Non-Iberian Conquistadores
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
"Warrior conqueror types from beyond Iberia"? Technically, yes.
But they wouldn't be conquistadores, and not only linguistically : conquisatodres were in the continuity of the Reconquista warfare and mindset.
Poor dwellers and nobles of the backwards regions of Spain (such as Estramadure) or adventurers (from places as far than Greece) whom source of wealth was war and benefit from raids or conquests in Al-Andalus and Northern Africa naturally found a similar ground in the conquest of Mexico; or that more generally searched a way to gain wealth and lands (the latter part was really important) in the same continuity.
Not to say every conquistador had a fighting experience, but how they percieved their chance to rise socially wasn't that different than Castillan/Aragonese previous warfares.
The religious undertones, as well, were present and distinguished the historical conquest, and may be not as present in a different conquest.
It implies many differences : Cortez's expedition was a rogue one, made from patchwork army looking after its own interests; and Pizarro's wasn't that clear either.
On the other hand, realms as France or England were far more structured. The feudal element was still present, but held more firmly by the king in addition of standing armies for France
A French expedition in Americas would have more chances to be not only more secular, but as well more representative of the royal interests and policies, at least in a first time.
An English (or in a smaller measure Scottish) expedition would be a bit different, as you'd have more room for faction's interests that *may* prelude to a mixed early company settlement and late feudalism.
But they wouldn't be conquistadores, and not only linguistically : conquisatodres were in the continuity of the Reconquista warfare and mindset.
Poor dwellers and nobles of the backwards regions of Spain (such as Estramadure) or adventurers (from places as far than Greece) whom source of wealth was war and benefit from raids or conquests in Al-Andalus and Northern Africa naturally found a similar ground in the conquest of Mexico; or that more generally searched a way to gain wealth and lands (the latter part was really important) in the same continuity.
Not to say every conquistador had a fighting experience, but how they percieved their chance to rise socially wasn't that different than Castillan/Aragonese previous warfares.
The religious undertones, as well, were present and distinguished the historical conquest, and may be not as present in a different conquest.
It implies many differences : Cortez's expedition was a rogue one, made from patchwork army looking after its own interests; and Pizarro's wasn't that clear either.
On the other hand, realms as France or England were far more structured. The feudal element was still present, but held more firmly by the king in addition of standing armies for France
A French expedition in Americas would have more chances to be not only more secular, but as well more representative of the royal interests and policies, at least in a first time.
An English (or in a smaller measure Scottish) expedition would be a bit different, as you'd have more room for faction's interests that *may* prelude to a mixed early company settlement and late feudalism.