From what I've read, the Inca were among the best nourished people in the world at the time. It was by no means an "equal" society, but it was one that seemed to take good care of its subjects. Part of it was due to the environment requiring a lot of big picture management to be productive. When the Spanish came, it ushered in an era of particularly horrific exploitation and extraction of silver.
So I'm working on a story where a successful Norse settlement in the New World and unsuccessful late 15th century European attempts at settling the new world results in a timeline where colonization of the Americas never happens on a large scale. Portuguese and other European ships discover the empire en route to China in the 16th century, and are allowed to regularly stop, resupply, etc.; maybe set up factories and trade. Ninan Cuyochic doesn't die of smallpox or even contract it, Fransisco Pizarro never comes to conquer, and the empire stays united, but how much better would the Inca rulers actually be?
The Great Bullion Famine wasn't completely resolved without new world silver, and Potosí's vast silver deposits are going to be discovered eventually. Would this be another another case of "the resource curse"? I mean, given how Inca society was, after it became clear that silver was very valuable to Europeans, it would be made a state resource, so the emperor would arrange trade deals with European merchants directly. Could having a source of wealth and power less dependent on their people make the Inca just as negligent of the common subject's food security or just as exploitative in silver extraction? Also, what would be bought with the silver? European guns and Chinese luxury goods? Would they be able to put down the ensuing rebellions as effectively as the Spanish did? If not, what's likely to take their place? (I suppose regime changes often don't actually change the type of regime that a war-torn country may have)
So I'm working on a story where a successful Norse settlement in the New World and unsuccessful late 15th century European attempts at settling the new world results in a timeline where colonization of the Americas never happens on a large scale. Portuguese and other European ships discover the empire en route to China in the 16th century, and are allowed to regularly stop, resupply, etc.; maybe set up factories and trade. Ninan Cuyochic doesn't die of smallpox or even contract it, Fransisco Pizarro never comes to conquer, and the empire stays united, but how much better would the Inca rulers actually be?
The Great Bullion Famine wasn't completely resolved without new world silver, and Potosí's vast silver deposits are going to be discovered eventually. Would this be another another case of "the resource curse"? I mean, given how Inca society was, after it became clear that silver was very valuable to Europeans, it would be made a state resource, so the emperor would arrange trade deals with European merchants directly. Could having a source of wealth and power less dependent on their people make the Inca just as negligent of the common subject's food security or just as exploitative in silver extraction? Also, what would be bought with the silver? European guns and Chinese luxury goods? Would they be able to put down the ensuing rebellions as effectively as the Spanish did? If not, what's likely to take their place? (I suppose regime changes often don't actually change the type of regime that a war-torn country may have)