Inligting

Cortes


Die Cortes was die Spaanse parlement. In die 1933 -verkiesing het CEDA die meeste setels in die Cortes verower. President Niceto Alcalá Zamora het geweier om sy leier, José Maria Gil Robles, te vra om 'n regering te vorm. Sewe lede van die CEDA het egter gedurende die volgende drie jaar as predikante gedien.

In die verkiesing van Februarie 1936 gaan 34,3 persent van die stemme na die Volksfront, 33,2 persent na die konserwatiewe partye en die res na streeks- en sentrumpartye. Dit het die Popular Front 271 setels uit die 448 in die Cortes gegee en Manuel Azaña is gevra om 'n nuwe regering te vorm.

Die nuwe regering het die konserwatiewes onmiddellik ontstel deur alle linkse politieke gevangenes te besef. Die regering het ook landbouhervormings ingestel wat die landelike aristokrasie gestraf het. Ander maatreëls sluit in die oordrag van regse militêre leiers soos Francisco Franco na poste buite Spanje, die verbod op die Falange Española en die toekenning van Katalonië politieke en administratiewe outonomie.

Op 10 Mei 1936 is die konserwatiewe Niceto Alcala Zamora as president afgedank en vervang deur die linkse Manuel Azaña. Kort daarna het die Spaanse weermagoffisiere, waaronder Emilio Mola, Francisco Franco en José Sanjurjo, begin beplan om die gewilde frontregering omver te werp. Dit het gelei tot die uitbreek van die Spaanse burgeroorlog op 17 Julie 1936.

Na raming is 28 lede van die Cortes gedurende die eerste paar maande van die oorlog in die Republikeinse gebied dood, terwyl 59 in die nasionalistiese gebied vermoor is.

Toe die regering Madrid in November 1936 verlaat, is die Cortes na Valencia verplaas. Nadat Juan Negrin in Mei 1937 premier geword het, het hy egter aangekondig dat sy regering by besluit sou regeer. Die Cortes het nou eers ses maande lank vergader om onderwerpe wat deur die regering gekies is, te bespreek.

Toe Negrin en sy regering na Frankryk vlug, het die Cortes in Parys ontmoet. Die laaste sitting van die Cortes van die Republiek is op 31 Maart 1939 gehou.

Na die oorlog stig generaal Francisco Franco 'n noukeurig beheerde Cortes wat handel oor wetgewing wat deur sy ministers opgestel is.


Cortes

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Cortes, Spaans en Portugees howe, Katalaans Koorde, 'n verteenwoordigende vergadering of parlement van die Middeleeuse Iberiese koninkryke en in die moderne tyd die nasionale wetgewer van Spanje en Portugal.

Die Cortes het in die Middeleeue ontwikkel toe verkose verteenwoordigers van die vrye munisipaliteite die reg verkry het om deel te neem aan die beraadslaging van die Curia Regis (Latyn: "King's Court") oor sekere aangeleenthede. Hulle is toegelaat vanweë die behoefte van die kroon aan finansiële hulp, bo die gewone heffings, en weens die gebrek aan wettige reg om ekstra belasting op te lê sonder die toestemming van die munisipaliteite.

In beide Leon en Kastilië bestaan ​​die Cortes teen die vroeë 13de eeu. Hulle funksies en prosedures was soortgelyk, en na die vereniging van die twee krone in 1230 het hulle gereeld gesamentlike vergaderings gehou - 'n normale prosedure na 1301. Parlemente funksioneer ook in Katalonië vanaf 1218, Valencia (1283), Aragon (1274) en Navarre (1300). Die Cortes van Leon en Castilië bestaan ​​uit drie boedels: edeles, geestelikes en die procuradores (prokureurs of stadsklerke) van die concejos (versterkte munisipaliteite), wat gebaar het poderes (skriftelike instruksies) van hul kiesers. Die koning het die vergaderings van die Cortes belê wanneer en waar hy wou. Gedurende die 14de eeu het die procuradores het die Cortes oorheers omdat slegs hulle die spesiale belasting wat die kroon benodig, kon magtig. Die vergaderings het bestaan ​​uit onderhandelinge, nie ware debatte nie.

In Kastilië, na die mislukte opstand van die stedelinge bekend as comuneros (1520–21), die hidalgos (laer adel) was die enigste oorlewende mag in die Cortes, en selfs hulle het opgehou om baie werklike mag uit te oefen. In Portugal bekragtig die Cortes die opvolging van die Huis van Avis (1385) en van Filips II (1580) en was hy aktief na die herstel van onafhanklikheid (1640). Maar in Spanje het die Cortes van Katalonië nie ontmoet ná die opstand van 1640 nie, en ook nie dié van Valencia na 1645 of dié van Kastilië na 1685. In 1709 is die Cortes van Aragon en Valencia saamgevoeg met dié van Kastilië, net soos dié van Katalonië in 1724, alhoewel die vergaderings slegs gehou is om die erfgenaam van die kroon te erken. In die 18de eeu het Portugal se Cortes glad nie vergader nie.

In 1812 vergader die Spaanse Cortes in Cádiz en neem die eerste liberale grondwet aan. Alhoewel dit in 1814 omvergewerp is, is die Cortes in 1820 herstel en in dieselfde jaar deur Portugal aangeneem. In albei lande is die woord voortaan op die nasionale parlement toegepas.

Tydens die bewind van Francisco Franco is die naam Cortes Españolas ("Spaanse howe") vanaf 1942 gebruik vir die rubberstempel, nie-demokratiese wetgewer. Na die oorgang na demokrasie in die sewentigerjare, is die amptelike naam van die wetgewer verander na Cortes Generales ("Algemene howe").


Jare in Hispaniola en Kuba

In Hispaniola word hy die eerste ses jaar of so 'n boer en notaris van 'n stadsraad, dit lyk asof hy tevrede was om sy posisie te bepaal. Hy het sifilis opgedoen en het gevolglik die noodlottige ekspedisies van Diego de Nicuesa en Alonso de Ojeda misgeloop, wat in 1509 na die Suid-Amerikaanse vasteland gevaar het. Teen 1511 het hy herstel, en het hy saam met Diego Velázquez gevaar om Kuba te verower. Daar is Velázquez aangestel as goewerneur, en Cortés klerk by die tesourier. Cortés ontvang 'n repartimiento (geskenk van grond en Indiese slawe) en die eerste huis in die nuwe hoofstad Santiago. Hy was nou in 'n posisie van mag en die man na wie andersoortige elemente in die kolonie begin lei het vir leiding.

Cortés is twee keer verkies tot alcalde ("burgemeester") van die stad Santiago en was 'n man wat "in alles wat hy gedoen het, in sy teenwoordigheid, geskenk, gesprek, manier van eet en aantrek tekens van 'n groot heer gegee het." Dit was dus aan Cortés dat Velázquez hom gewend het toe daar besluit is om hom hulp te stuur, nadat die nuus gekom het oor die vordering van Juan de Grijalba se pogings om 'n kolonie op die vasteland te vestig. 'N Ooreenkoms met die aanstelling van Cortés as kaptein-generaal van 'n nuwe ekspedisie is in Oktober 1518 onderteken. Ervaring met die onstuimige politiek van die nuwe wêreldpolitiek het Cortés aangeraai om vinnig te beweeg, voordat Velázquez van plan verander. Sy gevoel vir die dramatiese, sy lang ervaring as administrateur, die kennis opgedoen uit soveel mislukte ekspedisies, veral sy vermoë as spreker het ses skepe en 300 man bymekaargemaak, alles in minder as 'n maand. Die reaksie van Velázquez was voorspelbaar, sy jaloesie wek, en besluit om die leierskap van die ekspedisie in ander hande te plaas. Cortés het egter haastig die see ingesit om meer manne en skepe in ander Kubaanse hawens groot te maak.


Hispaniola

Cortés was goed opgevoed en het familiêre verbintenisse gehad, en toe hy in 1503 in Hispaniola aankom, het hy spoedig as notaris werk gekry en 'n stuk grond en 'n aantal inboorlinge gekry om dit te bewerkstellig. Sy gesondheid het verbeter en hy het as soldaat opgelei, en het deelgeneem aan die onderwerping van die dele van Hispaniola wat teen die Spanjaarde uitgehou het.

Hy het bekend geword as 'n goeie leier, 'n intelligente administrateur en 'n meedoënlose vegter. Hierdie eienskappe het Diego Velázquez, 'n koloniale administrateur en conquistador, aangemoedig om hom te kies vir sy ekspedisie na Kuba.

Velázquez het die onderwerping van die eiland Kuba gekry. Hy vertrek met drie skepe en 300 manskappe, waaronder die jong Cortés, 'n klerk wat aan die tesourier van die ekspedisie toegewys is. Op die ekspedisie was ook Bartolomé de Las Casas, wat uiteindelik die gruwels van die verowering sou beskryf en die conquistadores sou veroordeel.

Die verowering van Kuba is gekenmerk deur 'n aantal onuitspreeklike mishandelinge, waaronder slagtings en die lewende brand van die inheemse hoof Hatuey. Cortés onderskei hom as soldaat en administrateur en word burgemeester van die nuwe stad Santiago. Sy invloed het toegeneem.


Honduras -ekspedisie

Van 1524 tot 1526 het Cortes oorlog gevoer met Cristóbal de Olid - die man wat Honduras vir homself geëis het. Cortes was die oorwinnaar. Hy wys vinger na Velázquez vir sy beweerde rol in die rebellie van Olid. Daarom het Cortés koning Charles versoek om Velázquez in hegtenis te neem op die aanklagte van verraad.

Na sy uitbuiting in Honduras, het Cortes na Mexiko teruggekeer net om te verneem dat sy kragbasis afgebreek is. Hy het vinnig na Spanje gegaan om koning Charles te smeek. Charles het egter min aandag gegee aan die politieke situasie in die Nuwe Wêreld. Al waaroor die koning omgee, was sy quinto, dit wil sê belasting uit die Amerikaanse kolonies. Charles het egter in 1529 die orde van Santiago aan Cortés verleen. Cortés het ook die titel markies van die Oaxaca (Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca) ontvang). Op pad terug na Mexiko het Charles hom in beheer van die weermag in Mexiko gemaak.


Asteke Ryk

In 1518 sou Cort és sy eie ekspedisie na Mexiko beveel, maar Vel ázquez het dit gekanselleer. In 'n gruwelike daad van uittarting het Cort és die bevel geïgnoreer en daardie jaar met meer as 500 man en 11 skepe na Mexiko vertrek.  

In Februarie 1519 bereik die ekspedisie die Mexikaanse kus. Volgens sommige rekeninge het Cort és toe al sy skepe vernietig, behalwe een, wat hy teruggestuur het na Spanje. Hierdie brutale besluit het die moontlikheid van enige terugtog uitgeskakel.

Cort és het bondgenote geword met sommige van die inheemse mense wat hy teëgekom het, maar met ander het hy dodelike geweld gebruik om Mexiko te verower. Hy het teen Tlaxacan- en Cholula -krygers geveg en daarna sy visier daarop ingestel om die Asteke -ryk oor te neem.  

Hy het opgeruk na Tenochtitl án, die Azteekse hoofstad en die tuiste van heerser Montezuma II. Nadat hulle in die koninklike paleis genooi is, het Cort és Montezuma as gyselaar geneem en sy soldate het die stad geplunder.  

Maar kort daarna het Cort és die stad haastig verlaat nadat hulle verneem het dat Spaanse troepe hom kom arresteer omdat hulle nie bevele van  Vel ázquez gehoorsaam het nie.

Nadat hulle die Spaanse magte afgeweer het, keer Cort és terug na Tenochtitl án om 'n opstand aan die gang te vind, waartydens  Montezuma vermoor is. Die Asteke het uiteindelik die Spanjaarde uit die stad verdryf, maar Cort és het weer teruggekeer om hulle te verslaan en die stad in 1521 in te neem, wat die Asteke -ryk effektief beëindig het.  

In hul bloedige stryd om oorheersing oor die Asteke het Cort é's en sy manne na raming tot 100 000 inheemse mense doodgemaak. Nuwe Spanje in 1522.


Fernando Cortés, ook bekend as Moses

Ek beweer, in stryd met die ortodokse geskiedenis en teologie dat:

1) die verhale wat in die eerste vyf boeke van die Ou Testament (die Pentateug) verband hou, is in die vroeë 16de eeu geskryf en handel oor gebeure wat fokus op die uitbarsting van Jode uit Spanje en die verowering van Mexiko.

2) die Bybelse Moses is hoofsaaklik gebaseer op die figuur van conquistador Fernando Cortés.

3) al die gebeure wat in die Bybel beskryf word, het plaasgevind, indien dit plaasgevind het, in die Amerikas (spesifiek die Amerikaanse suidweste).

4) die Protestantse Hervorming en die uitvinding van die drukpers het die geleentheid en middele gebied om bogenoemde tekste (en ander) in die standaard Bybelkanon te spuit.

BO: Waarom word Cortés voortdurend met Moses vergelyk?


Voordat ek positiewe bewyse vir hierdie bewerings aanbring, herinner ek u daaraan dat die tradisionele siening, wat hierdie gebeurtenisse in die gebied van die Midde -Ooste plaas en daaroor, bloot berus op die korrespondensie van soortgelyke geografiese plekname, en (vermoed ek) die waargenome onwaarskynlikheid van vervalsing iets soos dit. Die ander vorme van bewyse vir die tradisionele siening, die soort wat u oral sou verwag, is opvallend afwesig.

Die opvallendste is dat die grond in die "Heilige Land" volgens sy konvensionele ligging geen argeologiese bewyse gelewer het vir die vele gebeure, gevegte, landvorme, stede, strukture of persone wat in die Ou -Testamentiese geskrifte beskryf word nie. En dit is nie by gebrek aan iemand om dit te probeer vind nie. Navorsers het eeue lank gesoek na iets om die Bybelse verhaal in Palestina wetenskaplik te legitimeer. Die ware gelowiges in hierdie pogings is bereid om 'n minimum van bewyse te verdra, maar hulle kan selfs nie beter doen as om hul beperkte aannames verskonend voor te lê nie.

U sal baie sulke stellings sien, afkomstig van Finegan's Die argeologiese agtergrond van die Hebreeus-Christelike godsdiens, wat tipies is van die genre:

Verskonings soos Finegan moet uiteindelik voorgee dat hierdie probleme 'n spesiale bewys vorm. Die afdanking van Jerusalem, sê hy in hierdie reël, & quotis weerspieël slegs te duidelik in die argeologiese gebied deur die tekort aan belangrike materiaal. soos hierdie en af ​​en toe goed opgegrawe wat niemand kan bewys nie was nie die een waaruit Josef sy water put, is omtrent alles wat daar is om die Bybel met die & quotBibel -lande te verbind. & quot

Tensy jy die valse oudhede tel. Ek doen nie. Die enigste manier hoe die Dooie See -boekrolle meer vals kan lyk, is as dit in 'n Bud Light -bottel gevind word. Selfs die piramides van Giza blyk moderne skeppings te wees, gebou tydens Napoleon se Egiptiese veldtog. Die meeste van die beroemde Egiptiese oorblyfsels is na bewering op dieselfde tyd gevind en moet ook onder verdenking kom.

BO: The Sea of ​​Cortez (Golf van Kalifornië)


In Amerika het ons nie hierdie probleem nie. Die bewyse is reg voor ons gesigte. Selfs die geografiese plekmerke vir die skriftuurlike gebeure bestaan ​​nog steeds. Kyk net na enige kaart. Ek plaas net 'n paar voorbeelde van geboue in Kalifornië waarvan die bouers en oorspronklike inwoners verdwyn het. Ek dink almal is vertroud met hierdie dinge, so ek sal nie die punt daaroor uitdruk nie. Individueel dui dit nie onfeilbaar op Mosaïese verowering nie, maar as u dit ondersoek saam met die name van graafskappe, stede en ander plekname in Kalifornië en Arizona, kom 'n baie oortuigende patroon na vore. Waarom is daar soveel Egiptiese plekname aan die Weskus? Verwys Exodus XV: 27 na Palm Springs?

BO: 'n groep vreemde geboue in Kings County in die San Joaquin -vallei in Kalifornië. Was dit die toneel van 'n Bybelse geveg?

Om Moses as Cortés te identifiseer, is dit nie nodig dat 'n enkele historiese individu die naam het en presies ooreenstem met die historiese karakter van Fernando Cortés soos ons hom ken nie. Op die oomblik toe die veroweraars oor Mexiko marsjeer, het Spanje self die revolusionêre geskok comunero (kommunistiese) bewegingsopstand, watter groep ook sy regeringsvoornemens geïdentifiseer het onder die naam van & quotcortés & quot. Dit is moeilik (tensy u 'n historikus is) om nie 'n sameswering tussen die twee gebeure, die verowering in die buiteland en die rewolusie tuis af te lei nie. Maar of die een na die ander genoem is of albei met verwysing na 'n konsep wat van belang is vir die oorsaak, beïnvloed my bewerings nie. Met "Cortés" bedoel ek niks meer as "die leier van die verowering."


Daar is natuurlik 'n paar duidelike ooreenkomste tussen die twee mans. Moses het sy invloedsposisie onder die Egiptenare aanvaar deur middel van infiltrasie. Cortés het eweneens van intrige gebruik gemaak om sy leiersposisie vir die verowering te behaal. Verder suggereer sy eienaardige gewoonte om oordele toe te ken aan "die Christene" ook 'n aansienlike veelsydigheid volgens godsdienstige lyne. Daar word gesê dat Moses vyf boeke geskryf het. Cortés het vyf briewe geskryf. Hulle het albei 'n staf, ens.

Die ongewone variasie wat historici op Cortés se voornaam (& quotHernan & quot) gedwing het, bied 'n ander idee. Lyk dit nie vreemd om die man se naam te verander nie? Alle kontemporêre verslae verwys na hom as Fernando, met af en toe Ferdinand of Fernandus ingegooi. Maar deesdae is dit altyd & quotHernan. & Quot; Waarom? Ek stel voor dat die variantvorm bedoel is om die broer van Moses, 'Aaron', aan te dui (die Spaanse h is stil).

BO: The Sea of ​​Cortés staan ​​ook bekend as die & quotRed Sea & quot

'N Ander toevallige punt is die naam van die Golf van Kalifornië, of "Sea of ​​Cortez", wat histories bekend was as die "Rooi See" of "Vermillion Sea" (vermillion is 'n skarlakenrooi) waaronder die name op die ou kaarte verskyn. . Daar kan beswaar gemaak word dat dit 'n ietwat generiese beskrywende term is. Maar daar is goeie redes om hierdie omstandigheid as betekenisvol te beskou.


Eerstens is daar, behalwe die bekende langs die Sinai -skiereiland, nie 'n ander watermassa wat na my wete die 'Rooi See' genoem word nie. 'Tweedens, Eusabius Kino (regte van Kuhn) 'n Jesuïete rektor van Sonora, Mexiko, wat die kontinuïteit van Kalifornië met die Noord-Amerikaanse landmassa in 1702 herbevestig het (die meeste mense het gedink Kalifornië was destyds 'n eiland-en miskien was dit ook)-het verklaar dat sy ontdekking die uittog van Moses bevestig het soos in die Bybel opgeteken is. As hy Moses nie gelykgestel het aan Cortés nie, sou dit 'n belaglike ding wees om te sê, nie waar nie?

BO: Is Kalifornië die werklike & quotholy land & quot?

Ek beweer dat die Bybelse name wat in die regterkolom hieronder gelys word, eintlik verwys na die ooreenstemmende nuwe wêreldvorme aan die linkerkant:

Koning Ferdinand Farao

Karibiese See Arabiese See

Stille Oseaan Middellandse See

BO: Wat verteenwoordig die vlamrooi kastele?

Die duidelikste beswaar teen my bewerings is die prioriteit van die Ou -Testamentiese geskrifte. Soos gewoonlik, verbrokkel die bewyse vir hierdie 'duidelike waarheid' egter onder inspeksie. Hoofstroomowerhede eis altyd 'n baie groot oudheid vir die Pentateug, maar die oudste moontlike uitgawe, sover ek kan weet, is van ongeveer 1537. En die uitgawe is nie iets wat ek op die internet kon vind nie. Die Wycliffe -Bybel, wat die verowering voorafgegaan het, is veronderstel om die Ou Testament te bevat, maar weer, sover ek kan weet, het die Wycliffe -Bybel nooit alleen die Nuwe Testament bevat nie. As ek hier reg is, is die beweerde Wycliffe Ou Testament die soort leuen wat sterk sou getuig vir my proefskrif. Dit lyk ook vir my asof die Ou Testament oorspronklik in 'n ander taal as Hebreeus geskryf is, maar ek is nie seker nie.

BO LINKS: The Wycliffe Bible-No Old Testament

Dan het u die sogenaamde antieke kuns wat die gebeure van die Ou Testament uitbeeld. Ek sal net sê dat die omstandighede vir 'n ondersoek na hierdie eise byna dieselfde is as wat hierbo verband hou.


Die implikasies van hierdie bewerings, veronderstel dat dit die waarheid is, is diep en verreikend. Ek het nog baie meer te sê oor die onderwerp, maar ek eindig hierdie pos met nog 'n paar ou koerantknipsels.

*Ek bedoel die soort vrymesselary wat dinge vernietig, nie die 'operatiewe' soort wat teoreties dinge bou nie.

Aanhegsels

Trismegistus

Moderator

Ek het onlangs 'n geruime tyd in die Amerikaanse Weste deurgebring, en my algemene afhaal uit my ervaring is dat daar baie ou -testamente hier gebeur het.

Byvoorbeeld - Bryce Canyon in Utah. Dit wil voorkom asof iets doelbewus daar buite vernietig is, dit lyk nie regtig na die resultaat van 'natuurlike' prosesse nie. Terwyl ek besig was om te verfilm, het ek vasgevang wat ek glo die oorblyfsels is van 'n soort tempel- en piramide -kompleks.

Van regs na links kan u 'n tempel met standbeelde, 'n piramide, 'n ander tempel en mure op die voorgrond sien. Terwyl ek daar buite verfilm het, het ek gehoor hoe 'n Mormoon met sy seun praat - hy verduidelik hoe die sonlig op verskillende tye van die dag skaduwees gooi en die tempels. Ek het destyds gedink dat dit 'n baie interessante woordkeuse was totdat ek dit 'n paar minute later op my monitor gesien het.

O, en dit is verbasend dat hierdie funksie nie op Google Earth bestaan ​​nie. Die rooi sirkel is waar ek gestaan ​​het relatief tot die foto.

Daar is nog 'n interessante eienskap wat ek gelukkig met die zoomlens van die venster van 'n bestelwa langs I40 in New Mexico gekry het. Dit is ongetwyfeld 'n trap -piramide met 'n tempel bo -op.

En sou u dit nie weet nie - hulle verander die voorkoms daarvan op Google Earth heeltemal!

Hierdie piramide bestaan ​​nie net nie, dit bestaan ​​ook daarin Cibola graafskap, NM. Topografiese kaarte het eintlik 'n naam vir hierdie funksie - hulle noem dit Timia. Ek het nie ingegaan op die oorsprong van hierdie naam nie, hoewel aanvanklike soektogte nie veel opgedaag het nie.

Uitstekende draad, OP. Hierdie tipe navorsing skop al 'n rukkie tussen navorsingsgroepe rond en verdien beslis 'n volledige bespreking hier.

Aanhegsels

Silwer jy

Bekende lid

Dit laat my nadink oor die ooreenkoms van die Spaanse woord cortes met die Romein kohort (Latynse kohore). Die kohort was 'n militêre eenheid waarvan die aantal vermoedelik deur die geskiedenis verskil, maar dit word algemeen saamgestel uit 480 tot 600 gewapende mans en in ses verdeel centuriae (vyf vir die eerste groep van die legioen) wat die basis was vir die Eeufeesvergadering, een van die stemvergaderings in die Romeinse grondwet. Die legioen was nie net 'n vegstelsel nie, maar ook 'n stemmende stelsel.

In hierdie geval is die aantal gewapende mans wat Cortes volg presies die aantal van 'n groep (ongeveer 500 man) en in die opstand van die Spaanse Comuneros praat hulle oor kortes in verband met wetgewing, met die comuneros as 'n gewapende liggaam. Miskien is daar meer hieraan as wat op die oog af lyk

Armouro

Lid

Ek is binnekort terug om 'n paar dinge te vertel.

Solarbard

Aktiewe lid

Keiserorton

Aktiewe lid

Utah is vol dinge soos hierdie, en die geskiedenis van die Mormoonse pioniers is grootliks 'n voortsetting van verowering. Die Groot Soutmeer self (tesame met die ander soutmere van Noord-Amerika) hou byna seker verband met die gebeurtenis wat in die Bybel beskryf word as die skeiding van die rooi see, en dit hou blykbaar weer verband met die Califonia-as-an -verskynsel.

Die vroegste kaarte van Amerika beeld Kalifornië langs die westelike rand van die vasteland uit, net soos dit op moderne kaarte verskyn. Kaarte wat van die laat 16de eeu tot die vroeë 18de eeu gepubliseer is, beeld Kalifornië egter as 'n eiland uit. Daar word van ons verwag dat die eeue lange Kalifornië-eiland net 'n kartografiese fout was wat virale geraak het. Ondanks die feit dat dit wemel van pêrels, het niemand blykbaar meer as honderd jaar lank die moeite gedoen om die Golf van Kalifornië op te vaar nie. Ek kan alles behalwe dit glo.

Ek dink Kalifornië het in die 16de eeu wel 'n eiland geword, kort nadat Cortés en sy bondgenote daar oor die woestyn opgeruk het. Die daaropvolgende oorstromings van die land oos van die Sierra Nevada-gebergte-wat bekend staan ​​as die & quot; Groot Bekken & quot;-sou die gebeurtenis wees wat in die Bybel beskryf word as die vernietiging van farao se agtervolgende leër.

Volgens die Jesuïete het die sterkste aardbewing wat tot dusver in Amerika aangeteken is, plaasgevind in 1687. Dit was kort voordat Eusabius Kino 'n pad oor land van Mexiko na Kalifornië herontdek het, en moontlik was dit die gebeurtenis wat dit moontlik gemaak het. Hierdie of 'n daaropvolgende aardbewing was moontlik ook verantwoordelik vir die skepping van die San Francisco -baai. Dit is opmerklik dat nie een van die seilekspedisies of selfs ontdekkingsreisigers op land bewus was van die grootste hawe aan die Weskus van die vasteland tot in 1769. Die professionele verklaring hiervoor is mis.

Die Indiane het 'n tradisie dat die Baai geskep is-d.w.s. oopgemaak vir die see-naby die einde van die 17de eeu tydens 'n aardbewing. Voor die tyd, sê hulle, was daar eenvoudig 'n groot binnelandse meer. Baie van die Sacramento- en San Joaquin -valleie was tot die tyd van die burgeroorlog ook deur binnelandse mere bedek.

Dit alles laat my vermoed dat dit 'n aardbewing was wat Kalifornië van die vasteland geskei het, hetsy deur insakking van die woestynlande in die ooste van Kalifornië, of miskien deur die vernietiging van 'n dam aan die Colorado -rivier. Dit is opmerklik dat die Amerikaanse rekening van vyftig dollar (volgens sommige) die Hoover -dam (bars) uitbeeld en dat dit vanjaar die 500ste herdenking is van die verowering van Mexiko.

Armouro

Lid

In die woorde van Shang Tsung, & quotA smaak van toekomstige dinge & quot.


So. Die eerste salvo in die oorlog vir u teen u.

Ek het baie om te sê en te vra, maar ek moet begin deur GOED te sê. Ek kon maande lank oor hierdie dinge praat. Jare!
Ek het, en doen dit nog steeds.
Dit is 'n vars blaaskans om 'n ander perspektief te sien om hierdie hoofsaaklik onbetwiste konsepte af te haal met 'n goeie bron en 'n paar eenvoudige ondersoeke, wat selfs eeue se onbetwiste, haastige vertelling lyk.

1: Egiptiese oorblyfsels.
'Selfs die piramides van Giza blyk moderne skeppings te wees, gebou tydens Napoleon se Egiptiese veldtog. Die meeste van die beroemde Egiptiese oorblyfsels is na bewering op dieselfde tyd gevind en moet ook onder verdenking kom. ”
Die bewerings van oorblyfselherstel is onder verdenking, want dit was die dekades toe die USACE die meeste tussen die Amerikaanse suidweste en Egipte gewerk het. Die veldverslae van daardie dekades beklemtoon dit in grappe.

2: Name van plekke.
Negeer dit! Baie plekke word telkens genoem. Daar is 'n MartinLuther King Jr.blvd of straat in elke groot stad.
Daar is histories 12 Jerusalems. 8 Moskoue. 3 Rom.
Hierdie konneksie is hoogstens vaag.

Kyk hierna en lees die betrokke artikels.

Will Scarlet

Bekende lid

die Protestantse Hervorming en die uitvinding van die drukpers het die geleentheid en middele gebied om bogenoemde tekste (en ander) in die standaard Bybelkanon te spuit.

. Hoofstroom -owerhede eis altyd 'n baie groot oudheid vir die Pentateug, maar die oudste moontlike uitgawe, sover ek kan weet, is van ongeveer 1537.

Die Aleppo Codex en die Leningrad Codex is die oudste volledige weergawes wat onderskeidelik in die 10de en 11de eeu deur die Masoretes geskryf is. Die Ashkar-Gilson-manuskrip val tussen die vroeë boekrolle en die latere kodeks in.& quot (artikel)

Comunero beteken gemeenskap, nie kommunisties nie. Het u 'n bron vir die woord 'cortés' met betrekking tot die comuneros? Die gemeenskappe het verenig om 'juntas' te vorm - wat op 'n stadium met 'howe' vergelyk kan word.

Die comuneros het eintlik 'n vorm van konfederasie voorgestel, nie kommunisme nie, wat soortgelyk was aan die destydse situasie in die Italiaanse Republiek. Daar is veel meer aan die Comuneros -opstand as 'n 'kommunistiese opstand':

'Cortés' vertaal as 'hoflikheid', dit wil sê die etiket van die hof.

Selfs al klink Hernàn en Aaron vaagweg dieselfde (wat hulle nie doen nie), waarom sou hy dan na Moses se broer vernoem word as hy veronderstel was om self Moses te wees?

Ek dink hier is nog 'n soortgelyke draad waarin die Ou Testament veronderstel is om die geskiedenis van Bulgarye te wees.

Daniel

Lid

In Fomenko se geskrifte is Moses die Ottomaanse Musa uit die 15de eeu.

Joshua, die seun van die non, is Mehmet II. Die verowering van die "beloofde land" is die Ottomaanse verowering van die Bisantynse Ryk. En Jerigo is Konstantinopel.

Onijunbei

Uitgevee

Fabiorem

Aktiewe lid

Will Scarlet

Bekende lid

Corte is 'n ander woord en kom van die werkwoord cortar - om te sny, dit wil sê El Corte Inglés (die Engelse snit, beroemde warenhuis in Spanje en Portugal.)

Cortés is 'n byvoeglike naamwoord - eres cortés = jy is vriendelik/hoflik. Meervoud is Corteses van Cortesanos - lede van die koninklike hof (Courtiers.)

& quotCortés (apellido)
Cortés o Cortes es un apellido originario de la realeza española y portuguesa. Daar is 'n groot deel van die masjien. Se deriva del francés antiguo & quotcurteis & quot, que significa & quotamable, cortés, o bien educado & quot y es análogo al Curtis inglés, aunque la forma inglesa se ha utilizado más ampliamente como nombre propio.
Verwysing

Percy Hide Reaney, Richard Middlewood Wilson, A Dictionary of English Surnames (1991), p. 121. & quot

Vertaling:
& quotCortés (van)
Cortés of Cortes is die oorspronklike van van die Spaanse en Portugese koninklikes. Dit is afgelei van cortê en beteken heerser van die massas. Dit is afgelei van Oud-Frans & quotcurteis, "wat beteken", hoflik of goed gemanierd, "en is analoog aan Engelse Curtis, hoewel die Engelse vorm wyer as 'n selfstandige naamwoord gebruik is.

Verwysing
Percy Hide Reaney, Richard Middlewood Wilson, A Dictionary of English Surnames (1991), p. 121. & quot (Bron)

Ek kan geen verband tussen cortar en cortés in Spaans vind nie, maar dit beteken nie dat daar nooit een was nie. Bataljon in Spaans is batallón. Dit is nogal 'n sprong om te beweer dat dit na my mening dui op die gewelddadige oorsprong van edele huise.

Keiserorton

Aktiewe lid

Ek dink die naam & quot; Fernando Cortes & quot; onder die vrygewigste toegewing tot geloofwaardigheid, is ongeveer in die lyn van 'n naam soos & quot; Stonewall Jackson. & Quot; Lopez De Gomara, in een van sy boeke, sê iets soos & quot; Ferdinando Cortes, so genoem, omdat hy soek goud in die hofsaal. & quot Ek dink nie daar is twyfel dat die naam dit beteken nie hofs, hetsy deur etimologiese gebeurtenisse of met 'n belaglike woordspeling, alhoewel ek dink daar is 'n afstand tussen die koninklik en wettig skakerings van konnotasie te kry. Dit lyk in elk geval vir my asof 'n groter misleidingspeletjie gespeel word.

Let op dat in die ou boeke, & quotcortes, & quot dikwels onkapitaliseer is (ek bedoel, volg & quot; Fernando, & quot en verwys natuurlik na dieselfde) en nooit met die acento agudo op die tweede klinker. Dan is daar die groot variasie in spelling, binne 'n enkele boek, en selfs op dieselfde bladsy.

Dit is alles uit een boek (Die aangename geskiedenis van die verowering van Wes -Indië.) Behalwe die spellingvariasies, let op dat gemerkte terme in 'n ander, meer moderne lettertipe gedruk word as die res van die boek, asof dit op 'n vroeëre, aparte werk aangebring is.

Maar soos ek vroeër gesê het, as ek na & quotCortés verwys, bedoel ek slegs die leier van die verowering. En verder, ek beweer, was Cortés die primêr basis vir die karakter van Moses, maar nie die enigste een. Ek waardeer die kommentaar.

Will Scarlet

Bekende lid

Ja, daar is baie twyfel. As ons eenvoudig dinge gaan opmaak, hoe is ons dan beter as Scallinger & amp. Ek dink nie daar bestaan ​​twyfel dat u dink dat die naam 'howe' beteken nie, maar dit maak dit nie 'n feit nie. Ek sien nie regtig die relevansie nie, selfs al beteken dit 'howe'.

Ek sien dat dit 'n duplikaat van 'n plasing op die .org -webwerf is.

As Ferdinand II die ekwivalent van die Egiptiese Farao was, moes hy ten minste agtereenvolgens met 'Moses' Cortés geleef het, of mis ek iets? Was die uittog van die Jode uit ballingskap in Spanje? Val dit saam met hul verbanning in 1492?

As die uittogverhaal in die oorspronklike Hebreeuse Bybel verskyn, beteken dit dan dat dit 'n voorgevoel was van die beweerde Amerikaanse gebeurtenis ongeveer 500 jaar later? Ag nee, jammer ek het vergeet dat u beweer dat dit almal vervalsings was. Die oudste afskrif van die Torah is egter geskryf: tussen 1155 en 1225 CE en is geleë aan die Universiteit van Bologna, Italië. Dit bevat die volledige Torah (Pentateug). (Bron)

Will Scarlet

Bekende lid

Ek het nog 'n paar gedagtes oor hierdie Cortés -onderwerp gehad. Ek wonder, gegewe dat & quotCortés of Cortes is 'n oorspronklike van van die Spaanse en Portugese koninklikes, & quot as die hoflikheid/hoflike verwysing van die van verband hou met die konsep van 'Ridderlikheid'?

I remember that KD had some ideas regarding Chivalry back on SH1, for example:

Silveryou

Well-Known Member

I have had some additional thoughts on this Cortés subject. I wonder, given that "Cortés or Cortes is an original surname of the Spanish and Portuguese royalty," if the courtesy/courtly reference of the surname is related to the concept of 'Chivalry'?

I remember that KD had some ideas regarding Chivalry back on SH1, for example:

Will Scarlet

Well-Known Member

Ponygirl

Aktiewe lid

Some people say freemasonry* has been around for five hundred years or so. Others, however, claim to trace freemasonry all the way back to Moses. What if they're both right?

I claim, in contravention of orthodox history and theology that:

1) the stories related in the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) were written in the early 16th century and relate events centered on the explusion of Jews from Spain and the Conquest of Mexico.

2) the Biblical Moses is primarily based on the figure of conquistador Fernando Cortés.

3) all the events described in the Bible took place, if they took place, in the Americas (specifically the American Southwest).

4) the Protestant Reformation and the invention of the printing press provided the opportunity and means of injecting the aforesaid texts (and others) into the standard Bible canon.


View attachment 10465
ABOVE: Why is Cortés constantly compared to Moses?


Before I adduce positive evidence for these claims, I remind you that the traditional view, placing these events in the area of the Middle East and thereabouts, rests merely on the correspondence of like geographic placenames, and (I guess) the perceived implausibility of faking something like that. The other forms of evidence for the traditional view, the kind that you'd expect to be all over the place, are conspicuously absent.

Most strikingly, the ground in the "Holy Land," per its conventional location, hasn't yielded any archaeological evidence for the many events, battles, landforms, cities, structures, or persons described in the Old Testament scriptures. And it's not for lack of anybody of trying to find them. Researchers have spent centuries looking for something to scientifically legitimate the Biblical narrative in Palestine. The true believers in these efforts are willing to tolerate a standard of evidence that is minimal indeed but even they can't do better than submit their constrained conjectures apologetically.

You'll see a lot of statements like these, taken from Finegan's The Archaeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion, which is typical of the genre:

Apologetes like Finegan end up having to pretend that these problems constitute a special form of proof. The sacking of Jerusalem, he says in this line, "is reflected only too clearly in the archeological realm by the paucity of important materials." And as for the Conquest of Caanan, he notes that "Joshua evidently did a thorough job of destruction." Tautologies like these and the occasional excavated well that nobody can prove wasn't the one Joseph drew his water from is about all there is connecting the Bible to the "Bible lands."

Unless, that is, you count the fake antiquities. I don't. The only way the Dead Sea scrolls could look any more fake was if they were found stuffed in a Bud Light bottle. Even the pyramids of Giza appear to be modern creations, constructed during Napoleon's Egyptian campaign. Most of the famous Egyptian relics were allegedly found at the same time and must likewise come under suspicion.


View attachment 10467
ABOVE: The Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California)


In America we don't have this problem. The evidence is right in front of our faces. Even the geographic place-markers for the scriptural events are still around. Just look at any map. I'm just going to post a couple examples of buildings in California whose builders and original residents have disappeared. I think everyone is familiar with these things, so I won't belabor the point. Individually these don't point infallibly toward Mosaic conquest, but if you examine these along with the names of counties, cities and other place-names in California and Arizona a very compelling pattern emerges. Why are there so many Egyptian place-names on the West Coast? Does Exodus XV: 27 refer to Palm Springs?


View attachment 10472
ABOVE: A cluster of strange buildings in Kings County in California's San Joaquin Valley. Was this the scene of a Biblical battle?

Now, in identifying Moses as Cortés, it is not necessary that there be a single historical individual having the name and corresponding precisely with the historical personage of Fernando Cortés as we know him. At the very time the conquistadors were marching across Mexico, Spain herself was rocked by the revolutionary comunero (communist) movement uprising, which group identified its governmental pretensions by the name of "cortés" as well. It is hard (unless you're an historian I guess) not to infer a conspiratorial link between the two events, the conquest abroad and the revolution at home. But whether one was named for the other or both in reference to a concept significant to the cause doesn't affect my claims. By "Cortés" I mean nothing more than "the leader of the Conquest."


Of course there are several obvious similarities between the two men. Moses assumed his position of influence among the Egyptians by means of infiltration. Cortés likewise made use of intrigue to attain his leadership position for the conquest. Furthermore, his curious habit of attributing judgments to "the Christians," suggests substantial versimilitude along religious lines as well. Moses is said to have written five books. Cortés wrote five letters. They both carried a staff, etc.

The unusual variation historians have imposed on Cortés' first name ("Hernan") provides another clue. Doesn't it seem bizarre to change the man's name? All contemporary accounts refer to him as Fernando, with the occasional Ferdinand or Fernandus thrown in. But nowadays it's always "Hernan." Why? I suggest that the variant form is intended to signify Moses' brother "Aaron" (the Spanish h is silent).


View attachment 10469
ABOVE: The Sea of Cortés is also known as the "Red Sea"

Another point of coincidence is found in the naming of the Gulf of California, or "Sea of Cortez," which was historically known as the "Red Sea," or "Vermillion Sea" (vermillion is a scarlet red) under which names it appears on the old maps. It may be objected that this is a somewhat generic descriptive term. But there are good reasons to regard this circumstance as significant.


First, there is not, besides the familiar one located along the Sinai Peninsula, any other body of water, to my knowledge, that is named the "Red Sea." Second, Eusabius Kino (real last name Kuhn) a Jesuit rector of Sonora, Mexico who upon reconfirming the continuity of California with the North American landmass in 1702 (most people thought California was an island at the time--and maybe it was) declared that his discovery gave confirmation to the Exodus of Moses as recorded in the Bible. If he didn't equate Moses with Cortés then that would be a ridiculous thing to say, right?


View attachment 10471
ABOVE: Is California the werklike "holy land"?

I contend that the Biblical names listed in the right-hand column below refer in fact to the corresponding New World cognate-forms on the left:

King Ferdinand Pharaoh

Carribean Sea Arabian Sea

Pacific Ocean Mediterranean Sea


View attachment 10474
ABOVE: What do those flaming red castles represent?

The most obvious objection to my claims is the priority of the Old Testament scriptures. As usual, however, the evidence for this "obvious truth" crumbles under inspection. Mainstream authorities invariably claim very great antiquity for the Pentateuch but the oldest possible extant edition, as far as I can tell, is from 1537 or so. And that edition is not something I could find a copy of on the Internet. The Wycliffe Bible, which predates the conquest, is supposed to contain the Old Testament, but again, as far as I can tell, the Wycliffe Bible never included anything but the New Testament alone. If I am correct here, the claimed Wycliffe Old Testament is the sort of lie that would testify strongly for my thesis. It also looks to me like the Old Testament was originally written in a language other than Hebrew, but I'm not sure.


View attachment 10475
ABOVE LEFT: The Wycliffe Bible--No Old Testament

Then you have the supposedly ancient art depicting the events of the Old Testament. I will just say that the circumstances attending an investigation into these claims are much the same as related above.


The implications of these claims, supposing their truth, are deep and far-reaching. I have a lot more to say on the topic but I will end this post with a few more old-time newspaper clippings.

*I mean the kind of freemasonry that destroys things not the "operative" kind that theoretically builds things.


Hernán Cortés: Master of the Conquest

On Aug. 13, 1521, Cortés and his reinforced army swarmed across the causeways of Tenochtitlan to complete the conquest he had begun less than three years earlier.

Lebrecht Music & Arts Photo Library/Alamy Stock Photo

On Aug. 13, 1521, Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés received the surrender of Cuauhtémoc, ruler of the Aztec people. The astonishing handover occurred amid the ruins of Tenochtitlan, the shattered capital of a mighty empire whose influence had stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific and extended from central Mexico south into parts of what would become Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. After an 80-day siege Cortés had come to a terrible resolution: He ordered the city razed. House by house, street by street, building by building, his men pulled down Tenochtitlan’s walls and smashed them into rubble. Envoys from every tribe in the former empire later came to gaze on the wrecked remains of the city that had held them in subjection and fear for so long.

But how had Cortés accomplished his conquest? Less than three years had passed since he set foot on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, yet he had destroyed the greatest power in Mesoamerica with a relative handful of men. His initial force comprised 11 ships, 110 sailors, 553 soldiers—including 32 crossbowmen and 13 bearing harquebuses (early firearms)—10 heavy guns, four falconets and 16 horses. The force size ebbed and flowed, but he never commanded more than the 1,300 Spaniards he had with him at the start of the final assault.

On its face such a victory would suggest Cortés was a commander of tremendous ability. Yet scholars of the period have long underrated his generalship, instead attributing his success to three distinct factors. First was the relative superiority of Spanish military technology. Second is the notion smallpox had so severely reduced the Aztecs that they were unable mount an effective resistance. And third is the belief Cortés’ Mesoamerican allies were largely to credit for his triumph.

That the Spaniards enjoyed distinct technological, tactical and cultural advantages over their Mesoamerican foes doesn’t mean Cortés’ victories came easy

The conquistadors’ military technology was unquestionably superior to that of every tribe they encountered. The warriors’ weapons and armor were made of wood, stone and hide, while those of the Spaniards were wrought of iron and steel. Atlatls, slings and simple bows—their missiles tipped with obsidian, flint or fish bone—could not match the power or range of the crossbow. Clubs and macuahuitls—fearsome wooden swords embedded with flakes of obsidian—were far outclassed by long pikes and swords of Toledo steel, which easily pierced warriors’ crude armor of cotton, fabric and feathers. And, finally, the Spaniards’ gunpowder weapons—small cannon and early shoulder-fired weapons like the harquebus—wreaked havoc among the Mesoamericans, who possessed no similar technology.

The Spaniards also benefitted from their use of the horse, which was unknown to Mesoamericans. Though the conquistadors had few mounts at their disposal, tribal foot soldiers simply could not match the speed, mobility or shock effect of the Spanish cavalry, nor were their weapons suited to repelling horsemen.

When pitted against European military science and practice, the Mesoamerican way of war also suffered from undeniable weaknesses. While the tribes put great emphasis on order in battle—they organized their forces into companies, each under its own chieftain and banner, and understood the value of orderly advances and withdrawals—their tactics were relatively unsophisticated. They employed such maneuvers as feigned retreats, ambushes and ambuscades but failed to grasp the importance of concentrating forces against a single point of the enemy line or of supporting and relieving forward assault units. Such deficiencies allowed the conquistadors to triumph even when outnumbered by as much as 100-to-1.

Deeply ingrained aspects of their culture also hampered the Aztecs. Social status was partly dependent on skill in battle, which was measured not by the number of enemies killed, but by the number captured for sacrifice to the gods. Thus warriors did not fight with the intention of killing their enemies outright, but of wounding or stunning them so they could be bound and passed back through the ranks. More than one Spaniard, downed and struggling, owed his life to this practice, which enabled his fellows to rescue him. Further, the Mesoamerican forces were unprepared for lengthy campaigns, as their dependence on levies of agricultural workers placed limits on their ability to mobilize and sustain sufficient forces. They could not wage war effectively during the planting and harvest seasons, nor did they undertake campaigns in the May–September rainy season. Night actions were also unusual. The conquistadors, on the other hand, were trained to kill their enemies on the field of battle and were ready to fight year-round, day or night, in whatever conditions until they achieved victory.

That the Spaniards enjoyed distinct technological, tactical and cultural advantages over their Mesoamerican foes does not mean Cortés’ victories came easy. He engaged hundreds of thousands of determined enemies on their home ground with only fitful opportunities for reinforcement and resupply. Two telltale facts indicate that his success against New World opponents was as much the result of solid leadership as of technological superiority. First, despite his sparse resources, Cortés was as successful against Europeans who possessed the same technology as he was against Mesoamerican forces. Second, Cortés showed he could prevail against the Aztecs even when fighting at a distinct disadvantage.

Cortés proclaimed his victories in letters to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and included this detailed map of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan. (Le Monde.fr)

In April 1520, as the position of the conquistadors in Tenochtitlan became increasingly precarious, then Aztec ruler Montezuma II—whom the Spaniards had held hostage since the previous November—was informed Cortés’ ships had arrived at Cempoala on the Gulf Coast bearing the Spaniard’s countrymen, and he encouraged the conquistador to depart without delay. While Cortés’ troops were elated at what they assumed was impending deliverance, the commander himself rightly suspected the new arrivals were not allies. They had been sent by Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, governor of Cuba, whose orders Cortés had disobeyed in 1519 to launch his expedition, and their purpose was to punish rather than reinforce.

Reports from the coast indicated the fleet comprised 18 ships bearing some 900 soldiers—including 80 cavalrymen, 80 harquebusiers and 150 crossbowmen—all well provisioned and supported by heavy guns. The captain-general of the armada was Pánfilo de Narváez, a confidant of Velázquez, who made no secret of his intention to seize Cortés and imprison him for his rebellion against the governor’s authority.

Cortés could not afford to hesitate and thus allow Narváez time to gather strength and allies. Yet to march out of Tenochtitlan to engage the new arrivals also presented significant risks. If Cortés took his entire force, he would have to abandon the Aztec capital. Montezuma II would reassume the throne, and resistance would no doubt congeal and stiffen, making re-entry a matter of blood and battle, in contrast to the tentative welcome he had initially received. But to leave behind a garrison would further reduce the size of the already outnumbered force he would lead against Narváez. With the swift decision of the bold, a factor indeterminable by numerical calculation, the Spanish commander chose the latter course.

Cortés marched out with only 70 lightly armed soldiers, leaving his second-in-command, Pedro de Alvarado, to hold Tenochtitlan with two-thirds of the Spanish force, including all of the artillery, the bulk of the cavalry and most of the harquebusiers. Having done all he could to gain an edge over Narváez by feeding his couriers misinformation and undermining the loyalty of his officers with forwarded bribes of gold, Cortés marched with all speed. He crossed the mountains to Cholula, where he mustered 120 reinforcements, then marched through Tlaxcala and down to the coast at Veracruz, picking up another 60 men. Though still outnumbered more than 3-to-1, Cortés brought all his craft, daring and energy to bear and, in a rapid assault amid heavy rain on the night of May 27, overwhelmed his foes. Narváez himself was captured, while most of his men, enticed by stories of Aztec riches, readily threw in their lot with Cortés. Soon after his surprise defeat of Narváez, the bold conquistador proved himself equally capable of defeating Mesoamerican forces that held a numerical advantage.

The bold conquistador proved himself equally capable of defeating Mesoamerican forces that held a numerical advantage

On his return to Tenochtitlan, Cortés discovered Alvarado had indulged in an unprovoked massacre of the Aztecs, stirring the previously docile populace to murderous fury. The Spaniards quickly found themselves trapped and besieged in the capital, and hard fighting in the streets failed to subdue the enemy. Not even Montezuma could soothe his people, who met their emperor’s appeal for peace with a shower of stones that mortally wounded him. With the Spanish force growing short of food and water, and losing more men by the day, Cortés decided to withdraw from the city on the night of June 30–July 1. After a brutal running fight along a causeway leading to shore, the column was reduced to a tattered remnant, leaving Cortés with no more than one-fifth of the force he had originally led into Tenochtitlan. The overnight battle—the worst military disaster the conquistadors had suffered in the New World—would go down in Spanish history as La Noche Triste (“The Night of Sorrows”).

The debacle left Cortés with few materiel advantages. Only half of his horses survived, and the column had lost all of its powder, ammunition and artillery and most of its crossbows and harquebuses during the retreat. Yet the Spanish commander managed to hold together his flagging force. Skirting north to avoid a cluster of hostile villages, he headed toward Tlaxcala, home city of his Mesoamerican allies.

Over the days that followed Aztec skirmishers shadowed Cortés’ retreating column, and as the Spaniards neared the Tlaxcalan frontier, the skirmishers joined forces with warriors from Tenochtitlan and assembled on the plain of Otumba, between the conquistadors and their refuge. The trap thus set, on July 7 the numerically superior Aztecs and beleaguered Spaniards met in a battle that should easily have gone in the Mesoamericans’ favor. Again, however, Cortés turned the tables by skillfully using his remaining cavalry to break up the enemy formations. Then, in a daring stroke, he personally led a determined cavalry charge that targeted the enemy commander, killing him and capturing his colors. Seeing their leader slain, the Aztecs gradually fell back, ultimately enabling the conquistadors to push their way through. Though exhausted, starving and ill, they were soon among allies and safe from assault.

One long-standing school of thought on the Spanish conquest attributes Cortés’ success to epidemiological whim—namely that European-introduced smallpox had so ravaged the Aztecs that they were incapable of mounting a coherent defense. In fact, Cortés had defeated many enemies and advanced to the heart of the empire well before the disease made its effects felt. Smallpox arrived in Cempoala in 1520, carried by an African slave accompanying the Narváez expedition. By then Cortés had already defeated an army at Pontonchan won battles against the fierce, well-organized armies of Tlaxcala entered the Aztec capital at Tenochtitlan and taken its ruler hostage.

Smallpox had ravaged the populations of Hispaniola and Cuba and indeed had equally disastrous effects on the mainland, killing an estimated 20 to 40 percent of the population of central Mexico. But as horrific as the pandemic was, it is by no means clear that smallpox mortality was a decisive factor in the fall of Tenochtitlan or the final Spanish victory. The disease likely reached Tenochtitlan when Cortés returned from the coast in June 1520, and by September it had killed perhaps half of the city’s 200,000 residents, including Montezuma’s successor, Cuitláhuac. By the time Cortés returned in the spring of 1521 for the final assault, however, the city had been largely free of the disease for six months. The conquistadors mention smallpox but not as a decisive factor in the struggle. Certainly they saw no perceptible drop in ferocity or numbers among the resistance.

On the subject of numbers, some scholars have suggested the conquest was largely the work of the Spaniards’ numerous Mesoamerican allies. Soon after arriving in the New World, Cortés had learned from the coastal Totonac people that the Aztec empire was not a monolithic dominion, that there existed fractures of discontent the conquistadors might exploit. For nearly a century Mesoamericans had labored under the yoke of Aztec servitude, their overlords having imposed grievous taxes and tributary demands, including a bloody harvest of sacrificial victims. Even cities within the Valley of Mexico, the heart of the empire, were simmering cauldrons of potential revolt. They awaited only opportunity, and the arrival of the Spaniards provided it. Tens of thousands of Totonacs, Tlaxcalans and others aided the conquest by supplying the Spaniards with food and serving as warriors, porters and laborers. Certainly their services sped the pace of the conquest. But one cannot credit them with its ultimate success. After all, had the restive tribes had the will and ability to overthrow the Aztecs on their own, they would have done so long before Cortés arrived and would likely have destroyed the Spaniards in turn.

For his overthrow of the Aztec empire Hernán Cortés earned royal appointment as governor of the conquered territory, dubbed New Spain. (AKG-Images)

To truly assess the Spanish victory over the Aztecs, one must also consider the internal issues Cortés faced—logistical challenges, the interference of hostile superiors, factional divides within his command and mutiny.

Cortés established coastal Veracruz as his base of operations in Mexico and primary communications link to the Spanish empire. But the tiny settlement and its fort could not provide him with additional troops, horses, firearms or ammunition. As Cortés’ lean command suffered casualties and consumed its slender resources, it required reinforcement and resupply, but the Spanish commander’s strained relations with the governor of Cuba ensured such vital support was not forthcoming. Fortunately for himself and the men of his command, Cortés seems to have possessed a special genius for conjuring success out of the very adversities that afflicted him.

After defeating the Narváez expedition, Cortés integrated his would-be avenger’s force with his own, gaining men, arms and equipment. When the Spaniards lay exhausted in Tlaxcala after La Noche Triste, still more resources presented themselves. Velázquez, thinking Narváez must have things well in hand, with Cortés either in chains or dead, had dispatched two ships to Veracruz with reinforcements and further instructions both were seized on arrival, their crews soon persuaded to join Cortés. Around the same time two more Spanish vessels appeared off the coast, sent by the governor of Jamaica to supply an expedition on the Pánuco River. What the ships’ captains didn’t know is that the party had suffered badly and its members had already joined forces with Cortés. On landing, their men too were persuaded to join the conquest. Thus Cortés acquired 150 more men, 20 horses and stores of arms and ammunition. Finally, a Spanish merchant vessel loaded with military stores put in at Veracruz, its captain having heard he might find a ready market for his goods. He was not mistaken. Cortés bought both ship and cargo, then induced its adventurous crew to join his expedition. Such reinforcement was more than enough to restore the audacity of the daring conquistador, and he began to lay plans for the siege and recovery of Tenochtitlan.

While the ever-resourceful Cortés had turned these occasions to his advantage, several episodes pointed to an underlying difficulty that had cast its shadow over the expedition from the moment of its abrupt departure from Cuba—Velázquez’s seemingly unquenchable hostility and determination to interfere. Having taken leave of the governor on less than cordial terms, Cortés was perhaps tempting fate by including of a number of the functionary’s friends and partisans in the expedition. He was aware of their divided loyalties, if not overtly concerned. Some had expressed their personal loyalty to Cortés, while others saw him as their best opportunity for enrichment. But from the outset of the campaign still other members of the Velázquez faction had voiced open opposition, insisting they be permitted to return to Cuba, where they would undoubtedly report to the governor. Cortés had cemented his authority among the rebels through a judicious mixture of force and persuasion.

But the problem arose again with the addition of Narváez’s forces to the mix. While headquartered in Texcoco as his men made siege preparations along the lakeshore surrounding Tenochtitlan, Cortés uncovered an assassination plot hatched by Antonio de Villafaña, a personal friend of Velázquez. The plan was to stab the conquistador to death while he dined with his captains. Though Cortés had the names of a number of co-conspirators, he put only the ringleader on trial. Sentenced to death, Villafaña was promptly hanged from a window for all to see. Greatly relieved at having cheated death, the surviving conspirators went out of their way to demonstrate loyalty. Thus Cortés quelled the mutiny.

Whatever advantages the Spaniards enjoyed, victory would have been impossible without his extraordinary leadership

But hostility toward the conquistador and his “unlawful” expedition also brewed back home in the court of Spanish King and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In Cortés’ absence his adversaries tried every means to undermine him, threatening his status as an agent of the crown and seeking to deny him the just fruits of his labors. The commander was forced to spend precious time, energy and resources fighting his diplomatic battle from afar. Even after successfully completing the conquest, Cortés received no quarter from his enemies, who accused him of both defrauding the crown of its rightful revenues and fomenting rebellion. On Dec. 2, 1547, the 62-year-old former conquistador died a wealthy but embittered man in Spain. At his request his remains were returned to Mexico.

Setting aside long-held preconceptions about the ease of the conquest of Mexico—which do disservice to both the Spanish commander and those he conquered—scholars of the period should rightfully add Cortés to the ranks of the great captains of war. For whatever advantages the Spaniards enjoyed, victory would have been impossible without his extraordinary leadership. As master of the conquest, Cortés demonstrated fixity of purpose, skilled diplomacy, talent for solving logistical problems, far-sighted planning, heroic battlefield command, tactical flexibility, iron determination and, above all, astounding audacity. MH

Justin D. Lyons is an assistant professor in the Department of History and Political Science at Ohio’s Ashland University. For further reading he recommends Azteekse oorlogvoering: keiserlike uitbreiding en politieke beheer, by Ross Hassig The Spanish Invasion of Mexico 1519–1521, by Charles M. Robinson III and Conquest: Cortés, Montezuma, and the Fall of Old Mexico, by Hugh Thomas.


Burn the Ships: Hernán Cortés and the Order that Changed the New World

Columbus Day approaches, and we will soon be subjected to the now commonplace rants from mainstream outlets and far-left rags about the horrors of colonialism. You can expect a revived debate on the relative merits of celebrating Christopher Columbus and other explorers to the Americas. This is likely to be particularly vitriolic this year with the added fuel to the fire of the sex abuse scandal in Pennsylvania.

There are legitimate qualms about colonization and how the original regions were governed. There were accusations of forced labor and tyranny in areas controlled by the Spanish Empire. But what many people tend to do is exaggerate the negatives of the Conquista of the Americas in order to demonize the brave men and women who left everything to come to the New World. The calls against conquistadors (and the fact that we still use that word) speak to the persistence of many of the Black Legends surrounding this era and the Holy Catholic Church.

Cortés was an early settler in modern Cuba and was commissioned to explore the Mexican coastline but not to settle there. He decided to conquer the place for several reasons, but a predominant one was the conversion to Catholicism of the natives. In fact, it was the practice of the Spanish to encourage marriage to the natives. While the settlers of North America largely brought women with them and discouraged marriage with the native populations, the intermarriage between the Spanish and the natives would greatly influence future generations and win an entire region for the faith.

The Aztec Empire

The Aztec Empire, the primary opponent of Cortés, was known for its barbarism. The Aztecs had subjugated many other tribes in the region and demanded tribute (slaves) for their religious practices in the temples. Some tribes under Aztec rule, it is commonly believed, were left not fully conquered so that the Aztecs could capture more slaves and on a more regular basis. This was linked to the practice of “flower warfare” and was a way for both the Aztecs and other tribes to obtain human sacrifices. [2] Montezuma actually admitted to this, according to Andrés de Tapia. The emperor, asked why the Aztecs did not finish off their enemies, replied: “We could easily do so but then there would remain nowhere for the young men to train [militarily], except far from here and, also, we wanted there to always be [nearby] people to sacrifice to our gods.” [3] This horrific practice went on from approximately 1450 to 1519, when Cortés and his troops found allies among the Tlaxcala and other rival powers.

The mention of sacrifice to the gods was in reference to the widespread practice of the Aztecs of human sacrifice. The practice was so prevalent that Cortés estimated that up to four thousand humans were sacrificed in the empire every year. The Aztecs served cruel pagan gods who wanted human sacrifices often and in brutal fashion. There were many gods in the Aztec world, and almost all of them required both animal and human sacrifices. The chief god, Huitzilopochtli, had a temple in the capital at Tenochtitlan that was decorated with skulls and painted blood red. The rain god, Tlaloc, considered one of the most ancient deities in Mesoamerica, relished the cries and tears of children. Babies and children were sacrificed to this god regularly.

The preferred method of human sacrifice was to use an obsidian knife to slice downward from the base of the neck to the navel. The person doing the offering would then remove the still beating heart of the victim as well as the bowels and place them on a fire at the base of an idol. This was described by those who had seen it as “the most terrible and frightful thing to behold that has ever been seen.”

I set this up and use graphic descriptions of the Aztecs’ practices to show what exactly the Spaniards were up against.

The Conquest

The conquest of Mexico by Cortés and his men is legendary. The tales of the sacking of Tenochtitlan have passed through the ages down to today as a turning point for the region of Central America.

The conquest did not begin until 1519, officially with the taking over of Veracruz, the coastal region on the other side of the Gulf of Mexico from Cuba. The conquest of Mexico was twofold. The first was the military conquest of the land and people, and the second was the spiritual conquest for the Catholic Church of the hearts and souls of the nation.

One of the first actions of Cortés, on capturing Veracruz, was to order the sinking of his own ships – commonly thought to be burning, but that is contested – so there would be no option for his men but to continue. What is certain is that the sinking would set an irreversible course for the conqueror.

The conquistadors skirmished with some local tribes while seeking alliances against the Aztecs in 1519. One of these was the Tlaxcalans, mentioned above, who first fought the Spanish. Once they realized that the Spanish wanted peace and an alliance, they decided to join the conquerors. The larger force then, in October 1519, marched on Cholula, the second largest city in the region.

There was a massacre of the Cholulan nobles scholars disagree as to the motivation. The view one takes on the issue largely depends on one’s view of Cortés himself. He claimed it was due to treachery, and others claim it was to send a message. There is a record of the speech Cortés gave formally accusing the assembled nobles of treachery and his claim to be following Spanish law (see previous link). The nobles said they were acting on behalf of Montezuma. The city was taken, and its altars and temples were burned.

The Bible has a history of God using armies of men to bring his vengeance on idolaters, as we see in the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites.

After taking over Cholula, the conquistadors undertook their first march on Tenochtitlan, where they arrived in November of 1519. They were admitted to the city by Montezuma so the Aztecs could learn the weaknesses of the Spanish. This would be a poor move for the Aztec emperor, as Montezuma’s soldiers on the coast had killed many Spaniards, and word quickly reached Cortés, who decided to take Montezuma hostage.

The conquest might have ended there, but Velázquez still wanted to take the land himself and sent an army to confront Cortés in April of 1520. Cortés and most of his men, leaving Montezuma in the capital as the hostage of his garrison, departed to deal with the army of Velázquez. They were outnumbered, but they prevailed, and they convinced the soldiers of the losing side to join their forces in returning to Tenochtitlan. This setback lasted from April of 1520 until July of 1520.

As Cortés returned to the capital after dealing with Velázquez, Montezuma was stoned to death by his people in general revolt, thus shaking the tenuous hold the Spanish had on the city. The conquistadors were forced to flee to Tlaxcala and regroup. On their way, they suffered major losses in the Battle of Otumba. The won the battle against all odds as their force was approximately 1,300 men against upwards of 10,000 Aztec warriors. Fewer than 500 in the Spanish and Tlaxcalan forces escaped with their lives once Cortés had his mounted soldiers take out the leader on the field.

Once the Spanish regrouped, they laid siege to Tenochtitlan. Tenochtitlan was an island city, which greatly aided Cortés. The conquest officially ended when the Spaniards captured Cuauhtemoc, who had replaced Montezuma as the head of the city in August of 1521. The city was officially renamed Mexico City, and the conversion was set to begin.

The armies of the Catholic Empire had conquered the demon gods of the Aztecs, and Cortés himself was known at the time for piety. He was concerned about the Church sending official priests to Mexico and instead requested friars of the Dominican and Franciscan orders. His concern was the negative reflection the priests and their “vices” would have on the natives and the harm it would bring to the Church. [4] This was the same period of corruption in the Church that had led to the breaking off of Luther just four years prior in 1517. Cortés was concerned that the practices of the officials of the Church would turn off the natives, and his judgment was sound. Due to his actions and those of his “Twelve Apostles of Mexico,” the conversion of Mexico began. By 1540, an estimated 9 million souls were brought to Holy Mother Church via the Virgin of Guadalupe and the longstanding Catholic monasteries, some of which still stand today.

Cortés made a special request in his letters to the emperor for special powers to be granted by the pope to the friars he requested for evangelization. He was greatly concerned for the souls of the natives as well as the souls of his men. He sought the dispensation of powers for the Franciscans and Dominicans because his people and the natives were “so far from the proper remedies of our consciences,” but he feared the damage normal clerics may cause. [5] Cortés is shown in the writings of Díaz del Castillo, who was with him on the conquest, to have regularly and publicly given speeches and thanks to God to encourage the conversion. One such example is recounted in thorough detail in the Historia Verdadera, Vol. 2, Chapter 77, where Cortés is personally attempting to convert the Tlaxcalans. He is recounted as explaining the mission of the Spaniards to convert the natives and end human sacrifice as well as venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary before them. He also showed deference to the priest, Father de la Merced, which enabled the Spanish to obtain from the Tlaxcalans a newly constructed temple for Our Lord. [6]

The spiritual aspect of Cortés’s conquest was far more important than the terrestrial aspect. The gods of the Aztec peoples along with those in the remainder of Mexico demanded cruel and regular sacrifices. The Aztecs diligently provided them in cooperation and in conflict with their neighbors, and they have stood out as one of the most brutal empires in the history of the world. Thousands were offered up to the gods every year, including women and children.

The conversion of the New World started with the order from Cortés to burn his ships and take over the nation. His passion for the conversion to Christ led Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Dominican friar, to write: “Through this captain, God opened the door for us to preach his holy gospel, and it was he who caused the Indians to revere the holy sacraments and respect the ministers of the church.” [7]

Trying times lie ahead in the Church, and many will be tempted to leave the faith due to the abuses of our times. The burning of ships by Cortés reminds us that the Catholic faith is a commitment for life. There is no turning back. We need to redouble our efforts to defend and spread the faith while cleaning out the Church of those who corrupt her. Take Cortés as an example in courage and piety from a time in many ways much more brutal than our own, and remember: the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church.

[1] The Conquest of New Spain, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, 1963

[2] Isaac, Barry L. “The Aztec ‘Flowery War’: A Geopolitical Explanation.” Journal of Anthropological Research 39.4 (1983): 415–432. Web.

[4] Cortés, Hernán. Hernán Cortés: Letters from Mexico. Translated and edited by Anthony R. Pagden. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1971. Letter IV. Page 333.


Noche Triste

Cortés remained in the city for five months and virtually governed the kingdom. In April, Cortés learned of a Spanish force landing on the Gulf Coast by Pánfilo de Narváez, who was sent by Velázquez to relieve Cortés of his command and bring him back to Cuba for trial. He left Pedro de Alvarado in charge, defeated Narváez, and returned with his soldiers, thus increasing the size of Cortés’s force. Upon his return, he found Motecuhzoma’s palace besieged by the Aztecs after Alvarado had massacred many leading Aztec chiefs during a festival. This action prompted retaliation by the Indians against the Spanish. It was during this time that members of the Aztec elite decided to replace Motecuhzoma with his brother, Cuitlahuac. In late June, Motecuhzoma was killed it is still not known by whom. Angry and without food, on June 30, 1520, Cortés decided to leave the city under the cover of darkness, later to return. However, before his soldiers could complete their escape, the people of Tenochtitlán discovered their plot. As a result, many men on both sides lost their lives in the canals that surrounded the city that night. Cortés’ men had attempted to escape with gold in their pockets and were found drowned in the waters the following day. This night was later called the Noche Triste, The Night of Sorrows.

Cortes Triumphant

Cortés and his men withdrew and rejoined their allies, the Tlaxcalans. Cortés returned in December with a better-prepared contingent, more reinforcements from Cuba and Jamaica, new ships, cannons, a layout of the city and a siege mentality. In the interim, an epidemic of smallpox had broken out in the city and many people died, one of which was the ruler Cuitlahuac, who had been replaced by Cuauhtémoc. Upon Cortés’ return, he cut off the water and food to the city, combined an assault by lake and land and fought for 3 months. The city finally fell with the surrender of Cuauhtémoc on August 13, 1521.