In 1519, Hernan Cortés landed with a fleet of 12 ships near present day Veracruz, Mexico. The flotilla held 500 Spaniards, 300 natives, a dozen horses and a few cannons. Cortés’ aim was to conquer the Aztec Empire and take possession of its great wealth.
The legend is that before launching the attack Cortés burned his ships to prevent his men from retreating. Through the ages this brazen act has come to represent fully committing to a course of action. Going all in. Burning all bridges.
The legend is also wrong. It turns out Cortés had nine of the twelve ships sailed into the sand, grounding them. There is no word on the other three ships. According to Hugh Thomas in the Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of Old Mexico, the burning ship error derives from sloppy handwriting. Two Spanish words were confused in the written record: quebrando (breaking) and quemando (burning).
Cortés was successful in his conquest, but one wonders if he intended to use the three unharmed ships as a backup plan in case the expedition didn’t go well.
While there are times it makes sense to burn ships to prevent retreat, there are other times when doing so is foolhardy. How do we discern which is which? The sketch below provides some insight.
As the personal cost of being wrong about an idea or decision increases along with the uncertainty of success, the size of the bet should be reduced.
For example, the negative consequences for a twenty five year old with no dependents who quits her job and maxes out a few credit cards to start a business that ultimately fails is much less than for a fifty year old with a child in high school and another in college who also quits his job and liquidates his 401k to start a similar venture.
The twenty five year has many more years to get back on her feet whereas the fifty year old’s failure could have catastrophic consequences for his retirement.
Earlier, I mentioned testing new thoughts, trying new things, is the essence of expanding the present, but not everyone is brave enough to do it. Learning to scale our new endeavors based on the uncertainty of success and the personal cost of being wrong increases our courage to try new things.
I love the concept of the piecemeal engineer introduced by Karl Popper in Poverty of Historicism A piecemeal engineer is a tinkerer—someone who doesn’t believe in burning ships. Piecemeal engineers seek to achieve their aims by “making small adjustments and readjustments which can be continually improved upon.” Like Socrates they know how little they know so they are always on the “lookout for the unavoidable, unwanted consequences of reform.”
The leading edge of the present is where the best ideas are found. It is also the realm of maximum uncertainty because it’s the jumping off point into the unpredictable future.
Experimenting is the key to minimizing pain amidst such uncertainty. Experiments increase flexibility to react to the unintended consequences of our actions, both the positive and the negative. And on the present’s leading edge there are always unintended consequences. Having a ship to retreat to when a surprise turns nasty not only can save our hides but it provides a safe haven to regroup before venturing out again.
3 Comments, Comment or Ping
Craig Call
I disagree. First off, Cortes was a brilliant military genius, but he also took incredible risks. His whole history bears this out from adulterous affairs with married women, to his wild escape from Governor Velasquez. He had everything to lose should he be caught. It was certain he would have been executed, on the spot, more than likely. Why should he save 3 ships for such a fate. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO other record that these “3″ ships were manned (by a reliable lieutenant), stationed in the harbor, or hid. There is NO other record about them. They are never even referred to. No, I think Cortes took a gamble and BURNED all of the ships. He had to have a complete commitment by his men and generals. There WAS NO TURNING BACK FOR HIM. This is perfectly in keeping with the rest of his acts of “risk taking” throughout his life. So while your formula is clever for a “desk student”, it is NOT in keeping with the many gambles Cortes took with his life. He never played it “safe”! He was a risk taker from the get-go!~
Dec 30th, 2008
jd
Craig, thanks for your comment. What is interesting about history is we only have the records we have, whereas most of the records and personal accounts are long gone. Consequently, we will never know whether Cortes burned his ships or not.
Having said that, you clearly have spent a great deal of time studying Cortes so I’ll grant you burning his ships would be consistent with your definition of Cortes as a “risk taker.”
It appears we have different definitions on what it means to take risk. As a “desk student” who spends most of his time assessing financial and market risk as I manage institutional client portfolios in conjunction with hedge fund managers, private equity managers, etc., I am much more inclined to take risks with a high probability of payoff. I have found a philosophy of not burning all my ships works well in the financial arena as well as in my personal life due to unanticipated events.
Perhaps such a philosophy is ill suited when I move to the next stage of risk taking and begin invading countries.
Dec 31st, 2008
Reply to “Burning Ships”