During academic research on the Spanish Conquest, several myths and misunderstandings have arisen and continue to survive, even until now. In Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Matthew Restall, a historian and professor specializing in colonial Latin America, convincingly debunks some of the core beliefs born from academic explanations that later transformed into common knowledge. For example, an American historian named William H. Prescott perfectly illustrates how one man's attempt to explain the Spanish conquest (using primary sources) still leads to many misconceptions - primarily that of a extraordinary personality born from a superior society who was able to defeat a vast and powerful empire in a relatively short period of time. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay William H. Prescott lived in the United States at a time when the idea of ​​manifest destiny was in full swing. In his book, History of the Conquest of Mexico in 1843, predated the Mexican Cession by five years in which the United States conquered a huge portion of Mexican territory by force. The book was popular because it legitimized the seizure of an inferior culture's territory by a superior culture. However, Matthew Restall addressed an important question: how accurate is our popular knowledge or history of the Spanish conquest? Restall began with archival sources between the 16th and 18th centuries and moved to published primary sources. He concludes with sources to which our current society is exposed: television programs, films and school textbooks. As a result, he was more interested in the nature of history and how that history was generated and transformed, starting with the events themselves. Whether these narratives were condemned or promoted, they also laid the essential foundation for what we consider “truth” today. “In the case of the Spanish Conquest, accounts of people who actually participated in the events have been published in several languages. Prescott argues that "of all the band of adventurous horsemen whom Spain, in the 16th century, sent out on the career of discovery and conquest, none was more deeply imbued with the spirit of romantic enterprise than Hernando Cortés ". Prescott's romanticization and idolization of Cortés proves Restall's point that the Spanish conquest requires examining the more nuanced details that often go unnoticed in portraits that serve to focus on the heroes and their exploits. In his book he argues that "broader processes of social change... They fail to recognize the importance of context and the extent to which great men are obliged to respond to – rather than shape – events, forces and many other human beings around them. them. » This illustrates society's natural state of accepting the situation as it is simply because it is easy to understand a few overarching reasons and explanations. It’s this thought process that reduces processes to key numbers and events while ignoring entire perspectives. Furthermore, Prescott would state that “when assailed by the superior force of Narvaez, he still persisted. » Restall would express the counterargument that the belief that the Spanish conquest was accomplished by a small number of white Spaniards must be questioned. Restallasserts that much of the actual military operations were undertaken by the conquistadors' native allies, outnumbering the actual Spanish forces by several hundred. Restall would obviously continue with "And if the numbers of Africans on previous expeditions were in the tens or hundreds, there would soon be thousands of black men and women in the central colonies such as Peru - even if the conquest was continuing", which shows that the numbers increased in such a way. a rapid manner with which at one point it was impossible for the Spanish conquistadors to completely deny their presence. There were also several conquistadors of African and Moorish descent in their ranks, dispelling the popular belief that only white Europeans conquered despite being outnumbered. The Spanish believed that without them, Africans and natives would not even have had the opportunity to fight and were therefore simply seen as tools rather than human beings. Instead of the popular image of a small group of conquistadors single-handedly defeating a vast empire, Restall argues that they were just a single faction that tipped the scales in a long civil war between warring tribes in Mesoamerica. Prescott would continue "with his sword or with his musket, sometimes directing his soldiers, sometimes his little navy." He argues that the Spanish possessed not only some form of cultural superiority, but also overwhelming technological superiority in terms of engagement in warfare: handguns, cannons, steel armor, and horses. Certainly, the Mesoamerican natives, with their primitive clubs and bows, were at a considerable disadvantage on the battlefield when it came to their equipment. However, Restall poses a hypothetical situation in which "when the armament factor is removed from context and privileged as the sole or overwhelming Spanish advantage, the entire conquest boils down to a clash of superior and inferior weapons", which, again , proves an oversimplification of the Spanish Conquest. This reduces us to believing that because of this superiority, we are supposed to accept this phenomenon as the main driver of conquest. If there was anything in which the Spanish had a clear advantage over the natives, it was their transmission and spread of Old World diseases. Some diseases like “. . . Smallpox, measles, and influenza appeared, causing Europeans and Africans to arrive in the New World with a deadly panoply of germs, indicating how ill-prepared the natives were for the onslaught. epidemics that followed the conquistadors. The general population and the leaders who governed them in the New World suffered a heavy toll from diseases that helped hasten the Spanish conquest. Furthermore, Restall reminds us that we must take a broader view in the context of war. Restall states that “the natives were fighting over their territory; The Spanish were not. The Spanish had nothing to lose but their lives. » showed that the situation of the opposing parties was quite different. Native people were much quicker to compromise when threats to their livelihoods and homes were made. For the natives, their entire way of life is at stake, unlike the Spaniards who have little to lose. This explains why the Spanish were able to conquer the natives deceptively and quickly, well beyond their relatively small numbers. According to Restall, the Spanish believed that the Americas were populated by "barbarians", which »..