Fascinating discussion folks.
I will admit that as much as I think the Conquistors are interesting, I do not find them as cool as I did in my youth. I was once very mislead in the understanding of Columbus and the Conquistadors that followed him.
Their accomplishments are remarkable but incredibly tainted.
I could say the same about folks at the Alamo. I only recently learned how the creation of Texas is steeped in slavery and it has tarnished my view of the Alamo and subsequent defeat of Santa Anna. I could also say the same for the Wehrmacht, Aztecs, British Army, American Army, Soviet Army, Romans, Norse, Ottomans, etc etc etc.
Not as good a film as I once thought but I always think of Hunt for the Royal Sun when I think of Conquistadors. Some interesting and thought provoking dialogue in the writing of that movie although Christopher Plummer’s characterization is somewhat bizarre.
Jtam’s opening post felt...off, a bit anyway. A little too blasé in regards to the associated atrocities of the various Conquistadors. There seemed a focus on the more popular, more fantastical side of the Conquistadors. Hence why I was not more supportive of this thread originally. William Redford has conveniently voiced my concerns better than I could articulate.
However, I do respect the military achievements of the Conquistadors and I think they looked cool. And I bought a box of WGA Conquistadors for Ghost Archipelago.
I did want to add, since the thread has wandered into this topic of history... in my opinion history is imperfect and is written about those fortunate enough to be remembered. Plenty of mediocre people “made history” and plenty of exceptional people have been forgotten. I think about all the things I have done in my life (civilian, military and police) and of those things which were remarked on by the press. The things that were recorded online. The things in my DD214. The recorded history of my actions. They were not the best or worst of my actions.
A friend of mine calls himself a history atheist, he does not believe in history.
Meaning he does not believe recorded history is a truly accurate record of what really happened. Instead it is merely a pale reflection of what some people perceived and then recorded. Which is then interpreted by other fallible people with their own perspectives, agendas, and stereotypes.
I would not go that far but I think he makes an interesting argument and I always consider it when thinking about history.
PS For some reason I really, really dislike Somali pirates and I do not know why I have such an adverse reaction to them.