AN+APPARTS+method+primary+source+responses

Summer source book assignment


 * Hernan Cortes Conquers Mexico (Pages 9 to 12)**

A) Hernan Cortes wrote the letter as an eyewitness. P) The letter was sent on October 30, 1520 from Segura de la Frontera to the King of Spain. P) Hernan Cortes was a spanish conquistadorwho traveled into Mexico where he met the Aztecs and Moctezuma their king. Cortes was seen as a god in the Aztec minds. He is showered with gifts including gold and food. The Aztecs soon figure out Cortes is not a god and is driven out of Mexico. A) The letter was written to the King of Spain by Cortes. The lettter is likely to be bias because it is what he thinks and it is also contains only positive things to make himself look good and to please the King. R) This letter was produced to let the KIng of Spain know what Cortes found and what was going on. It was written and described Cortes's first encounter with the Aztecs and to tell the king of the great success. T) The main idea of the source is trying to convey that cortes made friends and was getting gold from the Aztecs. S) This source is important because Cortes is telling the King of Spain what is going on and the good news of the first encounter.


 * Aztec Chroniclers Describe the Spanish Conquest of Mexico (Pages 12 to 15)**

A) Spanish Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagun wrote this account is the Aztec's perspective. P) Sahagun arrived in Mexico in 1529 several years after the events he describes happened. P) Hernan Cortes was a spanish conquistadorwho traveled into Mexico where he met the Aztecs and Moctezuma their king. Cortes was seen as a god in the Aztec minds. He is showered with gifts including gold and food. The Aztecs soon figure out Cortes is not a god and is driven out of Mexico. A) The audience is unclear. Since it was the Aztec's perspective it may be a little bias but it is unknown how the audience may have effected the account. R) This account was created to describe the encounter of Moctezuma and Hernan Cortes. T) The source's main idea is trying to convay the truth of what had happened in the past between Moctezuma and Cortes and tells the Aztec side of what occured. S) The account is significant because it explains the Aztec's side of the story in which the Spaniards were not as nice as what had been betrayed. Reading about this other side of what happened might bring us closer to what had actually happened during the encounter of Moctezuma and Cortez.


 * Compare and Contrast**

These sources have both similarities and differences. Both sources explain the encounter between Moctezuma and Hernan Cortes. However, the first source is written in Cortes's view and the second is the Aztec perspective of what happened. Since the first source is Cortes's view it is considered a primary source and the second article is a secondary source because Sahagun was not there when the encounter occured. Cortes's letter to the King of Spain is very bias where as the second source a little bias because it is the Aztec's perspective but the audience is unknown to determine how they may have impacted the reliability. Another difference between the two sources is that Cortes's letter was written a year after the encounter and Sahagun's article was written ten years after. The two sources are more different then they are similar.