1: Would you agree that the Spanish systemically conquered the Caribbean islands to establish the base of operations they needed to expand on the mainland?

2: What does conquistador directly translate as?

3: Was Columbus specifically removed because he was bad even by the other conquered islands' standards?

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes. Conqueror. Yes.

I don't get if you are trying to be smug about it or whatever, but the "conquerors" were a specific warring campaign soldiers deployed to conquer the rest of america, specifically the Aztecs since those weren't "easy" to convert to catholicism given that they already had a religion.

You specifically said "conquistador" standards, which although it's an Spanish word that translates to conqueror, makes reference to a specific group that wasn't even formed when Columbus died.

Anyway, yes he was bad but I don't get why no fucking one mentions Hernan Cortez, who massacred waaay more people, and went with the intent to murder and dominate them from the very beginning.

Minor edit: he wasn't removed of his titles because he was bad/evil, the Spaniard crows didn't care about the murder of natives. He was removed because he became a tyrant of anyone who lived in the Caribbean, be it native or setter.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Mmhhmm.

Tell me when conquistador became an official title, and what, exactly, was different about the mainland conquests that means you should treat the armed butchers as a separate entity?

[–] fushuan@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The Spanish name used in an English text has a specific meaning as fas as I know: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador

I really don't get why you are acting so passive aggressively, it's you who referenced them instead of saying "contemporary conquerors", "the crown" or whatever.