Información

Cortes


Las Cortes eran el Parlamento español. En las elecciones de 1933, CEDA obtuvo la mayor cantidad de escaños en las Cortes. El presidente Niceto Alcalá Zamora se negó a pedir a su líder, José Maria Gil Robles, que formara gobierno. Sin embargo, siete miembros de la CEDA se desempeñaron como ministros durante los siguientes tres años.

En las elecciones de febrero de 1936, el 34,3% de los votos se destinó al Frente Popular, el 33,2% a los partidos conservadores y el resto a los partidos regionales y de centro. Esto le dio al Frente Popular 271 escaños de los 448 en las Cortes y se pidió a Manuel Azaña que formara un nuevo gobierno.

El nuevo gobierno molestó inmediatamente a los conservadores al darse cuenta de todos los presos políticos de izquierda. El gobierno también introdujo reformas agrarias que penalizaron a la aristocracia terrateniente. Otras medidas incluyeron el traslado de líderes militares de derecha como Francisco Franco a puestos fuera de España, la ilegalización de la Falange Española y la concesión de autonomía política y administrativa a Cataluña.

El 10 de mayo de 1936 el conservador Niceto Alcalá Zamora fue derrocado como presidente y reemplazado por el izquierdista Manuel Azaña. Poco después, los oficiales del ejército español, incluidos Emilio Mola, Francisco Franco y José Sanjurjo, comenzaron a conspirar para derrocar al gobierno del Frente Popular. Esto provocó el estallido de la Guerra Civil española el 17 de julio de 1936.

Se estima que durante los primeros meses de la guerra, 28 miembros de las Cortes fueron asesinados en la zona republicana, mientras que 59 fueron asesinados en la zona nacionalista.

Cuando el gobierno abandonó Madrid en noviembre de 1936, las Cortes se trasladaron a Valencia. Sin embargo, después de que Juan Negrín se convirtiera en primer ministro en mayo de 1937, anunció que su gobierno gobernaría por decreto. Las Cortes ahora solo se reunieron cada seis meses para discutir temas seleccionados por el gobierno.

Cuando Negrin y su gobierno huyeron a Francia, las Cortes se reunieron en París. La última sesión de las Cortes de la República se celebró el 31 de marzo de 1939.

Después de la guerra, el general Francisco Franco estableció unas Cortes cuidadosamente controladas que actuaban según la legislación redactada por sus ministros.


Cortes

Nuestros editores revisarán lo que ha enviado y determinarán si deben revisar el artículo.

Cortes, Español y portugués tribunales, Catalán Corts, una asamblea representativa, o parlamento, de los reinos ibéricos medievales y, en tiempos modernos, la legislatura nacional de España y de Portugal.

Las Cortes se desarrollaron en la Edad Media cuando los representantes electos de los municipios libres adquirieron el derecho a participar en las deliberaciones de la Curia Regis (en latín: "Corte del Rey") sobre ciertos asuntos. Fueron admitidos debido a la necesidad de la corona de una ayuda financiera más allá de la proporcionada por sus impuestos habituales y debido a la falta de derecho legal de la corona a imponer impuestos adicionales sin el consentimiento de los municipios.

Tanto en León como en Castilla, las Cortes ya existían a principios del siglo XIII. Sus funciones y procedimientos eran similares y, después de la unión de las dos coronas en 1230, a menudo celebraron reuniones conjuntas, un procedimiento normal después de 1301. También funcionaron parlamentos en Cataluña a partir de 1218, Valencia (1283), Aragón (1274) y Navarra (1300). Las Cortes de León y Castilla estaban compuestas por tres estamentos: nobles, clero y el procuradores (abogados o secretarios municipales) de la concejos (municipios fortificados), que tenían poderes (instrucciones escritas) de sus electores. El rey convocó las reuniones de las Cortes cuando y donde quiso. Durante el siglo XIV la procuradores Dominaron las Cortes porque solo ellas podían autorizar los impuestos especiales que necesitaba la corona. Las reuniones consistieron en negociaciones, no verdaderos debates.

En Castilla, tras la fallida revuelta de los pobladores conocida como comuneros (1520–21), el hidalgos (baja nobleza) fueron la única fuerza sobreviviente en las Cortes, e incluso ellas dejaron de ejercer mucho poder real. En Portugal, las Cortes ratificaron la sucesión de la Casa de Avis (1385) y de Felipe II (1580) y estuvieron activas después de la restauración de la independencia (1640). Pero en España las Cortes de Cataluña no se reunieron después de la revuelta de 1640 ni la de Valencia después de 1645 ni la de Castilla después de 1685. En 1709 las Cortes de Aragón y Valencia se fusionaron con la de Castilla, como fue la de Cataluña en 1724, aunque las reuniones se llevaron a cabo únicamente para reconocer al heredero de la corona. En el siglo XVIII, las Cortes de Portugal no se reunieron en absoluto.

En 1812, las Cortes españolas se reunieron en Cádiz y aprobaron la primera constitución liberal. Aunque fue derrocado en 1814, las Cortes fueron restauradas en 1820 y fueron adoptadas por Portugal en el mismo año. En ambos países, la palabra se aplicó en adelante al parlamento nacional.

Durante el reinado de Francisco Franco, el nombre de Cortes Españolas (“Cortes Españolas”) se utilizó a partir de 1942 para el sello de goma, legislatura no democrática. Tras la transición a la democracia en la década de 1970, el nombre oficial de la legislatura se cambió a Cortes Generales (“Cortes Generales”).


Años en Hispaniola y Cuba

En La Española se convirtió en agricultor y notario en un ayuntamiento durante los primeros seis años más o menos, parece haberse contentado con establecer su cargo. Contrajo sífilis y, como resultado, se perdió las desafortunadas expediciones de Diego de Nicuesa y Alonso de Ojeda, que zarparon hacia el continente sudamericano en 1509. En 1511 se había recuperado y navegó con Diego Velázquez para conquistar Cuba. Allí Velázquez fue nombrado gobernador y Cortés secretario del tesorero. Cortés recibió un repartimiento (donación de tierras y esclavos indios) y la primera casa en la nueva capital de Santiago. Ahora estaba en una posición de cierto poder y era el hombre al que los elementos disidentes de la colonia empezaron a acudir en busca de liderazgo.

Cortés fue elegido dos veces alcalde (“alcalde”) del pueblo de Santiago y fue un hombre que “en todo lo que hacía, en su presencia, porte, conversación, manera de comer y de vestir, daba señales de ser un gran señor”. Fue a Cortés a quien acudió Velázquez cuando, tras conocerse el avance de los esfuerzos de Juan de Grijalba por establecer una colonia en tierra firme, se decidió enviarle ayuda. En octubre de 1518 se firmó un acuerdo por el que se nombraba a Cortés capitán general de una nueva expedición. La experiencia de los vaivenes de la política del Nuevo Mundo aconsejó a Cortés actuar con rapidez, antes de que Velázquez cambiara de opinión. Su sentido de lo dramático, su dilatada experiencia como administrador, los conocimientos adquiridos en tantas expediciones fallidas, sobre todo su habilidad como orador le reunieron seis barcos y 300 hombres, todo en menos de un mes. La reacción de Velázquez fue previsible, sus celos despertaron, resolvió poner el liderazgo de la expedición en otras manos. Cortés, sin embargo, se apresuró a hacerse a la mar para reunir más hombres y barcos en otros puertos cubanos.


Hispaniola

Cortés tenía una buena educación y vínculos familiares, por lo que cuando llegó a La Española en 1503, pronto encontró trabajo como notario y le dieron una parcela de tierra y varios nativos se vieron obligados a trabajarla. Su salud mejoró y se entrenó como soldado, participando en el sometimiento de las partes de La Española que se habían resistido a los españoles.

Se hizo conocido como un buen líder, un administrador inteligente y un luchador despiadado. Estos rasgos animaron a Diego Velázquez, administrador colonial y conquistador, a seleccionarlo para su expedición a Cuba.

A Velázquez se le asignó el sometimiento de la isla de Cuba. Partió con tres barcos y 300 hombres, incluido el joven Cortés, empleado asignado al tesorero de la expedición. También en la expedición estaba Bartolomé de Las Casas, quien eventualmente describiría los horrores de la conquista y denunciaría a los conquistadores.

La conquista de Cuba estuvo marcada por una serie de abusos indescriptibles, incluidas masacres y la quema viva del jefe nativo Hatuey. Cortés se distinguió como militar y administrador y fue nombrado alcalde de la nueva ciudad de Santiago. Su influencia creció.


Expedición a Honduras

De 1524 a 1526, Cortés hizo la guerra a Cristóbal de Olid, el hombre que reclamó Honduras para sí mismo. Cortés salió vencedor. Señaló con el dedo a Velázquez por su presunto papel en la rebelión de Olid. De ahí que Cortés imploró al rey Carlos que arrestara a Velázquez bajo los cargos de traición.

Después de sus hazañas en Honduras, Cortés regresó a México solo para descubrir que su base de poder había sido erosionada. Rápidamente se dirigió a España para suplicar al rey Carlos. Sin embargo, Charles prestó poca atención a la situación política en el Nuevo Mundo. Lo único que le importaba al rey era su quinto, es decir, los impuestos de las colonias americanas. Sin embargo, Carlos confirió la orden de Santiago a Cortés en 1529. Cortés también recibió el título de Marqués de Oaxaca (Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca). De regreso a México, Carlos lo nombró a cargo del ejército en México.


Imperio azteca

En 1518, Cort & # xE9s iba a comandar su propia expedición a México, pero Vel & # xE1zquez la canceló. En un rebelde acto de desafío, Cort & # xE9s ignoró la orden y zarpó hacia México con más de 500 hombres y 11 barcos ese año. & # XA0

En febrero de 1519, la expedición llegó a la costa mexicana. Según algunos informes, Cort & # xE9s destruyó todos sus barcos excepto uno, que envió de regreso a España. Esta descarada decisión eliminó la posibilidad de cualquier retirada.

Cort & # xE9s se alió con algunos de los pueblos indígenas que encontró, pero con otros, utilizó la fuerza letal para conquistar México. Luchó contra los guerreros de Tlaxacan y Cholula y luego puso su mirada en apoderarse del imperio azteca. & # XA0

Marchó a Tenochtitl & # xE1n, la capital azteca y hogar del gobernante Moctezuma II. Después de ser invitado al palacio real, Cort & # xE9s tomó como rehén a Montezuma y sus soldados saquearon la ciudad. & # XA0

Pero poco después, Cort & # xE9s abandonó apresuradamente la ciudad después de enterarse de que las tropas españolas iban a arrestarlo por desobedecer las órdenes de & # xA0Vel & # xE1zquez.

Después de defenderse de las fuerzas españolas, Cort & # xE9s regresó a Tenochtitl & # xE1n para encontrar una rebelión en curso, durante la cual & # xA0Montezuma fue asesinado. Los aztecas finalmente expulsaron a los españoles de la ciudad, pero Cort & # xE9s regresó nuevamente para derrotarlos y tomar la ciudad en 1521, poniendo fin al imperio azteca.

En sus sangrientas batallas por dominar a los aztecas, se estima que Cort & # xE9s y sus hombres mataron hasta 100.000 pueblos indígenas. & # XA0 El rey Carlos I de España (también conocido como el emperador Carlos V del Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico) lo nombró gobernador de Nueva España en 1522.


Fernando Cortés, también conocido como Moisés

Afirmo, en contravención de la historia y la teología ortodoxa, que:

1) las historias relatadas en los primeros cinco libros del Antiguo Testamento (el Pentateuco) fueron escritas a principios del siglo XVI y relatan hechos centrados en la expulsión de los judíos de España y la Conquista de México.

2) El Moisés bíblico se basa principalmente en la figura del conquistador Fernando Cortés.

3) todos los eventos descritos en la Biblia tuvieron lugar, si ocurrieron, en las Américas (específicamente en el suroeste de Estados Unidos).

4) la Reforma Protestante y la invención de la imprenta proporcionaron la oportunidad y los medios de inyectar los textos antes mencionados (y otros) en el canon estándar de la Biblia.

ARRIBA: ¿Por qué se compara constantemente a Cortés con Moisés?


Antes de presentar evidencia positiva para estas afirmaciones, les recuerdo que la visión tradicional, ubicando estos eventos en el área del Medio Oriente y sus alrededores, se basa simplemente en la correspondencia de nombres geográficos similares y (supongo) en la inverosimilitud percibida de la falsificación. algo como eso. Las otras formas de evidencia para el punto de vista tradicional, del tipo que esperarías estar por todas partes, están notoriamente ausentes.

Lo más sorprendente es que el terreno en la "Tierra Santa", según su ubicación convencional, no ha arrojado ninguna evidencia arqueológica de los muchos eventos, batallas, accidentes geográficos, ciudades, estructuras o personas descritas en las escrituras del Antiguo Testamento. Y no es por falta de que nadie intente encontrarlos. Los investigadores han pasado siglos buscando algo para legitimar científicamente la narrativa bíblica en Palestina. Los verdaderos creyentes en estos esfuerzos están dispuestos a tolerar un estándar de evidencia que en verdad es mínimo, pero incluso ellos no pueden hacer nada mejor que presentar sus conjeturas restringidas en forma de disculpa.

Verá muchas declaraciones como estas, tomadas de Finegan's El trasfondo arqueológico de la religión hebreo-cristiana, que es típico del género:

Apologistas como Finegan terminan por tener que fingir que estos problemas constituyen una forma especial de prueba. El saqueo de Jerusalén, dice en esta línea, "se refleja con demasiada claridad en el ámbito arqueológico por la escasez de materiales importantes". Y en cuanto a la conquista de Caanán, señala que "Josué evidentemente hizo un trabajo completo de destrucción". Tautologías como estos y algún que otro pozo excavado que nadie puede probar no era del que José sacó su agua es todo lo que conecta la Biblia con las & quot; tierras de la Biblia & quot.

A menos que cuentes las antigüedades falsas. Yo no. La única forma en que los pergaminos del Mar Muerto podían verse más falsos era si se encontraban metidos en una botella de Bud Light. Incluso las pirámides de Giza parecen ser creaciones modernas, construidas durante la campaña egipcia de Napoleón. La mayoría de las famosas reliquias egipcias fueron supuestamente encontradas al mismo tiempo y también deben ser sospechosas.

ARRIBA: El Mar de Cortés (Golfo de California)


En Estados Unidos no tenemos este problema. La evidencia está frente a nuestras caras. Incluso los marcadores de lugares geográficos para los eventos bíblicos todavía existen. Basta con mirar cualquier mapa. Solo voy a publicar un par de ejemplos de edificios en California cuyos constructores y residentes originales han desaparecido. Creo que todo el mundo está familiarizado con estas cosas, así que no insistiré en el tema. Individualmente, estos no apuntan infaliblemente hacia la conquista mosaica, pero si los examina junto con los nombres de condados, ciudades y otros nombres de lugares en California y Arizona, surge un patrón muy convincente. ¿Por qué hay tantos topónimos egipcios en la costa oeste? ¿Éxodo XV: 27 se refiere a Palm Springs?

ARRIBA: Un grupo de edificios extraños en el condado de Kings en el Valle de San Joaquín de California. ¿Fue este el escenario de una batalla bíblica?

Ahora bien, al identificar a Moisés como Cortés, no es necesario que haya un solo individuo histórico que tenga el nombre y se corresponda precisamente con el personaje histórico de Fernando Cortés tal como lo conocemos. En el mismo momento en que los conquistadores marchaban por México, la propia España fue sacudida por el revolucionario comunero levantamiento del movimiento (comunista), grupo que también identificó sus pretensiones gubernamentales con el nombre de & quotcortés & quot. Es difícil (a menos que sea un historiador, supongo) no inferir un vínculo conspirativo entre los dos eventos, la conquista en el extranjero y la revolución en casa. Pero si uno fue nombrado por el otro o ambos en referencia a un concepto significativo para la causa, no afecta mis afirmaciones. Por "Cortés" me refiero a nada más que "el líder de la Conquista".


Por supuesto, hay varias similitudes obvias entre los dos hombres. Moisés asumió su posición de influencia entre los egipcios mediante la infiltración. Cortés también hizo uso de la intriga para alcanzar su posición de liderazgo para la conquista. Además, su curioso hábito de atribuir juicios a "los cristianos", sugiere también una sustancial versatilidad a lo largo de las líneas religiosas. Se dice que Moisés escribió cinco libros. Cortés escribió cinco cartas. Ambos llevaban un bastón, etc.

La variación inusual que los historiadores han impuesto al primer nombre de Cortés (& quotHernan & quot) proporciona otra pista. ¿No parece extraño cambiar el nombre del hombre? Todos los relatos contemporáneos se refieren a él como Fernando, con el ocasional Ferdinand o Fernandus incluido. Pero hoy en día siempre es "Hernan". ¿Por qué? Sugiero que la forma variante tiene la intención de significar el hermano de Moisés, "Aaron" (la h española es silenciosa).

ARRIBA: El Mar de Cortés también se conoce como el & quot Mar Rojo & quot

Otro punto de coincidencia se encuentra en la denominación del Golfo de California, o "Mar de Cortés", que históricamente se conocía como "Mar Rojo" o "Mar Vermillion" (el bermellón es un rojo escarlata) bajo cuyos nombres aparece en los mapas antiguos. . Puede objetarse que se trata de un término descriptivo algo genérico. Pero hay buenas razones para considerar esta circunstancia como significativa.


En primer lugar, no existe, además del conocido ubicado a lo largo de la península del Sinaí, ningún otro cuerpo de agua, que yo sepa, que se llame el "Mar Rojo". En segundo lugar, Eusabius Kino (apellido real Kuhn), un rector jesuita de Sonora, México, quien al reconfirmar la continuidad de California con la masa continental de América del Norte en 1702 (la mayoría de la gente pensaba que California era una isla en ese momento, y tal vez lo era) declaró que su descubrimiento confirmó el Éxodo de Moisés registrado en la Biblia. Si no equipara a Moisés con Cortés, sería ridículo decirlo, ¿verdad?

ARRIBA: ¿Es California el verdadero & Quotholy land & quot?

Sostengo que los nombres bíblicos enumerados en la columna de la derecha a continuación se refieren de hecho a las correspondientes formas afines del Nuevo Mundo a la izquierda:

Rey Fernando Faraón

Mar Caribe Mar Arábigo

Océano Pacífico Mar Mediterráneo

ARRIBA: ¿Qué representan esos castillos rojos en llamas?

La objeción más obvia a mis afirmaciones es la prioridad de las escrituras del Antiguo Testamento. Sin embargo, como de costumbre, la evidencia de esta & quot; verdad tan obvia & quot; se desmorona bajo inspección. Las autoridades de la corriente principal afirman invariablemente una antigüedad muy grande para el Pentateuco, pero la edición existente más antigua posible, por lo que puedo decir, es de 1537 más o menos. Y esa edición no es algo de lo que pueda encontrar una copia en Internet. Se supone que la Biblia de Wycliffe, que es anterior a la conquista, contiene el Antiguo Testamento, pero nuevamente, por lo que puedo decir, la Biblia de Wycliffe nunca incluyó nada más que el Nuevo Testamento solo. Si estoy en lo cierto aquí, el Antiguo Testamento de Wycliffe que se afirma es el tipo de mentira que daría fe de mi tesis. También me parece que el Antiguo Testamento fue escrito originalmente en un idioma diferente al hebreo, pero no estoy seguro.

ARRIBA A LA IZQUIERDA: La Biblia Wycliffe - Sin Antiguo Testamento

Luego tienes el arte supuestamente antiguo que representa los eventos del Antiguo Testamento. Solo diré que las circunstancias que acompañan a una investigación sobre estas afirmaciones son muy similares a las relacionadas anteriormente.


Las implicaciones de estas afirmaciones, suponiendo su veracidad, son profundas y trascendentales. Tengo mucho más que decir sobre el tema, pero terminaré esta publicación con algunos recortes de periódicos más antiguos.

* Me refiero al tipo de masonería que destruye cosas, no al tipo & quotoperativo & quot que teóricamente construye cosas.

Archivos adjuntos

Trismegisto

Moderador

Recientemente pasé un tiempo en el oeste de Estados Unidos, y mi conclusión general de mi experiencia allí es & quot; alguna mierda del Antiguo Testamento sucedió aquí & quot;

Por ejemplo, Bryce Canyon en Utah. Parece como si algo fuera destruido a propósito, realmente no parece el resultado de procesos "naturales". Mientras filmaba, capté lo que creo que son los restos de algún tipo de templo y complejo piramidal.

Desde la derecha hacia la izquierda, puede ver un templo con estatuas, una pirámide, otro templo y muros en primer plano. Mientras filmaba allí, escuché a un mormón hablando con su hijo: estaba explicando cómo la luz del sol proyecta sombras en diferentes momentos del día y revela la templos. Pensé que era una elección de frase muy interesante en ese momento, hasta que vi esto en mi monitor unos minutos después.

Ah, y como era de esperar, esta función no existe en Google Earth. El círculo rojo es donde estaba parado en relación con la foto.

Hay otra característica interesante que tuve la suerte de captar con mi lente de zoom desde la ventana de una camioneta que conducía por la I40 en Nuevo México. Sin duda es una pirámide escalonada con un templo en la parte superior.

¿Y no lo sabrías? ¡Cambian por completo la forma en que se ve en Google Earth!

Esta pirámide no solo & quot no existe & quot; sino que también reside en Cibola condado, NM. Los mapas topográficos en realidad tienen un nombre para esta característica, lo llaman Timia. No he profundizado en los orígenes de este nombre, aunque las búsquedas iniciales no resultaron mucho.

Excelente hilo, OP. Este tipo de investigación ha estado dando vueltas entre los grupos de investigación durante un tiempo y definitivamente merece una discusión completa aquí.

Archivos adjuntos

Plateado

Miembro conocido

Esto me hace pensar en la similitud de la palabra española cortes con el romano grupo (Coores latinos). La cohorte era una unidad militar cuyo número supuestamente varió a lo largo de la historia, pero comúnmente se dice que está compuesta de 480 a 600 hombres armados y dividida en seis centuriae (cinco para la primera cohorte de la legión) que eran la base de la Asamblea Centuriate, una de las asambleas de votación en la constitución romana. La legión no solo era un sistema de lucha, sino también de votación.

En este caso el número de hombres armados que siguen a Cortés es precisamente el de una cohorte (unos 500 hombres) y en la Revuelta de los Comuneros españoles se habla de cortes en relación a la legislación, siendo los comuneros un cuerpo armado. Quizás hay más en esto de lo que parece.

Armouro

Miembro

Volveré pronto, para buscar algunas cosas.

Solarbard

Miembro activo

Emperornorton

Miembro activo

Utah está lleno de cosas como esta, y la historia de los pioneros mormones es en gran parte una continuación de la conquista. El Gran Lago Salado en sí (junto con los otros lagos salados de América del Norte) está casi con certeza relacionado con el evento descrito en la Biblia como la división del mar rojo y ambos parecen relacionarse nuevamente con el Califonia-as-an. -Fenómeno de la isla.

Los primeros mapas de América representan a California a lo largo del borde occidental del continente, tal como aparece en los mapas modernos. Sin embargo, los mapas publicados desde finales del siglo XVI hasta principios del siglo XVIII muestran a California como una isla. Se espera que creamos que la isla de California de siglos de duración fue solo un error cartográfico que se volvió viral. A pesar de que estaba lleno de perlas, aparentemente nadie se molestó en navegar por el Golfo de California durante más de cien años. Puedo creer cualquier cosa menos esto.

Creo que California se convirtió en una isla en el siglo XVI, poco después de que Cortés y sus aliados marcharan allí a través del desierto. La subsiguiente inundación de la tierra al este de las montañas de Sierra Nevada, que se conoce como la "Gran Cuenca", sería el evento descrito en la Biblia como la destrucción del ejército perseguidor del Faraón.

Según los jesuitas, el terremoto más fuerte registrado en América, hasta ese momento, ocurrió en 1687. Esto fue poco antes de que Eusabius Kino redescubriera un camino por tierra desde México a California, y puede haber sido el evento que lo hizo posible. Esto, o un terremoto posterior, también puede haber sido responsable de la creación de la Bahía de San Francisco. Es notable que ninguna de las expediciones de navegación o incluso los exploradores en tierra conocían el puerto más grande de la costa oeste del continente hasta 1769. La explicación profesional de esto es la niebla.

Los indios tienen la tradición de que se creó la Bahía, es decir. se abrió al mar - cerca del final del siglo XVII, durante un terremoto. Antes de ese momento, dicen, simplemente había un gran lago interior allí. De hecho, gran parte de los valles de Sacramento y San Joaquín también estuvieron cubiertos por lagos interiores hasta la época de la Guerra Civil.

Todo esto me lleva a sospechar que fue un terremoto lo que separó a California del continente, ya sea por el hundimiento de las tierras desérticas al este de California, o quizás por la destrucción de una presa en el río Colorado. Vale la pena señalar que el billete de cincuenta dólares estadounidenses parece (dicen algunos) representar la presa Hoover (¿estallando?) Y que este año es el 500 aniversario de la conquista de México.

Armouro

Miembro

En palabras de Shang Tsung, "Una muestra de lo que vendrá".


Entonces. La salva de apertura en la guerra por ti contra ti.

Tengo mucho que decir y preguntar, pero debo comenzar diciendo BIEN A USTED. Podría hablar de estas cosas durante meses. ¡Años!
De hecho, lo he hecho y todavía lo hago.
Es un soplo de aire fresco ver surgir otra perspectiva para derribar estos conceptos principalmente indiscutibles con algunas fuentes sólidas y un escrutinio simple que incluso siglos de narrativa apresurada e indiscutida parecen fallar.

1: reliquias egipcias.
“Incluso las pirámides de Giza parecen ser creaciones modernas, construidas durante la campaña egipcia de Napoleón. La mayoría de las famosas reliquias egipcias fueron supuestamente encontradas al mismo tiempo y también deben ser sospechosas ".
Las afirmaciones de recuperación de reliquias ESTÁN bajo sospecha, porque esas fueron las décadas en las que el USACE trabajó con mayor frecuencia entre el suroeste de Estados Unidos y Egipto. Los informes de campo de esas décadas destacan esto con creces.

2: Nombres de lugares.
¡Ignore esto! Muchos lugares se nombran una y otra vez. Hay un bulevar o calle Martin Luther King Jr. en todas las ciudades importantes.
Históricamente hay 12 Jerusalén. 8 Moscows. 3 Rom.
Esta conexión es tenue, en el mejor de los casos.

Mire esto y lea los artículos involucrados.

Will Scarlet

Miembro conocido

la Reforma Protestante y la invención de la imprenta proporcionaron la oportunidad y los medios de inyectar los textos antes mencionados (y otros) en el canon estándar de la Biblia.

. Las autoridades de la corriente principal afirman invariablemente una antigüedad muy grande para el Pentateuco, pero la edición existente más antigua posible, por lo que puedo decir, es de 1537 más o menos.

El Códice de Alepo y el Códice de Leningrado son las versiones completas más antiguas, escritas por los masoretas en los siglos X y XI, respectivamente. El manuscrito Ashkar-Gilson se encuentra entre los primeros rollos y los códices posteriores.& quot (artículo)

Comunero significa comunidad, no comunista. ¿Tiene una fuente para la palabra 'cortés' en relación con los comuneros? Las comunidades se unieron para formar 'juntas', que podrían compararse a los 'tribunales' en un tramo.

En realidad, los comuneros propusieron una forma de Confederación, no comunismo, que era similar a la situación en la República Italiana en ese momento. El Levantamiento de los Comuneros es mucho más que una 'revuelta comunista':

'Cortés' se traduce como 'cortesía', es decir, la etiqueta de la corte.

Incluso si Hernàn y Aaron sonaran vagamente similares (lo que no es así), ¿por qué se le pondría el nombre del hermano de Moisés si se suponía que era el mismo Moisés?

Creo que hay otro hilo similar aquí en el que se supone que el Antiguo Testamento es la historia de Bulgaria.

Daniel

Miembro

En los escritos de Fomenko, Moisés es la Musa otomana del siglo XV.

Joshua, hijo de Nun es Mehmet II. La conquista de la "Tierra Prometida" es la conquista otomana del Imperio Bizantino. Y Jericó es Constantinopla.

Onijunbei

Eliminado

Fabiorem

Miembro activo

Will Scarlet

Miembro conocido

Corte es una palabra diferente y proviene del verbo cortar - cortar, es decir, El Corte Inglés (el corte inglés, famosos grandes almacenes en España y Portugal).

Cortés es un adjetivo - eres cortés = eres amable / cortés. Plural es Corteses de Cortesanos - miembros de la corte real (Cortesanos).

& quotCortés (apellido)
Cortés o Cortes es un apellido originario de la realeza española y portuguesa. Se deriva del cortê y significa gobernante de masas. 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.
Referencia

Percy Hide Reaney, Richard Middlewood Wilson, Diccionario de apellidos ingleses (1991), p. 121. & quot

Traducción:
& quotCortés (apellido)
Cortés o Cortes es un apellido original de la realeza española y portuguesa. Se deriva de cortê y significa gobernante de las masas. Se deriva del francés antiguo "curteis", que significa "amable, cortés o educado", y es análogo al inglés Curtis, aunque la forma inglesa se ha utilizado más ampliamente como nombre propio.

Referencia
Percy Hide Reaney, Richard Middlewood Wilson, Diccionario de apellidos ingleses (1991), p. 121. & quot (Fuente)

No encuentro ninguna relación entre cortar y cortés en español, pero eso no significa que nunca haya existido. Batallón en español es batallón. Es un gran salto afirmar que esto "apunta al origen violento de las casas nobles", en mi opinión.

Emperornorton

Miembro activo

Creo que el nombre "Fernando Cortés", bajo la más generosa concesión a la plausibilidad, está más o menos en la línea de un nombre como "Stonewall Jackson". López De Gomara, en uno de sus libros, dice algo como "Fernando Cortés, así llamado, porque busca oro en la sala del tribunal. '' No creo que haya ninguna duda de que el nombre significa Cortes, ya sea por casualidad etimológica o un juego de palabras burlón, aunque supongo que hay cierta distancia entre los real y legal matices de connotación. En cualquier caso, me parece que se está jugando un juego más grande de engaño.

Observe que en los libros antiguos, & quotcortes & quot; a menudo no está en mayúsculas (quiero decir, siguiendo a & quotFernando & quot y obviamente refiriéndose a lo mismo) y Nunca con el acento agudo en la segunda vocal. Luego está la salvaje variación en la ortografía, dentro de un solo libro e incluso en la misma página.

Todo esto es de un libro (La agradable historia de la conquista de las Indias Occidentales.) Además de las variaciones de ortografía, tenga en cuenta que los términos resaltados están impresos en una fuente diferente y más moderna que el resto del libro, como si estuvieran superpuestos a una obra anterior separada.

Pero como dije antes, cuando me refiero a "Cortés", solo me refiero a indicar al líder de la conquista. Y además, Cortés, digo, fue el primario base para el carácter de Moisés, pero no la solamente uno. Agradezco los comentarios.

Will Scarlet

Miembro conocido

Sí, hay muchas dudas. Si simplemente vamos a inventar cosas, ¿cómo somos mejores que Scallinger & amp Co.? No creo que haya ninguna duda de que cree que el nombre significa "tribunales", pero eso no lo convierte en un hecho. Realmente no veo la relevancia, incluso si significa "tribunales".

Noto que esto es un duplicado de una publicación en el sitio web .org.

Si Fernando II era el equivalente del faraón egipcio, entonces debería haber vivido al menos consecutivamente con 'Moisés' Cortés o ¿me estoy perdiendo algo? ¿Fue el éxodo de los judíos del cautiverio en España? ¿Coincide con su destierro en 1492?

Si la historia del éxodo aparece en la Biblia hebrea original, ¿significa eso que fue una premonición del supuesto evento estadounidense unos 500 años después? Oh no, lo siento, olvidé que dijiste que eran todas falsificaciones. Sin embargo, la copia más antigua de la Torá fue escrita: entre 1155 y 1225 EC y se encuentra en la Universidad de Bolonia, Italia. Contiene la Torá completa (Pentateuco). (Fuente)

Will Scarlet

Miembro conocido

He tenido algunas reflexiones adicionales sobre este tema de Cortés. Me pregunto, dado eso & quotCortés o Cortes es un apellido original de la realeza española y portuguesa, & quot 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:

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

Miembro activo

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. Yo no. 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 verdadero "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. Para leer más, recomienda Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control, 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. No hay vuelta atrás. 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.