16th Century Spanish Conquest: Mexico

The sixteenth century Spanish Conquistadors' (Cortes and Diaz) views of the Mexicans involve five of the six terms of barbarity, but not 6)the absence of God. Instead, Cortes and Diaz believe Mexicans are under the influence of the Anti-Christ, because of their 1) cannibalism, 2) human sacrifice, 3) witchcraft, 4) homosexuality, and 5) idolatry. Accordingly, the Spanish Conquistadors regard the Mexicans as deluded and bewitched by the devil, because how could such an advance civilization, such as Aztec, practice five of the six acts of barbarity. The Conquistadors will use Mexican religion as the pretext to conquer and enslave, but they are heavily criticized by a Spanish priest named Las Casas and Montaigne, who see through their hypocrisy. Comparing the Spanish and their adventures to the Huguenot and English in America are not realistic. The Conquistadors are confronting advance civilizations, which they believe are under the influence of the Devil due to canon law; while the Huguenots are more critical than the English with regard to the Native Americans, but still maintain Montaigne's naturalism. Although Spanish, French, and English sixteenth century encounters with Native Americans involves all or some of six terms of barbarity, two fundamental facts individuate the Spanish from French and English: the former are Catholic and engaged in the conquest of a very ancient civilization; while the latter are Protestants, who are trying to trade and colonize with people, whom they regard as natural and primitive.    

In Conquest of New Spain (1567), Bernal Diaz refers to the Aztec practice of eating their prisoners of war, but their cannibalism is not restricted to mere ceremonial cannibalism, but part of their daily diet. After killing Montezuma II, the Aztec revolt against the Spaniards and begin attacking them all over Tenochtitlan (present day Mexico city). Spaniards are suffering horrible losses against the Aztecs in the city fighting. Aztecs scream to the Spaniards “that not one of us, they shouted would remain alive that day. They would sacrifice our hearts and blood to their gods, and with our legs and arms they would have enough to glut themselves at their feasts” (Diaz, 290). Diaz’s observation is interesting in that he admits that Aztecs, unlike the Timucuans or Araucanian, have gods and religion. The Spaniards are horrified by the brutality of the Aztec religion, with its constant demand for human sacrifice, and the cannibalism associated with their religion. While Aztecs clearly want to eat the Spaniards out of revenge, like the Timucuans or Araucanian, it is not altogether clear that their only motivation is revenge, because they are cannibals out of necessity or sustenance, which means their cannibalism is similar to the Scythian version of cannibalism.

Like Timucuans or Araucanian, Aztecs prefer the human limbs (legs and arms) over other body parts. Diaz notes that Aztecs ate humans not only at ceremonial occasions, but also has basic staple of meat: “There were many great pots and jars and pitchers in this house, full of water. For it was here that they cooked the flesh of the wretched Indians who were sacrificed and eaten by the papas” (Diaz, 239). Aztec liked to eat human flesh “with a sauce made of tomatoes and peppers” (Diaz, 387). It is important to note that Aztecs are more advanced than Timucuans and Araucanians, because they know metallurgy, kingship, social structure beyond basic kinship relations, astronomy, have complicated architecture, huge cities, and calendar. Tenochtitlan had a population between 200,000 and 500,000 people. The valley of Mexico had a huge population well over seven million Indians, and deer had been extinct in the valley of Mexico for over thousand years before the Spanish invasion. Aztecs had two domesticated animals: dogs and turkeys. Perhaps Aztecs required cannibalism in order to have another meat staple. They had no large domesticated beast of burden, but man.

Diaz speaks of Aztec or Mexican priests of their religion as magicians and sorcerer who practice divination. These Aztec priests are called papas, “who are like wizards, and foretell the future, and ask them to discover by their witchcraft, charms, (Diaz, 149)” to foretell the future. In the Tlascalan Campaign, Tlascalans are told by their papas that the Spaniards are worse than the Aztecs, so that they should attack them at night, but the Tlascalan attack failed, so they killed their papas and ate them. Diaz ironically argues exactly Montaigne’s point about religion is a belief system generated from nature for a particular group of people which manifest as customs. According to Diaz, Cortes tells the Cempoalans that the Spaniards are not the evil Teules, which eat human hearts, but they are men here on behalf of Emperor Charles to free them from their custom of human sacrifice: “Cortes… to explain to them why they should give up their custom of killing and sacrificing, and to beg them to do so” (Diaz, 162).

Teules are high priests, who are over the papas. When speaking to a chief Xicotenga, Cortes tells him to give up his idols, human sacrifice, the Teules, and papas, because they are false gods, but devils. Cortes imposes his superstitions of the devil, hell and damnation to frighten Xicotenga to exchange his superstitions of human sacrifice, idolatry, and cannibalism for his Christian superstitions: “But if they went on making their customary sacrifices to their idols, which were devils, they would be taken to hell, where they would burn forever in living flames” (Diaz, 177). To provide the Mexicans with modest demonstrations of hell on earth, Cortes had several hundreds of thousands of Mexicans burned alive, for witchcraft. Las Casas estimates that Cortes is directly or indirectly responsible for the death four million Indians in his conquest of New Spain. “And more than four million souls have the Spaniards slain within those twelve years within those four hundred and five hundred leagues, by knife and by lance, and burning alive, women and children and young and old” (Las Casas, 29).     

While Diaz constantly refers to Aztec and Mexican cannibalism, Cortes uses cannibalism more sparingly and he probably does not refer to cannibalism more than six times in his Five Letters to King Charles V. Cortes uses Mexican cannibalism as a legal justification for Indian enslavement. If Culua Indians do not regard other Indians as no better than beast of burden due to their cannibalism, then they are no different than Aristotle’s natural slaves, who are naturally slaves, because they lack a soul or reason. In “his Second letter to King Carlos V,” Cortes specifically defends his enslavement on legal grounds and provides the King with his royal fifth. His enslavement is not based upon their combat with the Spanish, since all Europeans wage war against each other all the time, but do not enslave their captives.

Montaigne would probably regard Cortes' legal reasoning as a presumption and malady of nature, because the latter's legal reasoning is grounded upon Aristotle’s concept of reason, soul, and natural slave. “I made certain slaves of which I gave a fifth part to Your Majesty’s officers, for in addition to their having killed the aforementioned Spaniards and rebelled against Your Highness service, they are all cannibals, of which I send Your Majesty no evidence because it is so infamous” (Cortes, 146). Cortes provides no proof of their cannibalism, but argues that such an act will keep his Native allies in obedience to the King, because slavery is a great fear.

 Just as Timucuan and Araucanians use cannibalism as expression of utter revenge to instill fear into their enemies, so Cortes thinks that slavery will inspire fear in the Mexicans and keep them loyal to his Majesty. Unlike Diaz, Cortes is relatively learned man compared to most of his confederates and understands the subtleties of the civilized and the barbaric. Of Cannibalism, Montaigne correctly argues that “barbaric” is relative to the customs of the people, who emerge from a particular part of the world. “I think that there is nothing barbaric or uncivilized in that nation, according to what I have been told, except that everyone calls barbaric whatever he is not accustomed” (Montaigne, 275). Understood in this way, when the Cortes thinks that cannibalism is barbaric in Mexico, the Mexicans find his slavery of them as more barbaric than cannibalism, because cannibalism is an accepted custom in Ancient Mexico.

These Mexicans regard cannibalism not only as part of their religion, but also part of their everyday diet. As Cortes notes in no particular fanciful manner to the King,”our men came across many sacks of maize and roasted babies which the enemy carried as provisions and had abandoned” (Cortes, 245). Las Casas, however, is more specific in his Letter to Charles V. He charges Cortes’ legal defense of enslaving the Indians among other crimes as illegal under Roman law: “That no man is or may be a rebel if he is not a first a subject” (Las Casas, 36).      

In Destruction of the Indies, Las Casas speaks of the horrible Spanish treatment of Indians to Imperial Counsel of West Indies, but he admits that Indians practice cannibalism. “[Alvado] gave [Indians] leave to eat the Indians that they captured. And thus there was in his camp the most outright and veritable butchery of human flesh, where in his presence children would be slain and cooked, and a man would be slain for his hands alone and his feet, which were considered to be delicacy” (Las Casas, 43). Las Casas knows that Indians regard the hands or feet as delicacies, which means Indians have been eating each other for some time in America. They have developed gastronomy for human flesh, which parts of the human body are a delicacy and how to cook them in a tomato and pepper sauce. 

Las Casas argues that while the natives are cannibals, the Spaniards are no better than these savages ignorant of Christ, because the Spaniards use their dogs to murder and eat the Indians. Not only do the Spaniards use these dogs in times of war against the Indians, but also use these dogs for sport to hunt and eat Indians, as game in the woods. “The Spaniard taught and trained hunting hounds, fierce and savage dogs that no sooner see an Indian than they would tear him to pieces, and would rather set upon a man, and eat him than if he were a pig” (Las Casa, 11). 

In the Apology for Raimond Sebond, Montaigne also mentions the Spaniards usage of dogs and their recent conquests of the Americas, and sarcastically says that their dogs share in the Spaniards booty, which means the Spaniard steels the Indian’s gold, while the dog retains the right of the corpse of the Indian: “As the Spaniards, in the recent conquest of the Indies, did with their dogs, whom they paid and to whom they gave a share in booty” (Montaigne, 619). Las Casas and Montaigne share the opinion that Spaniards and the Indians are no different in their instincts for gore and plunder: the Spaniard is drawn to gold, the dog to the corpse. Las Casas believes the Spaniards practice to be no better than the Indians practice of Cannibalism and condemns both equally.

Montaigne, on the other hand, does not condemn the dog or the Spaniard, because they share the same natural instinct derived from nature: “those animals displayed as much skill and judgment in pursuing and checking their victory, in charging or falling back according to circumstances” (Montaigne, 620). Montaigne believes that the Spaniard and his dog share the same instinct for the kill; they both have their strategies in their hunt; and both have their goals or ends. To judge the Spaniard for acting like his vicious dog against the Indian, is as absurd as judging the dog for his actions, because both are driven by the same impulse from nature. Analogously, the Indians should not be judged by their cannibalism, because their impulse is as natural as the Spaniard and his dog.

Cortes may not agree with Las Casas’ reasoning from Roman law or Montaigne’s skepticism, because he defends his war against the Aztecs or Mexicans as just on four grounds: first, they are barbaric people, who require knowledge of God, for their own salvation; second, if they accept Christ, as their savor, they will require a Christian Monarch (such as Charles V), instead of their devil worship; third, they are fighting against Mexicans due to self-defense; and fourthly, they are allied with tribes, who have accepted vaguely Christ and Charles V as their monarch, instead of Montezuma II. Under Roman law, if an Indian nation, who has willingly subjected themselves under Charles V and overthrown their allegiance to Montezuma II, has a treaty with Cortes, as Charles V representative, then Cortes is obligated to protect that Indian nation from the Aztecs.

Cortes’ war against the Aztecs is just, insofar as he is protecting his allies from Aztec aggression, because they are now subjects of Charles V. Aztecs or Mexicans are barbarians, who are cannibals. Under Roman law, war waged against barbaric people is different than waging war against a civilized people. Romans regarded any society without a history, knowledge of letters, architecture, religion, and arts as barbaric. Aztecs are barbarians, because they worship the devil, human sacrifice, cannibalism, and homosexuality. Admittedly, Cortes’ terms of barbarism are very different from the Romans, because Romans openly practice homosexuality, worship idols, and have human sacrifices (gladiatorial games have their origin as sacrifices to the honored dead). Greeks and Romans, however, regard cannibalism as barbaric. Herodotus speaks of the barbaric Scythians, because they eat their dead. Romans regard the Celts as barbarians, because they are cannibals.

In his Letters to Charles V, Cortes provides another case of enslavement of Indians as just under the Roman pretense that in a war against barbarians, slavery is allowed. The Indians of Tesuico capture forty five Spaniards. They killed some in battle, but others “were sacrificed and their hearts were torn out before their idols” (Cortes, 184). Since using Spanish prisoners of war as sacrificial victims for idolatrous devil worship is barbaric, Cortes “killed many [Tesuicoians], and took many women and children as slaves” (Cortes, 184). If Tesuicoians use Spanish prisoners of war as sacrificial victims, then Cortes will enslave his Tesuicoian prisoners of war, which include women and children. Again, Cortes mentions how horribly the Aztecs or Mexicans treat the Spanish prisoners of war: “Three or four Spaniards were taken alive to be sacrificed and some of our allies were killed” (Cortes, 234). In the battle of Tenochtitlan, the Mexicans “took all the Spaniards they had captured dead or alive to Tlatelulco, which is the market, and on some high towers which are there sacrificed them naked, opening their chests and tearing out their hearts as on offering to the idols” (Cortes, 241).

After killing their rightful king Montezuma II, Las Casas writes to King Charles that the Mexican revolt against Cortes and the Spaniards is high and just warfare. “When the Indians learned of this, they killed a great number of Christians on the causeways, crossing the lake, in the most high and just warfare” (Las Casas, 35). Mexicans are acting out of self-defense against the Spanish invaders, which is Cortes’ third reason for just warfare. The Spanish murder the Mexicans’ rightful King, Montezuma II, which Cortes’ second reason for just warfare. Las Casas wants to turn Cortes’ reasons for just war on himself with regard to the murder of the Aztec King and their respective revolt against the Spaniards. 

 After the battle of Tenochtitlan, Cortes admits that his Native allies, who are subjects of Charles V, act barbarically , because “that night our allies dined sumptuously, for all those they had killed were sliced up and eaten” (Cortes, 251).  Cortes also notes to King that his Native allies treat the Mexicans, no better than Mexicans have treated the Spaniards. “So great was the slaughter that more than twelve thousand perished or were taken prisoner, and these were so cruelly used by our allies that not one was left alive, even though we severely censured and reprimanded them” (Cortes, 258). Las Casas complains about how the alleged Indian subjects of Charles V are really not his subjects, because they do not accept Christianity and practice their heathen religion. No Christian monarch permits his subjects to behave in a heathen manner without punishment. As Charles V’s representative, Cortes should have punished those Indians, as subjects of the King, but he does nothing. Accordingly, Las Casas question Cortes’ fourth reason of just war, because he questions the validity of these alliances between the Indians and Spain.

Understood in this way, Cortes is using barbarism as justification of enslavement, and is using the defense of his Indian allies as another justification for waging this war, even though his allies are equally barbaric as his enemies. He is playing a cynical game. Cortes uses treaties with Native Americans, the universal Mexican custom of sacrificing prisoners of war, and the spread of Christianity as motivating factors to his invasion and enslavement of the Mexicans, but only mentions his acquired inventory of gold and precious stones as passing comments to the King of Spain. Las Casas will have a hard time with Cortes, because Cortes has nicely tied his enslavement and just war together against the Mexicans with their treatment of Spanish prisoners of war. Las Casas, however, is correct in suspecting Cortes’ cynicism and manipulation of the law to achieve his real end, the conquest of New Spain. Las Casas also nicely points out how three of the reasons of Cortes’ just war can equally be applied to Mexican war against the Spaniards, as a just war.     

Of Moderation, Montaigne’s approach to the Mexican custom of human sacrifice is ironic: on the one hand, he speaks of the “new region discovered in our time” as “pure” and “undefiled”; and, on the other hand, that the Mexican custom of human sacrifice is universally practiced in this “pure” and “undefiled” land, and is “instances of horrible cruelty.” How can a land more pure and less defiled than Europe have a horrible custom, unless Europeans have more cruel and horrible customs than human sacrifice? The Mexican custom usually has two steps: “all the idols are sprinkled with blood” (Montaigne, 269 and “their victims are burned alive, and when half roasted, are taken from the bed of coals, in order to their hearts and entrails torn out” (Montaigne, 270). Montaigne uses the contrast between “pure/undefiled land” and the “horrible cruel act of human sacrifice” to point that the European practices of drawing and quartering and burning heretics and witches are no better and probably worse than Mexican practice of human sacrifice.

Mexicans have a custom of human sacrifice, so do Europeans. How many heretics (either Catholic or Protestant) have been drawn and quarter or burned for the Catholic and Protestant God in Europe? Servetus, Savonarola, and Bruno are burned for their Gods by Calvin and the Catholics. Mexican sacrificial victims “go about for some days beforehand, asking for alms for the offering of their sacrifice, and present themselves to be butchered, singing and dancing with the spectators” (Montaigne, 270). Unlike the European sacrificial victims, the Mexican victims are allowed to beg for money for their offering, and freely go to the butcher block singing and dancing. Montaigne is trying to highlight the ironic contrast between the Mexican custom of human sacrifice to the European by pointing out that the Mexicans receive money for their sacrifice and go willingly. European heretics and witches are tortured before their sacrifice in order to get a confession, so they can be sacrificed. Montaigne is arguing that the custom of human sacrifice is universal; it not only applies to Mexico, but the world itself, because human sacrifice is a natural instinct. The Mexican custom of human sacrifice is less corrupted by religious dogma, which has laws requiring torture before the sacrifice, so it is more “pure” and “undefiled.”

 When Hernan Cortes comes to Tenochtitlan, “the ambassadors of the King of Mexico, impressing upon Fredinand Cortez their master’s greatness…had to sacrifice fifty thousand men to the gods each year” (Montaigne, 270). Montaigne explains that the Mexican custom of human sacrifice is essential tied to their custom of war. Montezuma II wages war against his neighboring kingdoms in order to “train the youth of his country, but chiefly to have the wherewithal to supply his sacrifices with prisoners of war” (Montaigne, 270). The Mexicans combine war and human sacrifice. They use their prisoners of war as sacrificial victims to their gods. Montaigne regards their reduction of two customs of man which are horrible as less horrible than the European customs of war, because war and religion are sometimes co-mingled, other times war is motivated for different reasons, such as greed or civil strife. Cortes’ argument of enslaving Indians for their customary treatment of prisoner of war is non-sense, because Cortes is fighting in Mexico, which associates the two customs together. In Mexico, the purpose of war is to have sacrificial victims for the gods. Mexicans take prisoners for this very purpose. In Europe, on the other hand, unless the prisoner of war can be ransomed, he is usually butchered. 

Mexicans, who have been beaten by Cortes, accorded him his due as a god, because of his cannon and horses. Montaigne says “Lord, here are five slaves; if thou art a fierce god that dost feed on the flesh and blood, eat them, and we will bring the more” (Montaigne, 270). Montaigne is mocking Cortes, because he associates “cannibalism,” “idolatry,” “human sacrifice,” and “slavery” together to reveal Cortes' corrupted nature compared to the more natural and pure savages. Cortes enslaves Indians on the grounds of Mexican barbarism, because they are “cannibals,” who preform human sacrifice of prisoners of war to idols. The Mexicans refer to Cortes as a god and offer him slaves to eat. Montaigne is pointing out that Cortes’ cynical usage of human sacrifice and cannibalism as grounds for enslavement is not only non-sense, but also an “unnatural malady of the mind.” A natural malady of the mind is to presume you (whether or human or civilized) is better than the animal and the savage.

By portraying from the perspective of Mexicans Cortes as a god, who wants human sacrifice, flesh to eat, and slaves, Montaigne shows how Cortes is suffering from an unnatural malady, because he is becoming more savage than the savage. Cortes is becoming one of their cannibalistic gods, who demands slaves for sacrificial purposes and for meat. Montaigne highlights the diseased en-slaver Cortes by showing from the Mexican point of view that if he is a god, “here are incense and feathers; if though art of man, take these birds and fruits” (Montaigne, 270). Cortes does not want incense, feathers, birds, or fruit. He wants slaves, so he is neither a kind god nor a god of art, but a cannibalistic god. From the point of view of the Mexicans, Cortes becomes that which he uses to justify his enslavement of them, a cannibalistic god.