Nicole Moore Sanborn

The Eurocentric view of historians and Spaniards alike has turned the Conquest into a romanticized time period neglecting the importance of natives and Africans in battles and colonial establishment. The myth of the white man being the primary conquistadors is refuted through evidence of the Tlaxcalans, Huejotzincans, and Maya helpers as well as Juan Valiente and other unnamed blacks. The myth of the white man has been perpetuated for a variety of different reasons and served very specific purposes in colonial times. Reshaping our view of the Conquest and shifting away from a Eurocentric view of history is vital to developing a better understanding of the exchange.

The myth of the white man being the primary fighters and victors of the Conquest originated because the most widely read accounts of the conquest, especially the conquest of Mexico, create the visual of Europeans triumphing over natives, no matter the odds (Restall 45). The romantic image of a few Spanish conquistadors miraculously defeating many natives is imbedded into history through writings about the Capture of Atahuallpa, the Alamo, and other events (45). Restall also argues the myth of the white conquistador is “a corollary to the handful-of-adventurers image, and is thus equally central to the conquistadors’ own portrait of the Conquest” (45). The ideas perpetuated in widely read history books not only romanticize the Conquest as solely the fruits of the white conquistador, but also distort the truth.

Despite the overwhelming number of natives and blacks that aided the Spaniards, if their contributions are mentioned, it is in passing. Pedro de Cieza de Leon both ignored and revealed black roles in his writings (60). Spanish and native sources make references to the black presence in the Conquest (57). Alvarado only mentions native allies once in his two letters to Cortes during the 1524 invasion of Guatemala. The mention of five to six thousand “friendly Indians” is juxtaposed against the 250 Spaniards, thereby providing clear evidence against the idea of the Spaniards as the sole victors (45).

In the colonial period, the myth of the white conquistador served various roles for the Spaniards, specifically Eurocentric thinking, the goal of obtaining titles, and keeping natives and blacks in subordinate roles or as slaves. Restall mentions the Songs of the Aztecs, which spins the Conquest as a native civil war resulting in incomplete Spanish domination (46). Restall argues this view is not only an alternative to the “predictably hispanocentric perspective of the Spaniards,” but is also a view found frequently in native sources (46). The probanzas de merito the conquistadors wrote to the king were written with the goal of obtaining titles such as Admiral, and thus were focused specifically on the merits of the author. If authors had included anecdotes about the importance of the native and black allies, the king might become concerned about the lack of power and leverage the Spaniards had over the natives, and may even doubt a conquistador’s leadership, therefore not giving the desired titles. By nature, probanzas de merito were self-serving and Eurocentric, thereby ignoring key native allies. Third, Spaniards desired to keep natives and blacks as auxiliaries or slaves. Restall notes Spaniards “considered it great hardship to go without them [native or black auxiliaries]” (51). Black slaves of Spaniards functioned as domestic servants, assistants, and servants who were armed by necessity (54-55). Black slaves were also expected to fill marginal posts on the outskirts of the Spanish towns (62). As armed servants, blacks were expected to protect their masters. If forced to fight an onslaught of natives, black servants could earn their freedom through fighting and surviving (55). After earning freedom through fighting, these blacks were still expected to take on the aforementioned marginal posts on the outskirts of town. A majority of Africans brought to the Americas were brought as slaves, and as a result of both their subordinate status and the Eurocentric worldview of the Spaniards, their central role in the Conquest was consistently ignored (53).

While Tlaxcalans, Huejotzincans, and Maya allies were essential to Spanish victory, they simultaneously pursued interests of their own. Combined, these examples refute the myth of the white man and demonstrate the white man would have failed without these allies. Despite the expansion of the Aztec empire, a small city-state of Tlaxcala maintained independence and presented both a danger and opportunity for Cortes (46). If the Tlaxcalans had continued their initial hostilities toward Cortes, he would have been forced to retreat (46). Indeed, a small Tlaxcalan faction was in favor of developing an anti-Mexica alliance with Cortes, enabling the destruction of the Aztec empire and Tenochtitlan. The Tlaxcalans ensured vital native support for Cortes, while the achieving their goal of disabling the Aztec empire for freedom (46-47). The Huejotzincans, who assisted the Spaniards in the conquest, were not tools of Cortes’s strategy, but used the Spanish to pursue their own interests. Specifically, the Huejotzincans used Spanish presence to engage their rivals, the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans by overthrowing the empire in power and obtaining leverage against a rival city-state (48). Two major yet distinct Maya groups in Guatemala, the Cakchiquel and Quiche, were in a brutal civil war in the 1520s. The Spaniards not only used these groups as their own “allies” at various points in this civil war, but also used the groups against each other and against smaller Maya groups through exploiting regional politics and attempting (though ultimately unsuccessfully) to obtain control over the whole region (48).

Juan Valiente is an example of a successful black conquistador, and is therefore proof Spaniards and white men were not the only victors in the Conquest. Juan Valiente convinced his owner in 1533 to allow him to pursue conquistador status for four years as long as he brought his earnings back. Valiente fought in Guatemala, Peru, and later in Chile. By 1550, he had become a captain, horseman, earned an estate outside of Santiago, was granted an encomienda, and married. Before reporting back to his owner, he was killed by the Araucanians in 1553 (53-54). Valiente achieved a status as high as the Spanish conquistadors, but kept fighting instead of enjoying his new way of life, and as a result was killed in battle.

Two other instances of unnamed blacks demonstrate their vital role in the Conquest and act as proof the Spanish would not have survived without them. An African discovered fresh water in the Ecuadorian interior for a company led by Diego (Alvarado’s cousin) and another African saved Almagro’s life (60). Without these key yet unnamed participants, Diego’s entire company may have died and Almagro would not have reached the fame and recognition he has today due to an untimely death. Lastly, Restall does not mention this directly, but since black servants would fight to protect their masters, many were killed. Servants sacrificed themselves to the Conquest and for Spanish glory without being acknowledged. 

The aforementioned examples are a few of the recorded examples of native and black assistance in the Conquest. Many more unnamed allies assisted the Spaniards in their endeavors. Disabling the myth of the white man matters because it further reveals Eurocentrism in history and demonstrates the Conquest as we know it today is not the whole picture. Evidence of native and black allies also refutes the myth “a few great men” overthrew well-established empires. Without allies, the small groups of Spaniards would not have successfully gained power and overthrown the Aztecs, despite advanced weaponry. While recent scholarship is starting to convey the pivotal role natives and blacks played in the Conquest, the myth of the white conquistador and belief of whitewashed history still reigns supreme in many students’ minds.