A Flame Burns in Cuzco: The First Nations of the Andes during the Andean Revolutions

[Israelite9191]

I disagree. There were many moments when the Inka were just barely supressed. The Great Rebellion of Tupac Amaru II was really small compared to the fighting that occured in prior rebellions and the Spanish conquest (post killing of the emperor). Also, horses weren't really an advantage in the Andes. In fact, the Spanish insistence on using horses nearly cost them their victories. While it is true that the Inka had the best developed infrastructure network to be seen up until the later half of the 20th century, it was utterly useless for horses. Designed for the sure-footed lamas of Peru, horses were constantly tripping, falling, and getting injured in innumerable ways. The advantages of speed etc. associated with horses were not only balanced by the disadvantages, but were completely nullified. The fall of the Inka was not inherent and un-preventable. Their fall was due to three things: disease, civil war, and just plain bad luck. if even one of these factors was removed, the Inka would have crushed their European opossition.

 

[luiz]

You can't ignore the fact that militarily speaking the Inca were far inferior to the europeans. Not just because of weapons, but also because of tactics. There is no way they could have survived for much long.

The much more militarily advanced cilivizations of China and India were eventually defeated by the europeans, exactly because of the difference in weaponry and tactics.

The Inca were advanced in many ways, but militarily, when compared to the spaniards, they were essencially a stone-age people.

 

[Israelite9191]

Yes, that is true. However, the Inka had an advantage that could not be overcome should the conquest of the empire fail: reputation. The Europeans at the time undertook colonization for one primary reason: ease. It was easy to gain huge amounts of gold, converts, and glory in short periods of time in the Americas. If the Inka had driven off the Spanish, then the Europeans would have scared off. If they thought they would have serious competition and would have had to dedicate serious resources to the conquest of the Inka, they never would have tried. This in turn would have given the Inka enough time to adjust to new technologies and tactics and gain allies in Europe itself. Unlike China, the Inka had a more dynamic leadership (particularly if as in this scenario a new emperor took over under strained circumstances) and would have been much more capable of absorbing new technologies and adapting to changing circumstances.

EDIT- I have linked to this thread in the Alternate History III thread in the NES forum. Luiz and anyone else, please go over there to continue the discussion.

 

[Verbose]

You can't ignore the fact that militarily speaking the Inca were far inferior to the europeans. Not just because of weapons, but also because of tactics. There is no way they could have survived for much long.

Have you looked into the Mapuche, the last undefeated natives in the south of Chile? They even retain a traditional memory of the realisation that the Incas were suddenly gone, as they had been made tributaries to them, and ran across the Spanish while sending their tribute north.

They quickly adopted horses however and managed to effectively fight back until the 20th century. There are estimates of as many as 200.000 Spanish troops killed fighting them over the centuries.

So, I'm not so sure the natives loosing was always such a foregone conclusion.

In the case of the Incas, afaik there appeared a mixed Inca-Creole overclass in Peru, where someone like Tupac Amaru, and others, could find support for rebellion.
And these rebellions were serious enough to prompt the Spanish authorities to simultaneously do away with the Inca-Creole upper crust and start pushing for reform, in the realisation that they might not be able to hold on to the New World unless they did.

The conspicious absence of anything like a native elite in Peru today seems to be testament to the thoroughness with which the place was purged by the Spanish authorities. There used to be one in the 17th and 18th centuries. Now it's missing, but that didn't happen with the conquest in the 16th century.

 

[Israelite9191]

In the case of the Incas, afaik there appeared a mixed Inca-Creole overclass in Peru, where someone like Tupac Amaru, and others, could find support for rebellion.
And these rebellions were serious enough to prompt the Spanish authorities to simultaneously do away with the Inca-Creole upper crust and start pushing for reform, in the realisation that they might not be able to hold on to the New World unless they did.

Which is what the paper in this thread is about. Yes, there was a large Inka aristocracy and a large Inkicized Criollo aristocracy as well. For many of the Creoles adopting Inka culture was a way to show Peru's uniqueness from Spain. The Creole understanding was that since they had conquered the Inka they had inherited the Inka culture. Peninsulare authorites, as you mention, eventually destroyed most of the Inka influence on the criollos, however, took all the power that the peninsulares had and then some.

 

[luiz]

In Peru there might not be a "pure" native elite nowadays, but there sure is a mixed elite. Even among the richer peruvians there aren't many of "pure" european ancestry. What there is in Peru and Bolivia is an elite and middle-class largely composed of mestizos and a poor majority of almost full blooded indians (they aren't really full-blooded, they just look like it).

 

[Verbose]

In Peru there might not be a "pure" native elite nowadays, but there sure is a mixed elite. Even among the richer peruvians there aren't many of "pure" european ancestry. What there is in Peru and Bolivia is an elite and middle-class largely composed of mestizos and a poor majority of almost full blooded indians (they aren't really full-blooded, they just look like it).

Maybe not, but compared to say Mexico, how much is made of this native heritage among the elite? Not a lot is my impression. Blood is kind of unimportant compared to tradition.

 

[luiz]

Maybe not, but compared to say Mexico, how much is made of this native heritage among the elite? Not a lot is my impression. Blood is kind of unimportant compared to tradition.

If you're talking about traditions than you're correct, the elites of Peru and Bolivia identify themselves far more with the europeans (even though ethnically speaking they aren't europeans for the most part). I guess the difference is that in Mexico pretty much everyone is proud of and identifies with their Aztec/Mayan ancestry, while in the Andean nations only the poorer segments identify with the Incas (even if they aren't actually Incas as I mentioned earlier in this thread).

There are plenty of upper and middle class peruvians and bolivians in my University, and they all have strong indian traits even though in their homeland they are probably considered part of the "white elite". For brazilian eyes they look much more indian than european.

 

[Verbose]

If you're talking about traditions than you're correct, the elites of Peru and Bolivia identify themselves far more with the europeans (even though ethnically speaking they aren't europeans for the most part). I guess the difference is that in Mexico pretty much everyone is proud of and identifies with their Aztec/Mayan ancestry, while in the Andean nations only the poorer segments identify with the Incas (even if they aren't actually Incas as I mentioned earlier in this thread).

There are plenty of upper and middle class peruvians and bolivians in my University, and they all have strong indian traits even though in their homeland they are probably considered part of the "white elite". For brazilian eyes they look much more indian than european.

Well, that seems to tally with the impression I've had. National identity is a form of very selective memory.

I mean, in Mexico Cortez is pretty much vilified as a monster. I'd say he was a hard man for sure, but still a relatively educated person, with some kind of idea of what his intentions were for running these lands he was trying to conquer.

While Pizarro was pretty much a money-grabbing brute with no visions beyond getting pots and pots of gold. And in Peru it's still possible to portray him as some kind of National Hero.

 

[luiz]

Well, that seems to tally with the impression I've had. National identity is a form of very selective memory.

I mean, in Mexico Cortez is pretty much vilified as a monster. I'd say he was a hard man for sure, but still a relatively educated person, with some kind of idea of what his intentions were for running these lands he was trying to conquer.

While Pizarro was pretty much a money-grabbing brute with no visions beyond getting pots and pots of gold. And in Peru it's still possible to portray him as some kind of National Hero.

Another point is that Mexico has a clear national indentity, while Peru and Bolivia do not.

The catastrophe of the Evo Morales government is highliting the fact thet nobody in Boilivia think of themselves as bolivians. They are quechuas, ayamarás, andeans, lowlanders, etc. I was shocked to know that the indian from the lowlands, who strongly supported Morales at first, are now opposing him because they feel he is ruling only for the andean indians (quechuas and aymarás). Bolivia and Peru are not nations but rather a collection of many antagonistic nations.