WI: Pizarro expedition to Incan Empire fails

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? Pizarro was specifically told by the viceroy not to do anything so foolish since they were over-extended, then did it anyways and got incredibly lucky coming back with an empire.

The thing to keep in mind was the supply of adventurers was limited and on a timeline, that is to say straight after the Reconquista and Mexico where there was plenty of loose soldiers and men at arms drifting and looking for something to do. There wasn't a lot of Spaniards in the New World at the time (under 20,000), this was just after the conquest of Mexico which drained the population of Havana by 2/3rds as adventurers flocked to opportunities in Mexico. The long journey wasn't something one made lightly and few came across the Atlantic.
 
Last edited:
How? Pizarro was specifically told by the viceroy not to do anything so foolish since they were over-extended, then did it anyways and got incredibly lucky coming back with an empire.

The thing to keep in mind was the supply of adventurers was limited and on a timeline, that is to say straight after the Reconquista and Mexico where there was plenty of loose soldiers and men at arms drifting and looking for something to do. There wasn't a lot of Spaniards in the New World at the time (under 20,000), this was just after the conquest of Mexico which drained the population of Havana by 2/3rds as adventurers flocked to opportunities in Mexico. The long journey wasn't something one made lightly and few came across the Atlantic.

Are you implying that they would not give it another shot? Some basic math. If it took Pizarro and 167 men to conquer the Inca, than 20,000/168 says that the Spanish could launch nearly 120 expeditions! Of course, it would be more realistically be a dozen expeditions. I admit that. Are you implying Pizarro was a "Great Man" and not someone who wanted glory? Than he can get in line because there were plenty of people like that back then.

One can discuss the plausibility of a PoD or the ramifications of it. I have not doubted that this scenario is plausible. This whole time I have been discussing the ramifications. And I say that it is out of character for the Spanish not to give it another shot(s). The Inca may last decades but they can't keep the Spanish out. They will be coming in as soldiers, missionaries, mercenaries, and "advisors" very soon. They will have an enormous influence on the local government. And having a large influence gives you the chance to take the reigns yourself in the power vacuum if the government falls.

And frankly the only way to survive smallpox during that time period was to be exposed to it. It is better for humanity if all the natives get exposed in one go and are given the chance to develop an immunity to further outbreaks than leaving pockets of non-exposed populations to die later or catch it and spread it back to the rest of the population.
 
Last edited:
The diseases the Europeans introduced will spread, even with the defeat of Pizzaro. An example of this is the spread of smallpox along fur trading routes where natives picked up the disease at a European post, and it spread along the trade routes back to villages that had never seen a European. Given the extensive trade routes among the Incas (and other Mesoamerican groups) smallpox etc will spread and the results will be just as disastrous for the Incas as they were for the Aztecs. Having said that, if there are no Conquistadores to take advantage of the societal havoc caused by the massive deaths and disruptions, things may piece themselves back together. If the survivors have horses, and can develop metalworking this constitutes a major leap for them to be able to militarily resist the Spanish (or whomever). The centralized nature of the Inca Empire provides an ability to potentially resist better than the very atomized nature of Native American society in North America. Geography helps also, the Incas are much less accessible than the Aztecs or the Maya.
 
The Inca Civil war devastated the empire , followed by the advent of disease and then by the destructive Spanish conquest . If you take Pizarro out of the equation, I'm not entirely sure that the Inca's could have simply picked up the pieces. There were other conquistadors, after all and the other European powers wouldn't have stood by and ignored such an opportunity. Perhaps the Inca's would have lasted another century, but no longer, I'm afraid

You've got the order wrong. The Inca Civil War happened because of disease, which killed both the Sapa Inca and the heir apparent. If you have Pizarro out of the equation, especially during his first expedition, then disease spread can happen very differently, and there's no guarantee that either the Emperor or the heir die to it. Pizarro showing up was also a hammer(a lucky one at that) smashing a glass house when it was at its most fragile, so yes, other conquistadors would have had far less luck on average. Then the magical cooperative single-goal-minded Europeans are going to inevitably take turns at conquering the Inca? Come on now. So your determinism, while predictable, is horribly off-base and reveals(like far too many posts in this thread) that everyone's got a hot take on the inevitable fate of the Inca but are straight up peddling misinformation. To quote markus meecham, put down the Jared Diamond already

Are you implying that they would not give it another shot? Some basic math. If it took Pizarro and 167 men to conquer the Inca, than 20,000/168 says that the Spanish could launch nearly 120 expeditions! Of course, it would be more realistically be a dozen expeditions. I admit that. Are you implying Pizarro was a "Great Man" and not someone who wanted glory? Than he can get in line because there were plenty of people like that back then.

One can discuss the plausibility of a PoD or the ramifications of it. I have not doubted that this scenario is plausible. This whole time I have been discussing the ramifications. And I say that it is out of character for the Spanish not to give it another shot(s). The Inca may last decades but they can't keep the Spanish out. They will be coming in as soldiers, missionaries, mercenaries, and "advisors" very soon. They will have an enormous influence on the local government. And having a large influence gives you the chance to take the reigns yourself in the power vacuum if the government falls.

And frankly the only way to survive smallpox during that time period was to be exposed to it. It is better for humanity if all the natives get exposed in one go and are given the chance to develop an immunity to further outbreaks than leaving pockets of non-exposed populations to die later or catch it and spread it back to the rest of the population.

Ignoring the obvious(that a large number of those men if not the vast majority are needed to hold down Spain's existing empire, function as settlers, traders, administrators, have already settled down or conquered their share, etc.), you're pulling the number of expeditions out of a hat. As for Pizarro, have you read what he did? The amount of luck he had was ridiculous. A worse guide through the Andes could have easily led his entire expedition to death, a few days' delay could have seen Atahualpa himself unable or unwilling to attend to him personally leaving his massive gamble in taking him hostage, a more cautious Atahualpa would have seen the encounter at Cajamarca not result in an unarmed army showing up as a show of force, etc. So yes, he is a 'Great Man' in the sense that no one else other than maybe his more malicious and incompetent brothers had the cajones to do what he did.

As for being out of character, read up on how the Spanish launched expeditions. It wasn't simply a matter of convincing a few dozen men hanging around Havana to follow you. You had to authorize it with the local governor, and with the king of Spain, and chances are the governor was actively trying to snub you of glory and wealth. The Spanish were already overextended, and had a standing order to limit their expeditions. And if Pizarro fails, then the Aztec conquest becomes a once in a lifetime situation at best, nothing more. And if you get lone Spanish bands(that as a result of being unsanctioned and borderline treason are far smaller and less organized), chances are, the Inca CAN effectively repel them. The Inca can absolutely keep the Spanish out or engage with them on their terms.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'm fairly certain that disease was already widespread in South America, before Pizarro was even on the scene. The Smallpox epidemics spread from Mexico to Colombia and eventually reached the Andes

Nope. Pizarro's first expedition close to Quito is what started the epidemic.

Honestly, I believe that the only way to avoid the fall of cusco as well as the Inca's, is to have Hernan Cortez fail in his conquest of the Aztecs. This could have potentially deterred Spanish colonization of the New World.

Then you don't have much imagination, possibly haven't read up on the conquest of the Inca, and are far too fond of determinism. Spain isn't an entity that can throw resources endlessly at the Inca and they can't strike a Pizarro in the pan more than once. The Inca wouldn't let it come to that, for one.

Sorry , I misquoted it and I realized my mistake too late. What I meant to say, was that the death of the emperor created a succession crisis, in which nobles were divided in supporting Atahualpa and Huascar. The disease led to the Inca civil war

...then your post makes no sense and is putting the cart before the horse.
 
Fair enough, but my point still stands that no Pizarro does not equal no conquest. Diego de Almagro still exists along with Pizarro's brothers. And going back to one of your previous points, I did not say that the other European powers would magically put aside their differences and combine their forces to colonize the new world. What I said was that they would compete to divide the Americas between them

Dude, start editing your posts, stop double posting. But anyways. Pizarro's brothers were (mostly) cartoonishly cruel and none too bright. They'd never get a native guide that they could rely on because they'd probably torture them into being a) useless or b) treasonous, nevermind actually going to Spain and petitioning the king to lead an expedition. Also keep in mind, if Pizarro dies in an expedition, chances are his brothers died with him. Without Francisco, they're nonentities. As for Almagro, if Pizarro dies in his first expedition, then Almagro's southern ambitions are going to be set back without a hype man to help him recruit men, nevermind convincing the governors or the king of Spain. If Pizarro dies during the second expedition, then he's landing blind with the Inca ready to contest them(unless Pizarro died in the mountains before ever encountering the Inca) and without native guides or a Spanish army to join up with. So if he also fails(which is faaar more likely if Pizarro fumbles), that's when the Spanish will likely slow down hard on any more southern expeditions.

And on Europe; if Spain controls Panama/northern Colombia, then the Europeans are shit out of luck for centuries unless they're Spanish; no European power is going to have the logistics to reach them because that means crossing the Straights of Magellan with a fleet.
 
Last edited:
Are you implying that they would not give it another shot? Some basic math. If it took Pizarro and 167 men to conquer the Inca, than 20,000/168 says that the Spanish could launch nearly 120 expeditions! Of course, it would be more realistically be a dozen expeditions. I admit that. Are you implying Pizarro was a "Great Man" and not someone who wanted glory? Than he can get in line because there were plenty of people like that back then.

In matters of war, timing and luck is key so yes, it was debatable if Pizzaro was a great man but it wasn't debatable that by being the forerunner in the Andes he possessed the advantages of plague, surprise, military tech, military tactics, and went against a recently created empire full of discontents.

You wait a few years and the natives would've absorbed lessons on how to fight the Spanish, and perhaps taken metallurgy and horses from Pizarro's expedition along with most of the surprise Pizarro had. You wait 10 years and the worst of the plagues are over with replacements for the government. You wait a few decades and the Incas might've fallen apart or consolidated denying adventures a hierarchy they can impose themselves over or forcing them to fight multiple kingdoms without the help of thousands of native allies that gave them Pizarro's success.

Pizarro was also quite limited by resources, why do you think Castilla de Oro only sent an expedition once a year or two? There's only so many free-roaming and militarily trained Spaniards in the New World, how much trained men, food, provisions, horses, and weapons do you think settler colonies numbering from the low-thousands to hundreds can afford to lose to speculation every year? As listed above the Spaniards were on a time limit as soon as they met the Incas and their advantages decayed with every year.

The Inca may last decades but they can't keep the Spanish out. They will be coming in as soldiers, missionaries, mercenaries, and "advisors" very soon. They will have an enormous influence on the local government. And having a large influence gives you the chance to take the reigns yourself in the power vacuum if the government falls.

Why? The Inca and their subjects are human, they can adapt and the Spanish can only roll the dice so many times until they ran out of desire and the natives figured out their intentions. The Spanish adventures by nature are selfish and little beholden to a crown across the ocean as evident with Pizarro who blocked/sidelined most of the royal appointed governors of his conquered empire, some of which like Gonzalo Guerrero allied with the Maya against the Spanish. The Indians were first beaten by Portuguese naval powers and lost control of sea trade, yet eventually the Indians copied and adapted Carracks and Naus and the hostile Portuguese found themselves isolated and confined to their colonies. The Chinese and Japanese were the two most prominent examples of what happens to Christians and their missionaries when the rulers decide that they were seditious.
 
Why? The Inca and their subjects are human, they can adapt and the Spanish can only roll the dice so many times until they ran out of desire and the natives figured out their intentions. The Spanish adventures by nature are selfish and little beholden to a crown across the ocean as evident with Pizarro who blocked/sidelined most of the royal appointed governors of his conquered empire, some of which like Gonzalo Guerrero allied with the Maya against the Spanish. The Indians were first beaten by Portuguese naval powers and lost control of sea trade, yet eventually the Indians copied and adapted Carracks and Naus and the hostile Portuguese found themselves isolated and confined to their colonies. The Chinese and Japanese were the two most prominent examples of what happens to Christians and their missionaries when the rulers decide that they were seditious.
Gonzalo Guerrero didn't ally himself against the Spanish, he simply remained in the Maya territory.

They can adapt and maybe all those good things can indeed happen, but it's a question of chances and some people don't think those things are that likely to happen.

China and Japan are 2 completely different societies compared to the Inca.
 
Why? The Inca and their subjects are human, they can adapt and the Spanish can only roll the dice so many times until they ran out of desire and the natives figured out their intentions. The Spanish adventures by nature are selfish and little beholden to a crown across the ocean as evident with Pizarro who blocked/sidelined most of the royal appointed governors of his conquered empire, some of which like Gonzalo Guerrero allied with the Maya against the Spanish. The Indians were first beaten by Portuguese naval powers and lost control of sea trade, yet eventually the Indians copied and adapted Carracks and Naus and the hostile Portuguese found themselves isolated and confined to their colonies. The Chinese and Japanese were the two most prominent examples of what happens to Christians and their missionaries when the rulers decide that they were seditious.
The point on Portuguese is very interesting as the history of the Portuguese Empire is made of those adventurers.
What we see is that, when faced with a solid kingdom, they become advisers but mostly mercenaries, shock troups.
That can lead to some local takeover or a prominent role at court, like Phaulkon, a greek who became prime minister of Siam
 
Ah, this is the documentary I was looking for


It shows how Pissaro allied himself with Inca or sub-Inca nations (tribes is dumb here) and how a queen of one of them came to his aid
 
Very interesting. I was unaware that Pizarro, like Cortez also had native allies.

IIRC this references the period AFTER he took power, when he faced a backlash. And it shows that the official Spanish version was heavily edited to omit and remove them from history, but that he sued the crown for money he spent out of his own pocket putting down this rebellion, and in the court papers its quite clear that he survived because this queen brought her people to his aid
 
Potosi also had mercury nearby if memory serves, this allowed refinement of the silver from ore to much purer forms (i think the only other place known to have it at the time was in Europe). Incan organization could allow a strong leader to survive with a smaller rump state probably centered near Cuzco or Lake Titicaca, especially if horses or iron metallurgy are adopted. Eventually the Spaniards and Portuguese will come looking for the fabled cities of stone and gold in the mountains.
 
Are you implying that they would not give it another shot? Some basic math. If it took Pizarro and 167 men to conquer the Inca, than 20,000/168 says that the Spanish could launch nearly 120 expeditions! Of course, it would be more realistically be a dozen expeditions. I admit that. Are you implying Pizarro was a "Great Man" and not someone who wanted glory? Than he can get in line because there were plenty of people like that back then.

The expeditions kept happening all the time, it is just that we remember only about those which ended with a spectacular success. And don't forget that "glory" hardly was overweighting the greed as a motivator. Everybody was looking for "Eldorado" in one form or another but only few managed to find it.

One can discuss the plausibility of a PoD or the ramifications of it. I have not doubted that this scenario is plausible. This whole time I have been discussing the ramifications. And I say that it is out of character for the Spanish not to give it another shot(s).

Very true. Cortes was not the 1st one who landed on Mexican cost, he was just the 1st one who did it successfully. IIRC, Bernal Diaz was participating in one of the earlier failed expeditions.

If Pizarro fails but there are at least some rumors about the wealth anywhere in the region, there would be new adventurers willing to try even against the explicit orders of the regional administration. It was simple: most of these people did not have any other useful skills besides the military and had no initial capital to start any plantation even if and when the land (and the natives) was available. The same goes for trade (I'm not even sure that a noble could get directly engaged in it). Looting was their way out of poverty.
 
If Pizarro fails but there are at least some rumors about the wealth anywhere in the region, there would be new adventurers willing to try even against the explicit orders of the regional administration. It was simple: most of these people did not have any other useful skills besides the military and had no initial capital to start any plantation even if and when the land (and the natives) was available. The same goes for trade (I'm not even sure that a noble could get directly engaged in it). Looting was their way out of poverty.
Almargo was leading reinforcements for Pizzaro. On one hand this means he'll come no matter what happens to Pizzaro. On the other hand it's quite possible the Inca know he's coming after capturing Spaniards.

If no one escapes then the pace might slpw somewhat, but sooner or later someone's going to start poking around.
 
Well tbh if anyone other than Pizzaro, who had the goddamn balls to straight up ambush and kidnap the Sapa Inka, led the expedition, then Tawantinsuyu would likely stick around.

Hell, the reason the Sapa Inka threw a parade instead of battling the Spanish outright is they hoped to vassalize Pizzaro’s men the same way they vassalize other places. Conquest comes after feasts and gifts for the Inka, as to show the benefits of vassalize toon, and honestly I can see other Spanish conquistadores taking up that offer and working for the Sapa Inka.
 
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 Pizzarro fails and Spanish conquest is delayed I don't see the incan empire surviving in anything like its greatest extent long. Sort of the same problem as the Aztecs. A relatively new large and powerful group that is surprisingly brittle. Extremely rapid expansion that left many subject groups pissed off and envious. With the chaos of the disease outbreaks the many weaker powers take the chance to rebel.
 
Even if Pizzarro fails and Spanish conquest is delayed I don't see the incan empire surviving in anything like its greatest extent long. Sort of the same problem as the Aztecs. A relatively new large and powerful group that is surprisingly brittle. Extremely rapid expansion that left many subject groups pissed off and envious. With the chaos of the disease outbreaks the many weaker powers take the chance to rebel.

Putting the Aztecs and the Inca on the same pedestal together is a great disservice. For one, the Inca were what, five times the size of the Aztec Empire, at least? For another, they'd conquered all nearby organized states that could actually challenge them, unlike the Aztecs. Also unlike the Aztecs, they've got an effective means of assimilating the conquered between resettlement, social work, religious engagement into the Empire's aparatus, communal labor, and some of the most elaborate social safety nets if not the most robust of the era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitma, as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit'a. As for the Aztecs? Well, they had their Flower Wars; not much more to say as to what this did for the stability of the realm or pacification of conquered tribes, whereas the Inca managed to spread Quechua like wildfire throughout the Andes and erased the cultural identity of many of their conquered subjects in the short time they did have. The Inca also had the administrative sense to be willing to divide the Empire in two due to its size with Huayna Capac before his death; that's not the act of a flash in the pan empire. If the Inca were 'surprisingly brittle' they'd have never conquered as far as they did, had as many competent Emperors as they did(even Atahualpa wasn't incompetent per se, Pizarro was just a crafty bastard with cajones of titanium; his actions were sound considering how Andean diplomacy functioned, and another band of Spaniards may have accepted nominal vasselage/employment under the Sapa Inca). They wouldn't have actually survived their civil war, or the plagues. But they did; it took the stacking of calamities back to back to back to back to bring them crashing down, and I'd love to see any other state show us the strength of their institutions after taking all of those calamities to the face so that they can be labeled as 'surprisingly brittle'.
 
There were plenty of groups who would happily rebel against the Inca government.

However these groups were spread out across the Empire and were not as obvious to outsiders as the Tlaxcala were, and also lacked the independent structure the anti-Aztec states had. So while the Spanish could certainly find themselves native allies it would not be as simple as in Mexico where they got support simply for showing up and hating the Aztecs.
 
There were plenty of groups who would happily rebel against the Inca government.

However these groups were spread out across the Empire and were not as obvious to outsiders as the Tlaxcala were, and also lacked the independent structure the anti-Aztec states had. So while the Spanish could certainly find themselves native allies it would not be as simple as in Mexico where they got support simply for showing up and hating the Aztecs.
I didn't read your TL, but did you have the Spanish use some of relatively unhappy groups against the Incas?
 
Top