WI: The Spanish didn't conquer the Inca Empire? How things would evolve to the Inca?

Portugal did send the most colonists to the New World than any other European nation in the 18th century, so it all depends on whether the Gold Rush still happens to attract Portuguese migrants, and whether the good weather of OTL Buenos Aires attracts further Portuguese migration in the 19th century (when population growth in Portugal accelerates).
Oh I was mostly talking about the coast itself. It's a really long stretch of land from the La Plata river to Grão-Pará.

Portugal had no such territorial claim on Argentina or the surrounding area that they ceded, and unlike Portugal with the Philippines (who didn't really care about the islands given the lack of spices there), the Spanish would care due to the aforementioned silver discovered and could contest the claim on a much stronger basis than Portugal with the Philippines.
I mean, they (Portuguese) did end up wanting it and settled in Colónia de Sacramento anyway. Wars and treaties succeed one another and it ended up not coming to be, but they actually managed to stablish quite a foothold on it before losing it at last (not counting the invasion of Uruguay during the Napoleonic Wars).
 
the first exploration of the plate took place by a Portuguese was by Magalhaes in the 16th century
yeah i know but despite all the years of headstart the portugese made no attempts of settelment since 1512 even after the spanish begun in the otl and by no means secure in 1530s the portugese nevertried to compete with them
Perhaps, Buenos Aires only survived after 1580, and this depends on the viability of Asuncion. This is the city that allowed the colonization of the Plata basin.
i do agree with this but given how the settelment was alone as the spanish did not extend from peru and chile east until decades the only thing is that the spanish would have to consider it imporant to send more men another thing is the spanish can get a foothold in chile which is not impossible even if they fail to take over peru
 
16th or 17th?
16th
I guess depending on if the Iberian Union still exists ITTL,
Crato winning against Philip in the dispute for the throne is something very interesting.
the portugese nevertried to compete with them
They tried but they had other more serious problems. Buenos Aires established itself as a city in 1580 and like @Taunay said it only became viable due to trade with Brazil. Assuming that due to the lack of commerce, the city takes longer to settle. And if we exclude the Portuguese from the initial dispute, the Bandeirantes arrived in the region and began to carry out their operations in 1620. I don't see it as something that Spain has with certainty.
spanish would have to consider it imporant to send more men another
A lot more, the region was very hostile in that century.
thing is the spanish can get a foothold in chile which is not impossible even if they fail to take over peru
Maybe Chile can be colonized but I think if that happens the Spanish will start moving towards Peru. After all, that is the region that has value.
 
I would say that the union or not of Spain and Portugal will be vital to this discussion.
I don't see why the Iberian Union would be butterflied by Spain not conquering Peru, but... Considering that I'm even talking about Spain while writing a timeline where it doesn't exist (as we know it), sure why the hell not...
How about we go with the non-existence of the Iberian Union, then? It sounds like the most interesting scenario, since it opens the gates for a stronger Portuguese Empire that doesn't get entangled with Spain's shit in Europe and quite possibly doesn't lose its place to the Dutch... for the time being at least.
 
If the Inca Empire remains unconquered, then I can see Panama become a very important province, as it can be used as a point for Spanish and Incan traders to trade with each other. Also, on the topic of modernization, I can see the Inca giving great importance to learning how to work iron.
 
But I didn't know that it had such an influence on the city's survival.
There's an excellent book by Alice Canabrava that talks about Portuguese commerce in Buenos Aires and how important it was to the maintenance and survival of the city. There was a Buenos Aires governor (I forgot who, but if anyone's interested I can try to find the source) that claimed something along the lines of "trade with Brazil is essential to the survival of Buenos Aires, and the city would've been left to waste without it"
 
They tried but they had other more serious problems. Buenos Aires established itself as a city in 1580 and like @Taunay said it only became viable due to trade with Brazil. Assuming that due to the lack of commerce, the city takes longer to settle. And if we exclude the Portuguese from the initial dispute, the Bandeirantes arrived in the region and began to carry out their operations in 1620. I don't see it as something that Spain has with certainty.
i was more talking about asuncion and given this otl if the region becomes an area of trade having asuncion is a foothold already its no guarantee of course
A lot more, the region was very hostile in that century.
it was hence why im so suprised asuncion survived.
Maybe Chile can be colonized but I think if that happens the Spanish will start moving towards Peru. After all, that is the region that has value.
i mean unless they get to a point were they just take over chile but fail to move to peru even then like the otl it would take time
 
I don't see why the Iberian Union would be butterflied by Spain not conquering Peru
Crato had English, Dutch and French support so some butterflies like not conquering Peru could change that.
s for a stronger Portuguese Empire that doesn't get entangled with Spain's shit in Europe
If you want the opposite aka a weak Portugal, France wins the dispute for Brazil, and the country is unified with Spain.
it was hence why im so suprised asuncion survived.
Yes, the number of cities they tried to found that collapsed was ridiculous when compared to the rest of the continent.
i mean unless they get to a point were they just take over chile but fail to move to peru even then like the otl it would take time
maybe, but I would say that an attack from two sides, one from Colombia/Ecuador and the other from Chile, has a great chance of succeeding.
There's an excellent book by Alice Canabrava
is that book "O COMÉRCIO PORTUGUÊS NO PRATA"?
 
Crato had English, Dutch and French support so some butterflies like not conquering Peru could change that.
Still doesn't change the fact that the King of Portugal went on a sidequest in Morocco and fucking died lmao. Though, your answer implies other possible contenders other than the Habsburgs
If you want the opposite aka a weak Portugal, France wins the dispute for Brazil, and the country is unified with Spain.
Hah! No, that timeline is nothing but a Portuguese wank (with a French wank side effect), but I'll make a note somewhere for a later timeline. Thx!
Time for a new read!!!
 
Still doesn't change the fact that the King of Portugal went on a sidequest in Morocco and fucking died lmao.
he wasn't the smartest person
Though, your answer implies other possible contenders other than the Habsburgs
Crato from a bastard lineage was supported by other Western European powers to prevent Spanish strengthening.
No, that timeline is nothing but a Portuguese wank (with a French wank side effect),
It's a Portuguese wank if they manage to hold the monopoly against the Dutch advance. If they lose, it's only Sad Portugal, because they will probably lose their colonies in Africa to countries like France and the Netherlands.
 
Crato from a bastard lineage was supported by other Western European powers to prevent Spanish strengthening.
It's at times like this that I really have to ask "How the fuck did you know that and how do you just have it hanging around in your mind?", but then I remember the name of this forum, so it's only natural someone knows about it.
 
maybe, but I would say that an attack from two sides, one from Colombia/Ecuador and the other from Chile, has a great chance of succeeding.
not really i mean from chile you got the biggest driest place in the world so attacking bolivia makes more sense in land but the again bolivia is full of places to get a natural border same with ecuador rivers and mountians make for good defenses unless you meant use chile as naval base for operations in peru
 
there’s a couple of key points to understand regarding the “inca conquest” period to then speculate a bit on what happens.

For one, the conquest wasn’t done solely by force or by imposing oneself over the other. What Pizarro, like with hernan cortez had was a good ability to make alliances, and these alliances proved vital when the crown of Spain eventually decided to take over pizarro and almagro’s lands. And that‘s sort of the thing as well, the conquista was a private enterprise and while it had permission from the crown to go to the new world to find places to evangelize, it did not fund a cent to any of the conquistadores.

But essentially the inca and the spanish were allied by hand, and the place became by the official title of “the kingdoms of Peru”. The 24 royal panacas retained all their power, land, riches throughout the entirety of the viceroyalty period and made to be on the same level as the nobles over at Spain. Alongside the fact that spain during this time at the hapsburg period being a composite monarchy, giving the viceroyalty a level of autonomy as if it were its own thing. And given that it is so far away from the peninsula, that is essentially what occured anyways.

But now if we are talking about having no spanish in the picture, we would have to also consider the time period and context from which Pizarro got there. Atahualpa and Huascar were having a brutal civil war, and two of Atahualpa’s generals quizquiz and chalcuchimac had made a massacre out of the city of cuzco. This city being of course the capital of the huascarists, and huascar himself ended up imprisoned and his wives and children were murdered before him. Atahualpa had at this point essentially won and what he did next was making the trek from his base at Quito towards Cuzco to crown himself Inca and end the fiasco of a civil war. It was then that in OTL pizarro and his men were at Cajamarca, and Atahualpa goes there to visit ”the bearded men from floating houses”. The problem Atahualpa had though was that he was curious yet nout cautious, and he walked into cajamarca not with his troops but with dancers and other non-military men which lended him getting captured.

From here we have some interesting points. If the pizarrists were not there when this happened, Atahualpa would have finished his trek to cuzco, murdered huascar and crowned himself inca. Yet the fact that his curiousness came with that level of confidence that he didnt enter cajamarca armed, does mean if any other conquistador arrives at the very least he might get himself injured. Though if we go by history, some portuguese had already made an expedition with guarani to topple the inca when Huayna Capac was inca. The latter wouldve just said “get rid of these fools”, and this is why those conquistadores are forgotten from history.

But this also brings up the sort of thing happening within the time period. Since the conquista was a private enterprise, itd mean there would be multiple conquistadores with different goals and different men, etc. For example, Diego de Almagro was another conquistador that arrived to the incan territory but After Atahualpa was executed. He had missed his chance of getting gold already and as a result were some of the financially poorest conquistadores of this time, but pizarro had told him that south of cuzco he could own all that there. He ended up finding one of the driest deserts in the world (the atacama), and so comes back furiously to declare war on pizarro which resulted not only in both conquistadores’ death. It also ended up with the crown of spain intervening and creating the viceroyalty of the kingdoms of peru that we now know.

But that’s another interesting point to bring up wouldn’t it? Given that Pizarro before his feud with Almagro was already building lima, yet did not have an entire viceroyalty in name like in OTL. How would have this resulted in the long run if that disastrous war between conquistadores didn’t happen?

Because that’s sort of the thing as well since it was thanks to the spanish that the many ethnicities of the viceroyalty of peru got hospitals, universities, and all these other amenities that did indeed benefit the everyday populace. The local curacas of each place would end up doing so much of the work for spain without spain lifting a finger even by just baptizing themselves, as when one leader baptizes or does one act all the other followed. If we are talking about the inca without this, not only are we taking away this but also taking away the unity. The inca leading the viceroyalty of peru had their biggest expansion in land ever, and the peace within said territory was most unseen all the way up until Tupac Amaru II in the borbon dynasty era. Without this the inca would have to still contend with the ethnicities, by themselves, without any alliance glue that the spanish had provided. Added to this any chance that there couldnt be another great civil war eventually.

One other effect that I think is interesting to look at, is that china and other places like india would now then be with a significantly less influx of silver which would most definitely have some sort of effect. The mines at Potosi being no longer a thing would have an effect on the spanish empire surely, but also these other places that traded the silver wouldve been provided with less of it.

Overall its an interesting discussion especially knowing the nitty griddy to think on what couldve potentially happened.
 
If we are talking about the inca without this, not only are we taking away this but also taking away the unity. The inca leading the viceroyalty of peru had their biggest expansion in land ever, and the peace within said territory was most unseen all the way up until Tupac Amaru II in the borbon dynasty era. Without this the inca would have to still contend with the ethnicities, by themselves, without any alliance glue that the spanish had provided. Added to this any chance that there couldnt be another great civil war eventually.
It was thinking like this essentially that it first came to my mind the idea of the Inca Empire just collapsing at a later date. It isn't exactly unprecedented that a conquering empire might last for a few centuries before essentially collapsing into successor states. The time between the start of the expansion of the Inca Empire to its assimilation into the Spanish Empire is essentially only a century at best and, while its institutions survived under the Kingdom of Peru, those lands did become a part of Spain's Colonial Empire and went on to evolve into something else. It isn't like the Inca had a perfectly homogeneous ethnical population, religious and linguistic unity. It does make me ponder if it could really last for as long as the other people in this threat estimated.
I wonder if an analogy can be made between the Incas and other similar multiethnic empires. While they were certainly no Aztecs, in the sense that they weren't horrible overlords, does it really mean that it wouldn't fragment a century or two after the arrival of the Europeans? What about its successor states, would they be able to resist colonization like the Incas are presumed to be able to do?
 
does it really mean that it wouldn't fragment a century or two after the arrival of the Europeans? What about its successor states, would they be able to resist colonization like the Incas are presumed to be able to do?
Rome would actually be the best comparison like Rome the Inca tried to integrate the people given time quechua will be like latin in the sense that while local language survive but latin became the language of everything
also even in religion Rome managed to co opt Christianity so much so that later on to be roman was to be christian the Inca can also incorporate it the Spanish arrival and the plagues they bring will essentially be the Inca equivalent of the crisis of the third century
 
Last edited:
Rome would actually be the best comparison like Rome the Inca tried to integrate the people given time quechua will be like latin in the sense that while local language survive latin and an inca identity also even in religion Rome managed to co opt Christianity so much so that later on to be roman was to be christian the Inca can also incorporate it the Spanish arrival and the plagues they bring will essentially be the Inca equivalent of the crisis of the third century
I am not so sure about this comparison. I don't know how well researched this video from Costas Melas is, but the "Quechua II-b" is essentially the official language of the Empire and, much different from Rome, it didn't quite follow the same spread pattern as Latin did with the other Italic languages around it. In fact, it actually appeared to spread more easily outside the areas occupied by its language family. I don't know if this is a good correlation, it is only language and not Inca culture in of itself, but language does play an important role in culture after all.
Linguistic divisions can lead to further division in other departments.
(I had 9 minutes to think this over and now I'm feeling like I just made a really idiotic argument)
 
Last edited:
Top