An eye for an eye: G.B. supports a successfull Peruvian rebellion in 1780-1783

As you know, Spain supported North American “rebels” during the ARW. Britain would do the same during the first decade of the XIX century, without much success [1]. Eventually, the Spanish colonies would rebel themselves in 1810, but, since GB was by then an ally of Spain, she couldn’t openly support the rebels, as Spain and France had done during the ARW (of course, she tacitely backed them by not helping Spain in reconquering her lost territories after 1815). Britain wouldn’t officialy recognize the independence of Spanish American countries till well advanced the 1820ies.

But what if Tupac Amaru II’s rebellion had been slightly more succesful?

José Gabriel Condorcanqui (1740-1781) was a direct descendant of the last Incan King (Tupac Amaru). In 1780, he rebelled against the new taxes introduced by the Bourbon Kings (which added yet another weight over the already heavy load carried by the Indians on their shoulders). Condorcanqui was a relatively wealthy and a well-educated cacique (the Spaniards had established a hierarchical system in which some caciques, especially those of Incan descent, enjoyed several privilages; some of them where even made nobles). José proclaimed himself legitimate Monarch of the Land, renamed himself “Tupac Amaru II”, and led a revolutionary movement which, at least initially, had the support not only of the oppressed Indians, but also of many mestizos and Criollos [2]. The rebels achieved a great victory at the Battle of Sangara, but they failed to take Cuzco. Tupac had also a lot of trouble in mantaining the cohesion and discipline of his army: the “excesses” comited by Indians after their victory against the symbols of Spanish authorities allienated him the support of a lot of the Criollos. He was eventually beaten, captured, tortured and executed.

But what if his army was able to take Cuzco, AND he were able to keep his troops under control, so the city isn’t sacked??? IOTL, the rebellion got so much support outside its original area that it lasted well beyond Tupac Amaru’s death, and had reprecussions in areas which had never been part of the Incan empire, such as western Chaco (present day Argentina). Let’s say that after taking Cuzco his ally Tupac Katari lays siege to La Paz (as IOTL) and takes it. This would get Tupac Amaru control of a huge area, heavilly populated and full of mineral resources, encompassing what’s now Southwesterm Perú and Eastern Bolivia. His program, which proposed the abolition of unpopular taxes, might get him the support of Creoles (I know it’s whishfull thinking, but maybe this could compensate them for the suppresion of all forms Indian forced labour, from which they had proffited since the conquest)

So, the questions I’d like to ask are:

1) Could Tupac Amaru II have consolidated a viable state?

2) Could he have made contact with the British, and got their support? It’s hard, but maybe this could have been achieved somehow, either by the rebels getting control of part of the Pacific coast, or through Portuguese Brazil. There are some rumours that he had to British advisors IOTL, but these might be rumours spread by the Spaniards in Perú in order to undermine his prestige.

3) If 1) and 2) are answered affirmatively, how big would his state be?. I don’t think Chile and most of Argentina would join, for example, as, at least in the Eastern part of Argentina, there weren’t that many Indians used as forced workers, and I don’t see much support for the rebellion. In fact, the Vicerroy of the River Plate, established in Buenos Aires dent troops to supress it.

4) How would this state develop? IOTL, after the failure of the rebelion, Perú was a very conservative society. Its elites in Lima where so comfortable with the Spanish rule that it had to be liberated from abroad (from the South by San Martin and from the North by Bolivar). Even after the independence of the Country, the Coast kept dominting over the western “Sierras”, and the Indians kept been treated badly for more than a century. But how would this ATL Peru have developped? Could Tupac Amaru II and his successors have created an armonious society between Indians, Mestizos and Criollos (maybe using Catholicism as an unifying force, since he wasn’t against Chistianity)? If not, how would this society evolved? Which group would lead? Or would there be total anarchy?

Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?

Notes:

[1] Miranda’s expedition to Venezuela cannot be called a success

[2] Criollos: people of Spanish descent born in the New world
 
Last edited:
I do like this scenario, particularly since it overlaps with the Revolutionary War.

(They can do this without starting a new war, since they're already AT war)
 
I don't think Tupac Amaruc would be able to control his troops, aka irregular vengeful ex-slaves, so I don't think he can get support from the Creoles.
However, with British support and those few key military victories, he might have become king (aka Inka) of an independent/rebellious (depending in who tells the story) kindgom/empire encompassing current Bolivia, southern Peru and northern Chile, which would in turn deal a heavy blow to the Viceroyalty of the River Plate's economy - how are the Spanish going to deal with the River Plate in such an event, no idea.
I don't think he can expand it further - logistics, terrain and the lack of a competent cadre of officers will constrain him.
But although I can't see him getting support from the local elites, the presence of an independent Inca Kingdom cutting Spanish colonies in South America in two would have huge butterflies if said elites eventually make a go for independence. Could the Incas keep the Chuquisaca University and would the rich creoles choose to study there? Would the revolutionary governments try to get support from the Incas? Would the local troops be loyal to the Spanish, the locals, or would they mutiny trying to support the Incas? Would the Inca Kingdom survive Tupac Amaru's eventual death?
 
I don't think Tupac Amaruc would be able to control his troops, aka irregular vengeful ex-slaves, so I don't think he can get support from the Creoles.

How well-read was Tupac Amaruc?

We could always have the POD of him studying ancient Roman military history and then, should his ex-slave troops misbehave, he unleashes decimation.

(Dividing the troublemaking units into groups of ten and forcing nine of the ten men to kill the remaining one. There's a scene in the novel World War Z where the Russians use that and it is one of the most horrific scenes in the book.)
 
How well-read was Tupac Amaruc?

Well, he probably would have recieved an education similar to what was common in the late XVIII for people of rank. This would have implied knowledge of the Bible (in his speeches he often compared his struggle with the struggle between Mosses and the Pharaon, or David against Goliath) and of the Classical Antiquity.


We could always have the POD of him studying ancient Roman military history and then, should his ex-slave troops misbehave, he unleashes decimation.

(Dividing the troublemaking units into groups of ten and forcing nine of the ten men to kill the remaining one. There's a scene in the novel World War Z where the Russians use that and it is one of the most horrific scenes in the book.)

It could have worked, but, if done wrongly, he could have lost the support of his own followers, who might consider him a Tyrant worst than the Spaniards authorities they were fighting. When the Romans Centurions did this, they were following and established practice which the soldiers knew and accepted. Tupac Amaru would have to reintroduce a practice that his followers wewren't familiar with, and might have some trouble accepting.

Anyway, to know how likely the adoption of this practice is one would have to know Tupac Amaru's character.
 
However, with British support and those few key military victories, he might have become king (aka Inka) of an independent/rebellious (depending in who tells the story) kindgom/empire encompassing current Bolivia, southern Peru and northern Chile,

Yes, these seems the right limits of such a state.

which would in turn deal a heavy blow to the Viceroyalty of the River Plate's economy - how are the Spanish going to deal with the River Plate in such an event, no idea.

There are several possibilities. The Spanish might decide to reinforce their presence there and to boost the economy of the region in order to make up for the lose of their richest colonies. Or, they may consider the region isn't economically valuable (its only exports where cow leather and salted beef -and this last activity was only in its infancy) and decide to abandon it ntirely. Or they might do nothing: they could defend it it, but without giving it much attention, focussing on their colonies in Central America and the Caribean Coast (which could have become much more profitable than the River Plate area as they were apt for a plantation economy based on intensive slave labour).

I don't think he can expand it further - logistics, terrain and the lack of a competent cadre of officers will constrain him.

Agreed.

But although I can't see him getting support from the local elites, the presence of an independent Inca Kingdom cutting Spanish colonies in South America in two would have huge butterflies if said elites eventually make a go for independence. Could the Incas keep the Chuquisaca University and would the rich creoles choose to study there? Would the revolutionary governments try to get support from the Incas?

They will try. These Incas wouldn't be seen as "Pagan savages" as most nomad Indians in the Pampas were seen. They would be sedentary, organized and Christian. But they'll only be a model to follow if they are able to form and ordered and armonical society.

The question is, would the Incas want to side with the rebels? They may sympahize with them, but, if the rebelions happen a generation later, realpolitik reasons would predominate over ideological ones. And who knows which would be the alliances in the region in this ATL around 1800?

Would the Inca Kingdom survive Tupac Amaru's eventual death?

Maybe if he had a capable heir. It's surprising how much "legitimacy" the Incan line of succession had in XVIII century South America, even among those who weren't Indians. Maybe this came from a genuine admiration of the Incan buildings, roads and social organization; maybe it was the lack of cannibalism or the absence of extensive human sacrifices (as those that existed in Ancient Mexico); maybe it was the brutality of the conquest of Perú and the chaos it ensued, which make the previous age look as a Golden Age by comparisson; maybe it was a sense of guilt generated by the kidnapping and the unjustified excecution of Athahualpa; maybe it were the Books of the "Inga" Garcilazo de La Vega; maybe it was because the abuses commited by "encomenderos" and "corregidores" shoked the conciussness of sensitive writers; maybe it was because, in the XVIII Century, the Incan Monarchs were seen as "ilustrated despots", as were the Chinese monarchs; maybe it was because the Incas were seen as the Ancient Romans: pagan, but not evil; in any case, by reading Spanish books about the subject written between the XVI and the XVIII, you see a very favourable view of the Incas. I've read that as early as the XVI Century, the Spanish Conquerors would take off their hats when there was a procession of Incan mummies, because the Spanish aknowledge these were the bodies of Ancient Kings (This were before the Mummies were burned, of course).

Even after 1810, regions ike Buenos Aires, who had never been part of the Incan Empire, employed some Incan "images" in their struggle against the Spaniards:

"Se conmueven del Inca las tumbas
Y en sus huesos revive el ardor,
Lo que ve renovado a sus hijos
De la Patria el antiguo esplendor"
 
This is a map of the extent of the rebellion around 1781/82 (based on the maps in the Map's thread):

world 1781 after the rebellion.png
 
This is more or less how the place would have looked like around 1785 if the rebellion succeds and is able to form a viable state with foreign support. It's not the most likely of scenarios, because it would require Tupac Amaru's army conquering the Pacific Coast, where the Spanish were very strong and could be reinforced by sea from other colonies. Here is where the British "help" becomes crucial:

world 1783 after the Independence of the country.PNG
 

Thande

Donor
Interesting idea, Admiral, and I used it in LTTW...but in an OTL scenario I'm not sure if Britain would have had the political will or the capabilities. We were still in the middle of a political crisis and the Royal Navy was reeling from its shock defeats in the ARW.
 
Interesting idea, Admiral, and I used it in LTTW...but in an OTL scenario I'm not sure if Britain would have had the political will or the capabilities. We were still in the middle of a political crisis and the Royal Navy was reeling from its shock defeats in the ARW.

I tried and had a go at a similar scenario in my timeline with Britain supporting independence movements in Spain's colonies, though somewhat after the ACW. Ironically I think Tupac Amaru didn't really help the independence cause, as the noted excess by the Amerindians saw the powerful in the colonial population rush back into Spanish protection.
 
Last edited:
Bump (Because maverick mentioned this in a recent thread):

Assuming the rebellion had been succesful, how would this Tupamarist Perú be like?

In the XVIII century, Peruvian colonial socity was a highly hierarchical one. As in the rest of Spanish America, Spanish were at the top, Criollos (people of Spanish descent born in the Americas) came second, Mestizos third, followed by Indians, mulattos and blacks.

Yet in Perú, the precolumbian elites had managed to accomodate themselves rather well in the colonial society. Several (female) members of the Incan families married witth conquistadores, and their descendents were ennobled. They had haciendas and enjoyed a privileged position. Meanwhile, the local chiefs, or curacas, who were the leaders of ethnic groups which had been conquered by the Incas in the XV century, became the intermediaries between Spanish authyorities and their peoples. They were the ones which provided the Corregidores with Indians who would work in the mines, and the ones who collected and payed tributes. They were entitled to several privileges (like wearing certain clothes), and some of them became quite rich. Some of them became traders and run profitable business.

This isn't very different to what happened in Mexico, I know. But the diference is that in Mexico, the Indians elites (like the Tlazcalan nobles) soon adopted the Spanish culture as a block, and abandoned most of their traditions. Meanwhile, most of the Andean Indians, even the rich ones, asdopted the Spanish religion and several forms of the Spanish culture, but didn't abandoned their traditions nor -and this is key- they proud they felt for been the descendants of a great civilization (one praised even by the Spanish). Many of them had read the book Comentarios Reales which spoke very well of the Incan Empire. The book was a best seller among the Andean Amerindian elite in the XVIII century. Throught the XVIII century, while the Indian population began recovering the numbers it had before the conquest, the Indian elites grew more and more prosperous, more and more confident of themselves and more and more proud about their history and traditions.

The rest of the Indians (the peasants), meanwhile, had kept many of their traditions alive. They didn't read Comentarios Reales, but thay had miths about the Conquest, and about how the Inca could return and repar the abuses caused by the colonizers.

The rebellion was led by a member of the Indian elite. He was Christian, very religious, and well educated (he spoke Spanish and Latin). But he was also proud of his Incan Past, and shocked by the abuses comitted by the authorities. He tried to form and alliance between Indians, Mestizos and Criollos against these abuses, but he failed: many poor Indans attacked not only Spanish officials, but also Criollo landowners and merchants. Eventually, Criollo and mestizos joined the Spanish against the rebels.

OTL, after the rebelion faild, the Indian elite was destroyed. Reading Commentarios reales was prohibited, and those Curacas left were forced to learn Spanish, dress as Spanish, and reject ther culture. Their wealth as destroyed, and "Indan" and "poor" became synonims. Peruvian Criollos were so afraid of Indian uprisings that didn't tried to rebell themselves (unlike the rest of South America), and were only "liberated" by foreign armies (San Martin's one and Bolivar's)

But what if the rebelion had triumphed? How would lead ths Perú? OTL, Criollos led all Spanish American countries aftrer independence. Would it be the same here? Or would this Indian eltes rule? And what about hispanized mestizos with no conextion to their Ancestors' culture? Would we see something like OTL Spanish America or something like Haiti? Or would it be something in between, completely different from both?
progress.gif
 
Reading your write up on Peru, it seems the best thing Tupac Amaru II could do is not to rebel in the first place. I see no way of reconciling the interests of the Indians and Criollos, the later would only support independence from Spain if they remain at the top of the hierrachy, which had become obnoxious to the Indians.

It seems to me Tupac's failure lies not with his lack of control over the Indians, but rather his miscalculation of building an unsound support base of both Indian and Criollo.

In retrospect the best move for him would be to wait until Simon Bolivar starts fighting Spain. He may live long enough to see it happen.
 
Or to sacrifice the Criollos the minute it becomes expedient. Ultimately, I don't think he can ever trust them, and arguably the 'middle class' skills base seems to exist in the Curacao.
 
Top