Prescott's History

I guess I would say that the History of the Conquest of Mexico is more useful as an actual history. I hesitate to specifically choose either just because even though he had a lot of sources, the information was limited because primary documents were mainly written by the conquerors. As far as writing history, it seemed that while this text is certainly a development within general research and historical writing, this particular topic was fairly new. I think it should be examined differently and is maybe more important to the development of research and writing of Mexican history. As a history, I was actually surprised by Prescott’s thoroughness. I was not expecting him to have as many sources as he did.

This leads me to respond to the next question regarding silences. Just examining his sources alone, Prescott had far more at his disposal than anyone else writing on Mexican history at the time. He was able to copy manuscripts of Don Juan Baptista Muñoz, which referenced his findings from archives and all libraries. By using this large collection, Prescott relied on the interests and viewpoints of Muñoz which surely contained some silences. Much of his other sources come from high ranking individuals or Spaniards that were more knowledgeable about the events of the conquest from the Spanish point of view. These limitations are not particularly Prescott’s fault because he was able to obtain far more sources than most people. The sources themselves were limiting and it is difficult to do a complete history of the conquest of Mexico without that other side of the story, even though I think he tries.