When Montezuma Met Cortés: The True Story of the Meeting that Changed History Hardcover – January 30, 2018

To begin with what's new and convincing, the author builds a good case that Montezuma's "surrender" of his country, a major part of the legend about him and Cortes, may well have originated with a bad translation. To paraphrase the author's explanation, the English language equivalent of Montezuma's welcome was something like, "Let my home be your home." By the time it went through at least one and maybe two translations, it became something like, "I give my country to your king." The mistranslation was undoubtedly helped along by the Spaniards wanting to hear something like it.Another new feature involves seeing Montezuma as a collector. The author makes a good case that Montezuma collected animals of all descriptions including unusual people. Once Cortes and the other Spaniards arrived in his capital, he may well have decided to add them to his collection. Where I had a problem was with the idea that Montezuma wanted to "collect" Spaniards from the moment he heard about them landing in what is now Mexico. A variety of sources have stated that, rather than lure Cortes to the Aztec capital, Montezuma tried to bribe him to stay away. Once the Spaniards did arrive, Montezuma may well have decided to add the invaders to his collection, but it seems unlikely that he started out wanting to do so.So what else is wrong with this book? His view of Cortes fits that category. While it does give a reader pause to realize that Cortes had only one truly successful event in his life, the capture of the Aztec capital, the author tears him down at every opportunity. He comes across as, at best, a tool of the other Spanish commanders and at worst, a mediocrity without authority or a single useful idea in his head. Even Cortes's worst enemies never underrated him so much.Then there is the author's unwillingness to face the role sacrifice played in the Aztec religion. Justifiably he does question the claim that vast numbers of captured warriors ended up on Aztec sacrificial stones. Starting in the Classical world, European writers did have a fondest for adding zeros to any number they wrote down. That said, as often as possible when writing about the Aztecs, the author insists on using the term "execution" rather than sacrifice. He does this in large measure so that he can claim that the Spaniards killed more people than the Aztecs. That is very probably true. The trouble is emphasizing Spanish brutality conflicts with his next claim, that in the wars of the Aztec wars of the 1520s, the Spaniards were more or less along for the ride.The author's enthusiasm to see the defeat of the Aztecs as primarily a victory for their indigenous rivals leads to his claim that the Spaniards played a rather minor military role in the victory. Having painted himself into that corner, the author has no way to explain how the Spanish killed or enslaved vast numbers of not only Aztecs but other Mesoamericans as well and finally ended up in control of what they called New Spain. In fact the author doesn't even try to explain it.Despite these objections, the author has unquestionably done his research and has valuable contributions to make. Less special pleading would have helped communicate these useful contribution much more effectively.

Matthew Restall is right: our view of what happened "when Montezuma met Cortés" has been completely distorted by 5 centuries of mythmaking, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications, all centered on the larger-than-life figure of Cortés. Beginning with his letters to Carlos I in the 1520s, and the hagiography of him by Gómara shortly thereafter, Cortés's central role in the Conquest has been portrayed as one of complete control and mastery of the events that led to the fall of Tenochtitlan. Even as historical interpretations of Cortés have changed throughout the centuries--from a courageous deliverer of Christianity and civilization to a brutally violent and genocidal warmonger-- he is constantly portrayed as a brilliant, yet conniving, strategist, with perfect information, and in complete control of the events.Restall's thoroughly researched book does two things brilliantly. One, he shows us, through what must have been an exhaustive reading of every narrative ever written about the Conquest since it happened more than 500 years ago, HOW the story became shaped and WHY it's been so hard to dislodge, even today. And two, he broadens our view of those events between 1519-1521 as they actually unfolded in the real world of Mesoamerican politics, a world Cortés had little insight into (his two translators notwithstanding), and even less control over.There is a lot of underlying humor in the book as Restall highlights some of the more absurd reimaginings various authors came up with recreating the narrative. I found myself chuckling many times as I listened to the book. I thought the narration was terrific, spot on.

For generations people have asked “how did a small band of adventurers conquer the massive and powerful Aztec Empire?” We ask the question because the claim seems so outrageous. At long last When Montezuma Met Cortés shows us just how outrageous that claim is. In the most thoroughly researched account of the “conquest” yet compiled, Restall reveals just how mistaken we have been about the conquest of the Aztecs. Cortés did not simply outsmart and outgun this extraordinary empire. What Cortés, and later historians, did was simplify and manipulate a story of incredible complexity so that the crown, and indeed history, would shower him with glory and power. This rich accounting of one of the most extraordinary events in history is the most important work on the conquest in living memory. When Montezuma Met Cortés replaces myth with a story that is far more fascinating and informative than the one we’ve been told.

Scholarly deconstruction of the Cortez story, one of my favorites in history. It helps, going into this, to be familiar with it already. The author makes a good case, I came away convinced, but felt a little sad to have the splendor, if that's the word I want, stripped from the familiar tale. One thing that kind of annoyed me was his insistence on calling Aztec human sacrifice, " ritual execution." Come on, dude!

Awesome, asks all the questions that haven't been asked about the Cortesian narrative and masterfully uses contemporary documents to poke holes in the traditional story. It should be noted however, that this is NOT a biography of Montezuma or of Cortes, as it covers mostly the intersection of their representative cultures and examines how the historical record became distorted around their meeting and the motives the conquistadors had for distorting the record. I read this after reading a smaller biography of Montezuma and doing some individual research on him and enjoyed it more for that reason. Not necessarily an introductory history, more revisionist history at its finest. Important reading for someone already familiar with the central figures and events. Read for an episode of my podcast, Hard Fried History.

It is a great book, that I bought from Chapters as Dynamex couldn't be bothered to deliver it or to even return my messages of inquiry

Excellent

Todo excelente