The Massacre at Cholula was documented by varying participants, providing great detail on the events that transpired at Cholula. These varying perspectives allow for a comparative study, which can expose the underlying truth hidden in each individual perspective among bias. The four accounts shed light on Hernan Cortes, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, the Cholulans, and from the indigenous allies of Cortes, the Tlaxcalans. Each perspective offers up a different view on the massacre at Cholula. Through these different perspectives we can use inductive reasoning to understand the overlap of truth behind the massacre.
             The First perspective comes from Hernan Cortes, who was controlled by his greed for gold and treasures. This greed in turn fueled Cortes in his decision to commit acts of violence on the native indigenous people of South America. When Cortes arrived in Cholula, he was to be housed and fed. However their food rations eventually were shortened and the city would give off an unfriendly vibe. The natives (Tlaxcalan) would warn Cortez of the double dealing in Cholula would prove to be true. Cortez would leave the city and travel to Tenochtitlan. It is well known that the king of Tenochtitlan had qualms about Cortez, and did not approve of his stay. At the end of the attack, both the native people and Cortez both bore witness to this tragic event, as did Bernal Diaz del Castillo.
             In the second perspective, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, we are told that the entire mission of these men was to peacefully spread the good news of salvation to the indigenous people. Through Castillo's account, it is suggested that Cortes proposed that the people of Cholula and Tlaxcala must enter into a treaty in order to end the hatred. After the fighting, which according to Bernal Diaz del Castillo, was by the Cholulan's choice. Throughout the Castillo's testimony, it is obvious that the Cholulan's were taking orders from Montezuma to prepare for war, f...