I have begun the second quarter of my first year of college and here I am again writing to my wonderful audience. In the past week, I have learned a lot more about the Inca Empire and the events that occurred in the 16th century between the Native people of the Americas and the Spanish conquistadors who went out to conquer South America. Although I have learned so much thus far, several questions have developed in my thoughts: why are the Inca very similar to the Greeks and Romans? How would the colonization of the Americas change if something in time was altered? Although both questions on the surface do not have any correlation, I wish to attempt to discuss and explain both questions because they are thought provoking and because alternate history is always fun to talk about.

     I believe that the Greeks and Romans and the Inca share many similarities, mostly in terms of war than social. The Incas seem to share parts of both the Greeks and the Romans. There are the superficial similarities such as: the Romans and Incas created a large empire, they both fell, and they both fought their wars hand-to-hand. Then there were other similarities more interesting. The Romans would pave roads and paths which made moving the troops from one place to another very easy and more efficient. The Inca in Peru also paved road systems  for their troops to move quickly and to send supplies efficiently (O’Toole Lecture 1). Although this sounds simple, the only ones to do something like this to their infrastructure were the Romans who were a sea away from the Inca.

Another similarity were the armies they created. According to Francisco de Jerez in his account of the Conquest of Peru, the Inca’s army consisted of men armed with axes, lances, throwing spears, sling-men wielding small shields, and were made up of, “dexterous and experienced soldiers, who had served in it from boys. They were young and stout…” (De Jerez, 54-55). This sounds very familiar when you think about the Greeks, specifically the Spartans. These weapons and shields for war are classic weaponry of the ancient times. Since Sparta was a war city-state, men were trained from an early age to fight, causing their army to be made up of a lot of young men like the Inca. The Incas military was like this due to the m’ita, their labor service, which also included the army as a service. In the same account by Francisco de Jerez, he says that the Inca were divided into squadrons with each carrying a banner and each being led by captains wearing elaborate cotton helmets as strong as iron (De Jerez, 54). This formation and organization is very similar to how the Romans would organize their soldiers.

     How can these civilizations be similar without ever meeting? I believe that these characteristics exist in both because several different people must have thought of it. In other words, humanity is always thinking, looking for different ways to approach something. In this case, the Romans and Inca thought that squadrons would be most effective in war as well as training their soldiers in their youth and using these weapons for war. This is why I believe that the Inca and the Romans were the most powerful empires of their time and place.

   If the Inca were as powerful as the Romans, why were they defeated by several conquistadors from Spain? The most devastating weapon that the Spaniards had was disease. Smallpox was introduced to the new world by the Conquistadors in 1519 which proceeded to travel faster than they did. Smallpox arrived at Peru by 1526 which lead to the death of the Sapa Inca Huayna Capac. His death led to a civil war for the crown and by 1532, the explorers arrived to Peru and began to conquer the land (O’Toole Lecture 1). Disease was responsible for the majority of the deaths of the natives of the Americas. This made it easy for Europeans to take land from the natives.

    What if smallpox was not brought to the Americas? History would be very different than what it is now. If disease was not brought to the Americas, the Inca emperor, Huayna Capac would not have died. His survival means that his sons would not start a civil war against each other so the empire would not be divided when the explorers arrive at Peru and they would face the full force of the Inca military. Colonization at this point would become very difficult for the colonizers because of several reasons. Firstly, as we had seen in the American revolution, knowing the terrain well will lead to a slight advantage. Just like the American colonists fighting against the British, the Incas would use their home terrain effectively since they know about all of its resources and how to traverse it. Another reason why colonization would be difficult is because of the distance. Europeans would have to travel an entire sea in order to arrive at the Americas so lots of resources and money would be used and those who are already fighting would have no hope for the cavalry. This effectively wards off any effort to colonize the New World. This can be taken a step further: what if the explorers had mustered up enough and successfully brought a proper army to the New World? I believe that the Incas would still win the war due to their greater numbers, their weaponry, and their Romanesque organization.

     It is interesting to think about how this moment of history could have happened differently if one factor in it had changed slightly. This truly shows the might of the Inca empire.

Works cited:

De Jerez, Francisco. True Account of the Conquest of Peru. p.54-55.

Hook, Richard (artist) artists. Reconstruction of a hoplite battle, c. 650 BCE, View: full.      Artstor,library.artstor.org/asset/HUCB_SHARE_109913117258

O’Toole, Rachel. Lecture 1. January 7, 2019.