Continent of remaining Civ?

[Gucumatz]

Page 917, Gucumatz. And a bit before it talks about the Inca conquest, its rule, etc.

CivOasis, like I said, the Tupis were greater in number and covered a greater area. Also, they left a greater influence today. Still, I don't think they should be included, they were not a Civ.

Those are only the Hunus the Inca were able to create

"We suspect that the Incas established three hunus (Lerche 1986; Schjellerup 1997), but that only two remained by the time the Spaniards arrived (Espinoza 1967). War casualties, mitmaq policies and Inca failure to control less organ- ized or more elusive societies to the north and east must have resulted in substantial population
Silverman2_Ch45.indd 916 Silverman2_Ch45.indd 916 11/20/2007 10:22:13 AM 11/20/2007 10:22:13 AM Chachapoyas: Cultural Development at an Andean Cloud Forest Crossroads 917 attrition, provoking repeated political and demographic reorganization. "

It still neglects that the majority of the Northern Cities were unconquered and in fact existed even after the Inca collapsed. Thats 100,000 Chachapoya who were under direct Inca control after the decimation of the southern Chachapoya. Thats only one group of Chachapoya and the same source even says:

"Site density alone suggests that pre-Inca Chachapoyas’ population was at least three-fold greater than the documentary evidence indicates."

And that is only in the Cochabamba region of the Chachapoya. So a small portion of the conquered portion of the Chachapoya when they were no longer at their Apex while still ignoring the entire north which the Chachapoya still controlled doesn't constitute their population.

 

[Gucumatz]

And in fact the source explicitly says it was only in the Chachapoyas region (remember that is a city, not a civ, and the surrounding Cochabamba territory) which the Inca were able to conquer.

 

[Radu_Magus]

Pleeease, show one source that says the Northern cities were unconquered. Everywhere it says they were under Inca rule. Everywhere! Just show one reliable source, I beg you!

 

[CivOasis]

He just showed you your own source.
Twice.

 

[Radu_Magus]

He just showed you your own source.
Twice.

Yes, and they say nothing that he says. Geez, can't you see??

 

[Gucumatz]

THe National Geographic special I showed? The 2 earlier Essays I showed?

Show me one place where it says they were conquered. (The North)

Every source you have given me only talks about the Cochabamba territory which is only a small piece of former Chachapoya territory. Not one of your sources mentioned anything about the North and in fact talk about how rebellious the area they did conquer was and had to try and reconquer.

 

[CivOasis]

I can see him quoting your text, word for word, to prove his point...

 

[Radu_Magus]

I can see him quoting your text, word for word, to prove his point...

Then you are not reading the quotes and his argument.

Gucumatz, you presented a documentary that did not prove what you said, and two inaccessible papers. Both sources I presented say there Chachapoyas were conquered. It doesn't talk about South or North, it talks about them being conquered, being under their rule. If they weren't, they wouldn't have said it so.

Once again, more on that:

"The Inca conquest of Chachapoyas began in the fifteenth century during the reign of Topa Inca. Inca presence in Chachapoyas was brief, yet intense, not only transforming religion, language and settlement patterns, but also restructuring social and political institutions." ...

"It is no surprise, then, that Inca rule was fraught with rebellions. Ironically, the same institutions that united autonomous ayllus into a centralized and governable province may have ultimately galvanized Chachapoya ethnic identity (Church 1996; Schjellerup 1997, 1999), spawning pan-regional alliances born of resistance. In response to the frequent uprisings, the Incas banished many people as mitmaq colonists (as much as 50% of the population according to Espinoza [1967] and Lerche [1995]) to distant parts of the empire".

 

[Gucumatz]

Chachapoyas is a city. Not the territory. Again you have to remember that, and it is part of the Cochabamba territory which was dominated.

 

[CivOasis]

I suppose the ideal thing to post here is "It was notable while it lasted, regardless of who conquered it".
In the end, some of the most impressive nations in the Americas *cough* Teotihuacan *cough* existed far before European contact, so saying they were conquered by someone other than Europe (regardless of accuracy) doesn't really mean too much about their achievements...

 

[Gucumatz]

Also as I mentioned both pottery and human remains (carbon dating yay) both say that the Northern Cities were only destroyed/colonized/conquered AFTER the Inca themselves were destroyed 40 years later.

========

And exactly. Which is why we are looking at the impressive feats of Pre-Colombian cultures and why people are still so enthralled with ancient civs like Summeria and the Hittites. Their destructions still don't hide the fact of their magnificent architecture, spreading of civilization and religion, etc.

The Chachapoya existed long before the Inca and while the Inca and Spanish did destroy them they accomplished much in their own right.

Likewise many Maya cities were abandoned/conquered/destroyed long before Europeans came. Does that make these cities any less impressive?

In fact the Europeans really only encountered a few surviving cities in the Maya world (particularly those in northern Peten) that obscure the fact of what the Maya accomplished long before these last late post-classic cities.

 

[Radu_Magus]

Really, Gucumatz, I'll assume you're being intellectually dishonest because you cannot admit you're wrong and keep deviating from what I present. I don't see the point in continuing this.

All in all, it's a fact they will never make it into the game.

 

[Gucumatz]

Wait how am I wrong?

You keep only pointing to sources regarding Cochabamba (a small portion of Chachapoya territory). And as the pottery, anthropologists, and archaelogists have said in the National Geographic Special and other recent mediums (last 2 years) the Northern Chachapoya were never conquered by the Inca. Human activity, pottery, trade, etc. continued even after the Inca had collapsed.

There is good arch evidence here.

 

[CivOasis]

Really, Gucumatz, I'll assume you're being intellectually dishonest because you cannot admit you're wrong and keep deviating from what I present. I don't see the point in continuing this.

All in all, it's a fact they will never make it into the game.

Now, that's hardly fair. While it's qualified enough to say you don't think they should or will make it in, he did indeed take cited quotes, both from your materials and elsewhere, to back up his comments. Not to mention that another poster (albeit uncited) also had the same background knowledge as he did. He isn't being dishonest at all, no matter how much speculation there is over the actual numbers of people involved.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe the Chachapoya conversation would be better suited for the history forum?

 

[Gucumatz]

Yea we kind of have filled this thread lol sorry. No more from this for me ;p.

=====

Anyways I just don't agree with the thought that only Brazil and Gran Colombia would be acceptable South American Civs. I honestly believe there are better South American Pre-Colombian Civs out there. (But which is not to say Brazil/Gran Colombia wouldn't be ok, because they would be)

 

[Radu_Magus]

Now, that's hardly fair. While it's qualified enough to say you don't think they should or will make it in, he did indeed take cited quotes, both from your materials and elsewhere, to back up his comments. Not to mention that another poster (albeit uncited) also had the same background knowledge as he did. He isn't being dishonest at all, no matter how much speculation there is over the actual numbers of people involved.

If you read again what I've written, you'll see how he has clearly avoided everything I put.

- I put sources saying that population of the Chachapoyas was probably around 100,000. He said that was of one region (although the text clearly says about the Chachapoyas in general).

- I put sources saying that the Chachapoyas were conquered by the Inca. He tried to prove it wrong by saying the Spanish did the killing of the Chachapoyas, like his 50-min documentary says. But that was never the point, since the Inca more like colonized the Chachapoyas.

- I put sources saying that the Inca conquered the Chachapoyas (the people as a whole) but he still says it was only the South, without showing any sources that proves the North was unconquered.

- He said Kuelap was never taken; yet, I put a source indicating proof that the Inca took it.

Everything he says he doesn't prove with hard academic evidence. I'm sorry, this is pointless.

 

[Gucumatz]

If you read again what I've written, you'll see how he has clearly avoided everything I put.

- I put sources saying that population of the Chachapoyas was probably around 100,000. He said that was of one region (although the text clearly says about the Chachapoyas in general).

- I put sources saying that the Chachapoyas were conquered by the Inca. He tried to prove it wrong by saying the Spanish did the killing of the Chachapoyas, like his 50-min documentary says. But that was never the point, since the Inca more like colonized the Chachapoyas.

- I put sources saying that the Inca conquered the Chachapoyas (the people as a whole) but he still says it was only the South, without showing any sources that proves the North was unconquered.

- He said Kuelap was never taken; yet, I put a source indicating proof that the Inca took it.

Everything he says he doesn't prove with hard academic evidence. I'm sorry, this is pointless.

Ok promised I wouldn't talk any more about this... but how can you keep ignoring Chachapoyas is a city. The region talked about in every source is talking about one small specific region (look at a map its Chachabomba). It was of course later resettled and depopulated but it had been a Chachapoyan settlement for centuries prior to the Inca.

There is real hard evidence that the northern cities were never conquered by the Inca and that in fact the Spanish even directly interacted with these cities. How would this be possible if they were conquered. And they were interacted with as Chachapoyan cities, not Incan. I don't see why "this is pointless" not like these aren't facts.

 

[CivOasis]

Well. I would think that we are well inclined to stop, as Louis requested. For my parting comment, I shall request that you read both his sources and your own, as they backed up his points most of the time (possible exception with the Kuelap portion).

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Further discussion of this topic must be moved to the history forums. This is a forum concerning Civ5 Gods & Kings.

Really, Gucumatz, I'll assume you're being intellectually dishonest because you cannot admit you're wrong and keep deviating from what I present. I don't see the point in continuing this.

Using insults to make your case is against the rules. Please stop.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889