Source Comparison and Contrast Essay
ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS
Essays should be 750-1250 words (3-5 pages) All essays (typed & double-spaced) should have both references (footnotes or parenthetical style – just be consistent!) and a bibliography. In putting together your essay, please try to use specific evidence from assigned and selected texts to support your arguments.Source Comparison and Contrast Essay
Select one of the source pairings from the Contrast and Comparison Exercises on the AHA’s Conquest of Mexico website (included on the course Blackboard page), and find one scholarly journal article on the Conquest (using America: History and Life, Historical Abstracts, JSTOR, Project MUSE, or some other database accessible through NIU Libraries – you can’t use Camilla Townsend’s article assigned for class). Write an analysis of the primary sources and a summary of the argument from the article. Are the primary sources you found cited in the article? What do you learn from both sources that you did not learn from the book? That is, how do the sources and article augment, enhance, or change your understanding of the topic compared to the Bedford collection?
Many historians also believe that Cortés’s letters were interpreted to justify his deliberate refusal to obey the Spanish governor known as Diego Velázquez de Cellar when he was in authority in Cuba. Diego Velázquez was at this particular time the sponsor of Cortés’s expedition. It is also argued that the letters cannot be authentic because a French soldier discovered the first and fifth letters in Vienna during the sixteenth century when Spain was part of the Hapsburg Empire (Schwaller, 2014). Therefore, the first letters to be published were not the original letters authored by Cortés. Rather, they were letters that had been revised by a committee whose intention was to positively influence Charles V.
From both sources, I have learned new things that I did not learn from the book. For instance, I have learned that the few primary sources available on the conquest of Mexico are “tainted” because many historians prefer letters from Don Hernán Cortés to King Charles V as the only primary sources that meet a credibility threshold. According to historians, these letters could be genuine because the Spanish conqueror authored them in his native language during his battle with the Mexicas Empire (Schwaller, 2014). This version of the primary source was written by Bernal Díaz del Castillo who was the Spanish conquistador based on what he actually witnessed during the conquest.Source Comparison and Contrast Essay
From these primary sources, I learn that the authors were reacting against a historical account published by Francisco López de Gómara who had served as Cortés’s secretary. In this account, the author wrongly accredited Cortés for the conquest. On the other hand, Díaz del Castillo’s primary sources give a historical account of the conquest from the perspective of a heroic battle pitting the courageous soldiers against ferocious warriors Empire (Schwaller, 2014). Díaz del Castillo went ahead with the revision of his 1574 manuscript in the Americas although they had been published in 1632 after his appearance in Spain.
Compared to the Bedford collection, the sources and article augment my understanding of the topic in that they bring on board the aspect of the indigenous people who authored many manuscripts that were destroyed by the Spaniards to eradicate the accurate historical accounts of the ancient beliefs. Additionally, their insufficient information about how these productions were shaped by their interaction with the Spaniards Empire (Schwaller, 2014). Itzcoatl who was the fourth Mexica King destroyed most manuscripts to preserve his vision and account of how he constructed the Mexica Empire between 1426 and 1440.
These sources also enhance my understanding of the topic in that the Codex Florentino primary translations are the present primary source for the account of the Mexica conquest. However, these publications raise serious concerns about the interest that they represent. It is not clear whether they serve the interest of the s colonizers or the vanquished. According to the Spaniards, an understanding of the native world could only be published in a language familiar with the evangelists Empire (Schwaller, 2014). Besides, Spaniards perceived language and culture as two aspects of communication that are inseparable. Conversely, Castilian Spanish was perceived as the only way to transmit Catholicism. It was later used as a colonial policy goal to instill religion and Spanish language among the natives (“Spaniards Flee Tenochtitlan, n.d”).
Further, these sources change my understanding of the topic in that they reveal that there is no evidence to justify the argument that the original manuscripts were completed in Nahuatl in1555. This understanding is justifiable because the New Spain authorities had already confiscated the remaining manuscripts in 1575 and the authors ordered to stop further publications Empire (Schwaller, 2014). Based on this historical context, the oldest primary source could be the Sahagún’s summary which is published in Spanish but was later availed in a revised version of the codex to correct errors and integrated all the critical elements that could have been omitted in the earlier summary.Source Comparison and Contrast Essay
The Florentine Codex is the manuscripts that were revised by Sahagún and was revised again in Spanish to produce the Madrid Codex that differs dramatically from the former Florentine Codex in that it appears to be flattering the Spanish. This version of the publications could have targeted the Spanish while the former versions were meant for the Nahuas Empire (Schwaller, 2014). The strain of confirming the derivations of successive texts and translations forces an individual to rely on both texts, even though they are slightly different and target different audiences.
The conquest of Mexico can be told form three major sides, that is the Florentine Codex that is richly illustrated by numerous battles and encounters pitting the indigenous people against the Spanish, and the Mexicas, Therefore, it is evident that an individual may face various challenges of using these controversial yet rich sources to construct history Empire (Schwaller, 2014). While it is true that the historical context of the Mexican conquest is based on these manuscripts, it remains the most pivotal event that Spanish ever engaged in as they struggled to gain control of the geographical empire (“La Noche Triste or The Night of Sorrows, n.d”).Source Comparison and Contrast Essay
The article never referenced the primary sources because the authors wrote the same historical context from questionable evidence. However, all the sources seem to ask why the few Spaniards defeated the many indigenous people living in the impressive and advanced civilization yet they had even powerful and superior weapons. While both primary sources failed to provide an explanation to this crucial question, the article sources provide an insight into how the historical context came to being.
Schwaller, J. (2014). A Synopsis of the Conquest of Mexico. In NADER H. & Schwaller J. (Authors), The First Letter from New Spain: The Lost Petition of Cortés and His Company, June 20, 1519 (pp. 9-24). University of Texas Press. Retrieved February 21, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/10.7560/756717.5
Spaniards Flee Tenochtitlan. From Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, Florentine Codex, Book 12, Chapter 24 (Mexica).
La Noche Triste or The Night of Sorrows. From Díaz del Castillo, Vol. 2, Chapter 128 Source Comparison and Contrast Essay