I agree and disagree with his choice. I agree because it proved to be an incredibly effective manner of ensuring that his men would be motivated to conquer the territory, mainly because they did not have an alternative choice. They had to become rulers there or be lost in the middle of unknown lands. In the end, his choice justified his goal and means. I also disagree because it can also be argued on how unethical it was that he prevented his men from deciding if they wanted to participate or not on the mission. He eliminated their choice and rights, which is exactly why the renaissance happened, so people can be knowledgeable and make their own decisions rather than it being imposed on them.
Hernan Cortes (1485-1547) was a Spanish colonizer and conqueror, who leaded the conquest of the Mexican territories, that started in 1519 with the occupation of Veracruz. The tales about the sacking of the Mexican capital, Tenochtitlan, are still legendary nowadays.
After the takeover of Veracruz, Cortes gave the order of sinking his own ships (it was thought they were burnt, but nowadays that hypothesis is being questioned). Anyway, he destroyed his ships on purpouse to force his men to go forward and conquer the New World, both in the militar and spiritual (goal of spreading the Christian religion) dimensions.
Agreement with his decision: of course it is an incredibly effective manner of ensuring that his men would be motivated to conquer the territory, mainly because they did not have an alternative choice. They had to become rulers there or be lost in the middle of unknown lands. It can be claimed how the ultimate goal justifies the means.
Disagreement with the decision: it can be argued how unethical is that he prevented his men from deciding if they wanted to participate or not on the mission. He eliminated the choice.
