PC Humanities Forum: When Montezuma met Cortés: The True Story of the Meeting that Changed History 

Didn't see that hypothesis coming. Very much downplays the role of the indigenous allies of Cortez, his economic incentives, and the role played by his primary translator.

I found a gold coin made for hermon cortes show his victory over the Aztec. It has map on it . It in a other language. Made in 1522.

I agree totally!! I love your book...If interested I have recreated the capital based on extensive research and can forward the JPEGs to you!

i just received the book in the mail...before i start it i am going to re read howard zinn's discussion of such which i have.... also will look at oliver stones which i have....i remember in the earlys 2000s zinn was greatly criticized for starting american history with the aztecs.....so refreshing to listen to all this and realize that all of america is not stupid...

As a direct descendent of Moctezuma, I don't agree with what this country has done by changing the spelling of Moctezuma to Montezuma in the history books.

Held at a College, I expected greater accuracy and strict historical adherance to fact in his presentation. I think the gentleman introduced gross bias and glaring omissions. I doubt whether he is able to read the original source documents.

Highly inaccurate not including/mentioning the Tlaxcaltecas etc indigenous groups involved in the conquest of Tenochtitlan.

Name of books 🙏

Too much moralizing. I really don't care that much. It was the 16th century. People were conquering each other, taking slaves, laying later, we know all that. I guess for people in America today this is very important culturally, but I wanted to hear more about the event itself, how things went about.

He sounded to me like a person who is trying to ride the coattails of the current concern about trafficking. That is probably the ticket now, in academia, to additional stipends and research grants. Academia is a competitive business and it is worked by the "novel theory" con artists that come along. He failed to connect a bunch of dots, or to even attempt to, instead saying you should buy his book. Con commercial. Or, if not, he did not make a serious presentation, instead it was wandering word salad which should always throw a red flag to listeners.

They always say the most ignorant people are always the most presumptuous too. Incredible how a so-called historian can analyze history with such a biased attitude. But besides the arrogace and bias, there are so many mistakes that even the most mediocre student of history must know. 1º When Malinche met Cortez, she was already 20 years old (Not 12 like he says) and she was "gifted" to the spanish by the aztecs whom previously had kidnapped her from one of their subjugated tribes. That is indeed, what explains why the spanish were able to conquer such a big empire with very few men, because there were dozens of indigenous tribes that were subjugated by the aztecs whom constantly kidnaped her daughter for sex slavery and her childs for labour and human sacrifices. Indeed, in many of the crhonicles about the conquest, the spanish say that once the aztec empire falled, the own spanish had to calm and prevent the rival tribes from killing and destroying the aztecs, for there was such a rivalry and hatred against them in the aztecs in the whole mexican territory. And for this, many indigeneous started to see the spanish as their saviors. 2º He tries to depict this old grotesque story that conquistadores were ruthless illiterate people that only cared about wealth and women and barely can speak, while many of these illiterate conquistadors wrote chronicles and books that outmatch by far in wisedom and beauty whatever biased thing this man can write. 3º Other of his many basic knowledge errors(?) is to say that Montezuma was killed by the spanish while he was killed indeed by the aztecs who stoned him to death. 4º He does such a stupid rule of 3 by which he says that the horrors commited by aztecs such as cannibalism and human sacrifices must be false since tenotchitlan was such a beauty city and Montezuma held a zoo with animals and plants hahaha.

Historians aren't necessarily the best detectives. Was Cortes really greedy, no way?!

This is a terrible presentation. It starts off and makes no sense. The speaker is all over the place and doesn’t coherently connect the dots he claims to do. He also discloses his gross bias and inability to assess history for what it is with his own personal judgments inserted into many of the topics discussed.

The 1st question; yikes. Like we didn't romanticize Cortes.... for centuries, who was a horrible person all around...