6 ms·

In 1491 people in mountainous South America had domesticated alpacas and llamas, which are better suited than horses for steep, alpine slopes. The horse was qui

In 1491 people in mountainous South America had domesticated alpacas and llamas, which are better suited than horses for steep, alpine slopes. The horse was quickly abandoned by Spaniards in such terrain.

nradov 3y ago
Sure, but it's impossible to build a wealthy society using alpacas as pack animals over mountains. A horse or ox pulling a cart over relatively flat terrain is far more efficient.
- Veserv 3y ago
  The Incans were quite wealthy and advanced. As said by the official secretary of Pizarro [1]: “The city of Cuzco, being the primary place where the lords made their residence, is so great and so beautiful and with so many buildings that it would be worthy to be seen in Spain”. On a fortress of the city: “Many Spaniards who have seen it, and who went to Lombardy and other foreign kingdoms,” he adds, “say they have not seen another building like this fortress nor a stronger castle.” In any event, the advantages of stronger pack animals are only significant if you can create wheeled carts. The Incans, like most Mesoamerican civilizations, had limited access to metals and advanced metallurgy preventing them from widespread usage of wheels as a means of facilitating travel. Without wheels, the amount of distance most animals can go while carrying their supplies is fairly similar. If I recall correctly, it is something on the order of 150 km, regardless of horse, ox, or even human. If you have to carry your food and water you can only go around 150 km with what you can carry. That means proportional consumption rate is highly similar, so two animals that can carry 100 kg is not materially different than one animal that can carry 200 kg. Under that model you would probably actually prefer smaller pack animals to reduce concentrated risk of animal loss and improve maneuverability. You actually can do better since animals like horses can efficiently graze, but that heavily limits your transportation speed and weight maximums for commerce purposes and you still need to feed the humans. Incidentally this is why rivers are so important in early civilization. Barges on rivers bypass the fundamental distance limit even without wind. Floaty boat and a stick to push off the banks/riverbed dominates almost everything else for commerce. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterly/article/inca-architecture-from-the-andes-to-the-adriatic-pedro-sanchos-description-of-cuzco/19E051A819D3223B0925A762040A9E88 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterl...
  - nradov 3y ago
    The Incas had a handful of fancy residences for the ruling class. The society as a whole was very poor. Even if they had more metal available they lacked the economic surplus that would have been necessary to ever accomplish anything of significance.
    - truculent 3y ago
      > The Incas had a handful of fancy residences for the ruling class. The society as a whole was very poor Meanwhile, in 15th century Europe…
    - Veserv 3y ago
      You are going to need to support that blanket assertion with some references. The capital city of the Incan empire, Cusco, is estimated to have had a population of ~40,000 [1] ruling over an estimated 10,000,000 people. The capital city of Spain at the time, Toledo, had a population of a mere ~32,000 [2] at the time ruling a population of a mere 6.5 million at the time. Contemporaneous accounts demonstrate the comparable grandeur of their seats of power and more objective determinations demonstrate the comparability of scale and scope. It is not just “a handful of fancy residences” unless you apply that moniker to Spain as well. For that matter, Spain in the early 1500s is not exactly a wealthy country. Their wealth largely came from their American conquests which resulted in what is believed to be a ~300-600% increase in the amount of European-accessible gold and silver [4]. It is a little hard to determine how much came from plunder and how much from the mines and slavery, but the Incans were not poor in precious metals, the measure of wealth in the contemporaneous European societies. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/Cuzco/ https://www.worldhistory.org/Cuzco/ [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
      - JackFr 3y ago
        But that gets back to Diamond’s motivating fundamental question. Why were the Spaniards colonizing the Americas rather than the Incas colonizing Spain?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lamontcg 3y ago
Draft horses are going to be a lot better at hauling and plowing fields. The fact that they don't work well in mountainous South America goes to show how more difficult the geography there is. Which kind of Jared Diamond's point. The Incans were very well adapted to their environment, but their spawnpoint wasn't easy mode.

nradov 3y ago

Sure, but it's impossible to build a wealthy society using alpacas as pack animals over mountains. A horse or ox pulling a cart over relatively flat terrain is far more efficient.

Veserv 3y ago
The Incans were quite wealthy and advanced. As said by the official secretary of Pizarro [1]: “The city of Cuzco, being the primary place where the lords made their residence, is so great and so beautiful and with so many buildings that it would be worthy to be seen in Spain”. On a fortress of the city: “Many Spaniards who have seen it, and who went to Lombardy and other foreign kingdoms,” he adds, “say they have not seen another building like this fortress nor a stronger castle.” In any event, the advantages of stronger pack animals are only significant if you can create wheeled carts. The Incans, like most Mesoamerican civilizations, had limited access to metals and advanced metallurgy preventing them from widespread usage of wheels as a means of facilitating travel. Without wheels, the amount of distance most animals can go while carrying their supplies is fairly similar. If I recall correctly, it is something on the order of 150 km, regardless of horse, ox, or even human. If you have to carry your food and water you can only go around 150 km with what you can carry. That means proportional consumption rate is highly similar, so two animals that can carry 100 kg is not materially different than one animal that can carry 200 kg. Under that model you would probably actually prefer smaller pack animals to reduce concentrated risk of animal loss and improve maneuverability. You actually can do better since animals like horses can efficiently graze, but that heavily limits your transportation speed and weight maximums for commerce purposes and you still need to feed the humans. Incidentally this is why rivers are so important in early civilization. Barges on rivers bypass the fundamental distance limit even without wind. Floaty boat and a stick to push off the banks/riverbed dominates almost everything else for commerce. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterly/article/inca-architecture-from-the-andes-to-the-adriatic-pedro-sanchos-description-of-cuzco/19E051A819D3223B0925A762040A9E88 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterl...
- nradov 3y ago
  The Incas had a handful of fancy residences for the ruling class. The society as a whole was very poor. Even if they had more metal available they lacked the economic surplus that would have been necessary to ever accomplish anything of significance.
  - truculent 3y ago
    > The Incas had a handful of fancy residences for the ruling class. The society as a whole was very poor Meanwhile, in 15th century Europe…
  - Veserv 3y ago
    You are going to need to support that blanket assertion with some references. The capital city of the Incan empire, Cusco, is estimated to have had a population of ~40,000 [1] ruling over an estimated 10,000,000 people. The capital city of Spain at the time, Toledo, had a population of a mere ~32,000 [2] at the time ruling a population of a mere 6.5 million at the time. Contemporaneous accounts demonstrate the comparable grandeur of their seats of power and more objective determinations demonstrate the comparability of scale and scope. It is not just “a handful of fancy residences” unless you apply that moniker to Spain as well. For that matter, Spain in the early 1500s is not exactly a wealthy country. Their wealth largely came from their American conquests which resulted in what is believed to be a ~300-600% increase in the amount of European-accessible gold and silver [4]. It is a little hard to determine how much came from plunder and how much from the mines and slavery, but the Incans were not poor in precious metals, the measure of wealth in the contemporaneous European societies. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/Cuzco/ https://www.worldhistory.org/Cuzco/ [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
    - JackFr 3y ago
      But that gets back to Diamond’s motivating fundamental question. Why were the Spaniards colonizing the Americas rather than the Incas colonizing Spain?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lamontcg 3y ago

Draft horses are going to be a lot better at hauling and plowing fields. The fact that they don't work well in mountainous South America goes to show how more difficult the geography there is. Which kind of Jared Diamond's point. The Incans were very well adapted to their environment, but their spawnpoint wasn't easy mode.