|
|
| Author |
Message |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 15:38 Post subject: Semantics |
|
|
Hi,
There is a little problem of sematics in here. The conquistador was the chief of the expedition and ONLY the chief of the expedition, and all of them were Europeans, mainly Spaniards but a couple of Germans are also counted.
The troops were mainly Spanish but there are descriptions of a few Black people in there, in particular an African with Cortes, who brough an epidemy to Mexico.
So, if we want to be precise, there was no Black conquistadors but some Blacks came with the Spanish troops that were at the service of the conquistador.
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 17:15 Post subject: |
|
|
False Omar.
conquistador, ra.
1. adj. Que conquista. U. t. c. s.
Diccionario de la lengua española
La Real Academia Española
No importa el rango.
conquistador
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. con·quis·ta·dors or con·quis·ta·dor·es (-dôrs, -z)
A conqueror, especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers who defeated the Indian civilizations of Mexico, Central America, or Peru.
ETYMOLOGY: Spanish, from conquistar, to conquer, from Vulgar Latin *conqustre, frequentative of Latin conqurere, to procure. See conquer.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 19:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| Salsassin wrote: | | ...especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers . |
Do you read it now?
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 19:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| oevega wrote: | | Salsassin wrote: | | ...especially one of the 16th-century Spanish soldiers . |
Do you read it now?
Omar |
Yes, and those Blacks were soldiers. Enough said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| Salsassin wrote: | | Yes, and those Blacks were soldiers. Enough said. |
Well, but not Spaniards
Therefore...
(By the way, this is just an exercise on REVISIONISM)
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 20:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| oevega wrote: | | Salsassin wrote: | | Yes, and those Blacks were soldiers. Enough said. |
Well, but not Spaniards
Therefore...
(By the way, this is just an exercise on REVISIONISM)
Omar |
Keep trying Omar. They were still soldiers in the service of Spain. Thus Spanish Soldiers. And you forgot the "especially" in the definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Salsassin wrote: | | ...Keep trying Omar. They were still soldiers in the service of Spain. Thus Spanish Soldiers. And you forgot the "especially" in the definition. |
Sure Jaime. In that case most of the Spanish soldiers were Native Americans
Do you see what happens when one twist the terms?
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| Again, Nice try. Unless you can show that Native Americans were soldiers under the employment of the Spanish used to conquer other lands. No twisting. You just don't like the definition. Tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:36 Post subject: Spanish king |
|
|
Don't you see? That's also wrong.
There was not Spanish military in the Americas. The conquistadors were the employers of theirs soldiers!
It was not the Spanish army which was destroying the Americas, lol. You well know the conquistadors were free enterpreneurs.
Now, you well know they pay their own soldier, and they also have slaves and large armies of friendly natives on their side.
Please, you know that!
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 21:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| They brought them over from across the sea. Mercenaries or not, they were acting under Spanish influence. With Spanish titles and Spanish permission. Some of those Blacks got land for their role in the conquista. They were Black conquistadors. Period. Get a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 22:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Salsassin wrote: | | They brought them over from across the sea. Mercenaries or not, they were acting under Spanish influence. With Spanish titles and Spanish permission. Some of those Blacks got land for their role in the conquista. They were Black conquistadors. Period. Get a clue. |
The same for the Indians that fought for the Spaniards. They were acting under Spanish influence, they got Spanish titles and Spanish permission. Those Indians not only got some small farms but some even got nobility titles.
They were Indian conquistadors. Period. Get back to your books. Please.
Revisionism. Ha!
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Mon 18 Dec 2006 22:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Nice try Omar. Go Troll somewhere else. I never said that Indians that joined up with the Spanish didn't become conquistadors. They did.
Again, the paper is about Black conquistadors, if you don't like it, give a source for your claim that it is innacurate, or shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 12:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| Salsassin wrote: | Nice try Omar. Go Troll somewhere else. I never said that Indians that joined up with the Spanish didn't become conquistadors. They did.
Again, the paper is about Black conquistadors, if you don't like it, give a source for your claim that it is innacurate, or shut up. |
Nothing to prove, dear Jaime. It was just to show how easy is to use semantics to change meanings. Yes, it is true there were "others" in the ranks of the conquistadors. Actually, most of them were others. But don't forget the people history recorded as the conquistadors were the captains, the bosses, not the Chinese cook of the caravel,
Just kidding, don't bug you more.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously these people got recorded in history as well, as they are on record. Enough said.
Last edited by Salsassin on Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:38; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fwsweet Administrator

Joined: 26 Nov 2004 {Posts: 5213 } Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| oevega wrote: | | the people history recorded as the conquistadors were the captains, the bosses, not the Chinese cook of the caravel |
The few exceptions, where the ordinary "GI Joe" recorded his experiences are particularly interesting.
Bernal Díaz del Castillo was an infantryman in Cortés’s army who wrote his memoir in 1555 at age 60, but it was not published until 1632. This old foot soldier’s tale is more detailed, earthy, and revealing than Cortés’s dry reports, especially regarding the minutiae of day-to-day events. On page 115 of Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, he writes words that are familiar to every grunt. After telling how the officers had hired hundreds of native bearers and horse-drawn wagons to help carry their accoutrements, he writes, “We poor soldiers had no need of such help, for at that time time we had nothing to carry except our arms, lances, muskets, crossbows, shields…." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 15:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | oevega wrote: | | the people history recorded as the conquistadors were the captains, the bosses, not the Chinese cook of the caravel |
The few exceptions, where the ordinary "GI Joe" recorded his experiences are particularly interesting.
Bernal Díaz del Castillo was an infantryman in Cortés’s army who wrote his memoir in 1555 at age 60, but it was not published until 1632. This old foot soldier’s tale is more detailed, earthy, and revealing than Cortés’s dry reports, especially regarding the minutiae of day-to-day events. On page 115 of Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España, he writes words that are familiar to every grunt. After telling how the officers had hired hundreds of native bearers and horse-drawn wagons to help carry their accoutrements, he writes, “We poor soldiers had no need of such help, for at that time time we had nothing to carry except our arms, lances, muskets, crossbows, shields…." |
Exactly. And to take it to a farther extreme, we only have accounts of the great Egyptian Pharaohs and some important priests, but rarely of the common folk, so are we to not consider them Egyptian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oevega SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
|
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 16:15 Post subject: Bernal Diaz del Castillo |
|
|
My point is quite simple, "Conquistador" is a title assigned to the captains that had a contract with the crown to conquest new lands. it is like the Corsair patent of the British of the times of Queen Elizabeth I.
And army could have thousands of soldiers but only one general. Egypt had million of people but only one Pharaon. By the way, not all the Quechuas were Incas but only the ruler.
That what I mean. The Pizarro, Cortes, Almagro, Cabeza de Vaca and others were the Conquistadors, the rest were the troops at their service.
Penguin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin SuperWizard

Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3515 }
|
Posted: Tue 19 Dec 2006 20:53 Post subject: Re: Bernal Diaz del Castillo |
|
|
| oevega wrote: | My point is quite simple, "Conquistador" is a title assigned to the captains that had a contract with the crown to conquest new lands. it is like the Corsair patent of the British of the times of Queen Elizabeth I.
And army could have thousands of soldiers but only one general. Egypt had million of people but only one Pharaon. By the way, not all the Quechuas were Incas but only the ruler.
That what I mean. The Pizarro, Cortes, Almagro, Cabeza de Vaca and others were the Conquistadors, the rest were the troops at their service.
Penguin |
Evidence. Show that it was only an official title placed on captains. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gemini072 Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 2901 }
|
Posted: Thu 08 Feb 2007 15:06 Post subject: Re: Spanish king |
|
|
| oevega wrote: | Don't you see? That's also wrong.
There was not Spanish military in the Americas. The conquistadors were the employers of theirs soldiers!
It was not the Spanish army which was destroying the Americas, lol. You well know the conquistadors were free enterpreneurs.
They represented Spain though. They may have done their own thing when the got here, but it was in the name & glory of Spain right?
Now, you well know they pay their own soldier, and they also have slaves and large armies of friendly natives on their side.
Please, you know that!
Omar |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|