[Doctor Stochastic]

In this case, yes.

On the other hand, Cortez seems to have been much worse than his reputation would indicate.

[Snuffington]

On the other hand, Cortez seems to have been much worse than his reputation would indicate.

Actually, Cortez' history has been pretty well known for a very long time. He was a militaristic conqueror, but far kinder to those he conquered than the Aztecs, who were their only alternative. Brutal by modern standards, but not unusually so for his day.

He was also an amazing risk taker - willing to gamble his own life repeatedly. People forget that Cortez' troops did not have such a great advantage in military technology over the Aztecs. The musket wasn't invented yet. He had a few primitive firearms and a few crossbows - in the tens, not hundreds. Otherwise his men fought hand-to-hand, Cortez included.

His victory over the Aztecs heavily relied on his diplomacy with Aztec client kingdoms, exploiting their hatred of the Aztecs to build a large army. It was truly a phenominal acheivement in military history. In it's own way, more impressive than the conquests of Alexander or Caesar.

[breakem]

I have a difficult time with painting the old Spanish and Columbo as bad guys in a world where wars, cannibalism, and human sacrifice were norms. In this setting the strong conquer the weak.

It's time we celebrate the fact that the rulers of Spain, England, France, Holland and the rest had the greed or foresight to sponsor these expeditions which led to what we are today.

As for who's worse Monty or Cortez, I think it's an open debate question and not worth much time.

[Phillip Augustus]

nonsense! Cortex is a hero!