How did they manage ancient Empires?

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

The Inca also had their own version of the Pony Express, using people. A lot like what the Greeks did when the Persians came, which is how the marathon got its name. Except obviously, these guys didn't run themselves to death, they just ran until they arrived at the next station, then the next guy grabbed the quipu and took over.

I don't know about the Incas, but the Greeks rarely had a "pony express system", at least not in the classical period when they were fighting the Persians. Generally, before the rise of the Athenian Empire, no greek state controlled anything more than a day's walk from its city's walls anyway, so I persume they never saw the need. The story of Marathon was one guy running all the way from Marathon to Athens.

 

[Dachs]

Maybe it's all the Pop culture but how important do you think religion was at making their empire more stable ?

Lets you unite the populace behind you for a war, gives them a feeling of solidarity with one another, allows you to funnel propaganda at them from another direction (provided the high priesthood is under your thumb on your side that is), among other things. IMHO having roads was a lot more helpful than any Incan religion, though, because a good infrastructure allows you to tell your vassals and subgovernments what to do in a timely fashion, and allows the rapid deployment of military forces to either quash rebellions or respond to outside threats. It also makes trade easier, and governments like making money off trade.

@Red Ralph Wiggum: for the most part, I agree with you, but using Rome as an example of "not changing lives" isn't really a good idea. Rome perhaps was one of the few (if there were more than one) ancient empires that spread its culture throughout its empire very effectively, creating the phenomenon of the Later Empire, referred to as the "Inside-Out Empire", in which the provincials were actually "more Roman" than the actual Italians. Gaul had the best Latin grammar schools of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the greatest of the later Emperors and the best scholars came from regions that before the coming of Rome were about as backwater as you can get, but after the Empire was created went to the forefront through a combination of very effective cultural assimilation (hell, everybody wanted to be Roman, speak Latin, all that jazz) and Roman economic expansion. Hell, in four hundred years Rome did a better job making the current inhabitants of Wales into Romano-Britons than the Anglo-Saxons have done in a millennium and a half.

 

[RedRalph]

Dach, thats true and I should have made that proviso, but didnt those changes really only affect urban dwellers and nont many rural people (whio would have made up the bulk of the population)? But you are right, the Romans werent a great example for that purpose.

 

[Dachs]

didnt those changes really only affect urban dwellers and nont many rural people (whio would have made up the bulk of the population)?

That's true, and it is notable that the first real cultural change for the vast majority of peasantry in Europe (in the past few millennia) was the introduction of Christianity, by both diffusion and violence, which was begun under the Roman Empire and didn't really end until the seventeenth century or so.

Also, "Dachs", please, not "Dach". It's the difference between a roof and a badger.

 

[Masquerouge]

Everyone else has covered the major bases. Alot of good material here. I'll just add a view.

Another thing you've got to remember is that for the most part, nationalism didn't exist in this time. You didn't have Franks longing to be Free Franks. If you're conquered by a Culturally equivalent (or culturally superior in terms of materials, tech, architecture, infrastructure, etc), its not necessarily gonna be an affront to your 'Greekness' or 'Egyptianness' to be ruled by foreign Romans.

Very nice. And IMO that again goes against what we're told in school, with the "Romans" fighting the "Gauls". When I hear that my first instinct is to picture a Roman nation at war against a Gallic nation, 20th century style.

 

[scy12]

I don't know about the Incas, but the Greeks rarely had a "pony express system", at least not in the classical period when they were fighting the Persians. Generally, before the rise of the Athenian Empire, no greek state controlled anything more than a day's walk from its city's walls anyway, so I persume they never saw the need. The story of Marathon was one guy running all the way from Marathon to Athens.

Actually several City states , where having colonies around the Mediterranean which was not really something uncommon .Though , most colonies where accessible by sea rather than land.

 

[Sharwood]

All very interesting, but none of it likely to "shed a lot of light on many theories claiming that Negroid and Caucasian people once lived in South America", since such racial theories are more than a little outdated. Such matters would attract more inquiry if they weren't wrapped in crude obsolete language.

Meh, I used crude and obsolete language because the theories are old, and that's the language used in the books I read them in. I know full well it's outdated, but I have no idea of the language used in modern racial theories, (aside from the word; haplogroup. The meaning of which I forgot a long time ago) so I used those terms.

Verbose, I don't know of any links, but I first read of the Incas' interesting characteristics in a book called We are not the first by Andrew Tomas. The book is basically a defence of Erich Von Daniken's ideas, although it's far better written, which made me suspicious. I then researched the Incas on my own, and found out the same things that Mirc did. I heard Carthaginian and Roman however, not Viking. All those theories are equally unlikely though.

As for people of Inca blood living in Peru/Ecuador; one thing you have to realise is that Tupac Amaru was basically the last Inca nobleman who was even close to a pure-blooded Inca. Since the Inca felt, as Mirc mentioned, that the Spaniards were related to them - an idea they felt confirmed by the fact that the Spaniards defeated them, something they didn't feel any 'inferior' peoples could possibly have done - they had no problem intermarrying with Spaniards, something they refused to do with other peoples. The Spaniards obviously didn't have a problem intermarrying with Incas, as it both gave them power and, let's face it, the Spanish intermarried with everyone, regardless of skin colour, something many Europeans would have been aghast at.

Also, the Incas didn't leave corpses. They burned their enemies, and mummified their own people. Like in Egypt, most of these mummies were taken by grave robbers, leaving only four extant mummies in the British museum. Those four were later destroyed when that wing of the museum flooded. So anyone with Inca blood nowadays has only a small portion of genetic material remaining, making any testing extremely difficult.

As for the people wondering about the Greek "pony express." I didn't mean the Greeks had one, I just used Marathon as an example of a human being running a long way to deliver news. I did say that the Inca didn't run themselves to death.

 

[RalofTyr]

I read in a book that native peoples with negroid dna met native Americans with Caucasian DNA in the Valley of Mexico.

 

[Sharwood]

I read in a book that native peoples with negroid dna met native Americans with Caucasian DNA in the Valley of Mexico.

Care to point out what book. Sounds like a made up argument, but if you fleshed it out more it might make more sense.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I know full well it's outdated, but I have no idea of the language used in modern racial theories,...

Oxymoron!

I read in a book that native peoples with negroid dna met native Americans with Caucasian DNA in the Valley of Mexico.

That's ridiculous, how could you get to the Valley of Mexico without sailing off the edge of the Earth? You must be pulling these ideas out of the ether.

 

[innonimatu]

As for people of Inca blood living in Peru/Ecuador; one thing you have to realise is that Tupac Amaru was basically the last Inca nobleman who was even close to a pure-blooded Inca. Since the Inca felt, as Mirc mentioned, that the Spaniards were related to them - an idea they felt confirmed by the fact that the Spaniards defeated them, something they didn't feel any 'inferior' peoples could possibly have done - they had no problem intermarrying with Spaniards, something they refused to do with other peoples. The Spaniards obviously didn't have a problem intermarrying with Incas, as it both gave them power and, let's face it, the Spanish intermarried with everyone, regardless of skin colour, something many Europeans would have been aghast at.

I believe it wasn't only the language that was outdated, in the book you read. The mixed elite that was formed in Peru shortly after the spanish conquest always resisted the crown, starting with the rebellion of the conquistadores against the abolishment of the encomiendas in 1542. When Pizarro had Atahualpa beheaded (or garroted, the accounts differ) he was already claiming that this was the execution of an unlawful tyrant, and that he and his men were not just taking over the empire but freeing it (the same tactics, apparently, are still used in the 21st century ). These conquerors quickly mixed with the former elites, as they had to, because they were too few to run the conquered empire otherwise. Their intent was to take over the empire for themselves, and have as much independence from the spanish crown as possible! They would always be at odds with the vice-roys and bureaucrats sent by the crown, and the councils that oversaw the american colonies from Spain.

Now, the important thing is that these elites included not only the inca but the local leaders of the several peoples conquered by the inca! The Inca Empire was in no way uniform, and the later resistance against spanish rule (which included many revolts, not just that of Tupac Amaru) existed among all local ethnic groups, with the figure of the "Inca Emperor" being used only as a symbol of resistance, sometimes as part of new cults (Taqui Oncoy), sometimes incorporating also christian elements in the creation of messianic beliefs (the rebellion of Juan Santos Atahualpa, who presented himself as Apo Capac Huayna, Holy Jesus). Most of the elements using these symbols were not descendants of the original inca people! And the idea that the inca emperor or inca god had met its equal in the spanish invaders was a rationalization used to explain the defeat of that past "glorious figure" that was now being used as a symbol or resistance.

The incas were not any different from the rest of the andean population - if they were the 16th century chroniclers would have drawn attention to that. They inherited most of their social structures from the Wari Culture (which probably reached its height by the 7th century AD), and their own myths show a connection: Yupanqui (or Pachacuti) was supposed to have defeated a chanca invasion of the Cuzco region and conquered Ayacuncho, the ancient wari capital, in that way starting the incan expansion. The chancas were supposed to be barbarians, however the incan high priest had to be consecrated at Vilcashuamán, one of the chanca main centers, which shows a level of cultural influence that contradicts the description of the chancas as mere barbarians. Probably the myth served to disguise the real ancestry of the incas as another group of chancas, inheritors of the Wari Culture.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

Actually several City states , where having colonies around the Mediterranean which was not really something uncommon .Though , most colonies where accessible by sea rather than land.

Also, most of the time the colony broke away from the Parent city as a seperate political entity. Cases in point, Syracuse, Eretria, Ithaca, and all of the Ionian cities.

 

[North King]

This is a good question. And perhaps a better one than the Roman/Egyptian/Persian/etc examples. Those groups had alot of advantages that the Mezo-America/Andes empires simply lacked. The fricken wheel for one. Minimal draft animals. (The lowly llama) The Incans as you say had no writing at all. (taking your word for it) Only the Mayans had an actual alphabet.

Yet they all administered quite large, socially complex empires for an extended period of time. Quite impressive.

The quipu served as a system of writing; and the Aztecs certainly had it as well.

Lets you unite the populace behind you for a war, gives them a feeling of solidarity with one another, allows you to funnel propaganda at them from another direction (provided the high priesthood is under your thumb on your side that is), among other things. IMHO having roads was a lot more helpful than any Incan religion, though, because a good infrastructure allows you to tell your vassals and subgovernments what to do in a timely fashion, and allows the rapid deployment of military forces to either quash rebellions or respond to outside threats. It also makes trade easier, and governments like making money off trade.

This is partly true, but there were certainly perks to being an Inca: it was not just a stick method. One of the carrots was that you'd get nifty public works projects all over the place. Of course, your people were often drafted to build said projects elsewhere in the empire, but at least you were fed, clothed -- indeed, treated far better than any subjects were under Spanish rule, where they were left mostly to starve.

@Red Ralph Wiggum: for the most part, I agree with you, but using Rome as an example of "not changing lives" isn't really a good idea. Rome perhaps was one of the few (if there were more than one) ancient empires that spread its culture throughout its empire very effectively, creating the phenomenon of the Later Empire, referred to as the "Inside-Out Empire", in which the provincials were actually "more Roman" than the actual Italians. Gaul had the best Latin grammar schools of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the greatest of the later Emperors and the best scholars came from regions that before the coming of Rome were about as backwater as you can get, but after the Empire was created went to the forefront through a combination of very effective cultural assimilation (hell, everybody wanted to be Roman, speak Latin, all that jazz) and Roman economic expansion. Hell, in four hundred years Rome did a better job making the current inhabitants of Wales into Romano-Britons than the Anglo-Saxons have done in a millennium and a
half.

I think that most empires with the truly awesome impacts tended to do the same thing. The Mesopotamian empires were all modeled on a single pattern which was established with Sargon of Akkad, if I recall correctly. Something like that, anyway. China, obviously, was homogenized by the Qin Dynasty to an absurd degree; India by the Maurya, much less so. The Arabs created a fusion of Arab, Byzantine, and Persian cultures which they spread throughout their empire, and we all know how monolithic that particular bloc still is.

Then you get the opposite extreme: the old Persian Empire, which worked marvelously, but once it collapsed, really didn't make much of an impact on the rest of the world. Or the minor barbarian states which fell apart when they were nudged by the outside world.

I read in a book that native peoples with negroid dna met native Americans with Caucasian DNA in the Valley of Mexico.

Eh... no. Most of the stuff that sounds like its new and revolutionary is patently false. The reason why it seems so new is because no one conceived of it before -- because there's no basis in fact.

 

[Sharwood]

Oxymoron!

Fine. Modern ethnic theories? Genetic theories? What do you want?

Ummm, innonumatu, I don't see anything there I disagree with. Or that disagrees with anything I wrote, aside from the fact that you don't agree on the skin/hair colour of the Incas. Which the chroniclers of the 16th century did call attention to. What do you think all those books I read were referencing? Reports from Spanish soldiers, sailors and missionaries.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

The quipu served as a system of writing; and the Aztecs certainly had it as well.

I'm not so sure. Researchers who study the field have a pretty definite idea of what qualifies as a system of writing and what doesn't. Alot of proto-writing systems started as a means of accounting and grew into something bigger. But just because you have written symbols denoting giving a certain meaning does not mean that you have a written language. I'm not certain, but I think the quipu is more considered proto-writing than an actual written language.

The Aztecs had a written language of course, but the Mayans were the only ones with an alphabet.

 

[Sharwood]

I'm not so sure. Researchers who study the field have a pretty definite idea of what qualifies as a system of writing and what doesn't. Alot of proto-writing systems started as a means of accounting and grew into something bigger. But just because you have written symbols denoting giving a certain meaning does not mean that you have a written language. I'm not certain, but I think the quipu is more considered proto-writing than an actual written language.

The Aztecs had a written language of course, but the Mayans were the only ones with an alphabet.

Writing existed in Peru prior to the Incas, but was abandoned. Legendarily it was banned by a per-Inca emperor, likely because the literate class was the biggest threat to his personal power.

 

[North King]

I'm not so sure. Researchers who study the field have a pretty definite idea of what qualifies as a system of writing and what doesn't. Alot of proto-writing systems started as a means of accounting and grew into something bigger. But just because you have written symbols denoting giving a certain meaning does not mean that you have a written language. I'm not certain, but I think the quipu is more considered proto-writing than an actual written language.

That was the consensus for a long time, but that's being changed in recent years. Nowadays, it appears the quipu was a lot more than an accounting system, a memory device, or anything of that sort. It seems like it was indeed writing; I believe it was mentioned earlier in the thread that we've discovered it being used for literature and that sort of thing. The reason why we didn't recognize it as such for so long was because it was so alien: we merely have shapes on a 2D surface. In quipu, it seems like color, placement of the knots, and length of the strings all had a part -- it was a 3D writing system with several layers of complexity.

The Aztecs had a written language of course, but the Mayans were the only ones with an alphabet.

I can't comment; I've never even seen written Nahuatl.

 

[innonimatu]

Or that disagrees with anything I wrote, aside from the fact that you don't agree on the skin/hair colour of the Incas. Which the chroniclers of the 16th century did call attention to. What do you think all those books I read were referencing? Reports from Spanish soldiers, sailors and missionaries.

I am curious about the sources cited on those books, if you could post some I might check them. As far as I could find the inca were not different from the rest of the population. And they certainly had no recent eurasian origin, because their cultural development can be traced to previous local civilizations centuries old by the time the Inca Empire started.

 

[North King]

What do you think all those books I read were referencing? Reports from Spanish soldiers, sailors and missionaries.

That's strange, since mainstream historians who reference those exact same sources mention nothing of the kind.

 

[Cutlass]

Peoples who have spent 1000s of years isolated or semi isolated in tropical climates tend to dark skin because people with dark skin are more likely to have healthy children under those conditions. So native Americans of the tropical regions and people of Indonesia and New Guinea and Australia can be separated from people in Africa for 20, 30, 40 thousand years and have little genetic connection and be just as dark of skin and hair.