2. LAST DAYS OF THE INCAS ~ THREE & FOUR – SUPERNOVA OF THE ANDES and WHEN EMPIRES COLLIDE – (April 14th – April 20th) ~ (38-85) ~ No Spoilers

[Ann D]

Good points, S. Marie. In addition to punishment, I think torture has often been used as a kind of hideous warning to terrify others into submission.

I bet Atahaulpa's enemies thought twice when they heard about the torture of Atoq and the drinking cup. MacQuarie also mentions that Pizarros burned some village elders at the stake because he thought they "might" be conspiring against him and he wanted a deterrent to discourage others. After that, he didn't have any trouble reaching the Inca leader's camp.

You're right about torture being used across all times in history.

[Stevelee]

So far we have only heard about the negatives. Hopefully, the author will share some of the positive achievements and attributes of the Incas in due course.

Happy Easter to all.

Steve

[Kressel]

Ann wrote: "Glad I didn't live in those times. If I had, I would definitely have maintained a low profile."

That's more or less what I was thinking throughout all this. That Thucydides quote at the beginning to conquer or be conquered sums up history of all time. Imperialism still lives today, except it's more financial than military, I think. And I'm just a weak, tax-paying peasant. But I'd rather be that than a conqueror.

[Whitney]

I'm a little late for this conversation, but have really enjoyed all the comments so far.

I was surprised to learn how the smallpox came to the Inca empire. I had always assumed it came directly with whomever was conquering directly in that area. It was interesting to learn how smallpox slowly spread south from the Aztec empire. I did not know it actually traveled ahead of some of the armies in the south(p. 48). Disease was often used as another weapon for conquerors, but it becomes much more powerful when your own men are not sick with the same disease or likely to become sick if you arrive just after the disease devastates an area.

[Jim]

Mark wrote: "For those of us in the U.S. I think it will be an interesting comparison as we read this book to look at what the Spanish did in central and South America compared to what the colonizers of North A..."

Very interesting comparison. It makes me wonder about the timeline of conquest and how strategies changed. The Conquistadors seemed to want to be overlords versus replace the population with colonists. In North America, there was (relatively) peaceful co-existence at the outset, followed generations later by wars related to taking land for settlers. No doubt a major oversimplification -- but a very thought-provoking perspective.

[Jim]

Michael wrote: "I apologize if this as this thought may be Nyquil induced. ;-) I woke up this morning thinking about what it might have been like had those of us in this group come of age in the early 1500's in S..."
Great points about socialization, prejudice and asserting strength, Michael (yay Nyquil).

With tales such as this, which seem all too common, it's hard not to see the meek and kind trampled underfoot by conniving brutes, both then and now. I like to hope we can do better than that, and progress beyond might makes right. Naive? Perhaps. There do seem to be some counter-examples, but not as many as I'd like.

[Cody]

I had a question regarding Chapter 4 I was hoping some fellow readers could speculate on. Before eventually meeting with Pizarro's group, the Incas spent several hours gathering around the town and seemed to be setting up camp. Pizarro then sent out Hernando de Aldana to ask Atahualpa to enter before the sun set and the rest is history.

What exactly were the Incas planning? Were they just trying to intimidate the Spaniards by showing off their numbers and setting up camp beside them? Why did Atahualpa accept the awkward invitation by Aldana to proceed into town?

[Emily]

I am very very late posting on these chapters (gotta love finals and the end of the school year). Because so much has been said already and most of the view points have been expressed, I'll keep this short. I do wish that there was more to say from the Inca side and I agree with some of you that the winners write the story books. History as we know it would probably be quite different if the losers had won.

What are your impressions of how the Incas came to power? And how does that compare with how you see the conquest by the Spanish? Because we don't know very much about the Inca's view, this is a difficult question. I don't believe that two brothers hashing it out for leadership is exactly diplomatic, but it isn't much different than an old western duel. I often say that all cultures and people's have a positive and a negative history, depending on how you look at it and what you're looking at. The Inca's and Spaniards were inappropriately violent at times, I don't know that either side was justified, although I don't think it's as black and white as one bad side and one good side. Many many more influences influenced the choices of Atahualpa and Pizarro including money, religion, leadership, and force. Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin for "If you want peace, prepare for war". Atahualpa and Pizarro wanted peace in the end, not to mention power, and I believe war often must occur for this because there will always be bad actions demonstrated by people.