Talk:Atahualpa

message: Did 168 men really destroy an army of 80,000?  That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
:Yes, although they didn't really destroy the entire army.  They did most of their killing (~6 to 7 thousand) in crowd of unarmed people around Atahualpa, according to "Guns, Germs, and Steel" at least.  TastyCakes 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to remember the sacredness of the Inca, Atahualpa.  He was literally believed to be a "man-god", a god on earth.  He was tricked by the Spanish into being captured, which worked with the Aztec in Mesoamerica.  At that point, it was all over.  The generals wouldn't risk the Spanish killing the Inca emperor when it seemed that the promise of gold from Cuzco and other temples in the area would secure his release once the ransom was gathered.  The Spanish then killed Atahualpa after receiving the ransom, which threw everything into chaos.  It has been postulated that Atahualpa was overconfident from winning the war with Huascar and therefore allowed himself to be captured pretty easily, but in the end, the overall story is rather one-sided and we'll probably never know the complete reasons for such a defeat.  True the Spanish had "superior" weapons and horses, but if the Inca had fought, the story would have been different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.142.165 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  168 men versus an army of 80,000 

message: The title of the article is Atahualpa, but the first line uses a different spelling ("Atahuallpa"), and the two become intercahngable throughout. Is there any standardised spelling? Google recognised 1,020,000 for Atahaulpa, as opposed to only 61,000 for the alternative. Ariasne 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. If there is a controversy regarding which form to use, it has already been decided upon in choosing the article name. The difference seems to be purely orthographic; it doesn't seem to represent any phonological difference. Emil 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardised Spelling? 

message: The description of Atahualpa as the "last true emperor" seems rather a judgement-- asserting his legitimacy in the dispute of Huascar as unquestionable, while judging Túpac Amaru et al to be bogus imposters. If no counter argument to this exists, it should be better explained-- otherwise, perhaps Wikipedia should not be in the business of asserting the correctness of historic claims to thrones. In any case, I suspect the caption "Lifetime portrait of Atahuallpa, the 13th and last true (the last empereor being Tu Pac Sharu) Inca emperor" could at least be better worded. -- Infrogmation 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "real" to "sovereign", this sounds more exactly for me 217.20.217.245 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last "true" Inca 

message: :moved from Help talk:Contents
My name is Bobbahuallpa.  I am related by marriage to a lineal descendant of Atahuallpa and have intensively studied Inca culture and history.  My wife's parents live in Calca, Peru, and her father, Martin Huallpa, is a lineal descendant of Atahuallpa.  
I intend to make many more informative changes to your article in the near future, as I am completing an extensive treatise on the subject of the rise and fall of the Inca Empire.  But in the meantime, please note that the date of Atahuallpa's death was July 26, 1533, not August 29, 1533.  This fact is noted by the expert, John Hemming, in his excellent treatise, "The Conquest Of The Incas" (1970).  Please see page 78 for the text and page 557 (with footnotes explaining why August 29, 1533 is incorrect and why the correct date is July 26, 1533).Bobbahuallpa 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but double L spelling (as in Ataw Wallpa) IS sometimes used in scientific sources, and July 26, 1533 IS the correct death date of Atahualpa in Cajamarca (not Quito). Compare es:wiki, pl:wiki and many written sources cited there. Due corrections made. Cien 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atahuallpa's date of death 

message: "Atahualpa's disastrous handling of the Spanish invasion notwithstanding..." doesn't sound really like a professional comment or something to be admited in a biographical article. It's judgment of Atahualpa's actions by some external or modern standard should not be accepted so lightly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.164.9 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: This article needs work on references and introducing more information on the debates about this Inca ruler, including those mentioned above on this talk page. I'll try to supply references, but inevitably, in doing so, the text may need to be changed. Any thoughts on this, please?Merlewood (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of References on this page 

message: I'm sorry, to place a need of citation, but other scholer books also assert his birthplace to Quito. I seek leaving it undefined since, it is, what it is, undefinitable  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.94 (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove a referenced statement you should use another reference. At least make your case here mentioning those "other scholar books" by author, title and page of the relevant reference. --Victor12 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atahualpas place of birth 

message: The article says that the civil war was started by the death of the father from small pox but then later blames the Spanish for bringing small pox to the Americas. If the Spanish did not arrive until after the civil war had started thus after the death of the father from small pox wouldn't that mean small pox was present before the arrival of the Spanish?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.164.130 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Pox 

message: This article mentions a trial for Atahualpa, but Hemming suggests that there was no trial and only a quick decision made by the Pizarro at Almagro's insistence. Appearently the myth was created by Lópes de Gómara in attempt to protect the Conquistators' reputations in Spain. icu :) (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial 

message: In this article says that the catholic name after baptism is "Juan Santos Atahualpa" but Spanish Wikipedia says that his catholic name was "Francisco Atahualpa" and there is a reference for it. There was other "Juan Santos Atahualpa", who claimed to be descendent of Atahualpa and maybe is the origin of the confussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Santos_Atahualpa.
--BoHeMlam (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct name is Francisco as Juan de Betanzos tells us. ('Narrative of the Incas', tr. and ed. Roland Hamilton and Dana Buchanan, Palma de Mallorca manuscript (1996), p.274) Cornelius (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atahualpa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030091621/http://www.fll.vt.edu:80/Culture-Civ/Spanish/texts/spainlatinamerica/pizarro.html to http://www.fll.vt.edu/Culture-Civ/Spanish/texts/spainlatinamerica/pizarro.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This seems to be an important aspect of his life and at least two of his wives/concubines were historically significant. Suggest some of you experts add this section. Sedimentary (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriages and Concubines

message: I think maintaining "Atabalica" in bold within the first paragraph is pointless. It is a spelling anecdotic to those sources cited and contemporary consensus is it was originally a misspelling. Under that very criterion, it should be annotated "Tabalipa" too, also anecdotic in sources. Contrary to that, I think both should be mentioned just in the Etymology section. Nawabaonbake (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names in first paragraph