Talk:Conquistador
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
We claim there is no relationship between the "Conquistador" and "Reconquista" concepts. There is one between the words obviously.
Reconquista was linked to the Crusades, though. See the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. But I wouldn't link the Crusades to the Conquistadors. -- Davidme
content from Wikipedia:Reference desk about descendants of Pedro Serrano and Catalina Fernandez moved to Talk:Conquistador/Ancestry.
Contents |
[edit] Complete Reworking Needed?
I would suggest this topic be reworked in its entirety. There are so many instances of confusing, ambiguous or muddled passages that it approaches incoherence in places. If it is a translation, perhaps a different translator should try his or her hand. The 16th- and 17th-century Spanish exploration of the New World is a topic covered in most European and North and South American elementary and/or secondary schools, and this article receives many hits from students doing basic research or following up on their school work. As such, a thoroughly researched, reliable and well-written article is of particular necessity. As now constructed this article is not of as much assistance as it could be. Jum1801 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conquistadors or Conquistadores
In spanish the plural of 'Conquistador' is not 'Conquistadors', but 'Conquistadores'. In the same way latin words make plural with -i and english speakers use this form (like in sinus, sini), you must use this form of plurar.--Jose piratilla 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
How about just changing the wording so a plural is unnecessary. Done.--Eb1232 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC) he word "immensely" means? It is a subjective qualification. IMHO, Pizarro was an immense success, since not only lead to the conquest of the largest civilization of South America, but it also provided the know-how for Mexico's conquest. Luiscolorado 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mistranslation
In the article, the name 'El primer nueva crónica y buen gobierno' is translated as 'New Chronicle and primer on good government', which I am absolutely certain is NOT the correct translation. My guess is it means something along the lines of 'The first new chronicle for good government'.
I KNOW it's not 'a primer' since primer is spanish for first and 'a primer' is a modern American-english term for an instruction book on how to get started.
Can a proper spaniard please change the translation?
- Translation by a spaniard: The "Primer Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno", means "First New Chronicle and Good Government". So it's the first [ book about the ] first chronicle (it's about the indian way of life before being civilizated) and good government (it's a complain about the Spanish rule).
'The first new chronicle AND good government'. "buen gobierno" is a old administrative formula meaning "gobierno".
This is not correct translated. 'Primer' and 'nueva' does not share the same genus, so, 'Primer' (First) does not relate about the New chronicle, it is related to a book. The correct translation would be "The first 'book named' new chronicle and good goverment". In fact the original name of the book is 'Nueva crónica y buen gobierno', and 'El primer' (not included in the original cover) was added late. And please, sing yout posts. --Jose piratilla 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe "governance" is better than government.
- I have left out "El primer", it is not always used when quoting the title and, besides, its gender does not match corónica.
- See the Danish Library for the pre-publication title.
- --Error 9 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME BUT THE WORD "Conquistador" Is not only a word used in Spanish but in Portuguese as well!
[edit] Not Broad enough
This article should have more information about who the conquistadors were in general, not just about the conquests of the few famous ones. It should have information on the equipment, weapons, tactics abilities and horsemanship of the conquistadors. his article is entirely to short for the impact the spanish conquests had on the entire world and the path of civilization.
why dont you do it then?89.242.173.91 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] the 20th and 21st centuries?
Quote:
"...brought much of the Americas and Asia Pacific under Spanish colonial rule between the 20th and 21st centuries."
I think it was a little earlier than that.
- It was just a case of vandalism. I have reverted that edit. Next time you see something weird like that try and click the "history" tab and compare different versions to see when the error/vandalims was added and what others wrote before. Take a look at the history of this page and play with the functions of the history view and you can see what happened. (It takes some playing around with the history view to understand how it works.) --David Göthberg 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] video game image
That's, well, odd! "Let's play the virtual colonisation"
[edit] I have a question
Every time I read about the conquistadores and the American colonies of Spain, there is a strong emphasis on how cruel and greedy the spaniards were and how many indians they killed. On the other hand about the British, Dutch, French or Portuguese colonies there is only names, dates and standard information. And I wonder why. Maybe there was no slavery in these colonies. Or there was? Maybe the other countries did not exploit their colonies as much as they could. Or maybe they did. Moreover, the USA started an expansion towards the west. They killed very many indians looking for gold and new lands. Later they invaded Mexico and force the mexican to sell them their northern territories. Surprisingly, all these "cow-boys" who killed indians and mexicans in the XIX century (not that far in time) are considered heros in all the films and books. They are almost always the good guys. Could anybody give a serious explanation (with no prejudice) on that?
QUITE good point. I also want to know. Another question linked to yours would be...if the conquistadores were such a bloodthirsty people, how is it that at this time there are several million native south americans and mestizos but...only a few native north americans barely surviving? David 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
They were bloodthirsty,but they did not settle with their families in South America as much as their "American" counterparts.Their gains and aims in Americas was in shorter term than those in Northern America.But they are still bloodthirsty assholes for me,and nothing can justify against it.--85.105.127.49 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It is true that every colonial power can be charged with sins against those being colonized. Some of those sins are covered and some are not. The Spanish conquistadors have historically been charged with greater sins (see the Black Legend article).
Discussing this point here can only lead to a heated debate which will not improve this or any other article related to the conquistadors. I would urge you not to engage in the debate here. It's a waste of time. If you wish to change the balance of treatment, please go to the other articles and increase the emphasis that they give to the mistreatment of natives. The imbalance of coverage does not justify softening the truth about how the conquistadors treated the natives.
--Richard 16:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I hate those conquistadors
Bold text== Use of Spanish language terms in English? ==
I'm curious, why is it that the word "conquistador" is used in English, even though the word "conqueror" is a perfectly good translation for it? I realize that "conquistador" carries with it the implicit location (America) and time (starting in the late 15th century). But it's easy enough to say "Spanish conquerors in the New World" or some such.
This reminds me of peculiar uses of Spanish words in English in a misguided attempt to be specific. For example, "queso" is used in the U.S. to refer to a melted yellow cheese served in Mexican restaurants. But the word simply means "cheese" in Spanish. Any kind of cheese. Same goes for "sombrero." That's just a hat of any kind, not just what Mexican charros wear.
And looking at it from another angle, why is it that U.S. history books don't refer to other European colonial conquerors in their own languages? (French, Portuguese, Dutch, etc.) This oddly inconsistent practice continues to this day with the word "Latino", even though there's the term "Latin American" in English. U.S. immigrants from other parts of the world usually aren't described with terms from their own languages by people in this country.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.203.48 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-12T23:19:00 - Please sign your posts!
In regards to referring to them as "conquistadors" I don't think they should be called anything of the sort. As this article correctly states it is what they referred to themselves and wanted others to perceive them as. But that couldn't be further from the truth. I recommend reading "The Seven Myths of Spansish Conquest" by Matthew Restall to get a more accurate perspective of this period in history. They were invaders, criminals and opportunists nothing more and nothing less that took advantage of the debilitating effect European disease had on the native population. To call them "conquistadors"/conquerors/etc... is an insult to their victims and their memories and descendants.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.135.247 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-20T19:03:42 - Please sign your posts!
What? Can be an insult to say they were good and honest sirs; but a conqueror is a conqueror althougth he rape, kill and sack, called Hernán Cortés, Genghis Khan or Alexandre the Great, the question is conquer a country.
-Fco
That's why calling them "conquistadors" is such a gross misnomer, they were not "conquerors" in the truest sense of the word. By ignoring and omitting the contribution of indigenous allies, it gives the false impression of passive, backward "savages" that were easily sujugated by a small band of thieves that travelled across from Europe. That is a grotesque over-simplification of the events that took place and in doing so perpetuates the myth the so-called "conquerors" created which does a great disservice to "conquered" present-day descendants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.124.132.129 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-13T15:43:02 - Please sign your posts!
The fact is "Conquistador" is the absolute most commonly used term in english, and to use a different one would be foolish, no matter how it offends your political or philosophical sensibilities. More important than this esoteric philosophical dispute is the poorly written and disorganized nature of the entire article, which seems not to have been written by a native english speaker. Sentence structure, spelling and word use are all major issues throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of Hernán Cortés
Hi,
The Hernán Cortés article provides Hernán(do) Cortés as the spelling of his name. This formulation has been in use for over 6 months. Some anon editors have recently changed the spelling from Hernán(do) to Hernando and from Cortés to Cortez. I have reverted both of these changes because they were not discussed on the Talk Page first. However, I would not be able to defend the current formulation if challenged. Can anybody explain what the differences are between Hernán(do) & Hernando and between Cortés & Cortez? Thanx.
--Richard 06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is simple: the guy was called, as per the contemporary records, Hernán Cortés not Hernando Cortez whatsoever. Currently in Spanish the family name "Cortés" still exists, while "Hernán" has become rather "out of order", but that doesn't mean that we should change the guy's name now, right? So The Force is definitely by your side to defend "Hernán Cortés" anytime..I'm sure he thanks you from well under the sod..Mountolive 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I can ensure that in Spain all historic book spell Hernán Cortés. Im Spanish and it's the first time I see It spelled Hernando Cortez. --Jose piratilla 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why has the Portuguese side of this...
...been completely erased? Considering that it was the Portuguese who took much of Brazil and South East Africa - well?Tourskin 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- And don't tell me to be bold. Thats not answering why. Tourskin 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spanish page
Brought lotsa stuff over from Spanish Page--209.213.220.227 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article Sections
The way the article is broken up is quite haphazard and confusing, particularly the "Factors" segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.39.15 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's really a poorly constructed article that needs work. Noteworthy is that we must discuss that the so-called victims in this story were hardly passive little lambs --- the Indians were viscious, trecherous, bloodthirsty savages who had even fewer scrupples than their conqurors. So let's skip the revisionism and tell the true story.--137.186.193.232 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree. I think the entire article is poorly organized and in some parts not well written. It needs a major upheaval, a better table of contents with more sections, rewriting, etc in order to make this a decent wiki article. As it is now, its confusing and sloppy, which makes it difficult to read and to edit. Bigdan201 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Black Legend
Looking over the various comments in the discussion, I can see the tremendous prejudice inherent in Anglo-Saxon analyses of Spanish history. Comments such as "I hate those assholes," and other such thoughts indicate to me that no such person should be writing or editing an article on Spanish Conquistadores. People behaved differently in the 16th century than they do now, and applying modern moral codes to behavior of past centuries is self-serving poppycock. Many European powers, including England, France, Holland, Portugal and others, engaged in colonial expansion in those years, and all, repeat all, treated indigenous people with cruelty and oppression. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica notes that the Spanish are unfairly singled out as unusually cruel in this regard, but their sins were no worse than those of the people of other nations involved in empire building.
The Conquistadores who came to the New World were in fact brave and exceptional men, who accomplished things in the face of unimaginable adversity which most of us could only dream of. Who of us comfortably reading Wikipedia in our air-conditioned rooms could even begin to think of traveling into the unknown, leading men into battle, and conquering foreign lands? Francisco Pizarro was killed during an attack by several men. He managed to get his sword, run through two of his attackers, and kill a third. He couldn't pull his sword out of the third man's body quickly enough and another attacker slit his throat. He was 70 at the time! They don't make men like that any more.Cd195 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
