The question asked is “Is ‘conquest’ an appropriate description for what happened in Mesoamerica and the Andes in the sixteenth century?” I do believe one could make an argument that what occurred in Mesoamerica and the Andes could be considered a “conquest” however I think a better word that could possibly be used to describe what happened is expedition. Expedition is defined as a journey organized for a particular purpose, whether it is for military purposes, exploration, scientific, what have you. Each conquistador had a specific goal in which they were trying to achieve. Columbus was attempting to discover another, faster route to the Indies. Cortés wrote the reason for his “conquest” was to spread the Faith and to serve his Majesty… (134).
According to Restall, many conquistadors were “armed entrepreneurs” in search of encomiendas (35). He also comments on this as a reason behind conquests on page 129, “The goal of conquistadors was to receive an encomienda, a grant of native tribute and labor.” The conquistadors were interested in business and the spoils that followed, not the actual takeover itself, as stated on page 35, “The spirit of commercialism thus infused conquest expeditions from start to finish…” I think that quote encompasses it all. However, to achieve their expedition goals they needed the support of the Queen and King in order to legally obtain an encomienda. This, I believe, was the reason for following commonly practiced procedures (19-26), the probanzas and cartas (12), and the reading of the Requirement (19).
The reading of the Requirement is shrouded in controversy; for example, according to Lewis Hanke, the Requirement was read to “trees and empty huts, at the edge of sleeping Indian settlements, or a league away before starting the formal attack…” It is also commented on by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo that the Requirement would be read after the Natives had already been captured, or that it was recited without the attempt of having it translated into the Native language. (94) However, the reading was important in acquiring the support of the Crown so it had to be done.
Continuing on the idea that the conquistadors were interested in business and not a conquest leaves me to believe that this is why they did not take absolute control over tribes and they did not strongly enforce their own cultural beliefs. They created a so called puppet government where they had some control but not absolute. This leads me to the chapter where Restall discusses incompleteness. He states in the fifth dimension that “the Spaniards did not seek to rule natives directly and take over their lands. Rather they hoped to preserve native communities as self-governing sources of labor and producers of agricultural products” (73). This also, I believe, is the same for the survival of the native culture, religion, language, etc. They were more interested in business, money, and the production of good than taking absolute control over the Natives.
Finally, with the decline of the Native population, the conquistadors began to worry because they, as Restall comments, “depended upon native communities to build and sustain their colonies with tribute, produce, and labor” (128). The declining population was a thorn in their side because they depended on the natives to produce and if they did not produce, the conquistadors would not receive a large enough booty, thus not achieving their goal.
In conclusion, I believe the conquistadors were on an expedition rather than a conquest in order to obtain an encomienda. They were as Restall labeled them “armed entrepreneurs.” They were business men dedicated to achieving their goal, whether through violence or peacefully, nothing was going to stop them.
I agree that the word “conquest” is not the best term to describe the events under discussion. I like your idea that the “conquest” was actually more of an expedition. Your definition of the term expedition (a journey organized for a particular purpose) fits perfectly in the context of the events. Restall touches base on this as well; “Spanish Conquest expeditions were private companies formed for profit, dependent on the Africans who were mostly purchased, and on the native warriors and porters who were recruited by co-opting native elites” (154). Conquests typically consist of professional soldiers trying to overthrow another group of peoples. As you state, this was not the case. The conquistadores did not want to overthrow the natives. That would be bad for business as they needed their labor. Thus, these expeditions were, as you suggest, business opportunities for the conquistadores.
ReplyDeleteI like the point that you make about how the spread of disease which resulted in the declining number of natives as a “thorn in their side.” Also, the fact that so many natives died from disease does not support an argument that “conquest” is a good term to describe the events. According to Restall “diseases moved through the Americas faster than the germ-carrying Europeans and Africans could” (141). This implies that disease killed more natives than combat. In order to properly be dubbed a conquest, native casualties due to combat should significantly outweigh those from disease. Consequently, expedition is a fitting term to describe the events in Mesoamerica and the Andes.