how could the incan empire have defeated the spanish and survived?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
how could the incan empire have defeated the spanish and survived?
how could the incan empire have defeated the spanish and survived?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Covert to Catholicism and then fight a war of attrition
Mass production of iron weapons and armors, they were already experimenting with copper and iron weapons when spaniards arrived, army generals and officers wore copper/iron weapons, but rest of the army didn't.
They already knew it after first battle but weren't able to produce the enough iron weapons to fight spaniards. So in most of cases just took the armors, horses and weapons of the conquerors.
>iron weapons
>inca
>already experimenting with copper and iron weapons
that's the aztecs, and only with bronze, copper by itself is a shit material for weapons and the incas weren't in the iron age
Actually were the incans, moche who occupied north peru long before them already were great at using gold and copper, incans started to use it for army when spaniards arrived.
copper bends very easily, it's not good for weapons besides ceremonial ones. I was refering to the aztecs possibly experimenting with creating bronze, which can be used for weapons
Incan arms and armour were pretty primitive
Pizarro not arriving in the middle of an exhausting civil war, giving support to a side to win said civil war and lucking out by being able to puppet said ruler.
Pizarro would still have brought an army from New Spain, during the siege of Tenochtitlan there were 200.000 tlaxcallan (and other minor allies) volunteers who later participated at the conquest of Philipinnes and Guatemala.
Doesn't change the fact that Pizarro literally walked in. The Inca weren't in a state of pushing back due to internal conflicts.
Incans weren't that good at war compared to mesoamericans, incans were good at urbanism and civil issues, but an army of mesoamericans commanded by an spaniards would have smashed incans without many issues.
By default mesoamerican cities-state caused much more troubles to spaniards than incan guerrilla and armies.
If Pizarro or Pedro of Alvarado (who also showed interest at expanding to the south) leaded an army of 20.000/50.000 tlaxcalas + 1000 {spanish brigades of horsemen, pikemen and heavy infantry), they would have conquered Peru in matter of years.
how the frick would the spaniards have gotten 50,000 tlaxcalas to peru
Most of Central America and Colombia at the time was urbanized and there were infrastrcutures, Spaniards wouldn't haven't had troubles at moving an army, they already did at at the campaigns at North Mexico Southwest USA by movings Thousands of auxiliaries to fight against the indian kingdoms from the north and the nomadic tribes.
we can't even get large groups of people through the darien gap of southern panama TODAY. imagine trying to do that with tens of thousands of people in the mid 16th century
marching them north isn't even a fraction the difficulty of marching them south
this also isn't to mention the difference in distance. from central mexico to the bajio region is only 600km over land. to chihuahua or coahuila is only 1,200km. getting from central mexico just to the northern tip of the inca empire is 5,000km over land, and through much, much harsher terrain. getting to the incan capital of cusco would be nearly 8,000km.
the idea of spain marching 50,000 or even 20,000 tlaxcalans through 8,000km of jungles and mountains is absolutely absurd. what "urban infrastructure" do you think existed in the jungles of central america in the mid 16th century?
you would face serious difficulty marching a large army across that route in the modern day, where there are roads and towns across nearly the entire distance. imagine doing it with none of that
>marching them north isn't even a fraction the
difficulty of marching them south
Yeah, marching north used to meant fighting armies and a violent guerrilla warfare, marching south meant to walk around conquered territories (using auxiliaries armies) with cities, villages and spanish settlements able to provide food, shelter and resources for the army.
have you heard of the darien gap?
that alone invalidates this entire stupid argument, but beyond that,
a. spain didn't control the entire way to the inca empire at that point
b. spain had barely settled that area whatsoever by that point
c. it's still more than 8 times the distance from central mexico to bajio, just to get to the furthest north tip of the inca empire
you are a moronic, delusional espanaboo
You are a moron who think all the continent was jungle when in fact it was highly urbanized with good infrastructures that spaniards used later to maintain their power in America for 3 centuries.
You underestimate the indigenous kingdoms that before the Spaniards already had systems of roads and aqueducts (used later by spaniards) that connected large swaths of land and the Spaniards who dominated the Caribbean sea as if it was their personal pool and moved large numbers of soldiers and settlers throughout America, building over 700 cities in a single century and conquer as many lands as a Mongol Khan in less than a century as well.
the area between mesoamerica and the muisca was not "highly urbanized" in the early 16th century, dumbass
you have either deluded yourself or been lied to
are you fricking stupid? the darien gap is still impassable today, you'd have to sail the 50,000 morons with their supplies and all, and no, the natives of colombia weren't as advanced as the ones in mesoamerica and the incas
>building over 700 cities in a single century
most of them with under 1000 people at the end of said century and only becoming cities later
>Central America and Colombia at the time was urbanized
no, that was the 17th century
you'd have to sail them into modern day colombia, and it would be a nightmare to supply
>Incans weren't that good at war compared to mesoamericans
what? Incas were unparalleled in the andes, and I would bet they would defeat an aztec army of equivalent size.
to answer this though, it would have been rough in the long term after smallpox and the civil war. they certainly could have survived pizarro tho - all athahualpa needed to do was kill pizarro at cajamarca.
However, the factors that let pizarro win wouldn't have gone away. There would certainly still be plenty of factions that wanted the sapa inca gone and the spanish in charge instead, so it would be rough. I think it's possible tho
There was no evidence of any civilization in south america ehen the spaniards turned up. The only 'proof' was stories from the locals about the distant past, which all contradicted eachother, and the fact people had figured out hoe to pile rocks on top of eachother to make houses.
Convenient how central authority of this 'empire' had just happened to collapse just before spaniards arrived to document anything.
Yet the thing incas said was most impressive about there 'civilization' was their military. Hmmmm.
>yeah bro, there was millions of us in a highly ordered 'empire' with functional instituitions that all just happened to disapper just before you arrived becuase of a disease that actually arrived with you not before you.
Curious.
>NNNNOOOOOO BUT THE HECKING AZTECS EXPERIENCED IT FIRST THEN TRADERS AND AMBASSADORS TOOK IT TO PERU AHEAD OF THE SPANIARDS!!!!
Yet the aztec had no record of any interactikn with the inca and didn't know they existed despite living right next to where they should have been. Very interesting.
Based & redpilled
PeruANOS are very well known liars to this day, it's in their DNA. They're up there with israelites and east asians
Might makes right.
What made it hard was that the Incans had a belief that white men were God's that founded their civilization. To when the Spanish showed up the natives thought they'd be benevolent. And the natives were skittish about fighting the gods. And also small pox or whatever diseases that wiped out somthing like half the natives didn't help.
They didn't, also fought against spaniards for decades.
Said that, spaniards of the time had a highly imperial senatorial ethos, thats why chiefs of lesser tribes, kings from cities-state and emperors negotiated with them while british, dutch and french colonists fought for not starving to death in North America while natives there felt pity for them.
i mean, it doesn't help that the natives of north america were generally very primitive and, aside from a small handful of areas, had no real states, countries or cities.
it was made even worse when european pandemics swept through and completely destroyed what few semblances of complex society did exist
they were very primitive but well-suited for survival in their situation, while the europeans weren't used to it at all and struggled to even survive. the spanish would've similarly struggled had it been them in north america instead of mesoamerica, the caribbean and northwestern south america
>the spanish would've similarly struggled had it been them in north america
the spanish had colonies in californa, utah, texas, new mexico and arizona for longer than the US has had those lands
they didn't find a way to tame those lands but they did christianize most of the natives
Not going into Cajamarca unarmed trying to impress the Spaniards would be a good start
Charging them as soon as they got off the boats
They couldn't. Smallpox made it to Peru before the conquistadors did. Inca military doctrine couldn't compete with European warfare. The Inca Empire was a bronze age society, while in Europe the gunpowder age was in full boom. The Incas had no draft animals other than alpacas and llamas. Their system of governance was highly centralized and their commie ayllu system couldn't maintain the empire if the empire didn't control the roads. The Neo-Incan State tried to adapt to European methods of warfare by recruiting deserters and buying/stealing weapons to conduct guerrilla warfare, but it was too little, too late, and they never stood a chance. They just didn't have economy of scale on their side. The only chance of a Peruvian polity being independent relatively soon after conquest would be if a kingdom under conquistador/creole was set up, which came close to happening a few times, although Peru was pretty much independent under Pizarro/the early Viceroyalty of Peru anyway. Peru didn't even begin to become Hispanicized on a large scale until after Túpac Amaru's rebellion, after which the Castilian Crown began a policy of forced Hispanicization. Early Spanish civil government in Peru was mainly conducted in Quechua. The Inca tribute system was kept largely intact as well. Anyway, it was the isolated, decentralized native polities like the Maya city-states and the Araucanos/Mapuche tribes that had a chance at staying independent. The Mapuche rocked the Spaniards' shit so hard in the Araucano War that they stayed independent until after Peru's independence. They're still going at it with the Peruvians to this day. Some Maya city-states remained independent centuries after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. In pretty much all of the Spanish Main north of the Rio Grande natives were de facto independent in pretty much all cases. Peruvian history is so cool bros.
Inca should have FC then into knights (llama knights)
That’s a really detailed and sufficient answer. I had fun reading that. Thanks man.
>t. Son of a Peruvian father
What is your mother?
She’s Colombian, descended from Spaniards probably from central Spain. My dad is very cholo looking but I came out “white” as hell.
Np bro. Peruvian history is metal. Their Pre-Columbian history is cool, the history of their conquest is cool, and the history of the modern-day Republic of Peru is cool. I had a Spanish teacher that was Peruvian, and I'm into Peruvian history, so I'm always down to talk about any of it.
the Mapuche were based as frick, not only did they frick over the Incas and the Spanish, but they stayed a unified nation well into the 1800s, to the point that THEY were colonizing other native tribes, literally marching across the Andes to invade Argentina
Yep, the Araucanization of Patagonia. Araucanía, the land of the Mapuche, was referred to by the Spanish as "Flandes indiano," because the Arauco War was considered to be akin to an American version of the Eighty Years War. It cost more Spanish lives and treasure than any other conflict in the New World, and by a very wide margin. Basically a Spanish Vietnam War. The Dutch thought that they could fill the power gap in the South American Pacific coast after the Spanish failed to colonize the Magellan Strait with their expedition to the Chiloé Archipelago after the Mapuche kicked them out, but the Mapuche fricked them over too. They're just one of those peoples in history with that independent warrior spirit. They fought for independence from Spain at any cost, and after they won they got rich off of black market trade, skilled metalworking, and raids. They controlled their own land and Europeans lived in fear of them. Then their descendants got to be based gaucho Indian cowboy mercenaries in the fiefdoms of cattle baron caudillo warlords. It's been a rough fall from grace for the Mapuche the last couple of decades, unfortunately.
Very interesting.
>Then their descendants got to be based gaucho Indian cowboy mercenaries in the fiefdoms of cattle baron caudillo warlords
So some of them mixed or integrated to Hispanic nations?
Yep. Like I said, the Mapuche colonized much of Patagonia. Argentina is considered to be one of the "whitest" nations in LatAm because it experienced massive European immigration, especially from Italy and Germany, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, up until that point, a considerable majority of the people living in what is now Argentina were natives/mestizos, and many of them were of Mapuche descent, or had been influenced culturally by the Mapuche. Through raids over centuries of warfare with the Spanish and feral animals from failed colonization attempts around Buenos Aires, European livestock, especially cattle and horses, made their way into Patagonia. Keep in mind that much of Argentina, specifically the Pampas region that stretches across northern Argentina, southern Brazil, and Uruguay, is basically a South American Great Plains region. Natives intermixed with European settlers over time to form the gaucho culture. Gauchos are literally Indian cowboys. They would travel across the country as itinerant workers for Spanish cattle baron "caudillos," who would also employ them in private militias so they could rule their lands like petty kingdoms. The most prominent among these caudillos was Juan Manuel de Rosas. Gauchos also played a massive role in fighting for independence and fighting in Argentina's wars after. They share many traits with American cowboy culture, as well as with other Hispanic vaquero cultures across the Americas, but they're even cooler.
>They're still going at it with the Peruvians to this day
i think you meant the chileans, peru isn't that large anymore (for now)
>for now
Lol yeah, you're correct. I was thinking about CAM, the Shining Path-esque Mapuche movement and so I got em' swapped around in my head, my bad. Thanks for that. Although I should note that "Peru" was never that large. The Incas were in contact with the Mapuche, but also failed to conquer them, and Francisco Pizarro was technically the suzerain of Pedro de Valdivia, but Valdivia basically seceded into the direct authority of the Castilian Crown after Pizarro's assassination, so it was a fairly brief period and the Mapuche were independent from Spanish control during this time nonetheless.
>how could the incan empire have defeated the spanish and survived?
not been in the middle of a devastating civil war when the Spaniards showed up
not fallen for the tricks Pizzaro pulled at Cajamarca
if either or both of those things happened the war would be A LOT harder for the Spanish, if not an outright loss
The only way would have been buy enough time to modernize. But doing that would have required freeing slaves, becoming a modern nation and ditching the nobility, all of which would have caused several civil wars.
Also, I don't think they could have modernized because "modernism" wasn't even a solid idea in the European mind yet.
The Spanish were insanely lucky. The Incas would have likely survived if their king wasn't captured, and most of their empire surrendering to that fact.
If the Sapa Inca successful fended off the Spanish it would have opened political talks, and probably some form of trade recognition in time from Spain/Portugal.
they couldn't, there's no possible victory scenario for the incans
have iron arrows and stronger bows have more slingers tossing rocks.
If they had rail guns and planes
Smallpox probably made it impossible
If it was some 200 to 300 hundrends year older, and all the people were fully assimilated into Inca society. So the spanish couldn't use people who had been recently conquered to fight the Inca elite in Cuzco