3 ms·

> 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

• 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.
        • pqtyw 2y ago
          > they failed due to a lack of record keeping. That wasn't part of the argument? Lack of writing made their administrative systems less effective than it could've been otherwise. However plenty of less organized or centralized empires and states survived for longer periods. > then held onto it until The Inca empire was established less than a hundred years before the Spanish conquest (it was preceded by a much smaller state centered around Cusco). That's not a very long period. Most of the expansion happened almost within the living memory of the people living there when Pizzaro arrived (in the midst of a major civil war and as far as we can tell it wasn't the first one). So it's very hard to determine how stable the system was or how long it could have survived. It was remarkable what they achieved compare to pre-contact states (e.g. the Aztec empire was more or less a somewhat lose confederation) but it really didn't last enough to be comparable to most of the more centralized old world empires. Also it's not necessarily clear how far the administrative system extended from the core areas and how strong it was in the more distant recently conquered territories.
    • gonzobonzo 2y ago
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]