Spanish Conquest Of New Spain Summary

Bernel Diaz Del Castillo. A man who was once a foot soldier in Hernan Cortes’s spanish army. The same army that discovered and took over the Aztec empire in the early 1520’s. It was not until later on in Castillo’s life that he wrote this memoir or “personal history” as some would argue, called the True History of the Conquest of New Spain. The name seemingly strikes the question “What is True History?”. Before writing his version of the of what happened in New Spain, Castillo watched many attempt to tell the story of the spanish conquest and tell it with biases that he believed should not have been taken into account. Being a first hand witness to what happened in the spanish conquest Castillo believed that the record should be set straight,

and this is what Castillo attempted to do in his writing. He wanted this story to be written with no biases and on the basis that the success of the conquest came on behalf of every soldier from the lowest of ranks all the way to the highest. With his precise attention to detail, and motivation to tell the story correctly Castillo wrote what he believed was the “true” story of the spanish conquest.
Bernel Diaz del Castillo was heavily motivated by what he believed were the diluted versions of the spanish conquest being told by not only his leader Hernan Cortes, but also historians such as Francisco Lopez de Gomara and Bartolome de las Casas.

Francisco Gomara’s version of the story misrepresented Hernan Cortes as the primary reason for the success of the spanish conquest, giving little credit to those who also stood at the side of Cortes. Then you have Bartolome Casas someone waccountho had a completely different angle of perspective compared to Gomara’s. Casas attacked the spanish forces for their cruelty. This alleviated most; if not all space for the spanish to justify themselves for their actions during the conquest. For Commander Cortes account he prettied the story in his writings to the king to make himself look fancy towards the King of Spain. Saying things in regard to giving the king more power and the rule of new land. Cortes also spoke to justify his story. Exaggerating the fact that the natives were taking practice in human sacrifices, so it was necessary to take action in attempt to convert them to the christian view. When comparing Castillo’s “true history” to these narrations you notice his does not lean towards any story more than another. It stands in its own separate

corner.
Castillo’s story was in a way that the reader could respect both sides equally. Castillo did not bash or better a side to make it seem as if one was better or worse than the other. What Castillo’s side of the story seems to entail is a little bit of a cover up, with some improvisations to justify the situation as whole. In more detail he talks about how they were attacked by the natives on their tour through mexico. In this he points out how courageous and tactically smart the natives were, and how explicit their weapons were. He does bring up the fact that the natives downfall came from how poorly trained they were, and also because the spanish army had better weaponry and training which aided victory with so few man. On another account Castillo talks about the religion that was being practiced by the Aztecs, and what they witnessed in these practices. It was obvious that sacrifice was a major part of the Aztec religion, and this did go against what the Roman Catholic Christian faith. Yet, Castillo still believed that justifying a conquest due to religion purposes was not quite sufficient enough. From a 16th century Christian standpoint the description of the Aztecs faith did show for opportunity of conversion.
Castillo’s reading does give you an idea of what some of his intentions might have been for writing this. Notably Castillo’s account differed from those of Gomara and Casas. They brought to light in their stories the brutality and force inflicted by the spanish making it seem like the conquest was almost non-reprehensible, Whereas Castillo shadowed the bruteness of the conquest, overshadowing it to make it seem as if they were not greedy. Castillo went about by mentioning how tired the army was, and how they only fought because it was necessary to; not by choice. Also he talked about how they were upset because of the lack of riches. Castillo does not mention all they were compensated for after the conquest though. Castillos side of the story seems to be aimed towards protecting the identity of both spaniards and aztecs to make both sides equal.
Bernel Diaz del Castillo wrote his story the True History of the Conquest of New Spain in regards to the accounts of Casas, Gomara, and Cortes. All of the stories have their own obvious differences, but why did Castillo write his when he did and why did he do it? Did Castillo just want publicity like the rest were getting for their accounts? Is his story only the most accepted because of the perceived meaning behind the title? Maybe Castillo is only trying to keep the “true history” a mystery, for he does leave some reason to believe he is not telling the full truth. Leaving the questions “What is the true history?” and “Is the True History of the Conquest of New Spain actually the truth?” What do you think?