Inca Alternative Leader

[Henri Christophe]

I'm tired of Pachacuti in every game and I will make a list of possibles replacements:
1-Manco Cápac I, the first one. He is propably a semi-mythical leader

2-Túpac Yupanqui, son of Pachacuti, he made an amazing voyage to the Eastern island in Pacific Ocean

3- Huayna Cápac, the last Inca before the arrival of Spaniards. He controls the empire in the maximum esplendor.

4- Manco Cápac II, he fight against the spaniards and survive a long side them in a small kingdom now called Incas from Vicabamba

5-Túpac Amaru I, the last Inca ever existed. He was killed by Spaniards.

6-Túpac Amaru II, he try to revive the Inca empire but failed.

 

[awesome]

Huayna Capac was in civ4, so that’s a pretty good possibility.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Huayna Capac was in civ4, so that’s a pretty good possibility.

That's who I wanted in Civ 6, so I naturally voted for him.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Huayna Capac is a cool name, but I would prefer Tupac Yupanqui because his amazing voyage to the Easter Island, maybe have the Incas with some Unique Unit as boats would be an intersting way to play with they.

 

[Evie]

I'd rather focus on the leaders whose historical accomplishments we know, as opposed to those whose accomplishments are likely legend.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'd rather focus on the leaders whose historical accomplishments we know, as opposed to those whose accomplishments are likely legend.

Are you saying the Tupac Yupanqui voyage to the Eastern Island is a myth?
I don't think it is a legend, they even build a monument in Eastern Island called Ahu Vinapú

in the left side of this picture is possible to see a Moai and in the right side there is a typical Inca construction. That is the most contudent prove that the Incas arrived in Eastern Island.

 

[awesome]

Oh, Easter Island. I read “eastern island in Pacific Ocean” and was like, “but the Pacific is to the west”

 

[Evie]

The vast majority of scholars consider the trip to Easter Island (well, the trip to the western islands, we're not even sure which islands they're supposed to be from the actual legend) is a legend, yes.

The idea that Ahu Vinapu is Peruvian stonework seems to be the theory of one man, not scholarly consensus. Even if it were, it would not follow that the Peruvians in question were necessarily Tupac Yupanqui's people.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The vast majority of scholars consider the trip to Easter Island (well, the trip to the western islands, we're not even sure which islands they're supposed to be from the actual legend) is a legend, yes.

The idea that Ahu Vinapu is Peruvian stonework seems to be the theory of one man, not scholarly consensus. Even if it were, it would not follow that the Peruvians in question were necessarily Tupac Yupanqui's people.

I need to disagree with you, it is not a legend.
There is a lot of Youtubers who explain very well this issue as:

Also there is some books about, you can buy it in Amazon.

There is at least 4 chronist who wrote about this voyage, of course this chronist don't speak exactly about the Easter Island, but used the Inca names for the island instead, Auachumbi and Ninachumbi.
These chronist also speak about Black people in Panama, and the only reasonable explanation for this black people in Americas before the arrival of Europeans is a Trans-Pacific voyage from the area of Melanesia, in Oceania.
Tupac Yupanqui isn't the first American to do this kind of voyage, instead this a very well know rote by people from nowadays Equador who was conquered by Tupac Yupanqui..

Other evidence is about two kinds of Potatos which is just found in Americas is found also in the islands of Oceania, one of this potato in Inca language is called Kumara, the same name is used by the habitants of Easter Island and New Zealand.

Speaking about legend, there is legends in Easter Island about a king who came from the east to the island.
And to prove that was a possible voyage, a dude from Europe made it with Inca technology, his voyage is called kon tiki

And the most astonish evidence is Ahu Vinapú, as I said before, is very clear a Inca construction in the Easter Island.

If you still believe it's a legend, please share some sources.

 

[Evie]

Let's be clear.

i'm not saying comtacts between Pacific Islands and the continent are a legend. The legend of Tupac Yupanqui mention merchants from the west; that part of it is plausible. We don't have absolute certainty, but it seems reasonably believable that there were, in fact, merchants traveling between the coast and neighboring islands.

But did the Inca, Tupac Yupanqui, make the journey himself? That part has all the markings of a legend. The idea of a ruler vanishing for a year on a sea journey is an extraordinary claim that requires equally extraordinary evidence which we don't have. Chronicles written long after the fact are not sufficently reliable in that regard.

A much more plausible interpretation of the legend given available evidence is that Tupac Yupanqui ordered an expedition sent to those islands under some notable member of his court (who may have been understood as a king by those people he visited) to visit islands off the coast of Peru (which islands, we can't say for sure) and that over time oral history confused Yupanqui sending out the expedition with Yupanqui leading the expedition himself. That doesn't mean this happened, it just means this is plausible.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Let's be clear.

i'm not saying comtacts between Pacific Islands and the continent are a legend. The legend of Tupac Yupanqui mention merchants from the west; that part of it is plausible. We don't have absolute certainty, but it seems reasonably believable that there were, in fact, merchants traveling between the coast and neighboring islands.

But did the Inca, Tupac Yupanqui, make the journey himself? That part has all the markings of a legend. The idea of a ruler vanishing for a year on a sea journey is an extraordinary claim that requires equally extraordinary evidence which we don't have. Chronicles written long after the fact are not sufficently reliable in that regard.

A much more plausible interpretation of the legend given available evidence is that Tupac Yupanqui ordered an expedition sent to those islands under some notable member of his court (who may have been understood as a king by those people he visited) to visit islands off the coast of Peru (which islands, we can't say for sure) and that over time oral history confused Yupanqui sending out the expedition with Yupanqui leading the expedition himself. That doesn't mean this happened, it just means this is plausible.

At the time of voyage, Tupac Yupanqui was just a prince. The ruler of the kingdom was Pachacuti. So, if it is to send someone notable member of his court, why don't send his son? and future Inca emperor.
Chronicles can be write their chorincs before the event, but that don't mean isn't a realiable source. If we start to not believe in chronics, even Pachacuti it self should be a legend (the only sources about him is chronicles write before his death)

And Yupanqui isn't the only king who makes voyages into the great ocean, Mansa Abubakari II, from the Mali Empire, also made his voyage and we are sure his made it because he don't come back.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, and Abu Bakr II's journey is also considered highly questionable by historians.

How much evidence is needed depends on how extraordinary the claim is. An ordinary claim - say "Pachacuti ruled the Inca Empire for 55 years" doesn't require much evidence: we know the Inca Empire existed, we have plenty of evidence of its system of governance, so obviously there was a ruler and he had a name. If sources tell us the name was Pachacuti, we have no reason to disbelieve that. A chronicle, even one written years later from oral history, can be a sufficent basis to accept Pachacuti

But grander claims - say "Pachacuti led an army of 500 who defeated 50 000 adversaries in one pitched battle" require grander evidence, and there a chronicle written centuries after the fact may no longer be enough.

That definitely goes for claims of oceanic expeditions. They are very significant claim and require very significant evidence.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

And Yupanqui isn't the only king who makes voyages into the great ocean, Mansa Abubakari II, from the Mali Empire, also made his voyage and we are sure his made it because he don't come back.

He may very well have discovered the ocean floor! One also doesn't come back from there. What we would need as evidence for a Malian settlement in the Americas would be an archaeological site. Of all the precolumbian voyages, claimed by Celtic explorers, Norse explorers, Chinese explorers, and Malian voyages, we have only one site - the Norse site in Newfoundland, which seems to be a temporary fishing site.

Other voyages rest on claims that particular artifacts "look like" artifacts from an Old World site, or various stories. But these rest on creative interpretations by people relatively unfamiliar with both cultures, and driven by either nationalist claims or claims to fame. I might say, for instance, that Georgian script looks like Burmese script (a more plausible claim given that the two societies are not - relatively speaking - THAT far apart spatially, and linked by trade routes through India), but familiarity with either writing system lets us know that this is in fact not the case. So it is with claims that Olmec heads "look" African, or that markings on Olmec sites "look" Chinese, or that pottery "looks" Japanese. The less one knows about a culture, the more it "looks like" something else - here, this is where expertise really counts. Same thing with stories - when indigenous people remark that they have been visited by other distant travelers at other times; they may be speaking metaphorically, religiously, or about New World peoples. To completely verify such a claim would require hard archaeological evidence. Indeed, in Abu Bakr II's case, the interpretation before recent times was that he sailed away to pave the way for a more competent Mansa.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But grander claims - say "Pachacuti led an army of 500 who defeated 50 000 adversaries in one pitched battle" require grander evidence, and there a chronicle written centuries after the fact may no longer be enough.

Pachacuti defeat the Chancas in one pitched battle, is impossible to know the numbers, but the Chancas was surrounding Cusco by a big numbers of mans and Pachacuti assuming the leadership of Inca empire defeat the Chancas with less mens.
Is it also a fiction? Because is that the why Pachacuti became famous, if we start to don't believe in chronist who tell this history, Pachacuti should don't lead Inca empire never more.

That definitely goes for claims of oceanic expeditions. They are very significant claim and require very significant evidence

I gave a lot of evidences of, at least, a estable maritime route between South America and Easter Island before of europeans arrival. And you just discredits it without showing any source or evidence.
For me Ahu Vinapú still the bigest evidence of Incas in Easter Island. What more is needed to this history became true?

He may very well have discovered the ocean floor! One also doesn't come back from there. What we would need as evidence for a Malian settlement in the Americas would be an archaeological site. Of all the precolumbian voyages, claimed by Celtic explorers, Norse explorers, Chinese explorers, and Malian voyages, we have only one site - the Norse site in Newfoundland, which seems to be a temporary fishing site.

On that I agree. Abu Bakr II propably died in his voyage before arrive in Americas, there is no Mali settlement in Americas and any legend, in Americas, of a Black voyager that come from the East.
The black population of Panama, before of Europeans arrival, propably come from Oceania and not Africa. The Garifunas (a back community of Caribean) propably was survivials of a ship of trans atlantic slave trade and native americans with Mali heritage in Brazil propably had this heritage from slavery time (where Mali was also envolved).

Chinese legend of 1421 arrival in Americas is a fake history, they indeed go to far places as Africa, but without Chinese governement support don't arrive in Americas.

So it is with claims that Olmec heads "look" African

About the Olmec question, they indeed are very similar to Africans. The area where Olmec lives the people have a darker skin and have the issue of Olmec-Xicalanca people who was painted as black.

I know Olmecs, and Olmec-Xicalanca isn't the same people.
But the Olmec-Xicalanca lived a while in Olmec lands before they mix with Xicalanca people and migrate to center Mexico, where there culture change.

 

[Patine]

He may very well have discovered the ocean floor! One also doesn't come back from there. What we would need as evidence for a Malian settlement in the Americas would be an archaeological site. Of all the precolumbian voyages, claimed by Celtic explorers, Norse explorers, Chinese explorers, and Malian voyages, we have only one site - the Norse site in Newfoundland, which seems to be a temporary fishing site.

Don't forget the Hebrew explorers and colonists and Joseph Smith, Jr. made on their behalf.

On that I agree. Abu Bakr II propably died in his voyage before arrive in Americas, there is no Mali settlement in Americas and any legend, in Americas, of a Black voyager that come from the East.
The black population of Panama, before of Europeans arrival, propably come from Oceania and not Africa. The Garifunas (a back community of Caribean) propably was survivials of a ship of trans atlantic slave trade and native americans with Mali heritage in Brazil propably had this heritage from slavery time (where Mali was also envolved).

Chinese legend of 1421 arrival in Americas is a fake history, they indeed go to far places as Africa, but without Chinese governement support don't arrive in Americas.

About the Olmec question, they indeed are very similar to Africans. The area where Olmec lives the people have a darker skin and have the issue of Olmec-Xicalanca people who was painted as black.

I know Olmecs, and Olmec-Xicalanca isn't the same people.
But the Olmec-Xicalanca lived a while in Olmec lands before they mix with Xicalanca people and migrate to center Mexico, where there culture change.

You've obviously completely forgotten (or disregarded) the issue myself and several others were bringing up over a year ago on this issue about symbolic uses of dyes in these pictures, or due to rarity or commonality of their components, and the literary descriptions of people that use colours or non-colours (ESPECIALLY, "white," and, "black,") as adjectives usually refer to completely different traits or references to what they do in modern socio-anthropological terminology.

 

[Henri Christophe]

You've obviously completely forgotten (or disregarded) the issue myself and several others were bringing up over a year ago on this issue about symbolic uses of dyes in these pictures, or due to rarity or commonality of their components, and the literary descriptions of people that use colours or non-colours (ESPECIALLY, "white," and, "black,") as adjectives usually refer to completely different traits or references to what they do in modern socio-anthropological terminology.

Maybe the Olmecs-Xicalanca isn't so black as an African, but they have a darker skin and was proud of it
Even today, people from south mexico have darker skin than north mexico, and it have roots of Native Americans of north who has light skin in comparasion of south Native Americans.
This picture of Cacaxtla is very ilustrative.

On the left side there is a white dude and the right side there is a black dude.
In the middle there are peoples without black-dye. Exactly in the middle have a dark skin dude (looking to the right) with his legs with black dye.
Olmecs xicalanda aren't black, but used dye to be more dark, but they are darker than other native americans, as the guy in the left side.


But, this thread is not about Olmecs, it is about Incas. If you want to discuss this matter you can go to this thread:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/blacks-outside-africa.668832/
or
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/olmecs-not-a-major-civ.665811/

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Just chiming back in to say that there is increasing evidence of more seafaring within indigenous communities in the Americas in history - especially coastal movement down from the Arctic at dates much prior to earlier assumptions, so, while I don't fully subscribe to Inca on Rapa Nui, at least not yet, I know enough not to underestimate indigenous/Pacific links. And the point about the varied appearances of indigenous groups, too, is well-taken (though, again, one must also consider symbolic explanations or decorative dye or paint). Race, as we know it, is a cultural formation and recognizable phenotypic "categories" wouldn't have been recognizable to us tens of thousands of years ago.

I mostly wanted to jump on to talk about pre-Columbian indigenous contact, but it seems like we're all on the same page!

 

[Patine]

Maybe the Olmecs-Xicalanca isn't so black as an African, but they have a darker skin and was proud of it
Even today, people from south mexico have darker skin than north mexico, and it have roots of Native Americans of north who has light skin in comparasion of south Native Americans.
This picture of Cacaxtla is very ilustrative.

On the left side there is a white dude and the right side there is a black dude.
In the middle there are peoples without black-dye. Exactly in the middle have a dark skin dude (looking to the right) with his legs with black dye.
Olmecs xicalanda aren't black, but used dye to be more dark, but they are darker than other native americans, as the guy in the left side.


But, this thread is not about Olmecs, it is about Incas. If you want to discuss this matter you can go to this thread:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/blacks-outside-africa.668832/
or
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/olmecs-not-a-major-civ.665811/

You completely ignored - again - the ancient tendencies of usage, and commonality and scarcity, of various dyes in picture-drawing, and the very different symbolisms VERY often attributed to chromatic descriptions of people than modern socio-anthropological uses of such descriptives - and went RIGHT BACK to a literalist, modern-view-race-based rendition taken at face value, as though the picture were a photograph. This is a VERY bad habit of yours, and one that has often been called out by numerous posters, here.

 

[Evie]

Frankly if the claim was simply that Incan sailors sailed to Rapa Nui, I would have no problem with it. I may not consider it proven beyond doubt, but it's plausible enough that I'm willing to accept it.

It's the specific notion of the royal family leading the expedition themselves that I ask for much stronger evidence on.

And regarding that battle: did Pachacuti lead a battle against the Chanca? That's a plausible enough claim, so yes. Archaeology can also sustain the expansion of the Incan empire.

But I wouldn't trust the chronicles about how many men fought on which side in that batte. Then again, I don't trust troop numbers for Marathon, or even Agincourt.

 

[Patine]

Frankly if the claim was simply that Incan sailors sailed to Rapa Nui, I would have no problem with it. I may not consider it proven beyond doubt, but it's plausible enough that I'm willing to accept it.

It's the specific notion of the royal family leading the expedition themselves that I ask for much stronger evidence on.

And regarding that battle: did Pachacuti lead a battle against the Chanca? That's a plausible enough claim, so yes. Archaeology can also sustain the expansion of the Incan empire.

But I wouldn't trust the chronicles about how many men fought on which side in that battle. Then again, I don't trust Herodotus or most other ancient sources about troop numbers, either, I don't trust troop numbers for Marathon, or even Agincourt for that matter, either.

There's also the story in Sikh Scripture where 30 Sikh Warriors held out against, and defeated, some ridiculously overwhelming number of Afghans.