How significant do you think it was that the conquistadors had access to a deep historical archive? The Aztecs and Incas arguably had writing, but it wasn’t used to preserve a large library of historical and fictional stories. The Portuguese presumably were reasonably educated, and knew many stories of emperors and empires. The South Americans may have had some oral histories to go by, but I presume it was paltry in comparison.
The Indian case was far different, I would imagine, so this hypothesis doesn’t touch that case at all.
I don’t think that specific fact really disputes that they “had access to a deep historical archive.” From Jared Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel,
On a mundane level, the miscalculations by Atahuallpa, Chalcuchima, Montezuma, and countless other Native American leaders deceived by Europeans were due to the fact that no living inhabitants of the New World had been to the Old World, so of course they could have had no specific information about the Spaniards. Even so, we find it hard to avoid the conclusion that Atahuallpa “should” have been more suspicious, if only his society had experienced a broader range of human behavior. Pizarro too arrived at Cajamarca with no information about the Incas other than what he had learned by interrogating the Inca subjects he encountered in 1527 and 1531.
However, while Pizarro himself happened to be illiterate, he belonged to a literate tradition. From books, the Spaniards knew of many contemporary civilizations remote from Europe, and about several thousand years of European history. Pizarro explicitly modeled his ambush of Atahuallpa on the successful strategy of Cortes. In short, literacy made the Spaniards heirs to a huge body of knowledge about human behavior and history. By contrast, not only did Atahuallpa have no conception of the Spaniards themselves, and no personal experience of any other invaders from overseas, but he also had not even heard (or read) of similar threats to anyone else, anywhere else, anytime previously in history. That gulf of experience encouraged Pizarro to set his trap and Atahuallpa to walk into it.
That quote seems to provide no evidence that the ‘literate tradition’ mattered. Cortes’ conquest was only 14 years before; Pizarro had arrived in the New World 10 years before that; Cortes’ conquest involved many people and was a big/important deal; even if the Spanish had no writing at all, Pizarro would likely have known the general outline of Cortes’ actions.
It’s strictly speaking impossible to rule out Pizarro indirectly being influenced by writing; but I don’t think it would be possible for stronger evidence against the importance of writing in this specific case to exist.
Agreed. I think literacy or “literate tradition” had nothing to do with it, but learning from Cortes’ experience (and earlier Spanish experiences in the canary islands, etc.) was crucial.
I agree it’s evidence. Though, I would estimate that the Spanish conquest of the Inca civilization was something like 80% due to disease, 20% due to other factors.
Interesting. I don’t know enough to say. Most of world history isn’t that relevant to what the conquistadors did, I think—it was pretty unprecedented. The few precedents were the things I already mentioned (the canary islands, the african coast forts, Cortes was precedent to Pizarro) And at any rate this wouldn’t touch the Afonso case, as you say. So I doubt it.
How significant do you think it was that the conquistadors had access to a deep historical archive? The Aztecs and Incas arguably had writing, but it wasn’t used to preserve a large library of historical and fictional stories. The Portuguese presumably were reasonably educated, and knew many stories of emperors and empires. The South Americans may have had some oral histories to go by, but I presume it was paltry in comparison.
The Indian case was far different, I would imagine, so this hypothesis doesn’t touch that case at all.
Pizarro was illiterate.
I don’t think that specific fact really disputes that they “had access to a deep historical archive.” From Jared Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel,
That quote seems to provide no evidence that the ‘literate tradition’ mattered. Cortes’ conquest was only 14 years before; Pizarro had arrived in the New World 10 years before that; Cortes’ conquest involved many people and was a big/important deal; even if the Spanish had no writing at all, Pizarro would likely have known the general outline of Cortes’ actions.
It’s strictly speaking impossible to rule out Pizarro indirectly being influenced by writing; but I don’t think it would be possible for stronger evidence against the importance of writing in this specific case to exist.
Agreed. I think literacy or “literate tradition” had nothing to do with it, but learning from Cortes’ experience (and earlier Spanish experiences in the canary islands, etc.) was crucial.
I take this passage to be evidence in favor of my “experience --> cunningness advantage” claim.
I agree it’s evidence. Though, I would estimate that the Spanish conquest of the Inca civilization was something like 80% due to disease, 20% due to other factors.
Interesting. I don’t know enough to say. Most of world history isn’t that relevant to what the conquistadors did, I think—it was pretty unprecedented. The few precedents were the things I already mentioned (the canary islands, the african coast forts, Cortes was precedent to Pizarro) And at any rate this wouldn’t touch the Afonso case, as you say. So I doubt it.