We begin by examining the individuals who participated in the conquest, primarily Columbus, Cortés, and Pizarro. We often place these people on pedestals so to speak and admire what they have been able to accomplish. However, when we dig deeper into all of this, Restall notes that in many cases, particularly that of Columbus, we realize that his greatest achievement, supposedly "discovering the New World", was an accident. “In fact, the most exceptional thing about Columbus's geographical vision was that it was wrong. His achievements were the result of a historical accident and his role in the historical process was much greater than him. “Restall places considerable emphasis on the role that the predecessors of Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro played in the success of the conquests. Many writers ignore this factor and place much, if not all, of the success in the hands of a few. The reality is that many of these "successes" were actually accidents, and those that weren't were fostered by years of previous attempts and failures. In Columbus' case, he failed dozens of times and had a very small network of people. The fact that he was given another chance to go on an expedition is a miracle. The problem with Columbus's voyage was that many thought he was not completely honest. He had been accused of lying to the Queen about the actual locations he had “discovered” and the details of his trip. Hernán Cortéz followed and became a leading figure in building the Spanish empire around mainland Mexico, around which the Aztec empire was centered. Throughout his journey and conquest, Cortez preserved eyewitness accounts and personal letters that would later become famous. "Cortés' letter or Jerez's account of the Cajamarca massacre, framed the justification...... middle of paper ...... our analysis. There tends to be general consensus on the major players, events, and timelines of history. When authors or historians speak out against the norm, they often encounter formidable opposition. Although the method Restall uses is very unique, I think the same is true for him. Some myths are more controversial than others, but regardless, Restall tends to stray from the norm in his analysis. For example, during class we looked at how Europeans had superior weapons to Europeans. I am convinced that this technological superiority played a major role in the downfall of the Indians. Certainly, much of the damage done to the native population was due to disease, and clashes with the Indians were far from rare. More advanced steel and gunpowder weapons gave the Europeans a significant advantage..