Key events and actors of the conquest (History HL)

The big idea: In just over thirty years, small Spanish forces toppled the two largest empires in the Americas. The Aztec Empire in Mexico fell to Hernán Cortés by 1521, and the Inca Empire in Peru fell to Francisco Pizarro by 1533.

These men were conquistadors conquistador, not royal armies. They came looking for gold, glory and land, and each led only a few hundred men against empires of millions.

How did they win? The short answer is that they never fought alone.

Native allies, disease and a lot of luck did as much of the work as Spanish swords and guns.

This micro is about the key events and actors — the who, what and when. You need these facts firmly in place before you can explain why the Spanish won or judge how sources describe it.

Keep the two stories separate in your head: Mexico and the Aztecs first (1519–1521), then Peru and the Inca a decade later (1532–1533).

Two names, two empires: Cortés → Aztecs → Mexico → 1521. Pizarro → Inca → Peru → 1533. If you mix these up in the exam you lose easy marks, so lock them in now.

Both conquests followed a strikingly similar pattern: land, gather native allies, seize the emperor, then take the capital. Let us walk through each empire in turn, then meet the people who mattered most.

Why 1519–1551, not just 1533?: Taking the capital did not end the story. The Inca fought on from the mountain refuge of Vilcabamba, and the Spanish conquerors then turned on each other.

Pizarro himself was assassinated in 1541 by rival Spaniards, and Peru sank into civil wars among the conquistadors. Royal control was only firmly restored by around 1551, which is why the case study runs that far.

The Cholula massacre (1519) — Malinche and the "ambush" that never fought back

Before Cortés ever reached Tenochtitlan, his march took him through the great city of Cholula in October 1519 — and what happened there became one of the most disputed events of the whole conquest. On the way, the Tlaxcalans (Cortés's new allies) warned him that the Cholulans, who were allied to the Aztecs, were plotting to ambush and destroy his force once it entered the city.

Malinche's role: the warning that triggered the massacre: According to the Spanish account, it was Doña Marina (La Malinche) — Cortés's interpreter — who uncovered the plot. A Cholulan noblewoman confided in her, hoping to save her by marriage to a Spanish son, and revealed that Aztec warriors were hidden nearby, streets had been barricaded, and pits with sharpened stakes had been dug to trap the Spanish. Malinche reported this to Cortés, who used it to justify striking first.

Why Cholula matters for Paper 1: Cholula is a classic contested-narrative topic, so examiners love it. The Spanish sources (Cortés's own letters, and later Bernal Díaz) present it as a justified, pre-emptive strike against a genuine conspiracy uncovered by Malinche. Indigenous and later critical accounts (recorded decades afterward, e.g. by Franciscan friars working with Nahua informants) describe it as an unprovoked massacre of unarmed nobles gathered on false pretences, with no ambush ever proven.

When a source on Cholula appears, ask: who wrote it, when, and for what purpose? A Spanish conquistador justifying his actions to the Crown and a Nahua elder recalling trauma decades later will describe the same event completely differently — that gap in perspective is exactly what the question is testing.

How this is tested (Paper 1): Paper 1 is source-based, so you often meet a described source — a letter, chronicle or picture — and must judge how useful it is. A common 4-mark task asks for the value and limitation of a source using its origin, purpose and content (OPVL). Knowing the key actors lets you judge who made a source and why.

Common mistakes: Do not just retell the story of the conquest — the marks are for judging the source, not narrating events. And never write 'it is biased' on its own; always say why, using its origin, purpose or content.