6 ms·

Conquest of the Incas

101 points by remarkEon 2y ago

niels_bom 2y ago
[flagged]
- cyberax 2y ago
  "100 million"? That's really overinflated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi... - pre-Columbian population figures are highly disputed. And the majority of the population decline happened before 1600-s, mostly from diseases. None of the Spanish conquistadors were nice people, but neither they plan mass genocides.
  - vintermann 2y ago
    What's striking to me is that despite the Spanish conquistador's well-earned reputation for brutality, the Americas south of the Mexican border is genetically extremely native. The average American who says they have native ancestry, maybe has something like 3-5% precolumbian American ancestry I would guess... but if a Mexican says they have no native ancestry, they may well have ~50% native ancestry and just don't know it. I haven't read a good explanation for why it is so.
    - willvarfar 2y ago
      The native populations that were put to work survived?
      - qwytw 2y ago
        Compared to having to choose between being murdered, enslaving or moving to Oklahoma (slightly different periods I know..) that's not necessarily that awful. e.g there were thousands and thousands of Native American refugees fleeing to Spanish Florida from the Carolinas after the British got there. When Florida was captured some were lucky enough to be evacuated to Cuba and other Spanish colonies (in the few ships they were willing and able to send). The rest? Well...
        lurk2 2y ago
        > When Florida was captured some were lucky enough to be evacuated to Cuba and other Spanish colonies Interesting. Do you have any further reading on this topic? I had never heard about it.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      Emigration from Spain to their new world was relatively low. The estimate seems to be that only around 0.42 million people moved from Spain to the Americas between 1492 and 1820. Considering the massive amount of territory they controlled that's very low. In contrast over 1.2 million people from Great Britain emigrated to their colonies which were many times smaller geographically. Also before modern medicine and other stuff the climate outside of mountainous areas (which besides some exceptions weren't necessarily able to sustain high population density) wasn't great. e.g New England was a much nicer place to live and therefore natural population growth was relatively low. Combine those things with there being way less Native Americans in the North (due to various reasons) to begin with, very different colonial policies and treatment of the native people and the result is not that surprising.
    - anthk 2y ago
      The Americans really needed something like the "Americaness" (the American law it's over any race), kinda like the Hispanidad with the Hispanic people does. It doesn't matter where you come from, but where you all as a whole are heading to. Segregation and White Power/Black Power/Native Power should be dealt as something totally obsolete, kinda backwards. "Mi tribe it's the best one, and the rest of the worlds sucks". As a Spaniard I always hated the concept of reservations and idiots like Jim Crow. The point of America should have been to leave out your tribe behind to be something else.
      - graemep 2y ago
        I agree with you, but I think the problem, with regard to the US (I do not know about the rest of the Americas) is that they are victims of their history. While they can understand at an intellectual level that race is cultural construct, they cannot at other levels stop regarding race (rather than culture, language, etc.) as a essential and immutable part of people's identity. I have blogged about this compared to my own experience of race in different cultures https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different Also worth thinking that the attitudes you (and I) have have been rejected by many people in the US. For many, a "melting pot" culture is no longer considered desirable.
        anthk 2y ago
        The Mediterranean civilization and the further Enlightenment was due to sharing knowledge and goods back and forth, not by keeping the countries and tribes isolated. Rock music it's a mix between Black and White cultures, creating something else, but better. In Spain we had groups like Triana in the 70's who mixed American Folk and Rock like Jethro Tull (the first two albums are almost a Jethro Tull wannabe, really good) with some Flamenco music. And Flamenco itself it's a mix of Arabic, Gypsy and -who knows- more roots...
        john_texas 2y ago
        [dead]
        anthk 2y ago
    - username332211 2y ago
      Isn't it fairly obvious? The Spanish were conquering advanced urbanized civilizations. Seizing the cities and their people was the goal of the entire enterprise. The land was an afterthought. The British/Americans were settling the territory of primitive tribal nations. Taking over the land was the goal of the entire enterprise. The people were an afterthought.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      > I haven't read a good explanation for why it is so. Iberians bred with the people they conquered. The Spanish in particular practiced an intentional policy of breeding a caste of illegitimate mixed-race offspring that would mediate between the Spaniards proper and the aboriginals they had enslaved. In the Spanish colonies, there emerged a project to “Mejorar La Raza” (literally: to better the race) by encouraging breeding with those of a fairer complexion than oneself. I suspect (though have never confirmed) that this attitude was primarily fostered to encourage women to more readily breed with Iberian men, but in the present day the attitude is quite prevalent among both Latino men and Latina women; Latinos fetishize white features, which are associated with being not only high-status and wealthy, but also simply beautiful in their own right. The Americans largely arrived after small pox had substantially reduced the native population, and subsequently followed a comparatively genocidal path of historical development. They did not tend to breed with the natives they encountered, so they have a far lower proportion of aboriginal ancestry. At some point between the late 1800s and early 1900s, they developed a romantic appreciation for Native Americans, which later leads to the common trope of every American family claiming to have a Cherokee great great grandmother on their mother’s side. Since the 2000s, the common trope is that all the growth in these tribes has been from white-passing people looking to cash in on affirmative action; this is not an undeserved stereotype.
  - jajko 2y ago
    > Estimates have varied widely from as low as 8 million to as many as 100 million, though many scholars gravitated toward an estimate of around 50 million by the end of the 20th century. At least check the articles you link yourself, ffs. Not sure why the apologism here, genocide was done through and through, intentionally by outright murder and slavery and unintentionally via diseases (but even that was spread with intent once found out their immunity is weak against old continent diseases)
    - bluebarbet 2y ago
      >ffs Doing this is the equivalent of throwing a small piece of litter in an otherwise clean alley. Humans being what they are, the alley will soon be a trash heap.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      "but even that was spread with intent once found out their immunity is weak against old continent diseases" This is somewhat unsure. First, if we are talking about the Spanish conquest, that is deep 16th century, with all its magical thinking. God, the Devil and witches were all plausible explanations for epidemics, and holy processions, pilgrimages and carrying of medailons dedicated to saint X were considered reasonable treatment methods. It is a mistake to look at the 16th century with 21st century eyes; it is a different world resting on very different mental foundations. Second, at least in the Spanish territories, losing your workforce was economically disadvantageous.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > At least check the articles you link yourself, ffs. Yeah, and as you see, the 100 million is a highly questionable value. Just try to read past the first paragraph, maybe? > but even that was spread with intent once found out their immunity is weak against old continent diseases Nope. The germ theory of disease was not formed until 1800-s, the invention of vaccination was in 1796. There were some inklings that smallpox can be spread through contaminated items even before that time, but not much earlier.
- keybored 2y ago
  Isn’t that awesome? > The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs was terrible. It was a prolonged period of pestilence, famine, torture, rape, plunder, destruction, conquest, cultural eradication, and general misery, with a short term death toll of something like 600,000 (including military and civilian casualties), and a long term death toll in the millions. > And yet part of me thinks it was totally awesome. https://mattlakeman.org/2020/06/25/polygamy-human-sacrifices-and-steel-why-the-aztecs-were-awesome/ https://mattlakeman.org/2020/06/25/polygamy-human-sacrifices...
  - anthk 2y ago
    The Aztecs were hated from the rest of the tribes. The rest of the Natives joined the Spaniards against them. Guess why. Hint: human sacrifices and slavery. For the rest of the Natives, they were like the Nazi Germany, or, a better comparison, the Imperial Japan in Asia.
    - keybored 2y ago
      Relevance to my comment?
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > And yet part of me thinks it was totally awesome. That portion of my brain that grew up on Total War and Civilization games thinks the concept of a small number of hyper-technologically sophisticated foreigners led by a verified psychopath waging war on an empire of pyramid-dwelling, polygamist, slave-owning, human sacrificing pagans with the fate of a largely uncharted landmass at stake is incredibly cool. And no one can convince me otherwise.
    - keybored 2y ago
      Oh of course I omitted the “in a video game” part, sorry.
      - lurk2 2y ago
        The comment reads differently given the context, so I’m not sure why you felt it appropriate to post it without that context. He continues: > My main takeaway from the book is that the Aztecs were a highly unique civilization that I desperately want to learn more about. They offer great insights into how a society with radically different structures and norms might function.
- banqjls 2y ago
  [flagged]
- IdiocyInAction 2y ago
  I think the idea of shaming people for being successful conquerers is ironically very western. Ask what the Mongols think about their conquests or the Han or what the Turks think about the Ottomans or the Russians about their history…
  - keybored 2y ago
    Yes it is very Western. That national chauvinists think differently doesn’t make it wrong.
acyou 2y ago
Did the Incas not fish much? Seems like they would have done well with Retarius with net and spear. If you had 100000 people and had to defeat 100 well armed soldiers, what would you do? Well, wait for them to get tired, ideally. Try to restrict their movement. Take away or disable their weapons. Withdraw to advantageous terrain. Heavier projectiles. Poison darts. Harassment. Long ropes and nets that you try to snag them in. Wait until they are mostly sleep and attack at night. Invite them to dinner and poison their food, or jump them then. Tough to coordinate this with 100000 people, I think that's the main issue. I don't know if it boils down to military power or absolute capability. There's always a lot of soft power that goes hand in hand with hard power.
- lukan 2y ago
  "Wait until they are mostly sleep and attack at night." The Incas apparently did not fight at night. And why they did not managed to kill the horses, were likely because they were too afraid of them and they were not used to killing large animals as none existed there. Otherwise all it takes to stop a knight on a horse is to kill the horse. Or just hurt its legs enough, or make it stumble.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    European militaries had to train the fear of horses out of their infantry. The normal human reaction to being swarmed by galloping cavalry is to flee. Keeping formation under such conditions is hard. What would help the Incas would be pikes. Lots of pikes. Hard to know why they didn't copy them from the Spaniards.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      I think they only had stone-tipped wooden spears.
      - inglor_cz 2y ago
        The Incas had bronze and used it for weaponry.
echelon_musk 2y ago
I've got a copy of The Conquest of Mexico by Hugh Thomas on my book shelf and I tell myself I will eventually finish reading the tome! This article might help me reinspire myself with this history. I sometimes like to wonder what if, and wonder how vastly different world history could have been. If the Catholic conquistadors had managed to overcome superstition and fear of the devil to try Teonanácatl, Peyotl, Cohoba and Ayahuasca.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - coffeecantcode 2y ago
    I always find myself referencing the Grand Inquisitor chapter from the Brothers Karamazov. Does institutionalization always breed corruption? If it can breed corruption in the teachings of God then it can breed corruption anywhere.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      We are born with the corruption inside of us; we must use God's teachings of love to cleanse and purify our souls so that it becomes enlightened like the spirit.
      - coffeecantcode 2y ago
        I agree. But does the process of institutionalizing those teachings not go against those exact teachings themselves? At least for Christianity? The point of the Grand Inquisitor chapter revolves around a fictional situation where Jesus returned to Earth during the inquisition, and posits the idea that Jesus was exactly the type of individual that the church would have been willing to purge during that time, criticizing the institution and the free will that is exchanged for structure and institution.
        2y ago
yzydserd 2y ago
If you enjoyed the article, consider listening to the Fall of civilisations podcast. Episode 12 spends 3 hours on the whole chilling saga.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Absolutely! And he has gone from strength to strength with each new episode. His pacing is perfect as he really takes his time but just barely touches on the intense brutality that was certainly epidemic in the times. He thus avoids the salacious details like, for example, Dan Carlin (who does his research well, but is less my taste now after discovering FoC). Just outstanding. The real next-level excellence is that he is really tracing the history of technology along the way, going into significant detail about how the conquerors developed and utilized new tech to effect their victories. From horses to the Mongols' bows to gunpowder, it is really the history of civilization and how the uncivilized were the energy that pushed change to the next level-up. I first learned of these sorts of systems in Gleick's "Chaos" (IIRC), where it looks like nothing is advancing, but, in reality, a kindof pressure is building to the point where a drastic leap is made suddenly and unexpectedly.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Is this article typical of the analysis style of the podcast? Because it was awesome, direct without too many asides.
  - Fade_Dance 2y ago
    His style is quite unique, but not in an in your face kind of way. He always starts with geographical context, and this thread is never lost through the study. The constraints and characteristics of geography are always respected as key inputs into the civilization. He is also very narrative-driven, while staying within historical fact. This is probably the key strength of the podcast. I had read so much about Egypt, but until listening to the Egypt episode, I never "got it". All of the strengths have synergy as well. For example, in the Egypt episode, North and South isn't used. Instead, upriver and downriver (Nile) is used, reflecting how they saw the world. Parlaying from there, the experience of how it would have been to live in the world is constantly revisited. In the recent Ghengis Khan episode, we take a walk with him through one of his conquered towns before it was razed, exploring how he likely felt disdain for settled civilization and always had a strong connection to his nomad way of life. But these leaps aren't just hot air. It is used as a window to do some further exploration of his religious views that we can confirm through sources. Lastly, the production value is quite nice. He has a community that really loves his content now. There are voice actors, and most important to me, there is a very well crafted background soundscape that pulls you in. For example, in the recent episode, you can hear the throat singing subtly swell up in the background When the war machine is about to activate, much like how in Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick switches the music to Vietnamese percussion once the groups leaves "their" territory. Very effective - sometimes gives me chills or can bring immense emotional responses, such as the sounds of wind blowing through the razed city of Carthage while listening to a voice actor read a source about a visit to the now abandoned ruins (drew a tear that one did. Didn't expect that" from a three-hour history podcast!) I'd recommend checking out the podcast if those characteristics appeal to you. It's not purely" analytical, though. There is an inspired artistic element that wants to explore the human condition, and some sort of underlying thesis that states that exploring history is a window into this. If pure analysis is what you are looking for, there are probably books better suited to that.
inglor_cz 2y ago
One interesting thing is how the Incan organizational capability mostly vanished. The original empire was really extremely well organized, but today's Bolivia and Peru don't show any particular aptitude in this direction. There is an interesting contrast to Persia, which, having been conquered by Muslims in the 7th century, was subjugated and converted to a new religion as well - and yet within a few decades the Persian bureaucracy and professional class was very influential within the Caliphate. The difference might be in total mortality. Too many Amerindians died from Old World diseases and their know-how was lost. BTW: " In lieu of taxes, every able-bodied adult male in the Incan Empire was legally required to work for the state for three months per year" Taxes in form of labour are harder to steal or siphon away, even if local tax authorities are corrupt. This might have been the best tax system in pre-modern era, in this regard at least.
- graemep 2y ago
  I would guess the difference is in survival of institutions and institutional knowledge, and similarity of institutions. The Persian bureaucracy were equipped to work for the conquerors, and the empire would have needed them to run the new conquests. The Arab empires were motivated to rule, and to spread their religion, but seem to have been quite happy to adopt local structures and institutions that were consistent with that AFAIK.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > One interesting thing is how the Incan organizational capability mostly vanished. The original empire was really extremely well organized, but today's Bolivia and Peru don't show any particular aptitude in this direction. They were relatively well organized compared to neighboring people, but they weren't particularly well organized compared to many other places in the world at the time. The administration of modern Bolivia and Peru is far more advanced than that of the Incan Empire.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "they weren't particularly well organized compared to many other places in the world at the time." They were able to introduce a common imperial language (Quechua), build up a very good network of roads and runners, and rule several dozen smaller ethnicities without triggering too many rebellions. They extracted taxes from the population quite efficiently without impoverishing it, and were able to build up massive uniformed armies. I think this counts as extraordinary level of governance for that time. Certainly in the contemporary global top five, especially when taking into account just how big the empire was. The same places aren't even in the global top fifty today.
keybored 2y ago
I spent 20 minutes skimming this for some reason. The conquest of the Incas might be most famous through Guns, Germs and Steel which isn’t mentioned here.[1] But the article seems to put a similar emphasis on the conquistadors being severely outnumbered, glazing their exceptional fortitude and skill etc. That narrative (from Guns, although the article uses The Last Days of the Incas as the source) has been critiqued in Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest[2] which among other things points out how Germs doesn’t mention or properly contextualize the native allies that Pizzaro had. Again I just skimmed it (for a mere 20 minutes) but I didn’t find much mention of the allies. Before the civil war among the Spanish (after the conquest) there only seems to be things like > The Siege of Cusco began on May 6, 1535, and the Spanish believed they were well and truly fucked. Discounting their native allies, they were probably outnumbered at least 500-to-1, and were completely cut off from reinforcements. What I’ve read on the matter says that Pizarro et al were always severely outnumbered by their allies as well. Why “discounting their native allies”? Were they so few that they didn’t matter? Yeah they had many native allies for some reason. This is mentioned for Cortes (Aztecs) but I didn’t find this for the Inca case. On the glazing: > In the case of Hernan Cortes, about 400 Spanish soldiers (later increased to over 1,000) subjugated the Mexican Empire of about 6 million inhabitants. In the case of Francisco Pizarro, about 180 Spanish soldiers (eventually rising to over 1,000, but with rarely more than 500 ever concentrated in one place) conquered the Inca Empire of maybe 10 million inhabitants. In both cases, the Spanish invaders had almost no understanding of the local politics, geography, culture, religion, or people they were invading. In both cases, the expedition leaders deserve a ton of credit for extraordinary leadership and competence while leveraging a technological imbalance to achieve a staggering military force and diplomatic multiplier. We don’t have to wonder why the conquistadors in modern day Mexico were so amazing. > All of this happened in, like, 15 pages of Conquest of New Spain. Note that the author, Bernal Dias, was a member of Cortes’s expedition and an outright loyalist of Cortes to the point of siding with him closely during the multiple stages of the Spanish expedition civil war between Cortes and the Cuban Governor. So Dias might have some incentive to portray Cortes well, but he still portrays Cortes as constantly lying to basically everyone, including his closest advisors, and sometimes for the sake of embezzling expedition funds at the expense of his own men. It’s wild. But someone is wrong on the Internet? > It might seem obvious that the Spanish leveraged their technology to achieve incredible military victories over the Incas and Aztecs, but I’ve actually seen some pushback against this point. Often, it’s pointed out that the Spanish didn’t have that many pieces of their most advanced technology (guns and cannons), and most of their foot soldiers didn’t have close to full plate armor. On the BadHistory subreddit,[3] there is a highly up voted and often referenced nine-part series on Cortes’s conquest of the Aztecs which argues, among many other things, that Spanish military superiority is highly overrated. And yes, that post is one of the reasons I’m writing this whole essay, because someone is wrong on the internet. That “someone is wrong” link[3] is an introduction (nine-part series) where the introduction polemically critiques Terminal Narrative. So it’s Historiography (I guess). The first part[4] critiques the narrative that the Spaniards in modern day Mexico conquered their foe, the Aztecs, which were “500 times more numerous”.[5] So what is the author’s refutation of that? On the one hand we have an anonymous redditor who either is a historian or has, with the help of other people, managed to create a cosplay environment of pretend-historians. (This is to say that I trust that they are in actual fact historians.) The author here has a book by one of Cortes’ men who had every incentive to embellish the tale for the audience of the Spanish Crown. Well he does not get into the Aztec side of things and instead goes back to the Incas: > MacQuarrie does a better job of describing how the Spanish trounced the Incas than Bernal Dias does with the Aztecs, and by MacQuarrie’s telling, the single most impactful element of Spanish military technology was cavalry. So no epic feat of disproving “someone is wrong on the Internet” happens here. Just telling us again what one man named MacQuarrie thinks.[6] My understanding from both the Reddit post as well as what I’ve heard indirectly about Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest[7] is that the conquest of the Americas by the conquistadors was first made into history in the predictably chauvinist way (winners writing history) as superior civilization or breed of men vanquishing the inferiors. Obviously that would be too much for a modern audience. So Germs from the 90’s tried a different tack. That book explicitly says that it is not a racist or chauvinistic history of how Europe became so successful. But critics claim that it still manages to be chauvinistic in how it wrongly claims that the conquistadors vanquished their enemies while being comically outnumbered.[8] And that they overemphasize planning and tactics and downplay being at the right place at the right time through no foresight of their own. Another point is that the failed conquistadors are given little consideration. Naturally, in popular history, it’s more exciting to only consider the expeditions and conquests that were successful, while contextualizing them with the failed attempts would perhaps ruin the flow of the story.[9] [1] I have not read it [2] ditto [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of_conquest_part_nine_the_terminal_narrative/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of... [4] https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2qn5us/myths_of_conquest_part_one_a_handful_of/ https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2qn5us/myths_of_... [5] In [4] that is quoted from “Voldemort”, ostensibly Guns, Germs and Steel [6] I would think that quoting someone being wrong would prompt them to engage with any of their specific points, not just saying that they disagree with the narrative of severely outnumbered Spaniards conquering the natives and then going back to their Inca source. [7] And the first link in [4] cites that book as “wonderful”. For what it’s worth, good or bad. [8] Moreover with books like Guns the historiography used is Environmental Determinism. Which might be correct or wrong but it needs to be interrogated as well since it is not obviously correct. And that approach to history might just as well end up concluding that Europe was destined to win out under any contingency (see the introduction to the critique of Terminal Narrative in [3]). [9] PS: On second thought the expedition of Francisco Hernández de Córdoba into Yucatán is famous, and the Maya defeated them.
stevoski 2y ago
I’m enjoying the whole “why didn’t the Incas just…” discussion going on here. It’s peak HN.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  I mean, when hundred and eighty men conquer millions you have to wonder. Surely there must have been a way for Incas to crush them.
  - keybored 2y ago
    You can frame the Cuban Revolution as 84 guys on a boat conquering millions. What’s the error here? “But hadn’t the Batista govt. heard about the concept of sinking boats?” Or is the framing off?
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      Well yes, I can certainly imagine Batista's troops and especially intelligence being more competent in a parallel universe.
didgetmaster 2y ago
It is fascinating that a large percentage of modern Americans believe (taught in school or through Disney movies) that prior to the arrival of Europeans; native American tribes were peaceful to each other. They often think that the land was inhabited by loving tribes that just wanted to be left alone to live in harmony with nature. The truth is that barbarism was common as tribes routinely slaughtered each other in numerous wars. Slavery, rape and human sacrifice were here far before the White man arrived. I am not saying that the conquerers from Europe didn't do some horrible things too; just that the narrative often taught in schools is inaccurate.
- johntitorjr 2y ago
  [dead]
- Loughla 2y ago
  I think it's less that they're taught that the native Americans were peaceful and more that they aren't really taught anything about the history of the native population. It usually starts when European settlers come here. As an aside; I went to the Smithsonian museum of native Americans or whatever it's called. I was MASSIVELY disappointed that it focused almost solely on post-European settlement. I was really hoping for history and information about the tribes before that. They're fascinating, and it seems a little backhanded to just focus on our impact on them (important obviously, but very dismissive of their long history).
  - criddell 2y ago
    > I was really hoping for history and information about the tribes before that How much of that is known?
    - Loughla 2y ago
      I have no idea. And that's kind of the point. I'm assuming somebody can fill in some of the blanks for me.
    - ahazred8ta 2y ago
mbil 2y ago
> It’s almost kind of more impressive that the Incan empire of maybe 10 million people got by on the barter system. In _Debt_, Graeber argues that it is largely a myth that pre modern civilizations relied on barter, and instead used different systems for tracking debt between individuals and entities. He says this of the Incas knotted strings in a footnote: > I note in passing that a study of the Inca khipu system itself would itself be quite fascinating in this regard; the strings were used to record both obligations we would consider financial, and others we would consider ritual, since as in so many Eurasian languages, the words “debt” and “sin” were the same in Quechua as well
- ahazred8ta 2y ago
  Quipu cord research is difficult, because their Rosetta Stone is a Gordian Knot.
jhallenworld 2y ago
The cavalry point reminds of one of David Brin's Uplift books: on a far away planet the humans agree to give up their horses as it is an unfair advantage over the other alien races they are trying to cooperate with. But there is a statue of a horse that human teenagers climb upon to remember this powerful synergy.
canjobear 2y ago
If you're into this stuff, Conquest of Peru (1847) by William Prescott is surprisingly readable and vivid. In case you worry that an old book won't be accurate, basically paragraph is backed up with a footnote giving long primary source quotes in the original Spanish. If you just read the footnotes it's like you're getting a well-paced spliced together first-hand account. Some things I remember from the book that don't make it into this article: - The Inca empire was essentially a top-down command economy. Everything down to individual people's jobs was managed centrally from Cuzco. - Pizarro's translator was from a native tribe that was recently conquered by the Inca, and he hated the Inca himself. It's possible that he translated things in an intentionally adversarial way at crucial junctures, like when the Spanish were deciding to execute Atahualpa. - The official reason for executing Atahualpa was that, while in captivity, he had sent orders to have his brother Huáscar executed. - Apparently Atahualpa was amazed to discover that he could write marks on a piece of paper, show it to to Spaniards like de Soto, and they would all be able to read out exactly the same words. He tried the trick with Pizarro but, being illiterate, Pizarro couldn't read out the text. This didn't help with the Pizarro-Atahualpa relationship. - The account of how the battle at Cajamarca started is a little different. The Spanish sent out a priest who gave a long confusing monologue to Atahualpa about the death of Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, the immaculate conception of Mary, and other deep-cut theology, then handed him a Bible. Atahualpa was basically like "why would you worship a guy who was executed as a criminal" and didn't have any idea what to do with the Bible (or any book). Then the Spanish ambushed him.
- FiatLuxDave 2y ago
  It's nice to see this book referenced! I am proud to have two old copies of the book in my personal library, one from 1880 and the other with no date on it. Prescott was an ancestor of mine, and the copies were passed down.
cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1551) slightly later leaves out the lionization and describes the atrocities and abuse of natives and imported slaves. It should be required reading as it was driven by greed without morality on multiple continents, eventually consuming c. 150M human beings under all colonial powers.
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 2y ago
An interesting read which tempts me to put up an essay assignment: Compare the conduct of Trump and his acolytes to Cortez, the Pizzaros and other conquistadors.

101 points by remarkEon 2y ago

niels_bom 2y ago

[flagged]

cyberax 2y ago
"100 million"? That's really overinflated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi... - pre-Columbian population figures are highly disputed. And the majority of the population decline happened before 1600-s, mostly from diseases. None of the Spanish conquistadors were nice people, but neither they plan mass genocides.
- vintermann 2y ago
  What's striking to me is that despite the Spanish conquistador's well-earned reputation for brutality, the Americas south of the Mexican border is genetically extremely native. The average American who says they have native ancestry, maybe has something like 3-5% precolumbian American ancestry I would guess... but if a Mexican says they have no native ancestry, they may well have ~50% native ancestry and just don't know it. I haven't read a good explanation for why it is so.
  - willvarfar 2y ago
    The native populations that were put to work survived?
    - qwytw 2y ago
      Compared to having to choose between being murdered, enslaving or moving to Oklahoma (slightly different periods I know..) that's not necessarily that awful. e.g there were thousands and thousands of Native American refugees fleeing to Spanish Florida from the Carolinas after the British got there. When Florida was captured some were lucky enough to be evacuated to Cuba and other Spanish colonies (in the few ships they were willing and able to send). The rest? Well...
      - lurk2 2y ago
        > When Florida was captured some were lucky enough to be evacuated to Cuba and other Spanish colonies Interesting. Do you have any further reading on this topic? I had never heard about it.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    Emigration from Spain to their new world was relatively low. The estimate seems to be that only around 0.42 million people moved from Spain to the Americas between 1492 and 1820. Considering the massive amount of territory they controlled that's very low. In contrast over 1.2 million people from Great Britain emigrated to their colonies which were many times smaller geographically. Also before modern medicine and other stuff the climate outside of mountainous areas (which besides some exceptions weren't necessarily able to sustain high population density) wasn't great. e.g New England was a much nicer place to live and therefore natural population growth was relatively low. Combine those things with there being way less Native Americans in the North (due to various reasons) to begin with, very different colonial policies and treatment of the native people and the result is not that surprising.
  - anthk 2y ago
    The Americans really needed something like the "Americaness" (the American law it's over any race), kinda like the Hispanidad with the Hispanic people does. It doesn't matter where you come from, but where you all as a whole are heading to. Segregation and White Power/Black Power/Native Power should be dealt as something totally obsolete, kinda backwards. "Mi tribe it's the best one, and the rest of the worlds sucks". As a Spaniard I always hated the concept of reservations and idiots like Jim Crow. The point of America should have been to leave out your tribe behind to be something else.
    - graemep 2y ago
      I agree with you, but I think the problem, with regard to the US (I do not know about the rest of the Americas) is that they are victims of their history. While they can understand at an intellectual level that race is cultural construct, they cannot at other levels stop regarding race (rather than culture, language, etc.) as a essential and immutable part of people's identity. I have blogged about this compared to my own experience of race in different cultures https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/08/racism-culture-different Also worth thinking that the attitudes you (and I) have have been rejected by many people in the US. For many, a "melting pot" culture is no longer considered desirable.
      - anthk 2y ago
        The Mediterranean civilization and the further Enlightenment was due to sharing knowledge and goods back and forth, not by keeping the countries and tribes isolated. Rock music it's a mix between Black and White cultures, creating something else, but better. In Spain we had groups like Triana in the 70's who mixed American Folk and Rock like Jethro Tull (the first two albums are almost a Jethro Tull wannabe, really good) with some Flamenco music. And Flamenco itself it's a mix of Arabic, Gypsy and -who knows- more roots...
      - john_texas 2y ago
        [dead]
      - anthk 2y ago
  - username332211 2y ago
    Isn't it fairly obvious? The Spanish were conquering advanced urbanized civilizations. Seizing the cities and their people was the goal of the entire enterprise. The land was an afterthought. The British/Americans were settling the territory of primitive tribal nations. Taking over the land was the goal of the entire enterprise. The people were an afterthought.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > I haven't read a good explanation for why it is so. Iberians bred with the people they conquered. The Spanish in particular practiced an intentional policy of breeding a caste of illegitimate mixed-race offspring that would mediate between the Spaniards proper and the aboriginals they had enslaved. In the Spanish colonies, there emerged a project to “Mejorar La Raza” (literally: to better the race) by encouraging breeding with those of a fairer complexion than oneself. I suspect (though have never confirmed) that this attitude was primarily fostered to encourage women to more readily breed with Iberian men, but in the present day the attitude is quite prevalent among both Latino men and Latina women; Latinos fetishize white features, which are associated with being not only high-status and wealthy, but also simply beautiful in their own right. The Americans largely arrived after small pox had substantially reduced the native population, and subsequently followed a comparatively genocidal path of historical development. They did not tend to breed with the natives they encountered, so they have a far lower proportion of aboriginal ancestry. At some point between the late 1800s and early 1900s, they developed a romantic appreciation for Native Americans, which later leads to the common trope of every American family claiming to have a Cherokee great great grandmother on their mother’s side. Since the 2000s, the common trope is that all the growth in these tribes has been from white-passing people looking to cash in on affirmative action; this is not an undeserved stereotype.
- jajko 2y ago
  > Estimates have varied widely from as low as 8 million to as many as 100 million, though many scholars gravitated toward an estimate of around 50 million by the end of the 20th century. At least check the articles you link yourself, ffs. Not sure why the apologism here, genocide was done through and through, intentionally by outright murder and slavery and unintentionally via diseases (but even that was spread with intent once found out their immunity is weak against old continent diseases)
  - bluebarbet 2y ago
    >ffs Doing this is the equivalent of throwing a small piece of litter in an otherwise clean alley. Humans being what they are, the alley will soon be a trash heap.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "but even that was spread with intent once found out their immunity is weak against old continent diseases" This is somewhat unsure. First, if we are talking about the Spanish conquest, that is deep 16th century, with all its magical thinking. God, the Devil and witches were all plausible explanations for epidemics, and holy processions, pilgrimages and carrying of medailons dedicated to saint X were considered reasonable treatment methods. It is a mistake to look at the 16th century with 21st century eyes; it is a different world resting on very different mental foundations. Second, at least in the Spanish territories, losing your workforce was economically disadvantageous.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > At least check the articles you link yourself, ffs. Yeah, and as you see, the 100 million is a highly questionable value. Just try to read past the first paragraph, maybe? > but even that was spread with intent once found out their immunity is weak against old continent diseases Nope. The germ theory of disease was not formed until 1800-s, the invention of vaccination was in 1796. There were some inklings that smallpox can be spread through contaminated items even before that time, but not much earlier.
keybored 2y ago
Isn’t that awesome? > The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs was terrible. It was a prolonged period of pestilence, famine, torture, rape, plunder, destruction, conquest, cultural eradication, and general misery, with a short term death toll of something like 600,000 (including military and civilian casualties), and a long term death toll in the millions. > And yet part of me thinks it was totally awesome. https://mattlakeman.org/2020/06/25/polygamy-human-sacrifices-and-steel-why-the-aztecs-were-awesome/ https://mattlakeman.org/2020/06/25/polygamy-human-sacrifices...
- anthk 2y ago
  The Aztecs were hated from the rest of the tribes. The rest of the Natives joined the Spaniards against them. Guess why. Hint: human sacrifices and slavery. For the rest of the Natives, they were like the Nazi Germany, or, a better comparison, the Imperial Japan in Asia.
  - keybored 2y ago
    Relevance to my comment?
- lurk2 2y ago
  > And yet part of me thinks it was totally awesome. That portion of my brain that grew up on Total War and Civilization games thinks the concept of a small number of hyper-technologically sophisticated foreigners led by a verified psychopath waging war on an empire of pyramid-dwelling, polygamist, slave-owning, human sacrificing pagans with the fate of a largely uncharted landmass at stake is incredibly cool. And no one can convince me otherwise.
  - keybored 2y ago
    Oh of course I omitted the “in a video game” part, sorry.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      The comment reads differently given the context, so I’m not sure why you felt it appropriate to post it without that context. He continues: > My main takeaway from the book is that the Aztecs were a highly unique civilization that I desperately want to learn more about. They offer great insights into how a society with radically different structures and norms might function.
banqjls 2y ago
[flagged]
IdiocyInAction 2y ago
I think the idea of shaming people for being successful conquerers is ironically very western. Ask what the Mongols think about their conquests or the Han or what the Turks think about the Ottomans or the Russians about their history…
- keybored 2y ago
  Yes it is very Western. That national chauvinists think differently doesn’t make it wrong.

acyou 2y ago

Did the Incas not fish much? Seems like they would have done well with Retarius with net and spear. If you had 100000 people and had to defeat 100 well armed soldiers, what would you do? Well, wait for them to get tired, ideally. Try to restrict their movement. Take away or disable their weapons. Withdraw to advantageous terrain. Heavier projectiles. Poison darts. Harassment. Long ropes and nets that you try to snag them in. Wait until they are mostly sleep and attack at night. Invite them to dinner and poison their food, or jump them then. Tough to coordinate this with 100000 people, I think that's the main issue. I don't know if it boils down to military power or absolute capability. There's always a lot of soft power that goes hand in hand with hard power.

lukan 2y ago
"Wait until they are mostly sleep and attack at night." The Incas apparently did not fight at night. And why they did not managed to kill the horses, were likely because they were too afraid of them and they were not used to killing large animals as none existed there. Otherwise all it takes to stop a knight on a horse is to kill the horse. Or just hurt its legs enough, or make it stumble.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  European militaries had to train the fear of horses out of their infantry. The normal human reaction to being swarmed by galloping cavalry is to flee. Keeping formation under such conditions is hard. What would help the Incas would be pikes. Lots of pikes. Hard to know why they didn't copy them from the Spaniards.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    I think they only had stone-tipped wooden spears.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      The Incas had bronze and used it for weaponry.

echelon_musk 2y ago

I've got a copy of The Conquest of Mexico by Hugh Thomas on my book shelf and I tell myself I will eventually finish reading the tome! This article might help me reinspire myself with this history. I sometimes like to wonder what if, and wonder how vastly different world history could have been. If the Catholic conquistadors had managed to overcome superstition and fear of the devil to try Teonanácatl, Peyotl, Cohoba and Ayahuasca.

MrMcCall 2y ago
[flagged]
- coffeecantcode 2y ago
  I always find myself referencing the Grand Inquisitor chapter from the Brothers Karamazov. Does institutionalization always breed corruption? If it can breed corruption in the teachings of God then it can breed corruption anywhere.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    We are born with the corruption inside of us; we must use God's teachings of love to cleanse and purify our souls so that it becomes enlightened like the spirit.
    - coffeecantcode 2y ago
      I agree. But does the process of institutionalizing those teachings not go against those exact teachings themselves? At least for Christianity? The point of the Grand Inquisitor chapter revolves around a fictional situation where Jesus returned to Earth during the inquisition, and posits the idea that Jesus was exactly the type of individual that the church would have been willing to purge during that time, criticizing the institution and the free will that is exchanged for structure and institution.
      - 2y ago

yzydserd 2y ago

If you enjoyed the article, consider listening to the Fall of civilisations podcast. Episode 12 spends 3 hours on the whole chilling saga.

MrMcCall 2y ago
Absolutely! And he has gone from strength to strength with each new episode. His pacing is perfect as he really takes his time but just barely touches on the intense brutality that was certainly epidemic in the times. He thus avoids the salacious details like, for example, Dan Carlin (who does his research well, but is less my taste now after discovering FoC). Just outstanding. The real next-level excellence is that he is really tracing the history of technology along the way, going into significant detail about how the conquerors developed and utilized new tech to effect their victories. From horses to the Mongols' bows to gunpowder, it is really the history of civilization and how the uncivilized were the energy that pushed change to the next level-up. I first learned of these sorts of systems in Gleick's "Chaos" (IIRC), where it looks like nothing is advancing, but, in reality, a kindof pressure is building to the point where a drastic leap is made suddenly and unexpectedly.
rayiner 2y ago
Is this article typical of the analysis style of the podcast? Because it was awesome, direct without too many asides.
- Fade_Dance 2y ago
  His style is quite unique, but not in an in your face kind of way. He always starts with geographical context, and this thread is never lost through the study. The constraints and characteristics of geography are always respected as key inputs into the civilization. He is also very narrative-driven, while staying within historical fact. This is probably the key strength of the podcast. I had read so much about Egypt, but until listening to the Egypt episode, I never "got it". All of the strengths have synergy as well. For example, in the Egypt episode, North and South isn't used. Instead, upriver and downriver (Nile) is used, reflecting how they saw the world. Parlaying from there, the experience of how it would have been to live in the world is constantly revisited. In the recent Ghengis Khan episode, we take a walk with him through one of his conquered towns before it was razed, exploring how he likely felt disdain for settled civilization and always had a strong connection to his nomad way of life. But these leaps aren't just hot air. It is used as a window to do some further exploration of his religious views that we can confirm through sources. Lastly, the production value is quite nice. He has a community that really loves his content now. There are voice actors, and most important to me, there is a very well crafted background soundscape that pulls you in. For example, in the recent episode, you can hear the throat singing subtly swell up in the background When the war machine is about to activate, much like how in Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick switches the music to Vietnamese percussion once the groups leaves "their" territory. Very effective - sometimes gives me chills or can bring immense emotional responses, such as the sounds of wind blowing through the razed city of Carthage while listening to a voice actor read a source about a visit to the now abandoned ruins (drew a tear that one did. Didn't expect that" from a three-hour history podcast!) I'd recommend checking out the podcast if those characteristics appeal to you. It's not purely" analytical, though. There is an inspired artistic element that wants to explore the human condition, and some sort of underlying thesis that states that exploring history is a window into this. If pure analysis is what you are looking for, there are probably books better suited to that.

inglor_cz 2y ago

One interesting thing is how the Incan organizational capability mostly vanished. The original empire was really extremely well organized, but today's Bolivia and Peru don't show any particular aptitude in this direction. There is an interesting contrast to Persia, which, having been conquered by Muslims in the 7th century, was subjugated and converted to a new religion as well - and yet within a few decades the Persian bureaucracy and professional class was very influential within the Caliphate. The difference might be in total mortality. Too many Amerindians died from Old World diseases and their know-how was lost. BTW: " In lieu of taxes, every able-bodied adult male in the Incan Empire was legally required to work for the state for three months per year" Taxes in form of labour are harder to steal or siphon away, even if local tax authorities are corrupt. This might have been the best tax system in pre-modern era, in this regard at least.

graemep 2y ago
I would guess the difference is in survival of institutions and institutional knowledge, and similarity of institutions. The Persian bureaucracy were equipped to work for the conquerors, and the empire would have needed them to run the new conquests. The Arab empires were motivated to rule, and to spread their religion, but seem to have been quite happy to adopt local structures and institutions that were consistent with that AFAIK.
gonzobonzo 2y ago
> One interesting thing is how the Incan organizational capability mostly vanished. The original empire was really extremely well organized, but today's Bolivia and Peru don't show any particular aptitude in this direction. They were relatively well organized compared to neighboring people, but they weren't particularly well organized compared to many other places in the world at the time. The administration of modern Bolivia and Peru is far more advanced than that of the Incan Empire.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "they weren't particularly well organized compared to many other places in the world at the time." They were able to introduce a common imperial language (Quechua), build up a very good network of roads and runners, and rule several dozen smaller ethnicities without triggering too many rebellions. They extracted taxes from the population quite efficiently without impoverishing it, and were able to build up massive uniformed armies. I think this counts as extraordinary level of governance for that time. Certainly in the contemporary global top five, especially when taking into account just how big the empire was. The same places aren't even in the global top fifty today.

keybored 2y ago

I spent 20 minutes skimming this for some reason. The conquest of the Incas might be most famous through Guns, Germs and Steel which isn’t mentioned here.[1] But the article seems to put a similar emphasis on the conquistadors being severely outnumbered, glazing their exceptional fortitude and skill etc. That narrative (from Guns, although the article uses The Last Days of the Incas as the source) has been critiqued in Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest[2] which among other things points out how Germs doesn’t mention or properly contextualize the native allies that Pizzaro had. Again I just skimmed it (for a mere 20 minutes) but I didn’t find much mention of the allies. Before the civil war among the Spanish (after the conquest) there only seems to be things like > The Siege of Cusco began on May 6, 1535, and the Spanish believed they were well and truly fucked. Discounting their native allies, they were probably outnumbered at least 500-to-1, and were completely cut off from reinforcements. What I’ve read on the matter says that Pizarro et al were always severely outnumbered by their allies as well. Why “discounting their native allies”? Were they so few that they didn’t matter? Yeah they had many native allies for some reason. This is mentioned for Cortes (Aztecs) but I didn’t find this for the Inca case. On the glazing: > In the case of Hernan Cortes, about 400 Spanish soldiers (later increased to over 1,000) subjugated the Mexican Empire of about 6 million inhabitants. In the case of Francisco Pizarro, about 180 Spanish soldiers (eventually rising to over 1,000, but with rarely more than 500 ever concentrated in one place) conquered the Inca Empire of maybe 10 million inhabitants. In both cases, the Spanish invaders had almost no understanding of the local politics, geography, culture, religion, or people they were invading. In both cases, the expedition leaders deserve a ton of credit for extraordinary leadership and competence while leveraging a technological imbalance to achieve a staggering military force and diplomatic multiplier. We don’t have to wonder why the conquistadors in modern day Mexico were so amazing. > All of this happened in, like, 15 pages of Conquest of New Spain. Note that the author, Bernal Dias, was a member of Cortes’s expedition and an outright loyalist of Cortes to the point of siding with him closely during the multiple stages of the Spanish expedition civil war between Cortes and the Cuban Governor. So Dias might have some incentive to portray Cortes well, but he still portrays Cortes as constantly lying to basically everyone, including his closest advisors, and sometimes for the sake of embezzling expedition funds at the expense of his own men. It’s wild. But someone is wrong on the Internet? > It might seem obvious that the Spanish leveraged their technology to achieve incredible military victories over the Incas and Aztecs, but I’ve actually seen some pushback against this point. Often, it’s pointed out that the Spanish didn’t have that many pieces of their most advanced technology (guns and cannons), and most of their foot soldiers didn’t have close to full plate armor. On the BadHistory subreddit,[3] there is a highly up voted and often referenced nine-part series on Cortes’s conquest of the Aztecs which argues, among many other things, that Spanish military superiority is highly overrated. And yes, that post is one of the reasons I’m writing this whole essay, because someone is wrong on the internet. That “someone is wrong” link[3] is an introduction (nine-part series) where the introduction polemically critiques Terminal Narrative. So it’s Historiography (I guess). The first part[4] critiques the narrative that the Spaniards in modern day Mexico conquered their foe, the Aztecs, which were “500 times more numerous”.[5] So what is the author’s refutation of that? On the one hand we have an anonymous redditor who either is a historian or has, with the help of other people, managed to create a cosplay environment of pretend-historians. (This is to say that I trust that they are in actual fact historians.) The author here has a book by one of Cortes’ men who had every incentive to embellish the tale for the audience of the Spanish Crown. Well he does not get into the Aztec side of things and instead goes back to the Incas: > MacQuarrie does a better job of describing how the Spanish trounced the Incas than Bernal Dias does with the Aztecs, and by MacQuarrie’s telling, the single most impactful element of Spanish military technology was cavalry. So no epic feat of disproving “someone is wrong on the Internet” happens here. Just telling us again what one man named MacQuarrie thinks.[6] My understanding from both the Reddit post as well as what I’ve heard indirectly about Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest[7] is that the conquest of the Americas by the conquistadors was first made into history in the predictably chauvinist way (winners writing history) as superior civilization or breed of men vanquishing the inferiors. Obviously that would be too much for a modern audience. So Germs from the 90’s tried a different tack. That book explicitly says that it is not a racist or chauvinistic history of how Europe became so successful. But critics claim that it still manages to be chauvinistic in how it wrongly claims that the conquistadors vanquished their enemies while being comically outnumbered.[8] And that they overemphasize planning and tactics and downplay being at the right place at the right time through no foresight of their own. Another point is that the failed conquistadors are given little consideration. Naturally, in popular history, it’s more exciting to only consider the expeditions and conquests that were successful, while contextualizing them with the failed attempts would perhaps ruin the flow of the story.[9] [1] I have not read it [2] ditto [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of_conquest_part_nine_the_terminal_narrative/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2vf565/myths_of... [4] https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2qn5us/myths_of_conquest_part_one_a_handful_of/ https://np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2qn5us/myths_of_... [5] In [4] that is quoted from “Voldemort”, ostensibly Guns, Germs and Steel [6] I would think that quoting someone being wrong would prompt them to engage with any of their specific points, not just saying that they disagree with the narrative of severely outnumbered Spaniards conquering the natives and then going back to their Inca source. [7] And the first link in [4] cites that book as “wonderful”. For what it’s worth, good or bad. [8] Moreover with books like Guns the historiography used is Environmental Determinism. Which might be correct or wrong but it needs to be interrogated as well since it is not obviously correct. And that approach to history might just as well end up concluding that Europe was destined to win out under any contingency (see the introduction to the critique of Terminal Narrative in [3]). [9] PS: On second thought the expedition of Francisco Hernández de Córdoba into Yucatán is famous, and the Maya defeated them.

stevoski 2y ago

I’m enjoying the whole “why didn’t the Incas just…” discussion going on here. It’s peak HN.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
I mean, when hundred and eighty men conquer millions you have to wonder. Surely there must have been a way for Incas to crush them.
- keybored 2y ago
  You can frame the Cuban Revolution as 84 guys on a boat conquering millions. What’s the error here? “But hadn’t the Batista govt. heard about the concept of sinking boats?” Or is the framing off?
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    Well yes, I can certainly imagine Batista's troops and especially intelligence being more competent in a parallel universe.

didgetmaster 2y ago

It is fascinating that a large percentage of modern Americans believe (taught in school or through Disney movies) that prior to the arrival of Europeans; native American tribes were peaceful to each other. They often think that the land was inhabited by loving tribes that just wanted to be left alone to live in harmony with nature. The truth is that barbarism was common as tribes routinely slaughtered each other in numerous wars. Slavery, rape and human sacrifice were here far before the White man arrived. I am not saying that the conquerers from Europe didn't do some horrible things too; just that the narrative often taught in schools is inaccurate.

johntitorjr 2y ago
[dead]
Loughla 2y ago
I think it's less that they're taught that the native Americans were peaceful and more that they aren't really taught anything about the history of the native population. It usually starts when European settlers come here. As an aside; I went to the Smithsonian museum of native Americans or whatever it's called. I was MASSIVELY disappointed that it focused almost solely on post-European settlement. I was really hoping for history and information about the tribes before that. They're fascinating, and it seems a little backhanded to just focus on our impact on them (important obviously, but very dismissive of their long history).
- criddell 2y ago
  > I was really hoping for history and information about the tribes before that How much of that is known?
  - Loughla 2y ago
    I have no idea. And that's kind of the point. I'm assuming somebody can fill in some of the blanks for me.
  - ahazred8ta 2y ago

mbil 2y ago

> It’s almost kind of more impressive that the Incan empire of maybe 10 million people got by on the barter system. In _Debt_, Graeber argues that it is largely a myth that pre modern civilizations relied on barter, and instead used different systems for tracking debt between individuals and entities. He says this of the Incas knotted strings in a footnote: > I note in passing that a study of the Inca khipu system itself would itself be quite fascinating in this regard; the strings were used to record both obligations we would consider financial, and others we would consider ritual, since as in so many Eurasian languages, the words “debt” and “sin” were the same in Quechua as well

ahazred8ta 2y ago
Quipu cord research is difficult, because their Rosetta Stone is a Gordian Knot.

jhallenworld 2y ago

The cavalry point reminds of one of David Brin's Uplift books: on a far away planet the humans agree to give up their horses as it is an unfair advantage over the other alien races they are trying to cooperate with. But there is a statue of a horse that human teenagers climb upon to remember this powerful synergy.

canjobear 2y ago

If you're into this stuff, Conquest of Peru (1847) by William Prescott is surprisingly readable and vivid. In case you worry that an old book won't be accurate, basically paragraph is backed up with a footnote giving long primary source quotes in the original Spanish. If you just read the footnotes it's like you're getting a well-paced spliced together first-hand account. Some things I remember from the book that don't make it into this article: - The Inca empire was essentially a top-down command economy. Everything down to individual people's jobs was managed centrally from Cuzco. - Pizarro's translator was from a native tribe that was recently conquered by the Inca, and he hated the Inca himself. It's possible that he translated things in an intentionally adversarial way at crucial junctures, like when the Spanish were deciding to execute Atahualpa. - The official reason for executing Atahualpa was that, while in captivity, he had sent orders to have his brother Huáscar executed. - Apparently Atahualpa was amazed to discover that he could write marks on a piece of paper, show it to to Spaniards like de Soto, and they would all be able to read out exactly the same words. He tried the trick with Pizarro but, being illiterate, Pizarro couldn't read out the text. This didn't help with the Pizarro-Atahualpa relationship. - The account of how the battle at Cajamarca started is a little different. The Spanish sent out a priest who gave a long confusing monologue to Atahualpa about the death of Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, the immaculate conception of Mary, and other deep-cut theology, then handed him a Bible. Atahualpa was basically like "why would you worship a guy who was executed as a criminal" and didn't have any idea what to do with the Bible (or any book). Then the Spanish ambushed him.

FiatLuxDave 2y ago
It's nice to see this book referenced! I am proud to have two old copies of the book in my personal library, one from 1880 and the other with no date on it. Prescott was an ancestor of mine, and the copies were passed down.

cantrecallmypwd 2y ago

A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1551) slightly later leaves out the lionization and describes the atrocities and abuse of natives and imported slaves. It should be required reading as it was driven by greed without morality on multiple continents, eventually consuming c. 150M human beings under all colonial powers.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 2y ago

An interesting read which tempts me to put up an essay assignment: Compare the conduct of Trump and his acolytes to Cortez, the Pizzaros and other conquistadors.