Did Spanish Conquistador was war criminals?

Post Reply New Topic

I recently read that the conquistadors are responsible for ethnic cleansing during the Spanish Reconquista, reportedly murdered Muslim and Jewish population of Spain, forcing it to adopt Christianity.

The same thing happened later the South American Indians.

I'm sure the term would be applied if these events occurred in a modern context, but it's much harder to judge historical events given the different standards of conduct and warfare at the time.

^^^ Tell that to the black legend. There has always been plenty of criticism of Spain's actions towards foreigners, noncatholics, and indigenous peoples.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_ ... the_Indies

In a word: yes.

By modern standards, the conquistadors were undeniably war criminals. But I doubt they saw themselves that way. Consider how conquering armies have dealt with the vanquished through much of history; killing or enslaving all the men, taking all the food, and bringing the young women home to become "brides". Although when the conquerors were European and the conquered not, the young women generally had a different fate (Pocahontas notwithstanding).

A related example is President Jackson of the US circa 200 years ago, whose picture currently appears on the $20 bill. Judge for yourself whether any of his acts might be considered war crimes today.

The opposers of war see it as a crime. To all the other idiots, it's just a way of life. They came. They concord. They invented mexicans. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

In those days, that was normal behavior for Europeans.

Religious wars and persecution were normal in Europe until the Peace of Westphalia.

ruveyn

Okay, I'm giving all you guys an F in history.




The British actually used this sort of criticism as an excuse to attack the Spanish and attempt to drive them out of the New World. Of course, that was more than a little bit hypocritical on the part of the British since they were actively importing/trading African slaves at the same time...

Easy to believe after I recall the Spanish Inquisition.

In my opinion, no more nor less than most other conquerors. Conquerors always killed a lot of people, and forced them to adopt a different religion than the one they practiced when their country was conquered. The same is often true (but not always) for revolutions as well, where many citizens get killed. Like in Russia after the revolution, when for many years people were forced to become Atheists, and were persecuted (and even murdered), and their places of worship destroyed.

Saw some art from the inquisition period at a museum,dark,depressing and relgious,lots of tortured Jesuses hanging on crosses.

Those who conquer get to make the laws. They don?t usually make laws to turn themselves into criminals; if anything, the ones labelled as criminals and punished as such are the vanquished.

We can't judge the past as if it were the present. In History (my major), the first and principal mortal sin is "presentism". Maybe if those events happen today the conquers would be considered as war criminals, but not in the 16th century. Retroactivity is not allowed from a legal point of view. At this time, there're not such a concepts like "nation", "popular sovereignty", or "human rights". Spaniards and Portuguese acted under the rule of law, as long as the Pope - representative of God in Earth - had let the Iberian kingdoms to divide up the world between them so that they spread the Catholic faith.

Moreover, it's very difficult to judge such as a complicated event. Let me expound an example: the Mexica Empire (usually called Aztec) were a alliance of some city-state which take control of a vast territory in today's central Mexico. This empire subjugated others cities and cultures, forcing them to give the Mexicas goods, soldiers and people so that they could use them as human sacrificies.

The idea of a handful of Spaniards taking control of millions of people are absurd and pretty Eurocentric. People like Cortés or Pizarro signed alliances with the inner enemies of this empires. Cortes' soldiers didn't take Tenochtitlan, but the thousands of American natives who fought against the Mexicas and loyally to the Spanish Crown (the Castillian one, better, Spain didn't exist then). Everyone at that time were war criminals. The common people always suffered those "games of thrones", regardless of who had the crown.

It is sort of funny that the US seems to get the bulk of the blame for killing off the Amerindian peoples when disease and the Spanish did much much more. They conquered empires and destroyed civilizations, there were none anywhere near what was in central America in what would be the continental US at the time we arrived altho does not excuse what we did of course.

The Spanish Reconquista was (as the name suggests) the Spanish reclaiming their land after it had been conquered by an alliance of Muslims and Jews.

Of course, anti-Whites tell Europeans they should feel guilty for their ancestors conquering other lands, and at the same time they portray the centuries-long Muslim occupation of Spain as some sort of great cultural gift that Europeans should feel thankful for.

Jacoby, this is not a genocidal competition. Of course diseases killed maybe millions of people, but you can't expect that a 16th century Spanish would know about microbiology. Also, a lot of people died because of the changes made in work and production systems, which were very fragile at the time, especially in the Caribbean and the Incan Empire territories. But, how those people would discern it?

The principal difference between Spanish and US treatment of American indians was that Spain, from the very beggining, discussed about the situation and rights of these peoples. In 1512, the queen Joanna I, and in 1542, the king Charles I, signed laws known as Laws of Burgos and New Laws, oriented to the protection of the indians. Especially, the second ones, which established that the indians were free to elect their work and couldn't be forced to do anything against their will. These peoples were recognized as humans, couldn't be enslaved, they would be under direct protection of the Crown... You can read it in Wikipedia. The American occupation of the indian territories (who had non-aggression pacts with Spain) were a deliberated act of extermination and confinement, but it wasn't a fault of the American people, but a intentional political decision of their leaders, supported by the propaganda and the nascent mass media.

Yeah, of course the conquers not always obeyed the laws, but the indians could resort to Court and during the Spanish colonization there were thousands and thousands of sentences in favor of the indians. This is not a justification, but the History must be analyzed scientifically, not emotionally. All the countries and cultures in the World commited dreadful actions in the past, and their present, and they will commit others in the future.

The conclusion is that neither the Spaniards nor the Americans were monsters. They only were humans of their times, with good of bad goverments and good and bad persons within their societies.