Do you agree with Matthew Restall’s assertion that “Historical conclusions are not infallible, but when they are well evidenced and carefully argued they deserve to be taken as telling us something true about the world” (xvii)? Why or why not? What “historical conclusions” do you take from Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest and what truths, if any, do you believe they reveal?

Restall argues repeatedly for the importance of placing people and events within their wider historical context. Do you believe Restall overlooked any relevant historical contexts and/or processes in his own analysis? If so, what other contexts/processes do you think apply to our understanding of the Spanish Conquest?

Consider the role played by communication (and miscommunication) throughout the Spanish Conquest. What is the significance of communication, both oral and written, in understanding the Spanish Conquest and other major historical events? How can the challenges surrounding communication, and our interpretation of it, be minimized or overcome?