Talk:Battle of Cajamarca

message: I removed the external link for Capturing of the Inca King as it asked for a login and password which were not supplied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.20 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removed

message: Is the name of this article correct military speaking? There came no order of counter attac from the Inka, and the indians did not raise any weapons against the conquistadors. Shall actions like that be called a battle? As for the numbers of deaths, I only know (=have read) that the Spaniards did get tired by cutting in on the indians that was surrounding Atahualpa without meeting any resistans. As soon as one fell, another took his place, to carry the Inca throne.  Xauxa 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter of whether Atahualpa's royal guard drew daggers is one of speculation, but either way, WikiProject Military history recommends that you avoid "non-neutral terms such as 'attack', 'slaughter', 'massacre.'" In any case, "battle" is probably the more common term. Albrecht 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Imperial Guard were elite soldiers, had they of been present and armed then the Spanish would have suffered tremendous casualties and been defeated. It's very doubtful that any of the Inca attendants had weapons, and if any did it is doubtful they had a chance to raise them before the cannon fire and gunshots started. I would suggest calling it an ambush rather than a battle, that keeps it a neutral word while more accurately portraying the events. OutreachService (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: One of the conquistadors who fought there said that "no man would dare call [it] a battle" --219.79.33.47 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the request. Although the speculated and lacking on base ambush of Atahualpa had been true, was the well known and all-way proved Pizarro's ambush the one that finally was done with devastating effects. Cajamarca was anything but a battle, It was a Padaemonium...--Ozomatli-Tepoztli 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning name of article 

message: It's obvious there not many people here but me that has done research, so here: Video. InternetHero (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: "The governor then gave the signal to Candia, who began to fire off the guns. At the same time the trumpets were sounded, and the armored Spanish troops, both cavalry and infantry, sallied forth out of their hiding places straight into the mass of unarmed Indians crowding the square, giving the Spanish battle cry, 'Santiago!' W had placed rattles on the horses to terrify the Indians. The booming of the guns, the blowing of the trumpets, and the rattles on the horses threw the Indians into panicked confusion. The Spaniards fell upon them and began to cut them to pieces. The Indians were so filled with fear that they climbed on top of one another, formed mounds, and suffocated each other. Since they were unarmed, they were attacked without danger to any Christian. The cavalry rode them down, killing and wounding, and following in pursuit. The infantry made so good an assault on those that remained that in a short time most of them were put to the sword.". InternetHero (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube video 

message: I've noticed that various edits are made every few weeks to "increase" the military strength of the Incas in the battle. The Incas involved in the battle were Atahualpa's unarmed personal attendants and nobles (who acted as generals when needed). The rest of his 80,000 "army" who stayed behind were armed civilians who took no part. The Incas had no regular army. When needed, peasants were conscripted for campaigns or battle. These peasants supplied their own weapons and had no training. The Incas relied on overwhelming an enemy with their numbers rather than military might as we know it. Please do not edit to include the 80,000 in the battle or edit to infer that those who did take part were warriors. Wayne (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  People need to stop going in and editing the same thing over and over.  This article is supposed to be about the "battle".  The body of Incas camped outside the city had nothing to do with this battle.  Ignore them.  It's like doing an article about the Battle of Stalingrad and including "3 million troops stationed elsewhere".  Mention it in the body of the article, but in the quick statistical breakdown in the sidebar, I think it doesn't have a place.Pete71 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits regarding Inca military 

message: I saw somebody using Felipe Poma de Ayala's sources for the casualties, first he was not there, second he was no there and third he was not there, so how can we cite somebody who was NOT present at the battle? 
Here are better sources by Kim MacQuarrie from his book the last days of the incas :
*"Miraculously, in the space of just a few hours, the Spaniards had killed or wounded perhaps six or seven thousands native (some of these of course, had simply been trampled to death), while they themselves hadn't lost a single man"
And how do we explain the one Spaniard wounded?
*"...one Spaniard tried to stab Atahualpa with his knife to kill him. But Francisco Pizarro parried the blow and in doing so the Spaniard trying to kill Atahualpa wounded the governor [F. Pizarro] on the hand"--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking sources finds that there is very little agreement. Some say no Spaniards were killed and many of those that say 0 such as  National Geographic also say that ALL 7,000 Inca's were killed so we need to look at the sources used by these otherwise reliable sources which includes the book you want to push. The Nueva Crónica y Buen Gobierno (also used by the Spanish language Wikipedia page) was written in 1615 and doesn't say what the Inca casualties were, only that "they were killed like ants" and also "an unknown number killed themselves (trampled) trying to escape over a wall the weight of their bodies pushed over". It does however say that the Spanish lost five men: "The Spanish force lost five in the horror and these few casualties were not caused by the Indians, who had at no time dared to attack the formidable strangers,....(a sentence I cannot translate follows)...where the Indians killed the aforesaid five Spanish". It's possible they may have been trampled rather than killed by weapons. Later books don't mention these men but say the only Spanish casualty was Pizarro, this may be because the five were not actually killed by the Inca but the fact remains they were killed during the battle. For the Inca casualties we have a compilation of interviews with Pizarro's men and Indian survivors by Pedro De Cieza de Leūn written in Peru within 10 years of the events it describes. This book is the earliest written account of the battle. It describes Inca casualties but goes not mention any Spanish, not even injuries such as Pizzaro's that your book does. "And the Inca, where was he? More than two thousand Indians died and many were wounded"......the Spanish then attacked the Inca outside the plaza but it began raining "giving the Indians relief"....The Spanish then told the Inca to come and see that Atahualpa was not injured, "Thus, more than five thousand Indians without weapons were collected that night".  As these are original sources they should be more authoritative than books written 500 years later that had to use them as their own sources. Wayne (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that Kim MacQuarrie was also NOT THERE so I can also ask "how can you cite somebody who was NOT present at the battle?". Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala may not have seen the battle but he was born between 1532-1550 near Cajarmaca and lived when some older Inca still remembered it. Wayne (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To User:Wayne : because MacQuarrie's book actually cites the Spaniards and notaries that were present at the battle, what Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala did was basically to collect oral stories, also he maybe have been born between 1532-1550 but he didn't send his book to Spain to be printed until he was 80 years old! so that means his book basically records stuff from 17th century Peru, in a time that most (if not all) combatants at Cajamarca were dead. Also how did the 5 Spaniards died?? Poma de Ayala is just making some stuff up, like in some of his drawings he depicted the wrong people doing the wrong acts at the time of the Spanish conquest of Peru, I have more accurate and reliable sources that support my views.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia polies. If there is a dispute about a new edit you need to get consensus for your version before adding it....you do not keep replacing the old version. Another policy is verifiability comes before truth. If the reliable source says it, we use it unless other reliable sources claim the first source is lying. You need to find sources specifically claiming Poma de Ayala is "making some stuff up" in regards to Spanish dead. It doesn't matter that MacQuarrie's book "actually cites the Spaniards and notaries that were present at the battle". Because his source doesn't mention Spanish casualties doesn't mean there were none. That is why I used Cieza de Leūn only for the Inca casualties, his eyewitness sources (probably the same as MacQuarrie's) don't mention a single Spaniard but neither do they mention there were none. They can't use the arguement that no mention = no dead. Make a RFC then we can see which version should be used. Wayne (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: EuroHistoryTeacher, if you are still around, I am reasonably familiar with the English language scholarly literature on Spanish casualties on Cajamarca and while "zero" dead is usually cited, there is still some controversy/debate among professional historians; i.e. there does not seem to be any consensus on this; we should reflect that slight uncertainty in the article. I have changed the figure to "0–5" with a citation from Tucker (2010), who acknowledges that the figure usually stated = zero Conquistador deaths, but also mentions "some sources" saying "five". I have not removed the MacQuarrie citation, but removed the lengthy quote from MacQuarrie, which duplicated the article content. However, please note that the MacQuarrie quote requires formalities such as a date and publisher. Grant | Talk 04:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties/WLRoss

message: Seems pretty one sided for a battle. For a battle, wouldn't there have to be two sides fighting? It just seems to be one military force slaughtering unarmed people. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Battle" 

message: breaking down a fifteen-foot length of wall in the process+aftrmath2short(inkaempire!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.206.64 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  noclear 

message: Regarding the Aftermath section about the emperor's wife, and how she became the Spaniard's "mistress".  The word suggests a free choice on her part.  Given she was captured aged ten and apparently became his "mistress" within six years, it seems likely this wasn't really up to her, in which case there's probably a better word for it. Mazz0 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was she a "mistress"? 

message: Should this section be moved into its own Wikipedia article. Additionally it's referencing needs to be improved, and might currently fall into plagiarism of Restall and Lockhart's work. Finally I think it could be summmarised more easily, the mention of tlaxaca allies in Mexico removed, and the point of de Loro being a endearing term made within the original paragraph about de Loro.
Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prevalence of non-Europeans in the Spanish Conquest