The Different Perspectives on La Noche Triste - Term Paper Example

?The Different Perspectives on La Noche Triste On the 30th of June, 1520, Hernan Cortes and his Spanish troops tried to the break through a siege setup by natives of what is now known as Mexico. There are accounts that the said natives who controlled a territory called Tenochtitlan were Aztecs. Some historians, however, contest this claim. Cortes and his army’s attempt resulted in so much bloodshed, particularly on the part of the Spanish conquistadors as well as other natives that fought alongside them. It was Cortes himself that labeled the event as ‘La Noche Triste’, which is Spanish for the ‘the night of sorrows.’ He first used the label when he wrote a lengthy and detailed report to king of Spain, Charles V. Due to the fact that the Cortes letters to Charles V were the only written sources of information available then, the conquistador’s words were mostly credited as the truth. The description that the Spanish army was just victims of treachery committed by the Aztecs and that it fought bravely and wisely under the able leadership of Cortes were concepts that were widely considered as accurate. However, as an increasing number of historians came to explore further the details of La Noche Triste, it was soon found out that the letters sent by Cortes to the king of Spain may not be the most accurate source of information regarding the events that took place prior to it. One observation is that made by Jonathan Loesberg, who points out that that Cortes actually used a style of writing that puts him in position to influence instead of just obeying the king. In the letter Segunda Relacion, he used a style in which the king would develop support and sympathy for Cortes and his troops. This would naturally serve Cortes’s self-interests later. In this regard, “Cortes’s masterful telling of the story contradicts what some see to be his obedient role in that story.” 1Despite, his un-victorious title for the event, Cortes managed to give the impression that the Spanish army actually succeeded in its goal to break through the barricade set up by the Aztecs. Again, this could be attributed to the conquistador’s goal to earn the favor of the king. Nevertheless, the Cortes letters were widely believed to be the most honest account of La Noche Triste. According to Inga Clendinnen in his book Aztecs: An Interpretation, “the traditional tale being too much in accord with European preferences to be easily surrendered, and the story the victors told continues to for truth.”2 To base the an analysis of an important historical event on the narratives of one man who happens to have a vested interest related to it would certainly produce inaccuracies that may be upheld as truths in the end. This is the reason why, in order to objectively appreciate such event, it is necessary to seek information from other sources as well. Cortes’s accounts are the bases of the theory that Spain intention of exploring the New World and colonizing it is to the introduce Christianity to pagan natives. Under such pretext, all actions Spaniards in the Caribbean as well as in the mainland of what is now known as Latin America were made with missionary work as the excuse. However, as mentioned earlier, Cortes has his own selfish intentions of gaining political power by getting the favor of the king as well as discovering gold for the crown and for himself. These alone are already powerful motivations that drove Cortes to lead his outnumbered but well-equipped army into the Mexican interior. Prior to this, Cortes had heard about the existence of a relatively advanced civilization among the natives. The city-state of Tenochtitlan was the seat of Aztec power in Mexico and its capture could mean the unquestionable dominance of Cortes’s army. The expedition towards Tenochtitlan proved to be productive for the small Spanish army. They met native tribes who happen to be enemies of the Aztecs, such as the Tlaxcaltecas and the people of Tliliuquitepec. Cortes treated these natives as friends although this was all according to his design of isolating the Aztecs. The Spaniards did not encounter resistance from the people of Tenochtitlan when they arrived. The Aztec prophesies proved to be of great help to them. Even before the Spaniards arrived, there Moctezuma, the Aztec king, already believed in prophesy that the gods would be coming soon. When the Spaniards appeared, Moctezuma feared that the gods have indeed arrived. With weapons known to have devastated other native lands that the Spaniards encountered on their way to Tenochtitlan, he thought that there was no way that they could deal with the foreigners with force. Nevertheless, the Aztec warriors far outnumber the Spaniards and despite their inferior weapons, they could still the defeat the foreigners through sheer numerical superiority. However, Moctezuma’s belief that the Spaniards were gods, prompted him to make wrong decisions. A clear example of this is when, “instead of moving to destroy the strangers with his armies he, sent magicians and shamans to cast spells.”3 These ultimately failed, making him even more indecisive in dealing with Cortes and his army. Cortes apparently realized that the Aztec leadership was weak and that gaining control of Tenochtitlan would not be difficult after all. Ultimately, through diplomatic machinations, the Spaniards were able to enter Tenochtitlan. They were received as guests by Moctezuma and were provided a fortified accommodation. Although the Moctezuma trusted and feared the Spaniards at the same time, many other Mexicans and Aztec leaders were suspicious of them. Such suspicions were soon proven to be correct when Cortes and a portion of his army left for the coast to encounter Panfilo de Narvaez and his troops who were sent to capture him for insubordination. After defeating Narvaez in a battle Cortes was able to convince the former’s surviving army to join him in the trek back to Tenochtitlan. While Cortes was away though, he left Pedro de Alvarado to lead the men who remained in Tenochtitlan. It was during de Alvarado’s watch that the bloodiest event that led to La Noche Triste occurred, the massacre at While Cortes was away, the Aztecs asked Moctezuma to permit them hold a festival in honor of Huitzilopochtli, the god of war. This yearly festival had always been held in Toxcatl. Moctezuma by then had become completely beholden to the Spaniards and he had to consult de Alvarado of his people’s plans. De Alvarado agreed on the condition that that not one participant of the festival would be armed. At this time, Cortes had been away for nearly a month. Since it was the god of war that they were honoring, it was only normal for the Aztecs to let their best warriors join the festivity. As they performed ritual dances, de Alvarado’s men suddenly closed in and without provocation initiated a massacre on the hapless unarmed Aztec warriors and members of the nobility. The Toxcatl massacre had, again, become a subject of debate among historians. For those who believed in the Spaniards’ account, especially the Cortes letters, it would appear that the strike was committed for just reasons. De Alvarado justified that he had heard of the Aztecs plans of destroying what was left of the Spaniards since Cortes took with him the majority to encounter Narvaez. He was compelled to launch the assault as a pre-emptive strike. Another account also said that the Spaniards only wanted to stop a human sacrifice that was about to be done by the Aztecs. Such was without any substantiation, especially since, the Spaniards never launched a similar attack in the previous monthly festivals that also dealt with human sacrifice. Ross Hassig presents a plausible theory that Cortes actually directed de Alvarado to launch the massacre. Knowing that Mocteczuma’s men and the Aztec nobility had been antagonistic to the Spaniards Cortes could no longer trust the native king. Besides, even with the negative impact of the Toxcatl massacre, he did not punish de Alvarado for it. Hassig writes that “these circumstances suggest that Cortes himself ordered the massacre to eliminate Moctezuma’s supporters but wished it to take place after he was gone so he could deny culpability.”4 The result of the massacre indeed gave the Spaniards a great military advantage despite their inferior number. Many of the Aztecs best military leaders and best warriors were killed in the massacre. The natives were virtually without any leader, especially since Moctezuma was already in the hands of the foreigners, a virtual hostage. Nevertheless, the massacre erased doubts about the Spaniards as enemies instead of friends or divine forces. Even without a leader, the Aztecs or Mexicans spontaneously were united and launched attacks on the fortified quarters of the Spaniards. The Toxcatl massacre soon proved to be a counterproductive action committed by the Spaniards. They expected it to be a decisive move that would finally remove all forms and sentiments of resistance against their presence and eventual rule, while continuing to take advantage of the belief that they were gods. However, the Aztecs saw the cruelty to not be anything but divine. The Spaniards only exposed themselves as humans and not gods, as they tried to project themselves previously. This made the Aztecs realize that they should not be treated as inferior mortals by these foreigners. For them, the Spaniards were just “greedy, cruel foreign invaders, and they could be defeated.”5 Such realization obviously resulted in the forging of stronger unity among the natives, one that set aside the factionalism among the nobles. In fact, it resulted into the rise of a new Aztec leader to replace Moctezuma, whom the natives believed had capitulated entirely to the foreign invaders. This culminated in the siege laid upon the Spaniards fortified quarters and the increased determination of the natives to destroy the forces they once thought were sent in by the gods. While the siege went on, Cortes came to know about the situation and he led his troops hurriedly back to Tenochtitlan; this time though with more fresh reinforcement from Narvaez’s defeated army as well as native allies who also had opposed the Aztecs. The Broken Spears by Miguel Leon-Portilla is one very important reference in understanding the actual events that took place in June 30, 1520. The account on La Noche Triste in the book is based on Aztec narratives. Therefore, it provides an alternative view of the event which Cortes described through his letters to the king. Apparently, due to the fact that it the event is seen from the perspective of the natives who considered themselves as the aggrieved party, considering the immense loss of life and property in the Toxcatl massacre, it does not lionize Cortes in any way nor projects the Spaniards as the victims. Leon-Portillo dedicated an entire chapter to discuss La Noche Triste in details according an Aztec account. By reading the chapter alone, one could become an objective observer of the bloodshed, deprived of the tendency to develop a bias for either party. However, if one reads the chapters that described the events that led to La Noche Triste, it becomes easy to develop a sentiment in favor of the natives. Apparently, Leon-Portillo is one of the modern historians who have not contented themselves with the Cortes letters but have actually studied alternative sources of information regarding the event. These sources include codex materials from the Aztecs themselves. Cortes came back to the Spaniards’ fortified quarters in Tenochtitlan. Upon their arrival at the city, the streets were virtually deserted but there were no signs of resistance from the Aztecs too. Hassig explains that this was a way for the Aztecs to show displeasure on the arrival of Cortes and his men. He also points out that the Aztecs allowed Cortes to enter and go inside the Spaniards’ fortified quarters for tactical reasons. With Cortes outside, “he could move freely, use his horses effectively, receive military and logistical support from his allies, and retreat to safer areas if need be.”6 However, if he joins de Alvarado inside, it is the Aztecs who would have the tactical advantage. Apparently, when Cortes finally got united with the de Alvarado and his forces, he realized the necessity to leave the city as soon as possible but he still had one card left, Moctezuma. He thought that he could buy time for their exit by letting Moctezuma pacify the people through speaking to them. According the account presented by Leon-Portilla, the Moctezuma instructed Itzcuauhtzin to relay to the Mexican people his message. Itzcuauhtzin climbed up to the roof and admonished the people. Afterwards, he told them that the king is asking them not to fight the Spaniards. Through him, the king expressed that they are not “equals in battle” with the Spaniards and must therefore “put down (their) shields and arrows.”7 Upon hearing this, the people only became more enraged and, instead of heeding to the Moctezuma’s appeal, released arrows towards the king’s position. Moctezuma later died from wounds although it is not yet verified whether he died in the hands of the Spaniards or from his very own people. The Cortes letters give the impression that he died from wounds inflicted by the stones hurled by the Aztecs themselves. The point however, is that when he died, the natives no longer recognized him as a leader for becoming a puppet of the foreigners. The death of Moctezuma left Cortes with no other option but to abandon Tenochtitlan. With all passageways destroyed by the Aztecs, the Spaniards devised a way of crossing the water using wooden planks as a pontoon bridge. They took with them their native allies, the Txacaltecas, who served as the rear guard. The retreat, however, was discovered and the Aztecs immediately alarmed everyone, especially the warriors. When the warriors heard the alarm, they promptly “leaped into the boats and set out in pursuit.”8 The natives caught up with the bulk of the Spaniards and their allies at the Canal of the Toltecs. They immediately launched an attack on all sides. Greatly outnumbered and in such a disadvantaged position, the Spaniards and their native allies panicked. Many of them, heavy with gold which they have looted from Tenochtitlan, jumped to the water and drowned. According to the codex referred to by Leon-Portilla, “The Tlaxcaltecas, the allies from Tliliuquitepec, the Spanish foot soldiers and horsemen, the few women who accompanied the army-all came to brink and plunged over it.”9 The great number of Spaniards killed as well as the valuables they los and were recovered by the Aztecs, reportedly moved Cortes to tears. Cortes himself in his letters put heavy emphasis on his sadness over the loss men. Considering his history of writing letters to the king of Spain for the purpose of gaining favor for his plans, Cortes might have found an excuse to build up a larger force and conquer Mexico. It is clear that if La Noche Triste is taken out of its historical context, it would be simply judged as a massacre committed by uncivilized natives who do not wish to accept the more humane and refined ways that the Europeans, particularly the Spaniards, only wanted to introduce. For long time, the only documents referred to in appreciating the event were the letters written by the conquistadors themselves, especially Cortes. However, with the discovery of other sources of information, it La Noche Triste has been reevaluated. Soon it became apparent that while indeed there was so much bloodshed in June 30, 1520, it was preceded by events in which the Spaniards proved to be the aggressors and the natives the aggrieved. In his effort to convince the king to send in more troops and eventually direct the conquest of Mexico, Cortes saw to it that the narration of the event would serve in that direction. From the perspectives of the Aztecs, however, the night of sorrow did not occur during Spaniards retreat. It was in fact a victory for them, an appropriate means of giving justice for all those warriors that were treacherously killed in the Toxcatl massacre. Therefore, the term ‘La Noche Triste’ may not be the most objective label for what occurred on that night. More recent historical studies have proven that Cortes only made the name in order to gain sympathy from the king and support for his own plans. Reference List Carman, Glen. 2006. Rhetorical Conquests: Cortes, Gomara, and Renaissance Imperialism. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Clendinnen, Inga. 2000. Aztecs: An Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, Lynn. 2009. A Brief History of Mexico. New York, NY: Facts on File. Fuentes, Carlos. 1999. The Buried Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Hassig, Ross. 2006. Mexico and the Spanish Conquest. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Leon-Portilla, Miguel. 2006. The Broken Spears: The Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Read More