1. Why is Cortes' letter a primary source? 2. Is there any information in his letter that he did not actually observe? How do you reconcile this fact with the idea that this is a primary source? Can a document be partially primary and partially secondary? (i. e., written by someone who did not witness the events or experience the emotion?)
3. What can you infer about Cortes’ motives in writing about “the wonders of Tenochtitlan” and the Aztecs? Why did he choose to write about the topics he addressed in this letter? Who is is intended audience, and how might that have influenced the letter?
4. Using Cortes' comments in the first two paragraphs, what assumptions can you make about the wealth of the Aztec state?
5. List three characteristics of the Aztec religion. What religious practice did Cortes attempt to do away with? Do you think that he could have been successful?

1. Since Cortes wrote the letter, it was a primary source of information, because Cortes was involved in the events that he wrote about.

2. From his letter, there is no information that Cortes did not actually observe.

3. The main motives that propelled Cortes to write about "the wonders of Tenochtitlan" and the Aztecs were his intention to colonize the area.  

Secondly, he discovered that the land was fertile and beaming with valuable minerals, gold and silver.

Thirdly, he was interested in converting the Aztecs to Christianity.

4. From Cortes' comments, the assumptions about the wealth of the Aztec state can be summarized in the following words:  the Aztec land is blessed with natural resources, especially gold and silver.

5. Three characteristics of the Aztec religion are polytheistic; human sacrifices were rift to appease the gods; and all the Aztecs were involved in performing periodic rituals and ceremonies in honor of the gods.

Thus, given Cortes attitude towards the Aztecs and how he was regarded as a deity, he was very successful in doing this, enabling them to embrace Catholicism.

Read more about Cortes and the Aztecs at link and link

1. A primary source is something written by somone who was there while something happened. Like a journal. So the letter was a primary source because it was written by Cortes

2. I have never read his letter, but you probably have, so if it has information in it that Cortez did not actually observe, then it's still a primary source, it's just not entirely reliable. I'm pretty sure a document cannot be partially and primarily sourced.

3. I never read the letter, but it's pretty easy to infer things about someone by reading what they wrote. Here is a really weak example: "Jack carried the heavy buckets of water up the hill, making sure not to spill a drop, while Noah watered the flowers along the way. Which would later lead the village to a thirsty death." We can infer that Noah is either not very bright, or doesn't care about the villages water, and jack is a strong, hard working guy.

I believe that King Charles the V was the one who founded Cortes' little expedition, so the letter was probably meant for him, to tell of his travels and what he saw.

4 I haven't read the letter, so I can't answer this one. But maybe send a screenshot of the letter and I can answer some of these a little better

5. The Aztecs were seriously into sacrificing people to the gods. Three of their religious characteristics were: human sacrifice, ritual, Tenochtitlan  religion. I'm pretty sure he did do away with those.

I hope this helps!!

Explanation: