Talk:Fall of Tenochtitlan

message: If we consider the siege of Tenochtitlan as having started in 1521 when Cortes returned to Tenochtitlan after having escaped during La Noche Triste, then Moctezuma II was long dead by the time the siege began.
I made the mistake of including him as a commander because I was thinking of the conquest of Tenochtitlan which arguably began in 1519 when Cortes first arrived at the city.
I am adding in Cuitláhuac as a commander since he was tlatoani before Cuauhtemoc.
Richard 17:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Moctezuma II from the Commanders box and added Cuitláhuac 

message: There is a problem with the number on the Aztec side of the Strength box.  The total population of Tenochtitlan is estimated to be between 60,000 and 300,000.  Cortes estimated 60,000 but, based on what I've read, it seems that 200,000 to 250,000 is a better guess.  I would use 250,000 as the estimate for population but that makes 150,000 - 300,000 way too high a number for "troop strength" (i.e. able-bodied fighting men).
: Interesting question.  The most common estimate y have seen for  the population in the "moetropolitan" area of tenochtitlan was about 130,000, but we can accept a higer estimate of 200,000 asuming that people form the surrounding islets wents to their city., . While all male population was trained a warriors only some of them became full time warrior and the other became artisans.  If we discount  females, children and old men,  a "guestimate" of the available  man power would be one third of the population. And of course there are the allies of the Tenochca; The Tlatelolca  who probably could contribute with another 30,000 warriors, altough in the end, the Tlatelolca women took the military symbols , cut their hair and join the battle. I will look if someone has a better "guesstimate"....  Nanahuatzin 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: when the city became inabitable, the survivors went to Tlatelolco, where the last battle was lost. From he book of the "informantes anonimos de tlatelolco" we can infeer the last battles were fougth mainly by the Tlatlolcas, since the Meshica were already to weak and decimated to fight. Unfortunatelly neither the spaniard, tlatelolca, mexica or tlaxcalteca cronicles give numbers. Se heres to se if you can have any conlcusion... http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm (note: here we do to have  jungle,  but coniferous forest) I ofunt an estimation of 30,000 inahitants of Tenoctitlan in 1520, but there is no source  mentioned. I will search to see if i can found something. Nanahuatzin 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of the Aztec side 

message: The sentence about Cortes learning of another landing party does not explain that Narvaez had been sent to arrest Cortes.  I will try to rework this section when time permits.
Richard 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeat of Narvaez section needs some work 

message: Please consult Wikipedia:Wikiproject Aztec/Terminology first.  If you wish to dispute the decision to use Moctezuma over Montezuma, please do so but do not arbitrarily change Moctezuma to Montezuma without building a consensus first.
--Richard 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not change Moctezuma to Montezuma 

message: I would pass this for GA nomination, bu the lead section is too short and there aren't enough inline references.  If this were speedily fixed, I might consider passing it.--Esprit15d 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination Failed

message: Can someone go through the article and change "Indian" to either "Native American" or "Amerindian"? The "Indian" nomenclature is rather obsolete and is not really used for indigenous americans anywhere anymore.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is an english encliclopedia. I wish to coment that a least in Mexico, Native american or amerindian are never used. Here most comon word is simple indigenous (indigena). Nanahuatzin 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the reasons are far from unknown. It's not for political reasons, but for reasons of political correctness. "Indians" is inappropriate, as it more correctly applies to people from India. The natives of the Americas were not from India, so that term is not used. "Amerindian" is an attempt to reconcile the old term "Indians" with a desire to represent these peoples accurately. Rather, "Native Americans" is really no different from "Americanos indigenos" or "personas indigenas", and is a simple descriptor referring to those people who are native/indigenous to America. Incidentally, I've been told that Canadians tend to use the term "First Nations" most commonly, as a show of respect. LordAmeth 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Indian" title 

message: The initial Aztec association of Cortés with the god Quetzalcoatl is subject to academic dispute.
:::It is true that Quetzalcoatl was a god, but the Quetzalcoatl the Mexica believed Cortes to be was a ruler from the ancestral home of Tula that exiled himself and left towards the east on a raft of snakes. When this ruler's return was scheduled on the Mexica calendar, Cortes of course landed from the west in a location similar to where Quetzalcoatl left. Furthermore, there is an account of Moctezuma explicitly telling Cortes he does not believe him to be a god.
Please cf. "Moctezuma Controversy"[] and decide if the reference should be reworded.
As an aside, in the 5th(?) paragraph of "Tlaxcalteca remain loyal to Cortés" [], the reference to Velazques is something of an orphan - Velazquez is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and there is obviously some backstory there. Either the backstory should be referenced (in another Wiki page, if it exists), or the mention should be stricken from the article.
Also, "And his Tlaxcalan allies were still loyal." is a sentence fragment and should be connected to the previous sentence instead.
All-in-all though, this is a finely written article in many ways... useful, informative, and fun to read.
::you are right that the article in its current form misrepresents the Quetzalcoatl myth. I would support changes in this direction although I would reword your version slightly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cortés as Quetzalcoatl" 

message: I am copying and pasting excepts from Britannica’s 2007 articles “History of Latin America” and the full article on “Montezuma”.  As you can see, a NPOV encyclopedia doesn’t lean toward the Aztecs’ account: it just mentions both sources, as wikipedians should do:
===History of Latin America===
Moving inland, the invaders encountered the second power of the region, the Tlaxcalans. Tlaxcala briefly engaged the Spaniards in battle but, suffering heavy losses, soon decided to ally with them against their traditional enemy, the Aztec. As the Spaniards moved on toward Tenochtitlán, many of the local subordinate states (altepetl) also came to terms. Even in Tenochtitlán itself fighting did not ensue immediately; the Spaniards as usual seized the cacique (that is, the king of Tenochtitlán, often called the Aztec emperor, Montezuma or Moteucçoma) and began to exercise authority through him.
The expected secondary reaction was not long in coming, and fighting broke out in the capital. At this point the most unusual part of the process began, for Tenochtitlán was on an island in the midst of a lake, shot through with canals and extensively built up. Here the Spaniards lost much of their usual advantage. They were forced from Tenochtitlán with severe casualties. Although they retained their superiority in the open country, they had to retire to Tlaxcala, accumulate reinforcements, and then come back to Tenochtitlán to carry out a unique full-scale siege, including the use of European-style vessels with cannon on the lake. After four months the Spaniards captured the Aztec capital and began turning it into their own headquarters as Mexico City.
===Montezuma II===
born 1466
 
died , c. June 30, 1520, Tenochtitlán, near modern Mexico City
also spelled  Moctezuma  ninth Aztec emperor of Mexico, famous for his dramatic confrontation with the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés.
In 1502 Montezuma succeeded his uncle Ahuitzotl as the leader of an empire that had reached its greatest extent, stretching to what is now Honduras and Nicaragua, but that was weakened by the resentment of the subject tribes to the increasing demands for tribute and victims for the religious sacrifices. Although Montezuma was commander of the army and organized extensive expeditions of conquest, he was also profoundly influenced by his belief in the god, Huitzilopochtli. Through astrologers, the god instilled in the Emperor a kind of fatalism in the face of an uncertain future.
The Aztecs feared and expected the return of Quetzalcóatl, the white, bearded god who would rule over the empire. Instead, the white, bearded Cortés arrived; he was aware of this fear and used it to his advantage in his expedition across Mexico. Montezuma tried to buy off Cortés, but the Spaniard made alliances with those subject tribes who hated Aztec rule. Welcomed into the capital city of Tenochtitlán by Montezuma, Cortés realized it was a trap and, instead, made the Emperor his prisoner, knowing that the Aztecs would not attack as long as he held Montezuma captive. Montezuma's submission to the Spaniards, however, had eroded the respect of his people. According to Spanish accounts, he attempted to speak to his subjects and was assailed with stones and arrows, suffering wounds from which he died three days later. The Aztecs, however, believed the Spaniards had murdered their emperor, and Cortés' force was nearly destroyed as it tried to sneak out of Tenochtitlán at night. 
("Montezuma II." from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite, 2007).
—Cesar Tort 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica’s NPOV articles 

message: born 1466
 
died , c. June 30, 1520, Tenochtitlán, near modern Mexico City
also spelled  Moctezuma  ninth Aztec emperor of Mexico, famous for his dramatic confrontation with the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés.
In 1502 Montezuma succeeded his uncle Ahuitzotl as the leader of an empire that had reached its greatest extent, stretching to what is now Honduras and Nicaragua, but that was weakened by the resentment of the subject tribes to the increasing demands for tribute and victims for the religious sacrifices. Although Montezuma was commander of the army and organized extensive expeditions of conquest, he was also profoundly influenced by his belief in the god, Huitzilopochtli. Through astrologers, the god instilled in the Emperor a kind of fatalism in the face of an uncertain future.
The Aztecs feared and expected the return of Quetzalcóatl, the white, bearded god who would rule over the empire. Instead, the white, bearded Cortés arrived; he was aware of this fear and used it to his advantage in his expedition across Mexico. Montezuma tried to buy off Cortés, but the Spaniard made alliances with those subject tribes who hated Aztec rule. Welcomed into the capital city of Tenochtitlán by Montezuma, Cortés realized it was a trap and, instead, made the Emperor his prisoner, knowing that the Aztecs would not attack as long as he held Montezuma captive. Montezuma's submission to the Spaniards, however, had eroded the respect of his people. According to Spanish accounts, he attempted to speak to his subjects and was assailed with stones and arrows, suffering wounds from which he died three days later. The Aztecs, however, believed the Spaniards had murdered their emperor, and Cortés' force was nearly destroyed as it tried to sneak out of Tenochtitlán at night. 
("Montezuma II." from Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite, 2007).
—Cesar Tort 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Montezuma II

message: This is an Amazon book review by Tiddlywinks of Bernal Díaz’s book.  :
—Cesar Tort 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are two sides to every story 

message: I just finished going through the article and putting in footnotes and trying to clear up some language for POV.  However, when I saved my changes, only half my article appeared, cutting off around "The Aztec Revolt."  Why would this happen, especially when the complete article was still in the edit box?  In any case,I reverted the article to the complete version without foot-notes and saved my changes in a file on my hard drive, so the in-text citations are still ready for me to post them...I just want all of my article to be there when I do!  
Any ideas on why this would happen? I'll take another look myself, too. MRB15 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MRB15. It happened because you mispelled an endnote. It happened to me when I was a newbie in WP. Just use the preview button lots of times until you learn the trick. —Cesar Tort 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you! All set! MRB15 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. Now please take a look at Hugh Thomas's Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés and the Fall of Old Mexico (1994). He feels much respect for Latinamerican cultures. —Cesar Tort 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In-text Citations

message: This section needs citations... the numbers are wrong. 
Alva Ixtlilxóchitl (descendant of the Tezcocan king Ixtlilxóchitl, allied to Cortez), in his narration of the Conquest says:
"Murieron de la parte de Ixtlilxóchitl y reino de Tezcoco más de treinta mil hombres, de más de doscientos mil que fueron de la parte de los españoles, como se ha visto; de los mexicanos murieron más de doscientos cuarenta mil, y entre ellos casi toda la nobleza mexicana, pues que apenas quedaron algunos señores y caballeros, y los más niños, y de poca edad."
Accoding to this, the numbers increase in 200.000 texcocan allies, with 34.000 casualties between them (and this only in reference to the texcocans involved in the battle, nothing for the tlaxcalan and other native allies), while the aztec casualties are in the range of 240.000.
Also, there is no reference in the article's table to the spanish casualties in the Conquest which are estimated at least various hundreds (some fonts, like Prescott, gives near 500 just for La Noche Triste's spanish deaths) even to more than a thousand, what would not be rare, taking in account, for example, the reports of dozens of spaniards getting sacrificed during the conflict, even 53 (and four horses) in a single occasion...
--Ozomatli-Tepoztli 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength and casualties on the Spanish-native allies side 

message: I just included this aspect in the Strength box.
It was necessary to mention them as they were the key for the spanish control of the lake and the isolation of Tenochtitlan by naval blockade. Their number (13) is widely known, so i think it's not necesary to give a citation.
In the other hand, the aztec war canoes (acallis) were so relevant, for example in the Noche Triste's battle (as they give the aztecs the advantage of naval and land attack against the spaniards in the lake's causeways). War-acallis weren't simple standard canoes but major canoes which could transport 60 warriors over them...
--Ozomatli-Tepoztli 04:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea war in the siege 

message: Just added what happened in Texcoco (in the Shifting alliances section).
--Ozomatli-Tepoztli 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texcoco 

message: There is a reference to the Spanish troops using metal shields. I was wondering if someone has a reference, of the quick research I've done I can only source references to leather covered shields. Is this a reference to bucklers or targes? Master z0b (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  metal shields? 

message: In the section "La Noche Triste and the Spanish flight to Tlaxcalan", the sub-heading refers to a "main article" on "Battle of Otumba".  But the article Battle of Otumba contains essentially no content (and never did, see the revision history).  SInce the section in question contains an adequate description of the Battle of Otumba, maybe that article (and the reference to it) should be deleted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete link? 

message: "Aztecs fled the city as the Spanish forces, primarily the Tlaxcalans, continued to attack even after the surrender, slaughtering thousands of the remaining civilians and looting the city. The Spanish and Tlaxcalans didn't spare women or children: they entered houses, stealing all precious things they found, raping and then killing women, stabbing children.[16] As this practice was generally not done in European warfare, it suggests that Cortés’s indigenous allies had more power over him than he suggested or he simply could not control them in the final days of the siege."
Not sure what the bolded passage is meant to mean. Which practice was not done in European warfare? Stealing? Raping? Killing everyone? Killing children?
AnarchistMatt (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As this practice was generally not done in European warfare, it suggests that Cortés’s indigenous allies had more power over him than he suggested or he simply could not control them in the final days of the siege." 

message: In this article the given dates like August 13, 1521, which does not have a citation, belongs to Julian Calendar since their source comes from Cortez or Bernal which at that time used the Julian Calendar, therefore all dates in this article have to be correlated with the Gregorian Calendar in used nowadays.  
For reference see FAMSI Date Conversion, http://research.famsi.org/date_mayaLC.php
Olin233 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates in Julian Calendar

message: "It is well accepted that Cortés’ indigenous allies, which may have numbered as many as 200,000 over the three-year period of the "conquest," were indispensable to his success. Their support was not acknowledged until much later, and they derived little benefit from their sacrifices, aside from being rid of the Aztecs."
Well, they got to keep their borders and autonomy under Spanish rule. That's why Tlaxcala is today Mexico's smallest state. I presume they also got other privileges compared to other natives, didn't they?--Menah the Great (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Final statement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fall of Tenochtitlan. 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/20050630075920/http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/cortes/ to http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/cortes/
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) 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified