Talk:Cuauhtémoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cuauhtémoc article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Tlatelolco was not a section of Tenochtitlán. Tlatelolco was one of the city-states allied with Tenochtitlán, along with Texcoco. When Tenochtitlán fell, the defenders who survived fled to Tlatelolco. This article needs to be fixed, in the part that describes Cuahtémoc's capture. glasperlenspiel 22:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tlatelolco originally was an independent city, but later it was dominated and abosorbed by the meshicas. In the later days it had became a suburb of Tenochtitlan and the main market of Tenochtitlan was in Tlatelolco. Even so, Tlatlelolcas were proud and remain loyal to the Mexhicas, even after all reamining nahuas had surernder or allied with the spaniards. thansk for tour comments, I will try to cleaning the article a bit.Nanahuatzin 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to fix the spelling of Nanahuatzin's addition ("Some indian cronicles record that Cuahutemoc had tried to prevent other towns of the intention of the conquerers. Cortés probably took Cuauhtémoc with him so he wouldn't have to kill him close to his fellow Aztecs."), but then I realized that I didn't understand what the first sentence means, and I was a bit unclear about the second. So I'm removing them, but if Nanahuatzin can clarify the meaning, I'm happy to have them go back.--Curtis Clark 23:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it,s better. I will try to get some time to rewite this article, theres a lot of room for improve it :) Nanahuatzin 07:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sequitur?

User:Madman2001 deleted the following text:

When the Spaniards had first arrived in the city they had discovered a sealed off treasure room filled with all the wealth Montezuma had inherited from his father. They had tried to take as much of this as possible when they were forced to retreat from the city. It is possible that this treasure room had contained most of the gold the city had.

The edit summary characterized the text as a "non-sequitur". Admittedly, the flow could be improved but the contributor was trying to provide a reason why there was no more gold to give the Spaniards. My biggest problem with the text is wondering whether this story is substantiated in the references. As written, it sounds like there's a least a bit of OR in there.

--Richard 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I had labelled it as a "non-sequitor" because it didn't fit into the place that anonymous editor had inserted it. I should have really labelled it as "unsubstantiated legend" (as you note, Richard). For example, the Spaniards "discovered a sealed off treasure room" that contained "all" the treasure "Montezuma" had inherited?? Oh, please! And "It is possible" that this room contained most of the gold the city had?
I am sure that the editor was being helpful, but we really don't want this sort of unsubstantiated fluff and "it is possible" speculation cluttering up our articles. Sorry to be so harsh, Madman 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the anon was probably referring to the description of such an event given by Bernal Diaz in The Conquest of New Spain. According to Cohen's translation, the passage goes:
"It being our habit to examine and inquire into everything, when we were all assembled in our lodging...two of our men...called attention to some marks on one of the walls which showed there had once been a door, though it had been well plastered up and painted. Now as we had heard that Montezuma kept his father's treasure in this building, we immediately suspected that it must be in this room, which had been closed up only a few days before....So the door was secretly opened, and Cortes went in with certain captains. When they saw the quantity of golden objects - jewels and plates and ingots - which lay in the chamber they were quite transported. They did not know what to think of such riches...The sight of all that wealth dumbfounded me...I felt quite certain that there could not be a store like it in the whole world. We unanimously decided that we could not think of touching a particle of it, and that the stones should be immediately replaced...and cemented just as we had found it." (pp 241-242).
Other 16thC sources like Gomara, Martyr, de Landa and perhaps Cortes himself probably give variations of this, but would have to check.
Despite some evident implausibilities in Diaz's account, it could still be worth mentioning in the article, framed as Diaz's version, not necessarily an unproblematic one.--cjllw | TALK 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Your depth of knowledge amazes me. You're welome, of course, to add this to an article. Does it have any relevance to an article on Cuauhtémoc? Madman 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably not all that relevant to go into much detail about this for an article on Cuauhtemoc, given it was Moctezuma who (allegedly) relinquished this treasury's contents to Cortes afterwards. But it could be briefly mentioned here in the context of Cuauhtemoc's interrogation. It'd be more relevant to the articles on Moctezuma, Spanish conquest of Mexico & Siege of Tenochtitlan, will see about adding it if not already covered there.--cjllw | TALK 02:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of reign

Sources conflict as to whether he was tlatoani until his death in 1525, or whether his reign ended earlier in 1521 or 1522. Could someone add a section explaining what's going on here in the article? --Ptcamn 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/a/Talk%7ECuauht%C3%A9moc_2fb4.html"