Abdulmohsen Alhamrani HIST -125 -004 Assignment: historical primary documents February 26, 2014 First Paper Assignment

In the sixteenth century, the Spanish wanted to expand their sphere of control in the New World especially to compete with other major European powers. The Spanish set sail west and landed in territory under the Aztec Empire, which is current-day Mexico. During their voyage to west, it happened a lot of historical events. For example, the Spanish encountered Aztec empires. Actually, the Aztec empires are member of a people of central Mexico whose civilization was at its height at the time of the Spanish conquest in the early 16th century. These three documents talk more about events that happened during the Spanish voyage in the sixteenth century. The first document is a letter written by Hernan Cortez in 1519 to the King of Spain, King Charles V, discussing the conquest of what would be known as Mexico. Actually, Cortez was the leader of the Spanish Voyage, and also he was a part of the generation of Spanish colonizers that began the first phase of the Spanish colonization of America; the other document discusses the Broken Spears, a collection of Aztec Empire and other Indian records from the sixteenth century. The third primary source is about Diazs account. Diaz joined the historic expedition of conquistador Hernando Cortez in 1519, and he was a witness of the events that happened during the conquest of New Spain. After reading these three primary sources, there are some differences and similarities between these documents in terms of purpose, tone, date, and even the description of the Aztec empires. Therefore, I reached the conclusion that Diazs account

is more believable than other documents because of his objectivity and the purpose for writing his book. One of the aspects that make Diazs account is more believable is his objectivity. Diaz in his account described almost everything happened during expedition of New Spain such as the interactions between Spanish and Aztecs. He went into more detail than Cortez did about the indigenous people and the interactions between the Spanish and the Aztecs. For instance, Diaz talked about Montezumas clothes and he said the clothes that Montezuma wore one day, he did not put on again until four days later(Diaz p.4) and he also talked about Montezumas appearance by describing his. Additionally, he mentioned that during our meeting with Montezuma, he showed us the wealth that he had at that time such as, gold and silver. The reason why Diaz went into more details in his account is he did not have anything to lose, such as prestige or a reputation like Cortez, because Diaz was neither a leader nor a king. Therefore Diaz did not need to exaggerate or change the truth of his account. Cortez was the opposite because he was subjective in his account in order to make everything sound better to King Charles V of Spain. In his letter, Cortez explained interaction between the Aztecs and the Spanish to King Charles. For example, Cortez said to his king Before it was dawn I attacked two towns, where I killed many people, but I did not the burn houses lest the fire should alert the other towns nearby (Cortez P.2). Cortez tried to tell King Charles that the Spanish are very strong and they attacked two of the Aztec towns easily and they are in good situation. The reason that Cortez was explaining everything exaggeratedly is because King Charles in the sixteenth century did not have media or Internet to prove what Cortez said. So the only way that king Charles can assume the situation of the Spanish in Mexico is based on

what was written in the letter, and also Cortez wanted to impress King Charles by showing him that he did great gob with expedition. The Broken Spare in their account was informative but they did not cover exactly what Diaz covered. For example, Broken Spare talked about the disease, and also they went more deeply on interaction between Spanish and Montecuzoma while Diaz did not. As result, that makes Diazs account more reliable because Diaz almost cover everything happened during the sixteenth century. Another reason that makes Diazs account more believable is that Diaz described Montecuzoma as a welcoming leader. For instance, Diaz said when Montecuzoma knew of our coming he advanced to receive us by many of his nephews(Diaz P .3). So this is pointed out that Montecuzoma treated Diaz and Cortez well, while in The Broken Spears was reported that Cortez treated Montezuma very poorly. Cortez said, is this how you greet people (The Broken Spears P.1). This indicated that the Aztecs did not treat the Spanish properly. Moreover Cortez in his account did not mention much about Aztecs. So the reason of that could be Cortez believed the Spanish were more civilized than the Aztecs in everything. In general, he was really arrogant because he thought the Spanish were better. He also thought that Spanish were more advanced and therefore better than them. For instance, Cortez believed that god was on their side so believed that no one is better than them because god will help the Spanish with everything. Therefore, his tone seems to be more subjective and ironic. On the other hand, one of the differences among these documents is the description of the Great Plague disease. In other words, The Broken Spares mentioned Great Plague disease in their account and not in Diaz and Cortez. The reason why Diaz and Cortez did not talk about the disease at all is because the source of the epidemic came

for Spain toward Mexico and killed a lot of people so that might tarnish the image of Spain and that is why Diaz and Cortez prefer not to talk about Great Plague in their accounts. In fact, this could make Cortezs and Diazs account less reliable because they did not mention an important event happened at that time which is Great Plague disease. Another difference between these primary sources is the date of each document. Usually, the date of the historical document play huge role in its believability. Cortez for example wrote his during event because he wanted to show the people that the Spanish at that time were strong enough by explaining the interaction between them and the Aztecs. However, Diaz wrote his account many years after the event and that because Diaz was not a soldier with Cortez at that time and he was not busy with all these explorations. So he preferred to write his account when he has nothing to do, while the date of The Broken Spares was not mentioned in their account. As result, this is make Diazs account more reliable because wrote his account when he has nothing to do while Cortez wrote during the event because he wants to show the world that time Spanish were very strong. In terms of tone and audience, the three accounts have differences. For example the audience of the Cortez was his king therefore he was more ironic and subjective. Diaz was opposite because his audience was people so that he was a little bit objective and descriptive, and also his purpose of writing this book is to inform the people about the true history of the conquest of New Spain, while The Broken Spares had a fearful because they talked about the power of the Spanish by explaining their weapons. The reason why The Broken Spares had fearful tone is because they did not even know how the cannon roar and so that indicated they did have enough power save themselves. Also,

Aztec empires wanted to show the Spanish that they are so weak and did not have enough power so that the Spanish might avoid encounter them. In fact, the Aztec empires did not have advance animals such as, horses. Therefore, that fearful tone prevents the Broken Spare to narrate everything in their account. Although the Diazs account is more believable, however there are some areas that made the believability of his account a little bit weak. For example, when he did not mention the Great Plague disease because he did not want tarnish the image of Spain. In conclusion the encounter among the Spanish and the Aztec empires is an important even in world history and because of these reasons that I have mentioned about Diazs account such as his objectivity, tone, motivations, and purpose, it seems that Diazs is more believable than the other documents.