Spanish Invasion of Incan Empire

[Infected Mushroom]

I support the Incans. When I read the books on this topic, I feel sympathy for the Incan side.

I don’t know how it comes across as otherwise.

There 's a huge difference between expressing sympathy and going on and on about "honor" and "nobility". The Incans weren't fighting for honor, they weren't engaged in noble conquest in this war, they were trying to survive. Going on about their "honorable" sacrifice de-empathizes them; they didnt want the majority of their people to die by disease nor become part of the casualties and have their culture erased by foreign conquerors.

You claiming this over-idealized "noble sacrifice" is what many people condemn war for. War is terrible, and I'm sure you mean well, but that kind of thinking is how wars like this have happened in the first place, and it doesn't feel right.

It took bravery to march out and fight against invaders that had steel, guns, cannons, and horses.

That’s what I’m saying.

[Baltenstein]

They fought with such valor and nobility. Even after Atahualpa went down, they didn’t just give up. They continued to fight back.

It’s such a compelling and poignant moment in history. I think there should be more depictions of this from the Incan POV.

Please tell me Im not the only one who sees this as ignorant and condescending. Why are you talking about the Inca like they're a Warhammer 40k faction? It's not poignant and compelling, it's a genocide that very nearly succeeded thanks to disease and war. Why must we be so fixated on honor when "honor" has nothing to do with this at all?

Pictured:

The noble warriors of the Inca Condors (shown here in red) making a brave stand against the evil Spanish hordes (the green ones).

[Infected Mushroom]

Please tell me Im not the only one who sees this as ignorant and condescending. Why are you talking about the Inca like they're a Warhammer 40k faction? It's not poignant and compelling, it's a genocide that very nearly succeeded thanks to disease and war. Why must we be so fixated on honor when "honor" has nothing to do with this at all?

Pictured:

The noble warriors of the Inca Condors (shown here in red) making a brave stand against the evil Spanish hordes (the green ones).

I don’t know what that game is

[The Socialist Republic of Astrakhan]

Keiko Fujimori wouldn't have been able to contest the Peru elections had Spain not invaded Peru.

How so?

That’s the Japanese-Peruvian leader right?

Yep , why would Japanese Peruvian immigrants come to Peru. Because Peru attracted Japanese immigrants to Peru during the early 20th century. If the Incans had defeated the Spaniards , the Incans would have allowed immigrants , but still Peru would be really underdeveloped and backward. If not for the Spaniards , they actually developed it slightly. Peru attracted Nikkei immigrants during WW2( The Japanese immigrants of South America) , because Peru promised a lot as many Japanese fled their home country from the dictatorship of Japan and in search of better jobs. If Incans still ruled Peru , it would've had less chance of attracting immigrants and Keiko Fujimori's ancestors wouldn't have immigrated to Peru. For example let's take Ethiopia , it was never colonized by any colonial power during it's history. But Ethiopia had less chance of attracting foreigners during the 20th century , as it was a poor and backward nation and there was not much commercial activity or job to do there. But South Africa , another African country ; attracted a lot of white immigrants , as it was ruled by Britishers and the White immigrants had a fair chance of living a well off life there.

[Tsaivao]

If the Incans had defeated the Spaniards , the Incans would have allowed immigrants , but still Peru would be really underdeveloped and backward.

Minus the steel and gunpowder, Peru was extremely advanced, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't try to modernize themselves with outside contact (like Japan did, and Japan, notably, was never colonized AND is a massive tourist destination, which kind of invalidates your whole point)

If not for the Spaniards , they actually developed it slightly. Peru attracted Nikkei immigrants during WW2( The Japanese immigrants of South America) , because Peru promised a lot as many Japanese fled their home country from the dictatorship of Japan and in search of better jobs. If Incans still ruled Peru , it would've had less chance of attracting immigrants and Keiko Fujimori's ancestors wouldn't have immigrated to Peru.

I mean, again, what reason do we have to not think the Incans would move with the times?

For example let's take Ethiopia , it was never colonized by any colonial power during it's history.

Mussolini would like to have a word with you.

Also it has been argued before that Ethiopia itself was its own imperial power. They could've jumped on the colonialism boat if they really wanted to.

But Ethiopia had less chance of attracting foreigners during the 20th century , as it was a poor and backward nation and there was not much commercial activity or job to do there. But South Africa , another African country ; attracted a lot of white immigrants , as it was ruled by Britishers and the White immigrants had a fair chance of living a well off life there.

Yeah, because the white people displaced, oppressed, and cleansed all of the natives from the area, and any that remained got to take part in one of the most brutal and repressively racist regimes in the world which didn't fall until the 90s. Yep, huge success story...

[The Socialist Republic of Astrakhan]

If the Incans had defeated the Spaniards , the Incans would have allowed immigrants , but still Peru would be really underdeveloped and backward.

Minus the steel and gunpowder, Peru was extremely advanced, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't try to modernize themselves with outside contact (like Japan did, and Japan, notably, was never colonized AND is a massive tourist destination, which kind of invalidates your whole point)

If not for the Spaniards , they actually developed it slightly. Peru attracted Nikkei immigrants during WW2( The Japanese immigrants of South America) , because Peru promised a lot as many Japanese fled their home country from the dictatorship of Japan and in search of better jobs. If Incans still ruled Peru , it would've had less chance of attracting immigrants and Keiko Fujimori's ancestors wouldn't have immigrated to Peru.

I mean, again, what reason do we have to not think the Incans would move with the times?

For example let's take Ethiopia , it was never colonized by any colonial power during it's history.

Mussolini would like to have a word with you.

Also it has been argued before that Ethiopia itself was its own imperial power. They could've jumped on the colonialism boat if they really wanted to.

But Ethiopia had less chance of attracting foreigners during the 20th century , as it was a poor and backward nation and there was not much commercial activity or job to do there. But South Africa , another African country ; attracted a lot of white immigrants , as it was ruled by Britishers and the White immigrants had a fair chance of living a well off life there.

Yeah, because the white people displaced, oppressed, and cleansed all of the natives from the area, and any that remained got to take part in one of the most brutal and repressively racist regimes in the world which didn't fall until the 90s. Yep, huge success story...

I agree with you.

[Infected Mushroom]

So a substantial number of posters think that logistically, the Spanish can mount a full scale invasion of the Incans even under the conditions set out in the OP?

The weapons are too decisive?

[Neanderthaland]

So a substantial number of posters think that logistically, the Spanish can mount a full scale invasion of the Incans even under the conditions set out in the OP?

And those posters would be wrong.

The weapons are too decisive?

No.

Read Arch's very excellent posts, and stop wanking over this infantile fantasy.

[The Socialist Republic of Astrakhan]

So a substantial number of posters think that logistically, the Spanish can mount a full scale invasion of the Incans even under the conditions set out in the OP?

And those posters would be wrong.

The weapons are too decisive?

No.

Read Arch's very excellent posts, and stop wanking over this infantile fantasy.

I have a question for you - What if Neanderthals were alive in the 21st century.

[Neanderthaland]

And those posters would be wrong.


No.

Read Arch's very excellent posts, and stop wanking over this infantile fantasy.

I have a question for you - What if Neanderthals were alive in the 21st century.

They would be completely serious individuals, who only post the truest facts on the internet.

[Infected Mushroom]

And would the Spanish bring their armada? Or would it not do much in this war?

Incans had no fleet right?

[Infected Mushroom]

Seeing the success of this thread (we have some real history experts here), I’m thinking of starting other threads that involve such match ups as well but with altered historical facts

I think it can generate some very good discussions

[Vikanias]

And would the Spanish bring their armada? Or would it not do much in this war?

Incans had no fleet right?

Since there was no Panama Canal Spain would have to go across Africa, go across the seas in Asia and finally get to the coast in Peru which means nothing because Peru is mountainous and to my knowledge there were no huge coastal settlements. And to answer your question the Inca had no fleet, people who don’t have horses probably don’t have European fleets.

[Infected Mushroom]

And would the Spanish bring their armada? Or would it not do much in this war?

Incans had no fleet right?

Since there was no Panama Canal Spain would have to go across Africa, go across the seas in Asia and finally get to the coast in Peru which means nothing because Peru is mountainous and to my knowledge there were no huge coastal settlements. And to answer your question the Inca had no fleet, people who don’t have horses probably don’t have European fleets.

I see… is there a local empire vs Europeans scenario that could potentially feature a big naval battle?

I know the Opium Wars had a few naval battles but the British had too much of an advantage.

[Monsone]

So a substantial number of posters think that logistically, the Spanish can mount a full scale invasion of the Incans even under the conditions set out in the OP?

The weapons are too decisive?

The thing is, the Spanish don't need an all out invasion to conqueror the Inca. Even with the Inca being immune to European diseases and having greater political and societal stability due to a lack of a civil war, Spain still has the upper hand if they can create a cohesive strategy in the long term.

Pizarro gets thoroughly defeated and possibly killed by the Inca, and that probably buys the Inca a few decades (at most) since Pizarro's failure would likely keep other Conquistadors from trying to conquer the Inca. In the meantime, Spain would most likely consolidate it's holdings on Peru's coast since terrain in that area favors Spain militarily. So for maybe the next twenty years, the Inca basically force the Spanish to stick to the coast after the bloody nose they gave the Spanish. But, this doesn't mean the Inca are safe, far from it.

Pizarro's failure will be a cautionary tail. It will show that what worked in Mexico will not work in South America. This combined with the mineral riches of the Andes means the Spanish will return, the resources are just too lucrative. And this is where the Inca's luck will run out. Entrepreneurial Spanish merchants and Conquistadors will gladly do whatever it takes to secure the vast silver reserves in the Andes, as long as the reward outweighs the risk. This is the downfall of the Inca, the natural resources their lands hold are deeply lucrative to an empire in need of cash for it's wars at home and abroad. The Spanish will chip away at the Inca perhaps over the course of one or two centuries, it won't be a sudden triumphant conquest, it's going to be a slow onslaught of Spanish missionaries, Conquistadors, entrepreneurs, and settlers that will slowly bring down the mighty Inca.

Personally, I highly doubt the Inca would survive as a nation beyond the late 18th century even under the circumstances in the OP. The alure of silver would be too great to ignore, and eventually Spain is going to have enough footholds to be defeated by the Inca. It's just a matter of when and how, not if.

[Vikanias]

Since there was no Panama Canal Spain would have to go across Africa, go across the seas in Asia and finally get to the coast in Peru which means nothing because Peru is mountainous and to my knowledge there were no huge coastal settlements. And to answer your question the Inca had no fleet, people who don’t have horses probably don’t have European fleets.

I see… is there a local empire vs Europeans scenario that could potentially feature a big naval battle?

I know the Opium Wars had a few naval battles but the British had too much of an advantage.

To my knowledge no Mesoamerican nor South American culture had a fleet, or ships at all really. So no big naval battles would take place.

[The Archregimancy]

Since there was no Panama Canal Spain would have to go across Africa, go across the seas in Asia and finally get to the coast in Peru which means nothing because Peru is mountainous and to my knowledge there were no huge coastal settlements. And to answer your question the Inca had no fleet, people who don’t have horses probably don’t have European fleets.

I see… is there a local empire vs Europeans scenario that could potentially feature a big naval battle?

No; at least not in this scenario.

As Vikanias points out (I disagree with some of the detail, but agree with the broader point), there would have been difficult logistical issues in getting a significant 16th-century Spanish fleet to the Pacific coast of South America, and the Inca had no navy.

Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Spain's economic power that allowed it to build one of the leading navies in Europe in the later 16th and 17th centuries was built on its control of the wealth of Peru. Take away the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, and Spain remains a middling European power, and one potentially peripheral to Charles V's ambitions as regards France and the Ottoman Empire.

I'm assuming that Charles V still exists in this timeline, incidentally, since his mother Joanna of Spain married his father Philip of Burgundy in 1496, so events in Mexico and Peru wouldn't have impacted the marriage.


As to the rest of the world, that would depend on what you define as a 'local empire' and what time period you're willing to allow. If you're willing to go all the way up to 1905, then I give you the Battle of Tsushima.

[Punished UMN]

I see… is there a local empire vs Europeans scenario that could potentially feature a big naval battle?

No; at least not in this scenario.

As Vikanias points out (I disagree with some of the detail, but agree with the broader point), there would have been difficult logistical issues in getting a significant 16th-century Spanish fleet to the Pacific coast of South America, and the Inca had no navy.

Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Spain's economic power that allowed it to build one of the leading navies in Europe in the later 16th and 17th centuries was built on its control of the wealth of Peru. Take away the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, and Spain remains a middling European power, and one potentially peripheral to Charles V's ambitions as regards France and the Ottoman Empire.

I'm assuming that Charles V still exists in this timeline, incidentally, since his mother Joanna of Spain married his father Philip of Burgundy in 1496, so events in Mexico and Peru wouldn't have impacted the marriage.


As to the rest of the world, that would depend on what you define as a 'local empire' and what time period you're willing to allow. If you're willing to go all the way up to 1905, then I give you the Battle of Tsushima.

This is a little bit of an expansive question, but do you think the colonization of the New World would have become as extensive if Spain hadn't (seemingly in large part because of historical coincidence) had such an easy time of it in Peru? It seems like if Spain's wealth would have not been significantly increased, that the centers of European economic power would have remained or at least been closer to central Europe and the Holy Roman Empire than their shift into Western Europe.

[Kubra]

Keiko Fujimori wouldn't have been able to contest the Peru elections had Spain not invaded Peru.

so you're saying the Spanish invasion was a bad thing

[The Socialist Republic of Astrakhan]

Since there was no Panama Canal Spain would have to go across Africa, go across the seas in Asia and finally get to the coast in Peru which means nothing because Peru is mountainous and to my knowledge there were no huge coastal settlements. And to answer your question the Inca had no fleet, people who don’t have horses probably don’t have European fleets.

I see… is there a local empire vs Europeans scenario that could potentially feature a big naval battle?

I know the Opium Wars had a few naval battles but the British had too much of an advantage.

Yeah there was a naval war that happened in the West Coast of India in the 16th century. The Naval Battle of Diu happened in 1509 and was fought between the Gujarat Sultanate and the Portuguese. The Gujarat Sultanate was supported by the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and the Ottoman empire. The Gujarat Sultanate suffered a serious naval defeat at the hands of the Portuguese. But this also led to the Portuguese domination of India's west coast. This famous naval battle also roped in famous fighters such as the Kunjali Marakkar into the fray. The Portuguese suffered just 32 casualties. The Gujarat Sultanate was also supported by the powerful Kingdom of Calicut. Calicut was a powerful Naval power during the 16th and 17th century. Calicut had a very strong navy and they could've jumped into the race of colonialism , but Calicut refrained from that. Calicut had defeated the Portuguese several times , but has also lost to the Portuguese many times.

[Neanderthaland]

And would the Spanish bring their armada? Or would it not do much in this war?

Incans had no fleet right?

You're imagining a British armada from the late 19th Century.

A Spanish armada in the early 16th Century was not that. And wouldn't have been very helpful in the Peruvian mountains anyway.

[Ethel mermania]

And would the Spanish bring their armada? Or would it not do much in this war?

Incans had no fleet right?

You're imagining a British armada from the late 19th Century.

A Spanish armada in the early 16th Century was not that. And wouldn't have been very helpful in the Peruvian mountains anyway.

Or as arch mentioned the Spanish armada of 1588 was built from the cash generated from the Spanish new world holdings

[The Archregimancy]

No; at least not in this scenario.

As Vikanias points out (I disagree with some of the detail, but agree with the broader point), there would have been difficult logistical issues in getting a significant 16th-century Spanish fleet to the Pacific coast of South America, and the Inca had no navy.

Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Spain's economic power that allowed it to build one of the leading navies in Europe in the later 16th and 17th centuries was built on its control of the wealth of Peru. Take away the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, and Spain remains a middling European power, and one potentially peripheral to Charles V's ambitions as regards France and the Ottoman Empire.

I'm assuming that Charles V still exists in this timeline, incidentally, since his mother Joanna of Spain married his father Philip of Burgundy in 1496, so events in Mexico and Peru wouldn't have impacted the marriage.


As to the rest of the world, that would depend on what you define as a 'local empire' and what time period you're willing to allow. If you're willing to go all the way up to 1905, then I give you the Battle of Tsushima.

This is a little bit of an expansive question, but do you think the colonization of the New World would have become as extensive if Spain hadn't (seemingly in large part because of historical coincidence) had such an easy time of it in Peru? It seems like if Spain's wealth would have not been significantly increased, that the centers of European economic power would have remained or at least been closer to central Europe and the Holy Roman Empire than their shift into Western Europe.

That's a more or less impossible question to answer.

But if we're assuming a scenario where the impact of smallpox, measles, and other European diseases isn't as transformative as it was in reality, then no, European colonisation likely isn't as dramatic in impact as it was in reality. Let's take North America as an example. King Philip's War of 1675–1678 may well be the most costly conflict in the history of North America in terms of per capita death toll. Now let's imagine that the New England colonists, instead of facing an army of Native Americans from societies devastated by more than 20 years of smallpox and measles epidemics with death tolls of up to 90% in some cases (the epidemics seem to have first reached what's now Massachusetts in 1616-1619, perhaps from the French; so just before the English settlement of New England), had instead faced a full-strength Wampanoag-led coalition. I'm not sure the New England settlements could have survived that. Virginia faced similar opposition from 1610 through to the 1640s, with a particularly brutal conflict in the 1620s resulting in the deaths of a quarter of Virginia's European population. So it's entirely possible that resentful Native American populations could have chased out early European colonial settlements across North America if we eliminate the epidemics that devastated their societies.

Now, it's tempting to say that in the end the Europeans would have won; that technological advances in Europe would have seen some form of European colonisation in the Americas in time, just as Africa was only subject to a few isolated coastal European colonies until the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century. But remember that by denying large-scale European colonial control of the Americas, we're also denying Europe the ability to profit from Western Hemisphere precious metals, sugar, and tobacco. We're also denying Europe captive colonial markets for trade. The slave trade also virtually disappears; or at least is significantly smaller.

With this in mind, where does Europe then find the 16th- and early 17th-century wealth to build the infrastructure that allows Europe to rapidly eclipse the Ottoman, Persian, Mughal, and Chinese empires over the decades from c.1650-c.1700? All of those empires were wealthier and more powerful (and arguably more cultured) than the relatively small European states existing at the periphery of the Old World when Pizarro landed in Peru. Nor is this an abstract question; let's keep in mind that the Ottomans came within a whisker of taking Vienna as late as 1683.

At this point it becomes impossible to properly calculate the consequences of delaying large-scale European colonisation of the Americas. All we can say is that it likely would have left Europe poorer and weaker compared to the Europe that did emerge as a result of large-scale conquest and indigenous social collapse in the Americas.

[Ethel mermania]

This is a little bit of an expansive question, but do you think the colonization of the New World would have become as extensive if Spain hadn't (seemingly in large part because of historical coincidence) had such an easy time of it in Peru? It seems like if Spain's wealth would have not been significantly increased, that the centers of European economic power would have remained or at least been closer to central Europe and the Holy Roman Empire than their shift into Western Europe.

That's a more or less impossible question to answer.

But if we're assuming a scenario where the impact of smallpox, measles, and other European diseases isn't as transformative as it was in reality, then no, European colonisation likely isn't as dramatic in impact as it was in reality. Let's take North America as an example. King Philip's War of 1675–1678 may well be the most costly conflict in the history of North America in terms of per capita death toll. Now let's imagine that the New England colonists, instead of facing an army of Native Americans from societies devastated by more than 20 years of smallpox and measles epidemics with death tolls of up to 90% in some cases (the epidemics seem to have first reached what's now Massachusetts in 1616-1619, perhaps from the French; so just before the English settlement of New England), had instead faced a full-strength Wampanoag-led coalition. I'm not sure the New England settlements could have survived that. Virginia faced similar opposition from 1610 through to the 1640s, with a particularly brutal conflict in the 1620s resulting in the deaths of a quarter of Virginia's European population. So it's entirely possible that resentful Native American populations could have chased out early European colonial settlements across North America if we eliminate the epidemics that devastated their societies.

Now, it's tempting to say that in the end the Europeans would have won; that technological advances in Europe would have seen some form of European colonisation in the Americas in time, just as Africa was only subject to a few isolated coastal European colonies until the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century. But remember that by denying large-scale European colonial control of the Americas, we're also denying Europe the ability to profit from Western Hemisphere precious metals, sugar, and tobacco. We're also denying Europe captive colonial markets for trade. The slave trade also virtually disappears; or at least is significantly smaller.

With this in mind, where does Europe then find the 16th- and early 17th-century wealth to build the infrastructure that allows Europe to rapidly eclipse the Ottoman, Persian, Mughal, and Chinese empires over the decades from c.1650-c.1700? All of those empires were wealthier and more powerful (and arguably more cultured) than the relatively small European states existing at the periphery of the Old World when Pizarro landed in Peru. Nor is this an abstract question; let's keep in mind that the Ottomans came within a whisker of taking Vienna as late as 1683.

At this point it becomes impossible to properly calculate the consequences of delaying large-scale European colonisation of the Americas. All we can say is that it likely would have left Europe poorer and weaker compared to the Europe that did emerge as a result of large-scale conquest and indigenous social collapse in the Americas.

The early puritan settlers accounts talk about coming across empty fields that apparently had been cultivated, but were abandoned. They regarded it as a providence from God, not small pox. As you say, its impossible to tell what would have happened, if Massachusetts had been fully populated with the locals as it probably had been 50 years before