Cortés and 500 Men: A Feat Exceeding Alexander the Great

Cortés with 500 men: more merit than Alexander the Great

Two books on the conquest of Mexico, one by a Mexican author and another by a European, agree on a point that troubles many: what Hernán Cortés and his men achieved was incredible, unique, something even Alexander the Great would not have dared to attempt. The comparison is not arbitrary. The Mexican author, Jaime Montell, is precise about known facts but struggles when trying to prove the conquest was carried out by indigenous peoples themselves. His exoneration of Moctezuma is, frankly, pathetic. The European, Richard Lee Marks, needs no mental gymnastics: the facts speak for themselves. And both, from opposing trenches, reach the same conclusion. Hugh Thomas’s version is missing to complete the trio.

500 men against an empire: the numbers of the conquest

The conquest of Mexico was not a military stroll. It was a historical anomaly. 500 men — later joined by a few more — faced militarized, hierarchical societies, empires built on waging war against their neighbors. They were not four idiots in loincloths. The Mexicas dominated a huge territory and held dozens of peoples in subjection. The Tlaxcalans, their greatest rivals, were no better: they also aspired to be another oppressive people. The difference is that the Spaniards knew how to integrate them.

At the Battle of Otumba, after La Noche Triste, barely 500 Spaniards found themselves surrounded by an army of at least 20,000 Aztecs, according to the most conservative estimates. They held formation for hours. Then, a handful of cavalrymen — between 12 and 16, depending on sources — charged the enemy general, killed him, and raised his banner. The battle was won. Bernal Díaz del Castillo, an eyewitness, summed it up with a shout: “Santiago y Cierra España.” Few phrases have ever been so apt.

The bicho myth: smallpox did not kill 100%

One of the most repeated arguments to diminish the conquest’s merit is disease. It is said that bicho and bacteria killed nearly 100% of the indigenous population. This is a fallacy that does not withstand the slightest analysis. If bicho had killed almost everyone, there would be no indigenous allies left. Yet the Spaniards had allies: Tlaxcalans, Totonacs, Purépechas. Without them, the conquest would have been impossible.

The figures cited are directly absurd. Talk of 90 million dead indigenous people occurs when all of America had no more than 40-50 million inhabitants in the year 1500. Some historians give even lower figures. The Spaniards only truly controlled 20% of that population: Caribbean islands, Mesoamerica, Central America, the Pacific coast in Peru, and the Río de la Plata estuary. The rest was wild territory, though it appears on maps as if part of the empire.

Smallpox existed, yes. It was deadly. But it also killed Spaniards. And one cannot attribute to a bicho what was a combination of factors: alliances, tactical superiority, determination, and, yes, some luck.

Diplomacy with Martians: the unrecognized merit

There is an aspect of the conquest rarely highlighted: Cortés’s diplomatic capacity. It was not about negotiating with Moors, Frenchmen, or Germans—people who share geographical and cultural coordinates, who know where they stand. It was about negotiating with Martians. Without knowing their language, without understanding their religious codes, without knowing what to expect. And yet, Cortés wove a network of alliances that allowed him to defeat the most powerful empire in Mesoamerica in just two years.

The assimilation of the Tlaxcalans was one of Cortés and his friars’ great achievements. They did not exterminate them; they integrated them. This is something the English, for example, never did. In North America, the British did not leave a single Indian alive. The Spaniards, however, mixed. Hence mestizaje, which today is the identity hallmark of Mexico and much of Latin America.

The Counter-Armada and the Black Legend: what is not taught

The conquest of Mexico cannot be understood without the context of the era. Spain was the dominant power. The Invincible Armada failed, yes, but the English Counter-Armada was an even greater disaster for England. English ports peine to Spanish ships, and England was Spain’s ally for nearly a century. No one tells that part of the story.

The war that began with the failure of the Most Happy Armada ended in Spanish victory after Elizabeth I’s death. The Treaty of London in 1604 sealed the peace. But in Spanish schools, the Invincible Armada is taught, not the Counter-Armada. The Black Legend has done its work: Spaniards are the villains, the English the heroes. And so it goes.

Did Cortés have more merit than Alexander the Great?

The comparison is inevitable. Alexander the Great conquered a huge empire, but he did so with a trained army, resources, and logistics we would today call professional. Cortés did it with 500 men, without reinforcements, without knowledge of the terrain, unsure if he would ever see Spain again. And he did it in two years.

Some argue that Cortés’s antiestéticat was almost anthropological, because it cannot be defined otherwise. Diplomacy means agreeing with people from your surroundings. This was something else. It was negotiating with Martians, without knowing their language, and emerging victorious. If an Englishman had done what Hernán Cortés did, he would be the greatest national hero, honored even by royalty. But he is Spanish. And our Minister of Culture wants to erase him from the books.

Popocatépetl and Diego de Ordaz’s guts

There are anecdotes that define the conquest better than any analysis. Diego de Ordaz, a man from Zamora whose highest climb had been the hill in front of his village, approached Popocatépetl because Cortés saw white smoke coming from the summit and wanted to know what it was. He climbed to 5,400 meters with two volunteers, wearing armor and helmet, without equipment. He saw the crater, came back down, and told Cortés. That is how an empire was conquered.

Spain’s legacy in America: cancer or mestizaje?

Spain’s heritage in America is a topic that raises hackles. Some say it was a cancer, that if the English or Dutch had conquered the continent, things would have been different. Perhaps there would be United States of South America, a world power. But the Creole independence leaders, sons and grandsons of Spaniards, decided to set up their own shop: Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador... And that is how they go.

The truth is that immediately after independence, those countries were very rich due to their Spanish heritage. Argentina was the richest country in the world during part of the 19th century, or at least among the top ten. Then came internal conflicts, wars, corruption. But that is no longer Spain’s fault.

---

The conquest of Mexico was an anomaly. 500 men defeated an empire of thousands. It was not because of bicho, nor firearms — they took long to load and gunpowder got wet in the humidity — nor chance. It was due to guts, determination, and an adaptability never seen again. The books tell it, each in their way. But the fact remains the same. And there is still no consensus on whether it was a antiestéticat or a tragedy. Probably, both.