alternatehistory.com

I could have this all wrong, and possibly I do, since wikipedia isn't much help and what I know of pre-European American history is iffy at best, so I'm hoping that you learned scholars can help.

I've just finished reading Clive Cussler's book, Inca Gold. In this book, which, for a work of fiction is good (and considering how close to the actual facts of history some of his other books are, I feel there are some nuggets of truth here), he talks of a civil war between Huascar and his bastard half-brother, Atahualpa. It was at the height of this civil war that Pizarro marched in with the Spaniards and used the civil war to his advantage (much as Cortez had done in Mexico) to defeat the Incas. Now from what I can ground in facts, Huascar was succeeded by Atahualpa, and there was a sort of conflict about the succession (perhaps not on the scale Cussler portrays, though). But what if someone in the Inca camp (whichever side, decides that "hey, let's team up, kick these nasty invaders out, and sacrifice them to whichever gods, and then we can go back to killing each other"?).

Also, the book talks that Atahualpa had Huascar killed since he feared that Huascar would offer Pizarro more gold than he could. Now, my question is, why did he think that Huascar (whom he supposedly had on the ropes) could offer Pizarro more (in the midst of a civil war)?

I look forward to your responses
Top