Historians cannot understand the past if they try to apply modern standards of morality (or even criminality) to past events.
It might make us feel better to say, "Yes, Pizarro was evil" or "No, he was a Spanish hero" -- but that does nothing to change the past, and it doesn't help us understand it any better, either.
Far more interesting questions: What drove Pizarro to conquer the Inca? Why did he think he was justified in acting as he did?
That will lead you to think about *past* modes of thought -- and that is what history is all about.
What?!!! He's a European legend. A hero in the Americas. This question disgusts me. He conquered the Incans. Took down a force of 5000 Incas with just a couple hundred men.
If you'll remember, it was the Incas who marched out against him. It was their fault they were unarmed. If anyone is to blame it is the Incan general Atahualpa.
Comments
This sort of question is completely unanswerable.
Historians cannot understand the past if they try to apply modern standards of morality (or even criminality) to past events.
It might make us feel better to say, "Yes, Pizarro was evil" or "No, he was a Spanish hero" -- but that does nothing to change the past, and it doesn't help us understand it any better, either.
Far more interesting questions: What drove Pizarro to conquer the Inca? Why did he think he was justified in acting as he did?
That will lead you to think about *past* modes of thought -- and that is what history is all about.
What?!!! He's a European legend. A hero in the Americas. This question disgusts me. He conquered the Incans. Took down a force of 5000 Incas with just a couple hundred men.
If you'll remember, it was the Incas who marched out against him. It was their fault they were unarmed. If anyone is to blame it is the Incan general Atahualpa.
Yes he was a war criminal.
Yes, that would be most probable...