Debunking the "Great Men" Myth in Spanish Conquest History
This essay examines Matthew Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest to challenge the "great men" narrative surrounding figures such as Christopher Columbus, Hernán Cortés, and Francisco Pizarro. Drawing on Restall's analysis, the paper argues that what made these men supposedly "great" was neither exceptional nor unexpected given the political climate, imperial commissions, and broader European expansionist practices of the period. The essay explores Restall's characterization of conquest accounts as "facile," his critique of Columbus's self-aggrandizing writings, and the systemic erasure of African and Indigenous contributions. It concludes that while the outcomes of European conquest were world-changing, the methods employed were entirely consistent with longstanding European imperial behavior.
- Introduction: Thesis: 'great men' narrative is outdated and overstated
- The Myth of Great Men in the Age of Conquest: Columbus, Cortés, Pizarro acted within imperial norms
- Restall's Critique of Columbus, Cortés, and Pizarro: Restall labels conquest accounts facile; erasure of others' roles
- Self-Mythology, Omission, and Skewed Historical Accounts: Columbus's writings inflated his legend; Portuguese role minimized
- Conclusion: Conquest outcomes were historic; methods were routine
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its argument directly in a primary scholarly source, using Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest as the analytical backbone throughout rather than making unsupported generalizations.
- It draws a clear and consistent distinction between the outcomes of conquest (world-changing) and the methods employed (routine for the era), which prevents the argument from seeming dismissive of historical significance.
- The inclusion of specific quotations — from Francisco López de Gómara and Felipe Fernández-Armesto — grounds abstract claims in textual evidence and demonstrates engagement with the source material.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies source-driven argumentation: rather than asserting the "great men" myth is flawed from the outside, the author lets Restall's own word choices (notably "facile" and "infamous canard") carry analytical weight. This technique, sometimes called lexical analysis, uses an author's diction as evidence for a broader interpretive claim.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a compact five-section structure: an introduction that states the thesis, a main analytical body divided across three sections that move from broad context to specific textual examples to questions of self-mythology, and a brief conclusion that restates the outcome/method distinction. Each body section builds on the previous, progressing from what the "great men" did, to how historians frame it, to how Columbus himself shaped that framing.
Introduction
Matthew Restall's Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest covers considerable ground when it comes to the historiography of early modern exploration. One of the most persistent approaches in that literature is the concept of "great men" — singular, heroic individuals whose exceptional qualities supposedly drove the course of history. That concept is, by contemporary standards, both overstated and under-examined. This essay argues that while the "great men" framework was customary in classical historical writing, a modern reading of the evidence — particularly as marshaled by Restall — reveals that what made figures like Cortés and Columbus supposedly "great" was, in fact, ordinary behavior entirely consistent with the norms and imperial structures of their time.
References
Restall, M. (2003). Seven myths of the Spanish conquest. Oxford University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.