The Inca were IMO in a much better position than the Aztecs to endure the Spanish far longer. They weren't near enough to the Caribbean to avoid a long march overland to reach them from there, they had a larger state with no peer rivals on its borders, and perhaps most of all they weren't surrounded by as many vegeful states who'd been caught up in the Flower wars. However the Inca got a huge stroke of bad luck when the first smallpox outbreak killed their Sapa Inca and caused a civil war that ended just months before Pizzaro arrived. Had this civil war not happened (Maybe the pox kills one of the brothers involved in the civil war) could the Inca have resisted the Spanish, perhaps into the 17th century?
WI: Had there been no Inca civil war, could the empire have survived the first wave of Spanish invasion?
- Thread starter Parmenion
- Start date
Possible but not certain. Inca Empire was still suffering greatly from European diseases and it might still destabilise the empire. And if Spaniards have lot of will to crush Incas, them have technological superioity unless Incas can capture enough of European technology and figure how to use and produce them.
if you suscribe to the theory that there was no smallpox plague in 1526 then this not even true
It's quite possible for the Inca to repulse the first few waves of conquistadors. Frankly the Aztecs were quite capable of that as well. The real problem is that down the line the immense effort needed to keep the Spanish out is going to run into the massive, and I mean truly massive, cost of trying to keep their society functioning as waves of smallpox and other diseases demolish the demographic underpinnings of the Empire. Frankly the Inca were somewhat uniquely susceptible to that. Their government and economy were relatively centralized for the time and their sprawling empire was connected by a fairly robust system of roads. Disease is going to spread quickly and their government's system of managing labor and food distribution is going to collapse. It's hard to see the Inca Empire itself survive that.
I think so.
Okay, so first Atahualpa was assassinated (that's the most accurate word) in a diplomatic meeting with Pizarro. That would happen whether or not Atahualpa won a civil war. But, the Inca definitely could have still won the lasting war against Pizarro's gang. Chiefly, Manco Inca almost beat Spain in real life. In 1536, he sieged Spanish forces in Cuzco for ten months. During the siege, the rebels employed new strategies and technologies against the Spaniards. For one, they employed bolas, which could enwrap horses’ legs. They also captured horses and guns, as well as Europeans who could replicate said technologies.
Here's what Matthew Restall says in Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest:
"Manco’s great siege of Cuzco in 1536 would probably have resulted in the elimination of Pizarro’s forces were it not for his Andean allies. These were initially less than 1,000 but grew to over 4,000 later in the siege as two of Manco’s brothers and other nobles of the same Inca faction came over to Pizarro’s side. These allies saved the Spaniards from starvation, rescued individual Spaniards, acted as spies, and fought along with Spanish horsemen in sorties against the besiegers. Their assistance enabled Pizarro and his company to survive until Almagro’s relief force arrived. Native support not only saved Pizarro in 1536, it also allowed the Spaniards to survive long enough to establish a permanent foothold in the Andes and to begin to build colonies..."
So it's very possible that a more unified Inca opposition to Pizarro (which would happen if there wasn't a civil war) would have resulted in the Inca retaking Cuzco in 1536. In real life, Manco retreated from the siege, but won the Battle of Ollantaytambo against Spanish forces. After winning the Battle of Ollantaytambo, Manco returned to Cuzco and, using Eurasian technology, almost seized the city, but failed again. After, he secured his base of power in Vilcabamba and continued raiding the Spaniards and their collaborators, now using horses, guns, and Pizarro’s Spanish enemies. It took another several decades for Spain to decisively crush Inca forces.
It's perfectly plausible. Half the Empire was tentatively collaborating with Pizarro's usurpation of Atahualpa. Throw out the idea of 'rebellious oppressed natives' leading the charge akin to the Aztecs. If anything I think the idea gets horribly overhyped. In fact, let's play with labels the way the 'battle' of Cajamarca was. Humor me on this thought experiment. It'd be more appropriate to retroactively label the Empire dead with the death of Huayna Capac and the start of Civil War, and to label Huascar's Inca Empire the Southern Inca, and label Atahualpa the Northern Inca. We could correctly label the capture of Atahualpa and the temporary pseudo-shogunate imposed upon the Andes as the 'Inca Captivity'. And then we all know what the Neo-Inca Empire is.
The Northern and Southern Inca had their final battle days before Pizarro showed up, and the Northern Inca had not marched on the Southern Inca lands directly yet. Remember, the only force opposing the Spanish actively were the Northern Inca. The war was largely fought in their half of the realm. The soldiers that fought were already past their terms of service, and had fought through (some sort of) plague and civil war. Let's skip over the 'it wasn't smallpox at the time of the civil war!' crowd, that's a non-argument(IMO) when the damage caused by war and disease to the Inca, smallpox or not, is apparent.
The point is, two rulers died in quick succession to a mystery disease, a civil war was fought that was a milestone moment in Inca history not only due to it being the first but also the start of an eventual societal collapse, Pizarro's timing was 10/10, and only half the realm was even willing to fight him and it was the more dead half of the realm. The Southern Inca were only willing to fight at the end of the Inca Captivity, and weren't militarily competent enough to siege their own stone fortresses in Cuzco...but credit where it's due, Cuzco's fortifications were crazy. The Inca can build fortresses and then some.
So yes, I think an organized Inca Empire with one man at the helm that hasn't burnt up their war-waging capabilities juuuuust prior to Pizarro's arrival would actually do quite well. I think they'd have hell retaking some of their own fortifications in the face of large resources being put into holding fortified positions with firearms and steel, but it's not impossible.
The only question remaining is do the Inca adapt fast enough or survive long enough to live past Spain's apex, or are the Spanish able to commit enough resources to crack the Inca egg like OTL before their overcommitments ruin them. The answer is, whatever your TL or headcanon demands. Neither is unfeasible.
The Northern and Southern Inca had their final battle days before Pizarro showed up, and the Northern Inca had not marched on the Southern Inca lands directly yet. Remember, the only force opposing the Spanish actively were the Northern Inca. The war was largely fought in their half of the realm. The soldiers that fought were already past their terms of service, and had fought through (some sort of) plague and civil war. Let's skip over the 'it wasn't smallpox at the time of the civil war!' crowd, that's a non-argument(IMO) when the damage caused by war and disease to the Inca, smallpox or not, is apparent.
The point is, two rulers died in quick succession to a mystery disease, a civil war was fought that was a milestone moment in Inca history not only due to it being the first but also the start of an eventual societal collapse, Pizarro's timing was 10/10, and only half the realm was even willing to fight him and it was the more dead half of the realm. The Southern Inca were only willing to fight at the end of the Inca Captivity, and weren't militarily competent enough to siege their own stone fortresses in Cuzco...but credit where it's due, Cuzco's fortifications were crazy. The Inca can build fortresses and then some.
So yes, I think an organized Inca Empire with one man at the helm that hasn't burnt up their war-waging capabilities juuuuust prior to Pizarro's arrival would actually do quite well. I think they'd have hell retaking some of their own fortifications in the face of large resources being put into holding fortified positions with firearms and steel, but it's not impossible.
The only question remaining is do the Inca adapt fast enough or survive long enough to live past Spain's apex, or are the Spanish able to commit enough resources to crack the Inca egg like OTL before their overcommitments ruin them. The answer is, whatever your TL or headcanon demands. Neither is unfeasible.
Last edited:
Brunaburh
Banned
There were many close shaves for Pizarro OTL, most notably the siege of Cusco. I think his expedition was much more likely to fail than be successful, so much so that if it hadn't succeeded we would be shouting "sea lion" at it.
Having said that, with the progress of epidemics and the likely arrival of better equipped invasion forces, we are probably looking at an eventual collapse of the empire into warring states at some point whatever. It could take fifty to seventy years though.
Having said that, with the progress of epidemics and the likely arrival of better equipped invasion forces, we are probably looking at an eventual collapse of the empire into warring states at some point whatever. It could take fifty to seventy years though.
Pandemics were made worse by the Spanish and with out them population recovery like we saw in Europe post black death would occur the worst thing that would occur for the Inca is a volcanic eruption in 1600
Brunaburh
Banned
I don't think there is an option of "no Spanish" though. They are going to keep knocking, probably conquering the empire piecemeal rather than in one fell swoop.
Yes just saying that with out Spanish encomiendas and mitas along side with things like reducción the deathtoll would not be as big
Brunaburh
Banned
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Slowing the social disruption created by Spanish forced labour systems also slows the population collapse.
Hmm, this question reminds me of the TL The Sons of Inti Shall Not Perish, in which the Inca Empire survives Pizzaro.
Though it was so long ago I do not remember a lot of it anymore.
After the defeat of Pizzaro later waves of Spanish invasions happen in which the Inca Empire loses some territory; they also get invaded by the Welsers, a family of German bankers, who install a child as a puppet king somewhere in the North.
Poorly enough the TL died just after a cliffhanger:
Though it was so long ago I do not remember a lot of it anymore.
After the defeat of Pizzaro later waves of Spanish invasions happen in which the Inca Empire loses some territory; they also get invaded by the Welsers, a family of German bankers, who install a child as a puppet king somewhere in the North.
Poorly enough the TL died just after a cliffhanger:
The Spanish had installed a puppet Sapa Inca in Cuzco; meanwhile the governor of the southern part of the Inca Empire, de facto but not de jure independent, was a member of the royal family who through various means, including trade with Portugal, had succeeded in having his own cannons and cavalry.
twovultures
Donor
IOTL, the Mayan city-state of Nojpeten held out against the Spanish until 1697 AD; I think an Inca rump state lasting until the late 17th century is perfectly plausible. Past that, it depends on the butterflies, but the Spanish passing the period from 1550-1650 without control of the Andean silver mines massively rewrites European history and makes a lot of unlikely things possible!
I think it is quite possible the Inca survive the initial conquests. They likely lose some lands on periphery, particularly Chile, maybe some coastal areas. However I don't think they are likely to evade colonization altogether. One thing to remember is they won't have *that* large a population. The former Inca lands already did relatively well compared to other native populations. Which is a large part of why they are still much more Native than Mexico. Probably no more than 75% population drop, maybe less, died. Which sounds bad, but isn't at all bad compared to Mexico, or the future US, or Guatemala, or Amazon rainforest, some of which probably saw much higher losses before white settlement even reached them. So realistically 3 million or so people, maybe a bit less if reduced to Altiplano core. Also people like timelines where they reverse-engineer stuff, but realistically while they will get guns and powder (likely largely imported). Pretty much no society, many of them far less behind than the Incas, 'westernized'.
One problem the Incas will have in spades is a resource curse. Export of precious metals to Spain and then later to other countries too if they aren't landlocked will be huge share of their economy even keeping in mind they won't exactly get going rate prices. This will tend to discourage development and probably see, perhaps on a bit better scale, a lot of the unpleasantness of Spanish rule in terms of the mines. If you think the Spanish economy was long-term really distorted by this, a poorer society with 1/10 the population of the Spanish Empire will be *really*really* distorted. Also the incentives in terms of politics we tend to see in resource economies, grab them, the actual people you rule over are sort of secondary as their prosperity isn't your wealth in the same way as for normal economy.
Once initial wave is dealt with I could see them being largely fine until 1700s. This is when European countries started deploying larger forces abroad. Its going to be tempting to cut out the middleman and conquer them during a relatively peaceful time or if they pick wrong side. Maybe they survive as rather remote if Spain is a bit of a declining power as ATL. Second threat period is second half of 1800s as technological development gets absolutely crushing for western societies. Realistically odds they make it without ever being colonized are low. Of course though the later it happens the more likely it is that their former state returns in some form with decolonization.
One problem the Incas will have in spades is a resource curse. Export of precious metals to Spain and then later to other countries too if they aren't landlocked will be huge share of their economy even keeping in mind they won't exactly get going rate prices. This will tend to discourage development and probably see, perhaps on a bit better scale, a lot of the unpleasantness of Spanish rule in terms of the mines. If you think the Spanish economy was long-term really distorted by this, a poorer society with 1/10 the population of the Spanish Empire will be *really*really* distorted. Also the incentives in terms of politics we tend to see in resource economies, grab them, the actual people you rule over are sort of secondary as their prosperity isn't your wealth in the same way as for normal economy.
Once initial wave is dealt with I could see them being largely fine until 1700s. This is when European countries started deploying larger forces abroad. Its going to be tempting to cut out the middleman and conquer them during a relatively peaceful time or if they pick wrong side. Maybe they survive as rather remote if Spain is a bit of a declining power as ATL. Second threat period is second half of 1800s as technological development gets absolutely crushing for western societies. Realistically odds they make it without ever being colonized are low. Of course though the later it happens the more likely it is that their former state returns in some form with decolonization.
I assume for the entire empire because Peru had its 90% death rate
This assumes the inca change economic model which is likely but what made spanish inflation bad it was not only the import of all the metals it was also the spanish terrible financial policies had the gold and silver been turned to produce good and services it would not have been that bad, but the Spanish spend it on paying loans and their Interest on them., its good to pay off debt but its not as good to get new loans with even higher interest rates.
Also the many wars, from the ottomans, the HRE, dutch etc, many of these wars were not profitable
the first can still occur with the incas if no trade development occurs say for example the incas mine gold and silver for the Spaniards in return for manufactured goods.
but wars? the Inca are not going to be in constant wars with everyone assuming long term peace with spain is reached the only issue being the guarani frontier.
Brunaburh
Banned
Strangely enough, I've been reading about Amazonian Peru's population loss recently. The area closest to Cajamarca, around Lamas and Pucallpa, wasn't conquered until 1660 and it lost 95+% of its population in 100 years, being effectively depopulated except for the new Quechua-speaking ethnic groups that formed around the city of Lamas. The table above reflects a rolling demographic crisis, where population loss was beginning in some places as recovery was occurring in others.
Oh hey Inca stuff.
Rolling crisis is a good way to put it. Population is still going to decline, which is going to be a problem lomg term. But it will likely be less sudden compared to IOTL.
Rolling crisis is a good way to put it. Population is still going to decline, which is going to be a problem lomg term. But it will likely be less sudden compared to IOTL.
This is true but the amazon is quite a harder hit area depending on your view if you follow the thesis that maleria did not exist prior to the spanish arrival it does a lot to explain why the amazon not only declined but also never recovered despite no europeans making the deathtoll worse aside from deep raids
@Goldensilver81 the problem with that graph is they are using Dobyns (1976) who has *by far* the highest estimate for the Inca Empire's population (37 million). More common now is a range centered around 10 million or a bit more with wide margin of error. In terms of distribution maybe 40% or so in Peru. Population of Peru may have dropped to around 1 million by the 1700s.