Talk:Gonzalo Guerrero

Some problems
There seem to be a number of problems or inaccuracies in this present account. For example, it's puzzling to refer to a Spanish view of their invincibility when of the two expeditions to Yucatán which preceded Cortés', the first was quite disastrous and in the second they suffered badly in some encounters. And debating that we only have Aguilar's word that Guerrero existed would be contradicted by accounts such as Bernal Diaz's (also a main source for information on Aguilar himself). Perhaps the argument is put forward by whatever source was used, but from the structure it's rather difficult to tell what source that was.--cjllw | TALK  14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is written as if taken from a popular account or web page. Rsheptak 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?
This article is somewhat chaotic and has portions of Guerrero's story in the wrong order. Also, the shipwreck info is only 1 of several shipwreck stories about Guerrero. I propose to rewrite it from scratch, unless there's good objection. I intend to use the Cortes and Bernal Diaz data, along with the Cereceda letter to outline the main story. I had not previously seen Chamberlain's reference to a Montejo contact attempt and want to look that up before I start writing. Any objections? Rsheptak 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * please proceed, the article has long needed a tender hand.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using Oviedo's (Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Historia General y Natural de las Indias, Book XXXII, Chapter VI, 1851, Madrid) account of the interchange of letters between Guerrero and Francisco de Montejo. Oviedo's source is 'A knight of the Military Order of Santiago, Alonso Luján’, a member of Montejo's expedition to conquer Yucatán. Richard crosfield 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll go read that this weekend. Rsheptak 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

2 Weeks
what I don't understand is the following: in all articles about this 1511-Encounter, they say "two weeks" but nobody mention from when this two weeks are counted - if there is no Date known when this starts, where the Information "2 weeks" come from? Please forgive me my bad english -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hartmann. The earliest source for this is probably López de Gómara (1552). In the edition of his Historia that I have access to (Caracas : Biblioteca Ayacucho [1979]), in Ch. XII Aguilar is telling Cortes et al. about how he came to be there in Yucatan. In relating the aftermath of Valdavia's shipwreck, Gómara has Aguilar saying that they managed to get into the caravel's boat and then "así anduvimos trece o catorce días, y al cabo nos echó la corriente, que allí es muy grande y recia, y siempre va tras el Sol a esta tierra, a una provincia que llamaban Maia". So, 13-14 days of drifting in the boat until making landfall, or about 2 weeks. Bernal Diaz doesn't mention the period between shipwreck and landfall in his version of the first meeting with Aguilar, and I don't think Cortes does either in his cartes to Charles V. Don't know about other contemporary, eyewitness sources eg Tapia. Even if the details of Aguilar's speech upon meeting Cortes' men is largely & necessarily a dramatised construction, there's no particular reason to doubt the 2 weeks. As far as I know the date of Valdivia's shipwreck is not recorded by any of the sources. According to Peter Martyr d'Anghiera (De Orbe Novo, Valdivia set sail from Panama on the third day of the Ides of January 1511, ie around the 15th. But in any case it's not necessary to know on what date the ship foundered, only that sources indicate they drifted about 2 weeks from when they ran aground on the shoals. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * hi CJLL Write, thank you for answering. Ok so far with this 2 Weeks. Hm, I was interessted to find out when this Group has touched the ground, that was the main-reason for my question. Ok and thank you -- Hartmann Schedel  cheers  11:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)