4 ms·

> 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.

by 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.

by pqtyw 2y ago

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.