Talk:Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire

message: paragraphs 4 and 5 under the rebellion (section 4) are redundant.  They need to be consolidated, and some mention needs to be made of the Inca Victory at Ollantaytambo before the final retreat to vilcabamba.  (I don't have enough info, though)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.89.184 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: Is not this story considered obsolete spanish revisionist history?  I thought it was fairly well known at this point that the spanish themselves did very little fighting and that most battles were native/native.  Spanish allies verus inca.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.203.70 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The article is based on the Spanish records which were largely propaganda. For example recent research has found that rather than the account in the article of capturing Atahualpa what actually occured was the Spanish arrived during an Inca celebration and found the Incas unarmed. They took advanatage and attacked. There is also the recent discovery of a transcript from a Spanish court case that has first hand indian accounts that indicate the Spanish fought in small groups surrounded by hundreds of Inca allies for protection. Spanish sources say the Inca army numbered in the tens of thousands but Indian sources say several thousands. There were never any battles as we know them but many scattered skirmishes against a greatly outnumbered Inca army trying to run away. A recent find of the bodies of Incas killed in the seige of Lima show that only around 3% have wounds consistant with metal weapons while the wounds of the rest matched stone clubs. Experts speculate that mention of the indian role in the conquest was avoided because the (non Inca) Indians were offered treaties for their help against the Incas that were never honoured. Wayne (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is only half-correct. The Spanish themselves did indeed do quite a lot of fighting (the Battle of Cajamarca) without native allies, and fought with only token native assistance against an absolutely incredible number of Indians again after Manco Inca Yupanqui fled to Vilcabamba and launched the famous Inca revolt. After the defeat of Manco Inca, the Spanish were then able to build a large Inca army to consolidate their control of Peru, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that the Spanish themselves did "very little fighting" (they did, however, do very little dying compared to their enemies). --Netparrot (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsolete? 

message: The presentation is exposed as in the name of religion have committed heinous crimes to justify only good intentions and struggles against the infidels. About 86'500, 000 people were killed during the conquest. A REAL HOLOCAUST
the truth  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.99.194 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE 

message: When the Spanish arrived at the borders of the Inca Empire in 1528, the empire spanned a considerable distance.[1] Extending southward from the Ancs Maya (meaning Blue River) which is now known as the Patia River in southern Colombia to the Maule River in Chile, and eastward from the Pacific Ocean to the edge of the Amazonian jungles, the empire covered some of the most mountainous terrain on earth. In less than a century the empire had grown in extent from about 155,000 sq mi/400,000 km2 in 1448, to 380,000 sq mi/980,000 km2 (or about the size of the eastern seaboard of the greatly varying cultures and geography, many areas of the empire were left under local leaders, who were watched and monitored by Inca officials. However, under the administrative mechanisms established by the Incas, all parts of the empire answered to, and were ultimately under the direct control of, the Emperor.[2] Scholars estimate that the population of the Inca Empire probably numbered over 16,000,000.[3]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.200.210 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did the Spaniards conquer the Inca king? 

message: this Article here says in this  Section, that Atahualpa was killed on August 29, 1533. His own Article says, he died on July 25, the spanish Article says, July 26th, the german  and the italian Article says also 26th July. Where does this 29th August came from? -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost  21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Atahualpa died on August 29, 1533. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Atahuallpa            Professor Penguino (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atahualpas Dead 

message: Substituted at 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: "Toledo ended the indigenous Neo-Inca State in Vilcabamba, executing the Inca Túpac Amaru. He promoted economic development using commercial monopoly and built up the extraction from the silver mines of Potosí, using slavery based on the Inca institution of forced labor for mandatory public service called mita." So when the Incas do it is forced labor, but when the Spanish do it, under the same circumstances and even relying on the same Ayllus as intermediaries, it is slavery?--Menah the Great (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mita 

message: Which exact civilizations are they talking about here? I can think of the Aztects, Maya and Inca, but have no idea what the fourth is supposed to be. I don't think this wording should be used in this article, as it is not explained further and doesn't seem to be a standard expression.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.55.63 (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four grand pre-Columbian civilizations? 

message: Wasn't sure whether to edit that or not, so I brought it up here. 74.219.18.35 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't find any "starting point of the cat" quote in Matthew Reilly's novel Temple 

message: The caption on Luis Montero's picture is misleadingly worded.  It says he was the last Sapa Inca, but there were others after him who had the title.  Maybe it should say something to the effect of "the last undisputed Sapa Inca?" I would do this myself, but I wanted to make sure no one objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghinga7 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption on Luis Montero's picture 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "militari":
From Ten Years' War:   
From Thirty Years' War: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire]] 

message: "Spaniards form a bond with the Natives (Huancas, Chankas, Cañaris and Chachapoyas) who were under the oppression of the Inca Empire, and Pizarro includes them among his troops to face the Incas. Atahualpa is captured by Spanish." The first sentence is correct, the second one, too. However, the order is WRONG. Pizarro first captuared Atahualpa. Only then, 9 months later on his way to Cuzco, Pizarro formed bond with Huancas (who lived in the Jauja region, half way to Cuzco) against ... not "the Incas" but Quizquiz, Athualpa's general, who had conquered Cuzco before. Then Belalcázar started the conquest of Quito allied with the Cañaris. -- Wassermaus (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong order in Chronology 

message: Why was the title changed fo Spanish conquest of the Incan Empire? Centuries of spanish and english literature refer to this event as the Conquest of Peru. Are they changing it because some small countries feel offended their names are not included? Lenoir9898 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The title wasn't changed. It's always been the Spanish Conquest of the Incan Empire, which included lands outside of modern day Peru. Unbh (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Peru" is not used to refer to the modern state of Peru, but for the territories that, in those times, were all south of Panama, as names by Francisco Pizarro himself. The term "Conquest of Peru" has been used for more than 4 centuries, and changing it would mean an incongruence with the historical accounts, including the impractical idea of naming it the "Conquest of the Inca Empire, Mapuches, Aymara, Guarani, Tupi, etc etc" Lenoir9898 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest of Peru 

message: Hi. I think someone has vandalized the date. It used to be “1532-1572” and now it’s “6969-1572.” Could someone correct this, please? Pax Wikipedian (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Penguino (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in Date Parameters 

message: These events took place before there was reliable shipping to the Pacific side. The Spanish had established Panama City. Whether supplies were carried there or what was never clear to me. Somehow ships were put together for the Peru mission. In your reference 7 there is some information about getting outfitted in Panama City, but I do not have this book.
This aspect is important to the whole undertaking. Later we know that loot such as silver was carried over the isthmus of Panama to ship back to Spain.
This West side of Panama remained important up to the time when silver was shipped to China via Manila.
Tero111 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pizarro outfitted at Panama City 

message: Regarding this line:
"When first spotted by the natives, Pizarro and his men were thought to be Viracocha Cuna or 'gods'."
Although it isn't cited in the article, this line cites from Betanzo's Narrative of the Incas, and after an analysis of the source, this work draws on the myth of the returning "white bearded god" trope or fanciful prophecies of white conquest, including a part in the book where Pachacuti predicts the coming of white, bearded men to subjugate the Inca.
Although authentic historical sources are limited and some Spanish sources may otherwise offer valuable insight, our view of the Inca in the historical record is filtered heavily through a Spanish and Catholic colonial lens, and we should be careful to responsibly and critically analyze all antiquated Spanish sources, and especially when dealing with the history of colonized peoples. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to John Hemming, Atahualpa never ever thought the Spaniards were gods; this was a myth that emerged decades after the conquest. And, by the way, Cinquinchara was definitely not sent as an interpreter (he did, of course, not speak Spanish). The whole “gods” stuff should be deleted. What may remain: Atahualpa was told that there were some bearded strangers and sent the orejón Cinquinchara to investigate. — Wassermaus (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betanzos and the "White Gods" Myth