What if Pachacuti had failed to defeat the Chankas and the Inca Empire became stillborn, with the Kingdom of Cuzco never expanding beyond the Cuzco valley or being eliminated? What effects would this have on the Andean world? Could the Chimu survive? How would colonization be affected? The lack of a unified empire that has access to the manpower and resources of the whole region would certainly be a disadvantage, but there would be no central authority to decapitate. Can a native state survive this period? How long would the conquest take? How would a delayed and affected inflow of silver affect affairs in the Old World? Can other European powers arrive sooner?
WI: No Inca Empire
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
-
- Tags
- inca inca empire
Possibly without the prestige of the empire Pizarro don’t hear about them and no Inca road made harder for possible conquistador to déplace in the empire . But the main effect should be that a divided leardership and lack of civil war make the conquest far harder honestly I could see the native state surviving easily until the mid 1600s
Depends greatly how history would go but if there is not any other strong empire, Spanish conquest might be much slower when there wouldn't be road network. In other hands European diseases wouldn't spread so rapidly too. And it is too possible that Spaniards have search their gold themselves.
while not complety acurrate for 1400 since nazca should be called Chincha and chimu control migth be a little to far south
so chimu is a good spot the stories told us that the war was long but the inca won by allying with the chimus old enemies
so the spanish taking chimu would mean that they would take all of the northern coast of peru and using it as base the chimu migth retreat to the mountians but chan chan is literaly next to the coast as seen by the map so the spanish would have to face a many kingdoms in ecuador , in the highlands of peru and bolivia etc but they would have their coast base after they conquered chimu unless the king sees that these guys are wierdos and kills them that would delay the spanish response for a years and probably come in 1540 the chimu could make armies as big as 50 000 but their vassals would rebell i think the spanish would conquer peru by 1600s and make the aymaran kingdoms vassals or conquer them in 1650s
so chimu is a good spot the stories told us that the war was long but the inca won by allying with the chimus old enemies
so the spanish taking chimu would mean that they would take all of the northern coast of peru and using it as base the chimu migth retreat to the mountians but chan chan is literaly next to the coast as seen by the map so the spanish would have to face a many kingdoms in ecuador , in the highlands of peru and bolivia etc but they would have their coast base after they conquered chimu unless the king sees that these guys are wierdos and kills them that would delay the spanish response for a years and probably come in 1540 the chimu could make armies as big as 50 000 but their vassals would rebell i think the spanish would conquer peru by 1600s and make the aymaran kingdoms vassals or conquer them in 1650s
gold mines and artefacts existed centuries before the inca the mines are the same just used by diferent cultures or gotten via trade
example a chimu gold artefact
There is often the argument that the existence of larger empires made early Spanish colonialism more successful but I really wonder how much that is the case when comparing a united Andean region vs a disunited one, the Spanish were extremely fast even in Central America, Caribbean and Colombia were there was no centralized empire and even Mesoamerica was relatively divided, I don't see how their conquest would be significantly be slowed down if everything else is the same, at most I think we'd see the hinterland fall more slowly but at most it's a couple decades IMO.
with the maya not been conquered till until the late 17th century and the pueblos in north america being "conquered in the early 17th century the spanish took about 4 decades to conquer the chibchan nations and could have lasted longer had Tisquesusa not died or his succedor had not submited and these tribes more primitive than any meso or andean civilization.
Well they didn't pacify everything immediately, but neither did they do so in Mesoamerica, the Andes or the Caribbean IOTL, so at the end of the day the question is not if they would so IATL but more of how slower it really would be and I don't think it would be that slower, especially considering how long the rump Incan state survived anyway.
so instead of dealing with one rump inca state anoying them they would have to deal with various small kingdoms to deal with in the andes , also the rump inca state after the manco inca was survival and thats it, it just survived till that time most of the country had been taken if if was the other way around the spanish defeating the chankas does not mean anything for the chiribiya or the numerous aymara kingdoms.
But at the same time non-Aztec Mesoamerica was conquered relatively fast, no? There were Mayans around and revolts that took decades to properly quell but still the Spaniards dealt with many regional kingdoms North-West of the Aztecs and a good amount of the Mayans were conquered early within about 30 years anyhow.
The thing is also that after diseases it the strength of those individual polities would be quite weak and it becomes more of an issue of logistics for the Spaniards and IMO the conquistador way of doing things and their resourcefulness has been proven IOTL to work against both centralized empires and against smaller kingdoms in very different climatic and geographic environments.
I can accept that the odd last remaining kingdom might survive as long as the Mayans did but most of the Andean population would be under Spain within decades in any case IMO, the assumption behind being that the Spaniards have the same kind of military and diplomatic success they had IOTL, just with a different initial situation.
The low-lying coast of Ecuador and Peru up to the Atacama desert should have hosted about 1/3 of the total population of the Inca empire I believe, so even if the Spanish just take that initially within 2 decades or so they already would have taken over a good chunk of the population and even if they only takeover the plateau in Ecuador or Northern Peru within the next couple decades they would likely have the majority of the Andean population under them by around 1570 and I think that's a generous statement given it's very little territorial conquest compared to what the Spanish did in other decentralized regions.
The disease might have not spread as far and as wide why sure they where connections we also have to take to consideration in time if a desease hits the area in 1530s and the Spanish arrive in 1560 or 1570 the population has been given more time to recover from the smallpox outbreak there would also be no civil war
And while the conquistadors did prove their worth they also had plenty of lucky encounters that if we lived on another timeline they would be considered abs capturing Atahualpa was a stroke of genius as much as it was luck since he just won a war and was in a feast and decided to bring no armed warriors
Who is to say that luck repeats? If the Spanish start raiding who is to say the king of chimu doesn't kill Pizarro? Or actually brings an army just in case and he conquistadors are killed to a man sure a reprisal might occur but the king at least would know what to expect from them this delaying any conquest
And there is another argument the native allies many people disliked the Inca and thus joined the Spanish aside from chimu and possibly the chankas there is no one great kingdoms that it's discruntal rebellious people would join them to figth their overlords
Last edited:
The Maya managed to survive significantly longer than the Aztec because of this. Yes, because of this disunity, the States would be able to survive, with the Spanish having to take them down one at a time.
This is essentially contradictory, you can't have the diseases both not really spread but also spread and somehow grant immediate immunity and somehow populations recover immediately from a 50+% decline. The less diseases spread the more it means they would spread when direct contact with Spaniards is made which is not really better, in any case talking about recovery within mere decades is a really tired cliche that has no backing to it.
Not having a civil war doesn't really mean anything in this context, the Spaniards have so many local chess pieces to manuever against one another like they did in Mesoamerica and any individual conquistador army would be stronger vis a vis any given smaller kingdom than they were against the unified Incas.
The luck factor goes only so far when the Spaniards consistently took over many regions all different from each other, at what point can we talk about trends and not luck? Also I repeatedly said my assumption was the Spanish were as successful as IOTL, obviously you can postulate whatever you want but that becomes a pointless comparison, if we want to isolate a specific factor of decentralization vs centralization(which was my entire point) we can't start talking about other variables.
A conquest fails, others would come and each time the Spanish would be in a better position to invade as the local population decline sets in, as the Spanish properly take over Colombia and Ecuador and explore the region better.
We can make all assumptions we want and explore the worst or just worse case scenarios for the Spaniards but at some point we need to stand back and look at the bigger picture and general trends, it's only going to go quickly uphill for the Spaniards especially in a scenario where the locals are divided and aren't going to unite soon lest they give the Spaniards another way to play divide and conquer like they did with the Tlaxcalans and other Aztec enemies.
You are looking at the situation and only factoring in the advantages of a divided Andes without looking at the disadvantages, such as the fact that outside the few larger kingdoms the Spaniards would fight such small polities than their conquistador armies can just roll over their enemy armies without even needing diplomacy or subterfuge and the strategic depth of each individual polity would be small.
I mean after all the Incas expanded from their core territory around Cuzco from 1463 within 60 years(with most of said conquest being in just 30 years), why in the world would the Spanish find that much more difficulty in doing something similar given their repeated success elsewhere?
You are really exaggerating this, most of the Mayans were conquered by 1546. The problem was not division but remoteness, there was little gained in conquering inner Peten, Belize or the Lacandon forest, most of population was in the Lowlands by that point. I'd wager at the very least 2/3 of the Mayan population was under Spain by 1550, likely even more.
This would be like point to the Asturias or Dayyubids and saying "the Muslims didn't really conquer Iberia/Persia quickly"
1) yes you can b with some Andean areas being hit early while some later depending on if it remained very fragmented or maybe a group like the chankas conquered some more
"The civil war does not mean anything to this context"
The Inca had parts where 90% of their population died due to the combination of the plague and the civil war of Atahualpa and Huáscar
Even if chimu is devasted and it will be it still could muster an army or have the Spanish killed if they tried anything before their people join them
Speaking of smaller kingdoms
Who is to say they would join them sure some might for political gain some others might not or some others play both sides or some might unite against them others might become to help then backstab them
2) the trend was the deposite how many things we atribute to guns germs and other things luck was a principal factor ok why Spain succeed so much Moctezuma could listen to cautemoc and have the Spanish killed
The smallpox plague kills the Inca and his designated heir
The Spanish just arriving literally days as the civil war of the Inca empire was coming to an end and Atahualpa just being in his festivity not brining arm warriors
These where very specific circumstances that are like I said borderline abs Try as we might these factors where central to the fall of both empires with out them their fall is delayed and changed
3) exploring worst case scenarios ? The fall of the Inca was one of the best case scenarios Atahualpa or in this case the chimu king killing him and his men is not a worse case scenario is a realistic one
also in terms of Colombia it might fall as fast as it did in the otl or maybe little later in terms of Ecuador
Depends there is no civil war with Atahualpa taking most of the northern troops to figth Huáscar so Ecuador would not be as defenseless
4) why did the Inca conquered the whole thing in 60 years also yes 60 not 30 unless you consider the distance of aprurimac to Cusco be part of simple the Inca had better roads the mita system among other things allowed them to call large number of troops
the Inca had been expansionist before Pachacutec and had layed down for him the groundwork on what to work with combined this that Pachacutec and his son and grandson very competent in both war and politics I don't like great man history but it's true in this case that he had all the tools and he knew how to use them
the Spanish don't have these advantages they don't have the Inca system they don't have the numbers and need to make an agricultural basis conquering chimu won't give them this .
they don't have many native allies to flock to them to get Rid of the oppressive Incas they would with chimu the Inca did this but that's the only record of that
So to summarize no strong native empire to kill and take over quickly
Higher possiblity of pizzaro being killed by the king of chimu or any other than a whole ransom scenario
No that many discruntal natives to join you
Give you supplies guide you etc .
Many divided native kingdoms that could or could not be your allies may or may not backstab you
No Inca road system and wearhouses to easily move and resupply and no real knowledge about the terrain and how it can be used against you (in the otl pizzaro had thousand of native allies who knew but he kept sending cavalry to their deaths at the hand of quiso using the terrain to his advantage)
Last edited:
The 90% decline really happened afterwards, it did not happen all at once, in any case I don't see why the plague would be less devastating, it was devastating to people that barely had military contact with Europeans.
It could, but it likely wouldn't, we see a track record of how the Spanish fare against such small kingdoms in the Yucatan lowlands, NW Mexico, Muisca, Caribbean etc.
Again everything is possible but none of this is likely.
On the other side the Spanish could have prevented la Noche Triste, or they could have had a proper expedition that was condoned by all parties instead of Cortez going against orders and having to deal with a second army that was going to arrest him, or the Spaniards could have had a better going with the siege of Tenochtitlan. It's not that one-sided.
A lot of "asb" things happened just about everywhere and at any time in history, let's stop pretending history is not made by such type of events, also the conquest of both Mesoamerica and the Andes was less straightforwards than a mere lucky event and had many setbacks along the way which just coincidentally never brought down the entire effort, it's almost as if it was not just luck but the Spanish expeditions where inherently capable of dealing with vary different enemies without any particularly strong prior knowledge and with small numbers relative to the local populations...
No no it's all a lucky streak from 1492 to 1570, 100% asb luck and just one wrong event will destroy the entire endevour and postpone it by generations, sure.
Ok so you decided to ignore what I said. If you don't want to discuss the scenario I actually laid out then don't reply to me, I repeatedly laid out the assumptions and explained what my reasoning was, it's on you to actually read properly and respond to that not saying "luck!!" or point out how "asb" the OTL situation was, even if it was then you are only helping my argument that decentralization wouldn't really derail conquest by much if everything else is equal but you totally derailed the conversation so you miss that.
And how is this relevant in this no-Inca scenario?
And the Spanish have fast sea going ships, strong and dynamic armies with recent experience in dealing with native kingdoms diplomatically and militarily and a incredible track record as of 1530.
They might not have allies but they don't have a unitied enemy either. Also the Spaniards were able to find allies even in disunited places, pitying Mayas against one another for example.
Let's pretend Chimu is somehow that strong, the Spaniards would then first move on Ecuador and by 1540 conquer it, then they would border Chimu and be able to raid and invade it directly, how long can the kingdom hold really? Pre-diseases they have 2 million people at most and after that less than a million or likely less than half a million, Spanish armies of hundreds of people of men would be already numerically close enough given their weaponry that I don't see what would stop them.
1) Actually no the 90% happens in the 4 year time span of 1528 and 1532
Pizzaro first arrived in to a vibrant coastal town only to find the town deserted by 1532 the civil war combined with the plague killed many in the north
And the plague would be less devasted because as jonh green said it hand to hand combat is a really good way to spread desease that and all the burning of towns sack of cities battle camps city and town displacements all of these added to the plague
And sure the small pox plague would be devasting but the civil war made it worse a lot worse actually.
2) "It could, but it likely wouldn't, we see a track record of how the Spanish fare against such small kingdoms in the Yucatan lowlands, NW Mexico, Muisca, Caribbean etc." You mean conquering them in some decades yeah sure you can have them invade Ecuador and subdue them in 10 to 20ish years and then try to snuff out the constant rebellions the Inca suffered when they conquered them but due to plague it would be as bad
"And the Spanish have fast sea going ships, strong and dynamic armies with recent experience in dealing with native kingdoms diplomatically and militarily and a incredible track record as of 1530."
a) would only help directly against chimu
Strong dynamic armies ....eh not really new world armies where not the profesionals of Spain I mean pizzaro was a pig farmer but yeah that proves that they where Good figrhers not necessarily good soldiers but I mean they could bring the veterans from Mexico to Peru that is always an option
And yes they had a good track record against the Aztecs but that situation can't be used in a no Inca empire but then again my argument is that the conquest is delayed another thing we have not consider is European politics as depending how long the conquest takes depends how Spanish has burgs war go back at home if you delay potosí usage by some 20 to 30 years starting the thing in 1560s or 1570s things do change as well as Atahualpa ransom paying for a campaign.
3) yeah it's not as one sided true you can give the Spanish benefits and yes these particular events had happened .
And I never said luck was all of it I even said the Spanish proved their worth as soldiers but yes luck had a lot to with it where it be the capture of a ruler or the enemy coming a mistake just in the right time
Like the whole Atahualpa fiasco the Spanish could have lost and where loosing to the Inca and here is where luck or I guess chance saved them as manco inca became over confident and sent quiso to lima instead of continuing to press the advantage.
In terms of the scenario gloss your not the op he asked and you constructed that scenario on which I disagree with is there a problem us disagreeing? I think not , if you do that that is ok and while you convinced me that my initial date of 1650 is to generous I don't see the way you do and that is fine .
And derraling and me just saying luck or abs ? Man really ? You stated why and I responded like when you said why couldn't the Spanish conquer in the same time frame as the Inca
And how is this relevant simple because it showed the conquest was a really unique event in many regards that are not likely replicated in another timeline with another ruler things would change if the odds where against the Spanish before they don't get better in this timeline due to the reasons stated
Last edited:
Perhaps!
But you would say that having to deal with Individual states is a lot harder that one Centralised state?
It depends on the case of the Americans the Spanish got the idea that if you kindnap the emperor you cut of the head of snake and cause chaos which worked for the Aztecs to a certain degree and it worked really well against the Inca creating mass chaos till manco inca calmed the situationPerhaps!
But you would say that having to deal with Individual states is a lot harder that one Centralised state?
So I'm this context is capture the emperor create chaos win a desicive battle consolidate and the empire is yours
Of course with some close calls but usually the Spanish out smarted our got lucky in these
Last edited:
It depends on the situation, IMO people over-emphasized it, especially given the standard comparison is between North America and Brazil vs Mesoamerica and the Andes and there is more going on there than just centralization.Perhaps!
But you would say that having to deal with Individual states is a lot harder that one Centralised state?
In the case of the Maya I don't think it was a significant factor, only a small region remained free and that was because of remoteness which seems to apply better as a factor than centralization in general.
Last edited: