Why was the Aztec Empire seemingly uninterested in stopping Cortés?

Feb 2017
421
Latin America
Well, Giovanni Verrazanno got himself killed at a party... the only problem was he was the main course.
I take claims of anthropophagy by European colonisers with the same grain of salt as blood libel accusations against Jews for eating Christian children.
 
Jul 2019
850
New Jersey
I take claims of anthropophagy by European colonisers with the same grain of salt as blood libel accusations against Jews for eating Christian children.
Here is a very judicious scholarly article which weighs both the subject of Carib cannibalism as well as the patterns of European colonial propaganda. At the end of the day, I think it's pretty hard to deny that the Caribs of Guadeloupe, in particular, engaged in cannibalism. The Europeans may have added some lurid details, but the basic idea was true. And once we establish that I see no reason to discount the account of Verrazanno's death provided by his shipmates.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
421
Latin America
I was talking about PÁNFILO DE NARVÁEZ in this last post...and I wrote clearly he died drowned in a storm in Mississippi mouth.
No, this is what you said:
Ye,, he was killed by the Seas.. but not by a man!.. And I don´t like to much Panfilo de Narváez... he was brutal... but I won´t judge him ... I am not who to do it or put myself in his place . I think he was a brutal man and very violent man.. but we don´t know in 2019 how he lived in 1509....for sure.. others men were less brutal than him in those days.... (Cortes was never a brutal man).... but we don´t know the kind of life Narváez had it before to be famous.

The slaughter of Caonao has no justification ....but maybe could he think indians were preparing an ambush? I don´t know.... but in Phillippines.... Magallanes was killed in a party.. as the Almogavares chiefs in Constantinople...I 'm not justifying his brutal behavior, I'm just trying to understand why he did it ...
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,817
Spain
Simple note:

Pánfilo de Narváez was not killed. He died drowned in a storm in what 150 years later it willd be know as Mississippi mouth.
 
Jun 2017
2,996
Connecticut
Even when accounting for technology, the Aztecs seemed to have left Cortés, and later Pánfilo de Narvaez who joined him, to roam free in their territory or in the territory of their neighbours without caring one thing about stopping them. Basically, why didn't the Aztecs just send an army to stop them once they landed or once they spotted at the very least? I can understand them not stopping them already at sea because the Aztecs seemingly didn't have more than merchant ships and were not a naval power. But not sending a force to kill Cortés immediately? That's like the English letting even Spanish scouting ships land without at least sending a few men to try to stop them.
Part of it because Cortes had less people than on this site currently. Especially after they escaped, the war was pretty much over. Cortes victory is probably the most unbelievable military victory in human history.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,198
Slovenia, EU
Part of it because Cortes had less people than on this site currently. Especially after they escaped, the war was pretty much over. Cortes victory is probably the most unbelievable military victory in human history.
Pizarros were even further away from Carribean bases and with less men than Cortez. Both conquests stories read as fairytales in my opinion.