Talk:Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest

Not Spanish
Well if they weren`t Spanish and there was no Spain then what were they? I do not think that he could have demonstrated that there was no Spain at the time. AdrianCo (talk)AdrianCo —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. If they weren't conquered by Spaniards, then why do they all speak Iberian languages (predominantly Spanish with some Portuguese) and belong to the Roman Catholic faith to this day? And what's all this about the Moors? Didn't the discovery of America virtually coincide with the final expulsion of the Moors from Spain? Eromlignod (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The warriors that defeated the Aztecs were comprised primarily of indigenous enemies, not Europeans. A lack of immunity to Old World diseases wiped out a large portion of the native population, including allies. It was more or less a biological genocide that opportunistic invaders took advantage of.

It’s these circumstances that allowed Westernized mestizos, who had better immunity and outnumbered those of european ancestry early in the colonial period, to thrive at their expense and they gradually assimilated, voluntarily or by force, the remaining indigenous populations. This was a long process as after the fall of the Aztecs many indigenous populations were not under European rule and remained autonomous for centuries. So that's how Spanish eventually spread in Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at Spain indicates that was an entity at that time, composed of several kingdoms united into a federation, and that it was referred to as "Espana". Frankly this looks like a pretty pathetic book. Which of course doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. Remember all we have to show is that the author claims these things, not that they are true. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Moors were expelled from the hispanic peninsula didn't make Spain a state or a nation - at that time it was Castile and Leon, and Aragon and Navarre which were only politically united because of the marriage of the rulers of the two states Spain was not an entity untill 1516 when it was united by Carlos V it still wasn't called Spain as a nation but was a part of the Habsburg Empire. Spain at this time was only the name of the iberian peninsula and not a nationality or an ethnicity. That is why the conquereros didn't consider them selves to be of "spanish nationality".·Maunus· · ƛ · 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting claim, but the lack of a de jure naming of Espana as the name of the coutry dosen`t mean that the reality wasn`t aware to the people: the population of the Iberian Penisula(with perhaps the exception of present day Portugal) was councious of the past(Al-Andaluz, Spania as a Roman Province etc), they were also councious about their common religion,languadge,culture and ethnicity. Just as there was no Germany before Bismark but the people were awere of being German, so was the case in Spain. AdrianCo (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo


 * Perhaps he means that nationality wasn't important to them? I don't believe nationalism was around then in the same way as it is today?
 * Secondly, I am surprised that some of these myths exist. Do people really believe that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs due to 'racial superiority'?
 * Furius (talk)
 * No but people have believed it - read for example about the Valladolid debate. Today the myth of superiority takes other forms - for example the belief that natives lost to the spaniards because they didn't have alphabetic writing, or because they didn't have guns. Its all in the book rally - I reccomend reading it.·Maunus· · ƛ · 11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where was 'racial superiority' mentioned? Eromlignod (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, no no! Is not about 'racial superiority'. About nationality, no, it was not present back then, but there is a difference beween nationality and identity. So as there was a Roman Preovince and a Spain the was ruled by the Vizighots(that is recognized, and there are sculputres in Madrid of Vizighotic kings today!) they were awere that they were spanish. Now, from beeing awere of that and nationalism there is a great difference. But one of the best proofs about their idenity was the forming of Spain, as a Superpower! AdrianCo (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
 * You should write a book about that Adrian. This is a talkpage about how to improve this article. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 10:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of doing that,wouldn`t it be easier to take a pic at the following(although I do not base my info on these):
 * History_of_Spain
 * History_of_Spain#Visigothic_Hispania
 * History_of_Spain
 * And what should have perhaps been the first History_of_Spain AdrianCo (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
 * Hah? No response....you know what that means?!... AdrianCo (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah? what? If you had based your info on those you would have read that in 1516 Carlos V became king of Castile and Aragon at the death of his father Ferdinand II of Aragon. In 1519 he then became Holy Roman Emperor. He was not king of spain. In latin Hispania was the entire iberian peninsula - "Spanish" then is synonymous with "Iberian" I don't believe that anyone would have claimed that "Iberian" was an ethnicity - in spanish or visigothic times. None of the pages you cite mention that there should have been a "spanish" nationality or ethnicity at that time. Furthermore THA IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT - the point is what Restall writes! The entire article is a summary of his viewpoints and the precise chapter where the claims are made is indicated - adding page numbers would be futile since the entire chapter deals with the subject. If you wish to challenge my understanding of his book then you should read it first and then show me that I have failed to understand his arguments correctly. Adding citation tags is folly that accomplishes nothing.·Maunus· · ƛ · 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrads`....all I ever wanted was a quote or two, just because the book is not available to me, and I still don`t belive that he could have writen such things(oh...and Kingdom of Spain was an integral part of the Holy Roman Empire, as for the Habsburgs they were a dinasty, and just as people today do not call the UK the Kingdom of The House of Windosor, people back then din`t call Spain: "Integral Kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula of the Empire of the House of Habsurg"). AdrianCo (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, this debate is pointless. Restall is correct. 'Spain' did not exist as a political entity in the 16th century. What we now call Spain was a collection of kingdoms which after 1479 became united under a common monarch(s). The title of those monarchs did not include the word ESPAÑA at any point in the 16th century. Phillip II, Charles V's son, was still officially "rey de castilla de leon de aragon, etc." In the 16th c. España could be used to refer to the geographic region of what is modern Spain, however most often in the 16th century "los reinos de Castilla" was the term used to describe the region. Additionaly, during the conquest period the term Spaniard (español) simply did not exist in common usage, instead they were called castellanos or christianos. Only by the 1540s and 1550s did español begin to be used to describe individuals. Airflorida (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheap Advertisement
An encyclopedia should not become a collection of publisher flyers.94.212.220.20 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The content here has nothing to do with publishers' flyers, or commercial promotion. It's a serious article on a notable book, with an influence on its field that can readily be demonstrated (cf. multiple scholarly reviews, citations and cross-references, just about anywhere this historical topic is discussed). I see no "advertising". --cjllw ʘ  TALK 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What 7 myths??? Needs serious rewriting
I accidently stumbled upon this article and is puzzled by its form and content.

Since the title of the book is Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, why do the presentation of these seven myths not provide the structure for the article? Why are we only presented with four of them, beginning with chapter 4?

Also, a section with response/criticism would seem appropriate.

Mojowiha (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129011154/http://www.historycooperative.org:80/journals/ahr/109.4/br_89.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.4/br_89.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211223702/http://sepiensa.org.mx/contenidos/h_mexicanas/colonia/encuentro.htm to http://sepiensa.org.mx/contenidos/h_mexicanas/colonia/encuentro.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.4/br_89.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)