3 ms·

> One interesting thing is how the Incan organizational capability mostly vanished. The original empire was really extremely well organized, but today's Bolivia

> 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.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  Your list proves the point. All of those things were common for governments in Europe and Asia at the time. When people bring up the Safavids or the Timurids, for example, you don't hear people saying "they were able to extract taxes, build roads, and they had an imperial language, they were the top administrators in the world!" These things were considered to be an extremely low baseline for being a functional government.
lurk2 2y ago
> 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. This isn’t true at all. The Inca were not as technically sophisticated as the Europeans (or the Chinese for that matter), sure, but they were doing things on a scale comparable to the late Roman Republic. The extent of their territory was far larger than anything that existed in Europe at the time. > The administration of modern Bolivia and Peru is far more advanced than that of the Incan Empire. You are making this assertion based on the emergence of technical capacities that had nothing to do with these societies. Haiti is not more organized today than it was 200 years ago just because the government has computers now.
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > This isn’t true at all. The Inca were not as technically sophisticated as the Europeans (or the Chinese for that matter) I'm not sure how it isn't true at all when we agree that other governments at the time had much more sophisticated administration. And it wasn't just Europe and China - many areas of the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia had much more sophisticated administrative states at the time.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > I'm not sure how it isn't true at all when we agree that other governments at the time had much more sophisticated administration. We don’t agree about that. I am saying that they may have lacked technical sophistication insofar as they used stone tools over iron or steel, but this has no real bearing on their merits as organizers; the Incans were well-organized by world standards. Europe did not have anything close to what the Incan Empire was at the time. China may have been better organized, but that just shows the sophistication of the Incans if we’re comparing them with an ancient civilization with an established bureaucracy and a population measured in the tens of millions. > many areas of the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia You will need to cite specific examples for this argument to hold any water; Japan and the Ottoman Empire are the only two I can think of.
    - pqtyw 2y ago
      > but this has no real bearing on their merits as organizers Not having ledger or any complex/efficient system of writing or recording data at all did, though. But it's true that no state in Europe was as centralized however that had various societal and political reasons. > better organized Size/scale doesn't necessarily mean much either, e.g. nobody would say that the Soviet economy and administrative system was more efficient and "better organized" than the much more decentralized systems in capitalist countries.
      - lurk2 2y ago
        > Not having ledger or any complex/efficient system of writing or recording data at all did, though. Why do you consider that to be a limitation? They conquered the extent of what they could feasibly reach and then held onto it until the Spanish arrived. I’ve never received any indication that they failed due to a lack of record keeping.

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.

gonzobonzo 2y ago
Your list proves the point. All of those things were common for governments in Europe and Asia at the time. When people bring up the Safavids or the Timurids, for example, you don't hear people saying "they were able to extract taxes, build roads, and they had an imperial language, they were the top administrators in the world!" These things were considered to be an extremely low baseline for being a functional government.

lurk2 2y ago

> 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. This isn’t true at all. The Inca were not as technically sophisticated as the Europeans (or the Chinese for that matter), sure, but they were doing things on a scale comparable to the late Roman Republic. The extent of their territory was far larger than anything that existed in Europe at the time. > The administration of modern Bolivia and Peru is far more advanced than that of the Incan Empire. You are making this assertion based on the emergence of technical capacities that had nothing to do with these societies. Haiti is not more organized today than it was 200 years ago just because the government has computers now.

gonzobonzo 2y ago
> This isn’t true at all. The Inca were not as technically sophisticated as the Europeans (or the Chinese for that matter) I'm not sure how it isn't true at all when we agree that other governments at the time had much more sophisticated administration. And it wasn't just Europe and China - many areas of the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia had much more sophisticated administrative states at the time.
- lurk2 2y ago
  > I'm not sure how it isn't true at all when we agree that other governments at the time had much more sophisticated administration. We don’t agree about that. I am saying that they may have lacked technical sophistication insofar as they used stone tools over iron or steel, but this has no real bearing on their merits as organizers; the Incans were well-organized by world standards. Europe did not have anything close to what the Incan Empire was at the time. China may have been better organized, but that just shows the sophistication of the Incans if we’re comparing them with an ancient civilization with an established bureaucracy and a population measured in the tens of millions. > many areas of the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia You will need to cite specific examples for this argument to hold any water; Japan and the Ottoman Empire are the only two I can think of.
  - pqtyw 2y ago
    > but this has no real bearing on their merits as organizers Not having ledger or any complex/efficient system of writing or recording data at all did, though. But it's true that no state in Europe was as centralized however that had various societal and political reasons. > better organized Size/scale doesn't necessarily mean much either, e.g. nobody would say that the Soviet economy and administrative system was more efficient and "better organized" than the much more decentralized systems in capitalist countries.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      > Not having ledger or any complex/efficient system of writing or recording data at all did, though. Why do you consider that to be a limitation? They conquered the extent of what they could feasibly reach and then held onto it until the Spanish arrived. I’ve never received any indication that they failed due to a lack of record keeping.