We'll start by looking at the people who participated in the conquest, primarily Columbus, Cortes, and Pizarro. We often put these people on pedestals so to speak and admire what they have been able to accomplish. However, when we delve into all of this, Restall notes that in many cases, particularly Columbus, we realize that his greatest achievement, supposedly “the discovery of the New World,” was an accident. “Indeed, the most remarkable thing about Columbus's geographical vision was that it was wrong. His successes were the result of historical accidents, and his role in the historical process was much larger than himself. Restall places enormous attention on the role played by Columbus's predecessors, Cortez, and Pizzaro in the success of the conquests. Many writers ignore this factor and attribute much, if not all, of their success to the hands of these few. The reality is that many of these “successes” were actually accidents, and those that weren't were aided by years of prior attempts and failures. In Colombo's case, he failed dozens of times and had a very small network of people. The fact that he managed to get another chance at an expedition is a miracle. The problem with Columbus' voyage was that many believed it wasn't entirely honest. He had been accused of lying to the queen about the royal locations he had “discovered” and the details of his trip. Hernán Cortéz followed and became a primary figure in building the Spanish empire around mainland Mexico, around which the Aztec empire was centered. During his journey and conquest, Cortez preserved eyewitness accounts and personal letters that later became famous. “Cortés' letter or Jerez's account of the Cajamarca massacre, framed the justification... at the center of the paper... our analysis. There tends to be a general consensus on the major players, events, and timeline of the story. When authors or historians push back against the norm, it is common for them to encounter tremendous opposition. While the method Restall uses is very unique, I think the same is true for him. Some myths are more controversial than others, but regardless, Restall tends to break away from the norm in his analysis. For example, in class we looked at how Europeans had superior weapons to Europeans. I am convinced that this technological superiority played a major role in the downfall of the Indians. Of course, much of the damage suffered by the indigenous population was due to disease, and clashes with the Indians were far from rare. More advanced steel and gunpowder weapons gave the Europeans a significant advantage.