- The authors of A History of World Societies repeatedly use the term “conquest” in chapter 16 in reference to the European presence in the Americas. This term is also used regarding the Bernardino de Sahagun account (in Sources of World Societies). Drawing from A History of World Societies and assigned primary source evidence, why is it reasonable to refer to European conquest in the Americas? In what respect is this term fair, for example, to describe the Spanish encounter with the Aztec (Mexica) and Inca civilizations?
- The illustration included in chapter 16 of A History of World Societies of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec (Mexica) capital, is just one indication of the vast and powerful states that existed in the Americas prior to sustained European contact following 1492. From the Missouri and Mississippi River valleys in North America to central Mexico and the highlands of Peru, the Cahokia, Aztec (Mexica), and Inca civilizations each exemplify large-scale and densely populated societies that, in some cases, were even larger than Spain. Yet, as we learn in chapter 16, American societies fell relatively quickly to European conquest and colonization, despite substantial resistance. Drawing from A History of World Societies, what factors explain why European were able to conquer the Americas? What examples from the assigned primary sources support this answer? In what ways does the assigned primary source evidence demonstrate that people in the Americas resisted European conquest?
Sample Solution