OPVL & Primary Source Analysis

Final Argument: ​

Christopher Columbus's account is a far more reliable source for Historians because not only is it a true primary source, but was also written during (or closely to) the time of the event; since it is a journal-entry by Colombus, he must have written it right after he faced or experienced the things he mentioned and wrote about; therefore, the details must have been more accurate, since it is more recent to the writer, and was fresh in his mind. Furthermore, parts of the source is specifically dated, and well organized, which can help historians recall other events which would have occured during those dates, and make a connection between them, and even corroborate the source. The Aztec source is significantly less reliable because it was written 20 years after the initial event occured, and although it is a primary source and was presented/written by a person who was present at the event, he couldn't have recalled the event accurately, so he must have incorporated false information as he went along, and would have even exaggerated certain, or many parts of the story. Not everyone can recall events detail-for-detail, and since there were several minor details in the story, some must have been made up.

#primarysource #opvl