Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest

Calling the Spanish expeditions “Conquest of Peru” or “Conquest of Mexico” imply that Spanish triumphs were destiny: “Conquest history turns on symbolic Spanish accomplishments” (64). These conquests likewise serve as historic turning points that move the Americas away from incivility and into the colonial era, thus perpetuating Eurocentric stereotypes about “civilization” and superiority. Conquistadors perpetuated this triumphal perspective in their writings, in which they “prematurely anticipated the completion of Conquest campaigns and imbued Conquest chronicles with an air of inevitability” (65). This myth is one of completion.

Though the Spanish crown did not directly control these expeditions, they did bestow titles and sold contracts to conquistadors who funded their own missions. Therefore, conquistadors might face imprisonment if they failed to meet the monarchy’s definition of success. This contractual relationship encouraged mythmaking because conquistadors embellished their accomplishments to garner royal favor. For instance, conquistador Francisco de Montejo sought royal approval for his expedition to Yucatán. His request follows a formulaic pattern in which he assures the king the area is worth colonizing because of its resources, and embellishes the extent to which the Spanish already control the area. Cortés’s letter to the crown, written a decade prior, similarly celebrates his subjugation of a large area of the coast. These writings gave rise to this completion myth and the related “sub-myth” of “willing native submission” (67-68).

Primary sources also suggest Spanish conquests were “pacification” efforts, depicting Indigenous resistance as treasonous and thus punishable with death (68). This “pacification” characterization appears across conquered Spanish territories. Maya resistance to conquest in Yucatán, for example, continues to be termed “The Great Maya Revolt,” with the term “revolt” suggesting a rebellion against legitimate authority. Such terminology obscures the violent imposition of a foreign power (Spain) upon the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, depicting Spanish rule as inherently justified and lawful in comparison to the “uncivilized” or “lawless” Indigenous cultures that were already established in the Americas.

Much evidence supports the assertion that completion of conquest is a historical myth. In 1521 the Spanish felled the Mexica Empire, but they did not conquer the entirety of Mexico as past historians like William Prescott claim. Evidence from one of Cortés’s letters shows that a year after Tenochtitlan’s capture, the Spanish continued plundering wealth, buffering fortifications, and relying on Indigenous allies. In truth, Spanish struggles against Indigenous populations persisted into the modern era. Moreover, Indigenous Americans “maintained a degree of autonomy within the Spanish empire” (73) since the Spanish did not attempt to rule them directly but instead maintained “native communities as self-governing sources of labor and producers of agricultural products” (73).

The Conquest was thus not swift or total. Instead, it was “more protracted than Spaniards initially claimed and later believed” (75). Similarly, despite conversion efforts by Christian missionaries, Indigenous religious traditions persist today, and some languages survived because the Spanish did not enforce the use of their language on the colonized. Indigenous culture was therefore not entirely exterminated by the Conquest. Though the Spanish imposed elements of their culture, especially religion, on Indigenous Americans, cultural and religious syncretism happened, undermining the totality of the Conquest. For instance, because the Spanish encountered a mass number of new crops and foods in the Americas, Indigenous languages, including Nahuatl, influenced the Spanish language, especially in regard to agricultural products.

Moreover, Indigenous religious traditions blended with Christianity. This syncretism is visible in Peru, where Christian visual arts provide evidence of this cultural co-mingling. Christian saints filled the void left by the pantheon of Andean deities. Paintings show the angel Harquebusiers with a gun and dressed in the Spanish style while also bearing similarities to Andean bird warriors of Indigenous mythology, who hold lances and wear armor. Visual arts created in this hybrid fashion appealed to Indigenous sensibilities and facilitated Christianization efforts.

Restall applies James Lockhart’s theory of “Double Mistaken Identity” to the Conquest because the Spanish believed they controlled Indigenous peoples while those same people saw their allegiance as remaining with local elites. The same might be said for cultural traditions. As Restall notes, “In their own ways, they were both correct and both mistaken” (76), as both the Spanish and the Indigenous influenced one another in turn.