War God: Return of the Plumed Serpent (Volume 2)

When I found out Graham Hancock was going to write about the Conquest of Mexico, I was thrilled. I have admired much of his work that reveals the ancient past of lost civilizations around the world, sometimes turning mainstream history on it's head. I loved Supernatural. I had hoped he would help set history straight on this subject that is clouded in lies and genocide, Church intrigue, and the relentless greed and cruelty of the Spanish. And I was wrong, so very wrong. What we have here is Graham Hancock upholding what he calls 'historical fact', taken straight from the writings of Bernal Diaz, whose account was written and revised decades after the events took place, and Bernardino de Sahagun, who compiled the Florentine Codex decades after the Conquest. These are Hancock's primary sources for 'historical fact', as he puts it, although these are the accounts of the very men who hacked and murdered and burned their way across Mexico. It is said the history is written by the victors, and in this case, it is true, although fragments of other accounts, those written by the Mexica themselves, exist. Apparently theses accounts were not consulted for this book. One should ask; why did the Spanish burn all of the libraries and books of the Maya and Mexica? He argues that overwhelming evidence supports the 'fact' the Mexica, and all the peoples of what is now Mexico practiced widespread cannibalism and human sacrifice, yet I have searched the web looking for that evidence and found none. Zip. Zero. The only accounts of Native life that survived were written by forcibly converted Indians, under the watchful eye of the Inquisition.Yet this he calls unimpugnable 'fact'. The Spanish arrived in Mexico seasoned soldiers, fresh from expelling the Moors and Jews from Spain, after accusing them of sacrificing babies to the devil and eating human flesh... sound like a pattern here? Excavations of the Templo Mayor have turned up nothing of the tens of thousands of sacrifices that were said to have happened there, every day, for decades, if not centuries. There is no evidence for cannibalism, no human bones in trash heaps, no skull racks of hundreds of thousands of victims, no fattening pens.
Like Mel Gibson's racist rant, Apocalypto, the Mexica and Native Americans have been depicted in this book and much of cinema as bloodthirsty savages with no respect for life, all they want to do is drink, eat and fornicate. He uses the word 'savage' to refer to the Natives in these books hundreds of times, and soon it is the only word used to describe them, even though in their writings, the Spanish never referred to them as 'savages', only the English did, in much later writings. In War God, the Mexica and other Natives are depicted as superstitious, fearful, credulous, greedy, dirty, smelly, brutal, lustful, they delight in cruelty and murder, and of course, eating babies and one another. They are described as 'primitive minds' who were too stupid to tell the difference between God and the demons they worshiped, and deserved what they got because they worshiped demons. He has the Natives admire the 'luxuriant beards, blond hair, and bone white skin' of the Spaniards, as if all peoples, everywhere, have instinctively found these qualities the epitome of beauty.
Much is made of the Spanish abhorrence for the human sacrifice, yet the methodical butchery done by the intrepid Spanish is passed off as a skill, natural, normal, and a part of 'just' warfare, and pleasing to God. In Europe at that time,the routine public torture, humiliation, and execution of heretics and criminals was considered public entertainment, not "sacrifice" to the state or an angry God. Corpse medicine was routinely practiced until the 19th century- they called it medicine, but it was cannibalism, nonetheless, yet still Mr. Hancock describes the Mexica as "vile". He sees the genocidal Cortes as a wise and great captain, sometimes kind, yet Moctezuma is weak and delusional, an effete ruler who wets himself and can't control his bowels. The passages describing the slaughter of the filthy 'savages' with great delight are numerous, almost filling the whole book, bloody, brutal blow after blow.
I had hoped for more, for better than this. Disappointing.

truly loved this book. As historical fiction this is so accurate, its hard to separate the facts from the fiction. If you doubt that read " The Memoirs of the Conquistador Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Vol 1+2" or fact check any of the cities or people mentioned in the book. Even the more extrema story of witches gods and "skullduggery" are based on real people and events only recorded in myths/legends of the era.

Only Graham Hancock could tie everything into what has to be called one of the better historical novels of our day. His research is spectacular and how he weaves it into story is also .. well spectacular. I read half the book in one sitting.

(this book can be read without reading the first book as a prerequisite ... and BTW. the two Bernal Diaz memoirs, written by Diaz himself as these events unfolded, are a free download on Kindel)

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It kept me intrigued and did not put me to sleep as most books do. I look forward to the 3rd book. The reason I am giving 4 instead of 5 stars is for the repetitive nature of some parts of the book. The narrative jump from character to character but instead of picking up where it left off goes back and reiterates what I have already read. For me, this book was a quick read and these reiterations of things I already knew made it a bit annoying. For people who read slower.. or are forgetful.. this may not be a bad thing.

As usual Graham Hancock is able to entwine the natural with the super natural into a story that is beyond words. This should be made into a movie that would make Apocalypto seem like Avatar in comparison. History buffs like me delight in the realism so vividly portrayed in this story. Mr. Hancock did his research well and it shows. Wish I could give it 6 stars.

This is the first of two historical novels about the epic struggle between the Aztec ruler Moctezuma and the Spanish adventurer Cortés. My only objection to both novels is Graham Hancock's inclusion of magic in the story. It is unnecessary and hurts the story's credibility.

Having read several of his non-fiction books, I was very impressed with Hancock's style and imagery - helped me to visualize an era of history that I'd been wanting to explore yet hadn't quite gotten around to it. I did feel however that Cortez was characterized as too nice a guy and the story's ending left me wanting more - sequel, perhaps???