounded view of what actually happened

Admittedly, these men are responsible for much of the exploration of the America’s, but to focus on so few of the explorers ignores how reactive their actions were, and the larger narrative of the world at that time (4). For example, Columbus is praised and idolized for discovering the America’s, however it was only by luck that he arrived on those shores. Moreover, there were many other explorers at the time who could have reached the America’s if Columbus had not done so first (9). Another man who is seen as the key figure in the actual Conquest is Cortes. Cortes’ campaign in the America’s is commonly viewed as the standard to strive for, yet it is also the exception to a typical conquest (19). He is viewed as some above-it-all conquistador idol, when in all actuality he merely followed the standard protocol of the Conquest (19). This does not mean that Cortes’ actions were any less inspirational, merely that they were not uncharacteristic acts that he created (19). Both Columbus and Cortes were merely following standard procedure of the time, yet they are written about as if they were heroes of their time, bravely going and doing what none had done before. And in some sense, they were the first to discover and conquer, but it is foolish to assume that just because they were the first to be in the America’s

When the Spanish Conquest is referred to many people get the picture of a small party of white conquistadors beating back a horde of savages and triumphing over their foes (44). In truth, the Spanish were often outnumbered by native enemies, but too often history forgets that the Spanish were also outnumbered by their native allies (45). When the Spaniards arrived in America they found a land of native peoples divided into factions, and ready to take any advantage to gain the upper-hand against rivals (46). The Spaniards saw the division between factions and took advantage of their division, using political rivalries to defeat forces that, if they had been united, would have most likely beaten back the conquistadors (45). The first image of the conquest is one of Spanish victory, perpetuated by the bravery and skill of the mighty conquistadors. The latter results in a history that is less about the Spanish conquering the natives, and more about the natives conquering each other. History changes depending on where you are standing. When you stand from a different place the story changes, heroes become villains, success becomes defeat, and your side is justified. When we narrow how we look at historical events, we narrow our way of thinking and the knowledge we can attain. Restall purposefully juxtaposes these two views, not as a