them in their wars. Furthermore, they regarded the strangers fully as demi-gods, probably as some of their own wandering deities returned. True; but he makes a great mistake who rates the Mexicans so far beneath Europeans in natural ability and cunning. Montezuma lacked some of the murderous enginery that Cortés had, and his inner life was of different dye; that was about all.
If any would place Cortés, his genius, and his exploits, below those of the world’s greatest generals, because he warred on enemies weaker than their enemies, we have only to consider the means at his command, how much less was his force than theirs.
What could the Scipios or the Cæsars have done with half a thousand men; or Washington, or Wellington, with five hundred against five hundred thousand?
Napoleon’s tactics were always to have at hand more forces than the enemy. In this the Corsican displayed his astuteness. But a keener astuteness was required by Cortés to conquer thousands with hundreds and with tens.
Perhaps
Moltke, who, with a stronger force, could wage successful war on France, perhaps he, and a handful of his veterans, could land on the deadly shores of the Mexican Gulf, and with Montezuma there, and all the interior as dark to them as Erebus, by strategy and force of arms possess themselves of the country.
I doubt it exceedingly. I doubt if one in ten of the greatest generals who ever lived would have achieved what the base bastard Pizarro did in Peru. The very qualities which made them great would have deterred them from anything which, viewed in the light of experience and reason, was so wildly chimerical.