WI: Pizarro expedition to Incan Empire fails

RousseauX

Donor
Unlike Cortez and the Aztec Empire, Pizarro's conquest of the Incan Empire required -a lot- more luck and his band of conquistador basically got really lucky and captured the Incan emperor Atahualpa at what could very well be interpreted as a diplomatic banquet between the two leaders, this allowed him to topple over an Incan empire already weakened by European disease.

But let's just say he's less lucky, Atahualpa escapes capture, over the next couple of weeks Pizarro's little band of 160 or so men are whittled down by guerrilla attacks from Incan soldiers until their numbers dwindled enough that they are overwhelmed by superior Incan forces.

What happens from here on out? Does another band of Spaniards show up a few years later and does the conquest anyway? If some domestic Spanish politics prevents that for a decade or two does the empire fall to disease anyway? Can the Incans somehow survive as at least a rump state and make themselves useful enough to the Spanish crown or colonial governors that they avoid full conquests and survive the colonial era?
 
Considering that the majority of the wealth Spain extracted from the New World was from the Andes and from Potosí in particular, you can be dead certain that they would try another conquest.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Considering that the majority of the wealth Spain extracted from the New World was from the Andes and from Potosí in particular, you can be dead certain that they would try another conquest.

How long does it take though?

Neither Pizarro nor Cortez were well planned expeditions by the Spanish government, they were more like independent adventurers looking for loot and gain who got lucky, and Spain has limited capacity for supplying a big army in the Americas in the early 1500s. It was kind of an unplanned windfall for the Spanish crown.

If a couple more bad of adventurer types gets killed the Spanish might be hesitant to send a major force after them and failure skews the implicit cost-benefit analysis of conquest, and by the time they get around to it the Incans might have found some way to simultaneously make themselves useful to the Spanish and costly enough to conquer the Spanish back off for a while at least.
 
How long does it take though?

Neither Pizarro nor Cortez were well planned expeditions by the Spanish government, they were more like independent adventurers looking for loot and gain who got lucky, and Spain has limited capacity for supplying a big army in the Americas in the early 1500s. It was kind of an unplanned windfall for the Spanish crown.

If a couple more bad of adventurer types gets killed the Spanish might be hesitant to send a major force after them and failure skews the implicit cost-benefit analysis of conquest, and by the time they get around to it the Incans might have found some way to simultaneously make themselves useful to the Spanish and costly enough to conquer the Spanish back off for a while at least.

One important factor would be what the Incans capture. Say they get horses and some prisoners to teach them cavalry tactics, or the recipe for gun powder. Conversely they get another round of disease and the Incan Empire shatters into a million pieces that need to be conquered one by one. Look at the Maya conquest, only complete in 1697, verses the Aztec Conquest to see what I'm talking about. Both the Inca and Aztec conquests were 'beheadings' where the the central authority was 'beheaded'. No central authority means no beheading.
 
Unlike Cortez and the Aztec Empire, Pizarro's conquest of the Incan Empire required -a lot- more luck and his band of conquistador basically got really lucky and captured the Incan emperor Atahualpa at what could very well be interpreted as a diplomatic banquet between the two leaders, this allowed him to topple over an Incan empire already weakened by European disease.

But let's just say he's less lucky, Atahualpa escapes capture, over the next couple of weeks Pizarro's little band of 160 or so men are whittled down by guerrilla attacks from Incan soldiers until their numbers dwindled enough that they are overwhelmed by superior Incan forces.

What happens from here on out? Does another band of Spaniards show up a few years later and does the conquest anyway? If some domestic Spanish politics prevents that for a decade or two does the empire fall to disease anyway? Can the Incans somehow survive as at least a rump state and make themselves useful enough to the Spanish crown or colonial governors that they avoid full conquests and survive the colonial era?

To a certain degree this happened. Of course, the independence was lost but most of the social "arrangements" had been retained one way or another for quite a while. The Incas remained a local aristocracy recognized by the Spaniards and so were the casiques of the vassal tribes of Inca empire. As I understand, there were numerous marriages (especially, after fighting between the Spaniards ended) between the noble Spaniards and Inca women with at least some of the children being officially recognized as Spanish nobility (Garsilassio de la Vega is the best known one). So, the "usefulness" was there, recognized by both sides.

As for the state itself, easiness of its fall was to a great part due to his excessive centralization: you captured the head of the state, you are controlling the state. In the case of Atahualpa it was even easier because he was hated by most of the Incas, at least according to de la Vega (even under the Spanish rule, his children had been ostracized from the rest of Incas class). Then, of course, it should not be forgotten that most of the state's population had been the vassal tribes conquered by the Incas who had to support a lavish lifestyle of the ruling aristocracy and who, as a result, did not suffer from an excessive suicidal patriotism toward the empire. BTW, similar situation existed in Aztec "empire": after the first few encounters the coastal tribes easily accepted Spanish rule and when it came to the Tlascala (sp) enthusiasm hit the roof. :)

Some rump Inca state did exist for a while but it hardly had a chance. OTOH, the wild tribes without too much of a "state structure" managed to survive for quite a while: so-called "Arauco War" lasted for 350 years and outlived the Spanish colonial empire (Mapuche independence finally ended with the Chilean occupation of Araucanía between 1861 and 1883). So, one may make any number of speculations about relative advantages and disadvantages of the centralized and decentralized formations.
 
How long does it take though?

Neither Pizarro nor Cortez were well planned expeditions by the Spanish government, they were more like independent adventurers looking for loot and gain who got lucky, and Spain has limited capacity for supplying a big army in the Americas in the early 1500s. It was kind of an unplanned windfall for the Spanish crown.

If a couple more bad of adventurer types gets killed the Spanish might be hesitant to send a major force after them and failure skews the implicit cost-benefit analysis of conquest, and by the time they get around to it the Incans might have found some way to simultaneously make themselves useful to the Spanish and costly enough to conquer the Spanish back off for a while at least.

But you are seemingly missing one important factor. The Spaniards had been pretty much "bottled" in Hispaniola (and, IIRC in Panama): more and more people had been coming from Castile but the land (and the natives) had been already distributed. So you have situation when in a relatively small territory you have ever growing number of people who have no useful skills except for the military ones (IIRC, at that time a Spanish noble could do very few things without losing his social status: serve in the military, to be a landowner, give guitar and dancing lessons, making the birdcages and probably that's it). There was no occupation for them at home except for participation in the endless Italian Wars where the pay was irregular and ability of looting occasional. Quite obviously, the steam has to be let out. Cortez expedition was not the 1st one (to address the point you made), it was just the 1st successful one: 2 or 3 earlier attempts failed due to the inadequate military leadership (aka, rather "subjective" than "objective" factor). Spain did not sent any major force: IIRC, the only reinforcements Cortes got from the troops sent by governor of Hispaniola to stop him (which he managed to convince following him instead). Anyway, the Spanish contingents provided just a "kernel" of his army: most of the troops had been provided by the Tlascala (sp).

With the Incas it was even simpler because they managed to create a state in which most of the subjects simply did not care who is their master (there were rather interesting parallels between Inca Empire and the former Soviet Union). :)
 
How long does it take though?

Neither Pizarro nor Cortez were well planned expeditions by the Spanish government, they were more like independent adventurers looking for loot and gain who got lucky, and Spain has limited capacity for supplying a big army in the Americas in the early 1500s. It was kind of an unplanned windfall for the Spanish crown.

If a couple more bad of adventurer types gets killed the Spanish might be hesitant to send a major force after them and failure skews the implicit cost-benefit analysis of conquest, and by the time they get around to it the Incans might have found some way to simultaneously make themselves useful to the Spanish and costly enough to conquer the Spanish back off for a while at least.
and it's not like anyone knew of potosi by the time.
 
Considering that the majority of the wealth Spain extracted from the New World was from the Andes and from Potosí in particular, you can be dead certain that they would try another conquest.

A) Nobody knew of the riches of Potosi
B) The Spanish don't have the magical power of foresight
C) The Spanish have an incomplete picture of the wealth of the Inca anyways

Chances are they'd try again; if they fail again(especially due to infighting) you might see the death of conquistador-led adventures in the Andes. From that point onwards any hostile action that isn't some form of piracy or banditry will likely require state-organized invasions from the Spanish, rather than the sign-off and blessings of the conquistadors. There's also the possibility of lone Spanish bands acting as mercenaries for the Sapa Inca as being real, their motives were primarily wealth, followed with god or glory a distant second for all but the most zealous of the conquistadors. Similar to how the Portuguese functioned in the Indian Ocean.
 
A) Nobody knew of the riches of Potosi
B) The Spanish don't have the magical power of foresight
C) The Spanish have an incomplete picture of the wealth of the Inca anyways

Actually IIRC Potosi is suspiciously close to several pre-Spanish silver mines. The traditional tale is that Potosi was spontaneously discovered by Diego Huallpa, an indigenous peasant, soon after the Spanish conquest, but more recently scholars have shifted towards believing that the Incans likely already knew that there were silver deposits in the general area, even if they weren't extracting it as much as the Spanish did.
 
Given time, you have to remember the Incan civil war happened in perfect timing to Pizzaro's favor. Had Pizzaro failed, and the Spanish tried again, they'd be fighting a more unified force of Incas.
 
and it's not like anyone knew of potosi by the time.

A) Nobody knew of the riches of Potosi
B) The Spanish don't have the magical power of foresight
C) The Spanish have an incomplete picture of the wealth of the Inca anyways

Whether anyone knew about Potosi or not is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Pizarro did not know about Potosi. He still launched a campaign of conquest. There is no reason why various conquistadors or adventurers in a different timeline would not do the exact same thing. Why would Potosi change anything? The only reason I mentioned it was because I wanted to mention where they got all that silver from. There is very little the Spanish Government could do to enforce a ban on adventurers attacking the Inca. And once it becomes open knowledge that the Inca are the wealthiest kingdom in the western hemisphere, they will be able to enforce a ban even less. If a head on assault wouldn't work, then yes, there will absolutely be piracy and attempt an the conquer the Pacific coastline. How could the Inca retaliate to pirates? They can't, they lacked the nautical expertise, and they will be able to attack the Spanish strongholds in the rest of the Americas either.

Even if a head on approach wouldn't work that does not mean that wealth could not be extracted through different kinds of punitive means like charging an indemnity. The Spanish have two goals, to extract Mesoamerican wealth to fuel their wars in Europe and to convert the natives to Christianity. They will keep trying both. The Inca will succumb to one of these approaches eventually. Or they will fall apart. In which case the successor kingdoms can be picked apart.
 
Last edited:
Whether anyone knew about Potosi or not is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Pizarro did not know about Potosi. He still launched a campaign of conquest. There is no reason why various conquistadors or adventurers in a different timeline would not do the exact same thing. Why would Potosi change anything? The only reason I mentioned it was because I wanted to mention where they got all that silver from. There is very little the Spanish Government could do to enforce a ban on adventurers attacking the Inca. And once it becomes open knowledge that the Inca are the wealthiest kingdom in the western hemisphere, they will be able to enforce a ban even less. If a head on assault wouldn't work, then yes, there will absolutely be piracy and attempt an the conquer the Pacific coastline. How could the Inca retaliate to pirates? They can't, they lacked the nautical expertise, and they will be able to attack the Spanish strongholds in the rest of the Americas either.

Even if a head on approach wouldn't work that does not mean that wealth could not be extracted through different kinds of punitive means like charging an indemnity. The Spanish have two goals, to extract Mesoamerican wealth to fuel their wars in Europe and to convert the natives to Christianity. They will keep trying both. The Inca will succumb to one of these approaches eventually. Or they will fall apart. In which case the successor kingdoms can be picked apart.

Where they got all that silver from is irrelevant if they never know that there's all that silver to begin with, which a failed Pizarro expedition could easily result in. So the bands of ravenous Spaniards that will stop at nothing to conquer the Inca and their mountains of silver angle falls apart entirely. Most of that silver is probably not getting extracted for centuries even if the Inca actively sought to trade in silver with Europe considering the barbarism required to extract all that wealth from Potosi in the first place.

You sound incredibly confident while ignoring the most important element in these mad campaigns, supplies and manpower. If the Spanish stop backing conquistadors then yes, the vast majority of them are done. Just look at how the back and forth went for Cortez in Mesoamerica, or the politicking between Pizarro and other prominent Spaniards in the New World over his expeditions. The Conquistadors could have easily devolved into petty bickering to the point of hampering each other, or having the ones with power actively block upstart newcomers from receiving royal backing/supplies/men, as was almost OTL. If the Spanish kings decide that sinking manpower and supplies into failed adventures is a waste, then GG, it's over. The conquistadors are out of business as the ones who have power will leverage that political capital from the monarchs over the have-nots, until an ambitious governor/viceroy can muster the supplies and manpower entirely from his own means to overwhelm the Inca, or the Spanish organize a homegrown campaign at which the age of conquistadors is likely in its twilight days or over. And depending on how the Inca develop, that could be anywhere from a good amount of time to never. In other words, you're going to great lengths to tell us about the imminent doom of the Inca on a failed premise(that the Spanish couldn't control the conquistadors; they could because they were already engaging in pissing contests and keep-away among themselves. They had to go and get approval form Spain proper to even launch expeditions).
 
Last edited:
How thoroughly does the Pizarro expedition fail? Total annihilation with no survivors and news making it home or a defeat followed by an orderly retreat?

The former prevents news about the wealth of the Inca (even without Potosi there's still enough gold and silver round to get significant interest) likely doesn't get spread as quickly and the Inca have time to stabilize things after the last round of civil war. I expect the Spanish do come back sooner rather than later but they're more likely to be after land (at first at least...) and the Incas will probably be better prepared. Expect a protracted campaign (50 yrs plus?) of the Spanish nibbling at the coast and borders rather than an overwhelming rapid conquest. Longer-term I suspect a Christianized rump Inca state sticks round as a vassal of Spain for at least a few generations...

The latter? With the news of a big heap of gold there for the taking I strongly suspect there's another major Spanish expedition in the near future. Not convinced it'll be as successful as OTL and mange to take the entire empire effectively in one gulp, but expect a rapid conquest of a good chunk of it.
 

Deleted member 97083

They could get a Spanish defector as well to warn them of Spanish tactics, like Gonzalo Guerrero for the Maya in the Yucatán.
 
So many things could happen, from a second expedition conquering them to them surviving centuries or to this day in some form, I find more likely that the Spanish expand in the Northern portion of their empire(Quito) in the next decades(if no more expeditions happen or if they fail) and I think the Inca would lose control of the Mapuche territory in the South and they will be retracted in their core region, the Spaniards would subsequently threaten the coast and possible seizing it during the late 16th and 17th century.
 
Even if a head on approach wouldn't work that does not mean that wealth could not be extracted through different kinds of punitive means like charging an indemnity. The Spanish have two goals, to extract Mesoamerican wealth to fuel their wars in Europe and to convert the natives to Christianity. They will keep trying both. The Inca will succumb to one of these approaches eventually. Or they will fall apart. In which case the successor kingdoms can be picked apart.
So basically, a Congolese Incan Kingdom? The King of Congo converted after Diogo Cao's expedition in the late XVth century, in exchange for commercial links and Portuguese troops to crush local rebellions.
How strong was the Incan religion? How important to their social structure and how compatible would it be for Christianity?
 
How strong was the Incan religion? How important to their social structure and how compatible would it be for Christianity?

As long as it doesn't blatantly piss off the Spaniards the way Aztec religion did, it's okay for a while. Chirstianity spreading about 90% of the time since Constantine has either been a top down and or intimitation affair. If the Spanish can't win militarily, it will take some time for the missionaries to organise or for the Incans to get the idea that they can 'buy off' the Spanish by becoming Christian, which probably won't work.
 
Christianity in surviving Tawantinsuyu is probably likely to resemble the folk Catholicism which exists OTL in the Andes. The ruling class will likely convert for the benefits it offers (it will be resisted, no doubt, but will they be successful?), while the lower class will follow a continuum of beliefs from more orthodox Christianity to outright folk religion. If Protestantism is still as successful TTL, then a significant number of people in the country will follow beliefs which are roughly Protestant.

Madagascar and Hawaii offer potential parallels, in addition to the example of Kongo.

So many things could happen, from a second expedition conquering them to them surviving centuries or to this day in some form, I find more likely that the Spanish expand in the Northern portion of their empire(Quito) in the next decades(if no more expeditions happen or if they fail) and I think the Inca would lose control of the Mapuche territory in the South and they will be retracted in their core region, the Spaniards would subsequently threaten the coast and possible seizing it during the late 16th and 17th century.

The Spanish won't be the only ones interacting with the Inca. The Dutch definitely will be active in that area (as they were OTL to a limited degree), and probably the English will be there too. Each side will be eager to sell weapons and other goods to the Inca in exchange for those massive silver resources. This would help give some resilience to the Inca against the Spanish.
 
Christianity in surviving Tawantinsuyu is probably likely to resemble the folk Catholicism which exists OTL in the Andes. The ruling class will likely convert for the benefits it offers (it will be resisted, no doubt, but will they be successful?), while the lower class will follow a continuum of beliefs from more orthodox Christianity to outright folk religion. If Protestantism is still as successful TTL, then a significant number of people in the country will follow beliefs which are roughly Protestant.

Madagascar and Hawaii offer potential parallels, in addition to the example of Kongo.



The Spanish won't be the only ones interacting with the Inca. The Dutch definitely will be active in that area (as they were OTL to a limited degree), and probably the English will be there too. Each side will be eager to sell weapons and other goods to the Inca in exchange for those massive silver resources. This would help give some resilience to the Inca against the Spanish.
The question is what would be butterflied from the failed conquest, maybe the Dutch aren't around to begin with and the English at this point in time aren't strong enough, they'd need the base that Brazil or Argentina provides and during the 16th century it might be too early or that.
 
Top