Could the Inca Empire become the "Rome" of South America?

ar-pharazon

Banned
It's possible that these big Amerindian empire's might have collapsed even without European contact and conquest.

Bronze technology was spreading-the Aztecs rivals in the west the Tarascans had bronze I believe and it's possible this technology would have percolated to South America as well.

I could see a no Europeans America's in say 1650 with the big empires having reached their height but about to face a common storm-advanced technology entering the hands of their neighbors, climactic changes, and potentially disease-as populations rose so would the risk of plague.

Thus causing the big empires to shatter.
 
It's possible that these big Amerindian empire's might have collapsed even without European contact and conquest.

Bronze technology was spreading-the Aztecs rivals in the west the Tarascans had bronze I believe and it's possible this technology would have percolated to South America as well.

I could see a no Europeans America's in say 1650 with the big empires having reached their height but about to face a common storm-advanced technology entering the hands of their neighbors, climactic changes, and potentially disease-as populations rose so would the risk of plague.

Thus causing the big empires to shatter.
I think the 1540 Mexican drought was not human caused, so I think the Aztecs and the region in general would suffer a lot from it.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Imagining what would happen if current trends had continued unimpeded by European conquest is something I very much enjoy doing.
 
It's possible that these big Amerindian empire's might have collapsed even without European contact and conquest.

Bronze technology was spreading-the Aztecs rivals in the west the Tarascans had bronze I believe and it's possible this technology would have percolated to South America as well.
Bronze was independently invented in South America before AD 700. The bronzeworking in western Mexico was most likely inspired by trade contact with South America, although it's possible that it was an independent invention. But South America certainly got there first - the evidence of bronzeworking in South America pre-dates any evidence of smelting metallurgy in Mexico.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I stand corrected then.

Even so bronze was mostly ceremonial or decorative and was only on the eve of European conquest being made into weapons-though I may be wrong on that too.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
The inca first moved into the Andes region in the mid 1300s didn't they?

The Incan empire was a century hold but the Incan people were at least a century older at least so far as I understand it.
 
Well the main weapons in Mesopotamia were made of stone, wood, and obsidian.

Which is what I was referring to.
Metal working is far overrated imo

The Spaniards in Peru quickly adopted Andean cotton armor, and metal armor only really became the norm in Europe because metal became so cheap by the late 1300s.

New World development wasn’t stifled by inadequate metalworking imo, mostly through lack of permanent and busy trade routes to spread innovations around.

So maybe if the Haida people in British Columbia form a sort of unified thallasocracy then trade would be easier along the Pacific and then eventually through the Gulf of Mexico and such.


Really the New World was on the verge of some wild shit in 1492
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
It was-and that's why I think it would be interesting to see how it would have developed if contact with the old world had been averted.
 
There are two immediate problems they would need to overcome: metallurgical advancement and animal taming. They placed value on metal as methods of displaying wealth and status (gold/silver as sun/moon for example) and while they were very good at working gold, they were barely in the very beginning of their bronze age. While they were starting to use bronze tools, it was seen as a expensive replacement for stone tools at the time that worked just as well. I think this could have been overcome if they had more time to advance, however the way they viewed metal and the importance they put on its color for the social and religious significance could have hindered this development or furthered it along depending on how they interpreted things like iron and steel.

For animals, there was no equivalent of the horse in South America. They also lacked cows, sheep, pigs, chicken, and goats - all of which provide a great deal of valuable resources. I believe the only tamed animals they had they had were llamas and alpacas, which they used as cargo beasts and for their wool/meat, and guinea pigs which were food. Again, this really limits their resources as well as the tactical advantages horses would offer along with the innovations horses would bring such as war chariots.

On a separate note, I now can't get the image of Incan warriors riding llamas into battle out of my head.
 
There are two immediate problems they would need to overcome: metallurgical advancement and animal taming. They placed value on metal as methods of displaying wealth and status (gold/silver as sun/moon for example) and while they were very good at working gold, they were barely in the very beginning of their bronze age. While they were starting to use bronze tools, it was seen as a expensive replacement for stone tools at the time that worked just as well. I think this could have been overcome if they had more time to advance, however the way they viewed metal and the importance they put on its color for the social and religious significance could have hindered this development or furthered it along depending on how they interpreted things like iron and steel.

For animals, there was no equivalent of the horse in South America. They also lacked cows, sheep, pigs, chicken, and goats - all of which provide a great deal of valuable resources. I believe the only tamed animals they had they had were llamas and alpacas, which they used as cargo beasts and for their wool/meat, and guinea pigs which were food. Again, this really limits their resources as well as the tactical advantages horses would offer along with the innovations horses would bring such as war chariots.

On a separate note, I now can't get the image of Incan warriors riding llamas into battle out of my head.

Speaking strictly of horses....what good are they gonna do in the Andes? Especially war chariots, that makes no sense at all. If the Inca are anticipating a war with a foreign interloper, a prepared Inca state would be hellish to invade due the litany of mountain passes that render horses useless. The Inca'd find great value in using horses to expand down the Rio de La Plata and Parana regions, but other than that, I'm not seeing the strategic value in the short to medium term at all, not even for transportation. On the topic of agriculture, horses are a different story entirely but with respect to food production the Andes did pretty damn well even without Old World domesticates. Introducing them shortly after the worst of the plagues hit could really help the population rebound. Plentiful food, lots of kids, etc.
 
Speaking strictly of horses....what good are they gonna do in the Andes? Especially war chariots, that makes no sense at all. If the Inca are anticipating a war with a foreign interloper, a prepared Inca state would be hellish to invade due the litany of mountain passes that render horses useless. The Inca'd find great value in using horses to expand down the Rio de La Plata and Parana regions, but other than that, I'm not seeing the strategic value in the short to medium term at all, not even for transportation. On the topic of agriculture, horses are a different story entirely but with respect to food production the Andes did pretty damn well even without Old World domesticates. Introducing them shortly after the worst of the plagues hit could really help the population rebound. Plentiful food, lots of kids, etc.

Regarding Horses, The Conquest, and Difference In Tactics (Because Horses And Different Evolution In Warfare):
"Without horses, the evolution of complex European economies and trading networks would have been unthinkable. Most significantly, the horse transformed the art of war. From the earliest horse-drawn chariots of the Hittite empire, to the bareback cavalrymen of Attila the Hun, the warhorse has become synonymous with Eurasian military success.

Spanish horses were instrumental in the conquest of the New World. Neither the Aztec nor the Inca had ever seen humans riding animals before; the psychological impact of mounted troops was tremendous.

Hernan De Soto, comrade of Pizarro, famously rode his horse right into the Inca Emperor's throne room. Eyewitnesses later recalled:
"The captain advanced so close that the horse's nostrils stirred the fringe on the Inca's forehead. But the Inca remained still, he never moved."
[...]
On the morning of November 16, 1532, a surprise charge of just 37 Spanish horses, concealed in the Inca town of Cajamarca, unleashed an orgy of bloodshed. Europeans had known for centuries that foot soldiers stood a good chance against cavalry if they stood firm and repelled the outnumbered mounted troops. But the Inca had no experience of this, nor could they have read about others' experiences, since they were geographically isolated and had no written records from which to learn. Instead, they panicked and tried to flee, allowing the outnumbered conquistadors to run through them with great speed and efficiency." ~Guns Germs & Steel

"Francisco Pizarro too followed a code different from that of his opponents. He invited Atahualpa, the Inca ruler, to the Spanish camp in Cajamarca, in today’s northern Peru, and then ordered an attack against the mostly unarmed Inca escorts. The Incas stripped temples of their gold wall-plates and ornaments to pay the ransom for Atahualpa’s release. The Spaniards melted down 11 tonnes of gold objects, and then, after a hasty “trial”, killed him.

Here too they faced resistance for almost a year. Indeed, the fierce topography of the Andes allowed the rump Inca mini-state of Vilcabamba to survive until 1572. But by the 1540s, Spain had conquered the main population centres of Central America and western South America. The Portuguese would penetrate Brazil far more slowly.

The Spaniards won because they had better tactics—Aztecs in battle tried to capture, not kill, their opponents—and technology. Horses, mastiffs and guns terrified Aztecs and Incas armed with slings, stonetipped clubs and spears (though Inca archers did better)." ~The Conquest

Regarding Animals And The Resources Provided:
-Cows: Large and strong, produce a great deal of meat, milk, and leather. Dung makes good fuel and fertilizer. Mature in two to three years, docile herd animals and eat plentiful grass.
-Sheep: Mature very quickly and ready to breed qhen they a 1 & 1/2 years old. Can weight between 80 and 400 pounds and produce milk, sheepskin, lamb, and dung makes good fuel and fertilizer.
-Goat: Can survive in colder and rockier climates than cows, can eat just about anything. Provides meat, wool, and enough milk that one or two could keep a family fed for a year.
-Pigs: Very easy to look after as they're omnivorse, provides plenty of meat and reproduces in litters.

-Llama: Very temperamental, can't carry a persons weight because lacking in strength. Provides wool, meat, dung and hide.

Having more resources allows greater growth and expansion, which ostensibly also allows for more innovation. Also, I can't imagine the mountains proving all that challenging, its not like they could only go either on horse or foot and were not allowed to switch whenever convenient, or create settlements as bases, or build bridges or anything. The Incas were using convoys of llamas to ferry silver they mined so there had to be a way for such animals to get around their territory.
 
Weren't HORSES originally unable to carry a persons weight? I thought they had to be bred for a couple centuries or so to be able to do that. Don't see why you couldn't attempt the same with Llamas, although the different body structure might be an issue. Plus, you'd have to be doing it deliberately.
 
The inca first moved into the Andes region in the mid 1300s didn't they?

The Incan empire was a century hold but the Incan people were at least a century older at least so far as I understand it.

Yes, that's correct. The first hundred years the Inca were more a city-state and then a smallish kingdom before their rapid expansion of a single century.

And about domesticated animals and plagues in the Americas this is the best video that talks about it:

 
I've seen the NO HORSES argument again and again and again and I just... don't see how it's relevant?

The Inca ruled over 2 million square kilometers and fed several million people (higher estimates range between 16-18 million people) for decades, without horses or even the wheel. Why are horses so incredibly vital for its continued existance? Would they be helpful? Of course. Are they vital? I don't see many horses in the Andes, the people there still use llamas and mules. Horses require open plains and don't thrive with little oxygen. Horses and cows would be, as OTL demostrates, very important (though again, not vital) in the Pampas and other plains like the Llanos, but in the Andes? Not so much. True, the Andean peoples had a meat-poor diet, but I don't see that preventing from building their civilizations.

Same with the other domesticates. The Inca had a diverse food package dispersed all over its empire: potatoes, maize, quinoa, oca, and other food sources like the mentioned guinea pigs, waterfowl and native fruits that have been abandoned over the centuries due to European influence (source; Memoria Verde, an excelent book that talks about the ecological history of Argentina and South America). Llamas and Alpacas were used for most everything, and there's evidence (see here) that the societal collapse after the conquest led to the extinction of many breeds that could have been very useful in the precolumbian empire.

The Aztecs, the Maya, the Missippipians, the Moxos and so many other cultures developed complex civilizations. And they didn't even had llamas!

True, the horses granted the Spanish a strategical advantage. One that was easily broken once the natives domesticated them. I would say disease, pure luck, rebellions, and firearms were more important than big scary horses.

The argument that the Incas and other pre-columbian civilizations were backwards or destined to lose because of the lack of domesticated animals just... doesn't hold up.
 
Last edited:
Imo, the big thing is metallurgy. The Inca empire was on a technological parity to something similar to the Babylonians. If the Inca had developed ironworking instead of goldworking (perhaps someone finds a Meteor, realizes that the shiny meteor is similar to a shiny rock he found or a rock that stuck to the meteor, perhaps with a lifetime of experimentation he could figure out a cheap Iron producing method. I know this is kinda ASB but history has done a lot weirder things so I wouldn't dismiss it entirely) or ironworking at all, they'd have a lot more resources to solidify their empire with. That, and developing some kind of Llamapox would help it stand up to the spanish more

Speaking of which, are there any diseases that could jump from llama to humans?
 
Top