Vikings met Incas?

[Kosmo]

Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.

Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

^ Some say one century, some say two. However, I've always been intrigued by the Incas, and I've ofen wondered how mystical really were they. If we were to believe a very respectable gentleman, Bill Sullivan, the Inca Empire should never have existed and that its only purpose was to change its faith: according to a profecy of Wirracocha Inca in 1432 the Empire will be destroyed as a result of heavy raining. Now, Pachacuti Inca, Wirracocha's son, rejected his father's profecy, but also accepted it. And thus started secret ceremonies like capa cocha during the winter solstice, which involved human sacrifice, especially children. They thought that the childer's soul was pure, and they were the only ones who could travel to their ancestors and convince them to change their faith. ( or so I've heard )

[ASCLEPIADES]

^ Some say one century, some say two. However, I've always been intrigued by the Incas, and I've ofen wondered how mystical really were they. If we were to believe a very respectable gentleman, Bill Sullivan, the Inca Empire should never have existed and that its only purpose was to change its faith: according to a profecy of Wirracocha Inca in 1432 the Empire will be destroyed as a result of heavy raining. Now, Pachacuti Inca, Wirracocha's son, rejected his father's profecy, but also accepted it. And thus started secret ceremonies like capa cocha during the winter solstice, which involved human sacrifice, especially children. They thought that the childer's soul was pure, and they were the only ones who could travel to their ancestors and convince them to change their faith. ( or so I've heard )

Strictly speaking, "Inca" was the title of their ruler, like "Emperor" at Rome. The ethnic group is Quechua (their endonym is Runa, "people") and the official name of the "empire" was Tawantisuyu ("four regions").

[Gaius Octavius]

The Vikings also went to Minnesota, but unfortunately were wiped out by the Dakota Indians!

[longshotgene]

Actually the name of the bone you are looking for is coincidentally called the "Inca" bone. This bone is actually found on anyone with Asian decadency. That is how we know the Native Americans are descendants of the Asians. However, there is a strange anomaly in the U.S. Along the eastern coast, all the way up to Virginia; there have been found the remains of several Caucasian bodies. These bodies actually predate the Asian Native Americans by several thousand years. Now that is interesting!

[longshotgene]

^ Some say one century, some say two. However, I've always been intrigued by the Incas, and I've ofen wondered how mystical really were they. If we were to believe a very respectable gentleman, Bill Sullivan, the Inca Empire should never have existed and that its only purpose was to change its faith: according to a profecy of Wirracocha Inca in 1432 the Empire will be destroyed as a result of heavy raining. Now, Pachacuti Inca, Wirracocha's son, rejected his father's profecy, but also accepted it. And thus started secret ceremonies like capa cocha during the winter solstice, which involved human sacrifice, especially children. They thought that the childer's soul was pure, and they were the only ones who could travel to their ancestors and convince them to change their faith. ( or so I've heard )

Strictly speaking, "Inca" was the title of their ruler, like "Emperor" at Rome. The ethnic group is Quechua (their endonym is Runa, "people") and the official name of the "empire" was Tawantisuyu ("four regions").

 

 

Actually the emperor was called the "Sapa Inca".

[longshotgene]

Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.

Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.

 

 

Actually the huge difference was the fact that when the Inca were visited by the stinky white man, they were in a state of Civil War. The Inca could have easily whomped on the Spaniards except for two reasons besides this. One-Incan warriors fought like European athletes played sports. Strictly one on one. There was no unified body. Soldier would fight soldier in combat. There was no team work. And they played sports like the Europeans like the Europeans fought. See the irony? Two the biggest thing of them all, the Incan population had been decimated by that great European addition, Small Pox! But the Incans did strike back with syphillis.

[caldrail]

Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.

Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.

 

Except in most cases the inca populations welcomed their visitors as the return of the White Bearded God. There was hardly any resistance, and the spanish did some nasty things on the quiet, including the assassination of the inca prince in order to nab his gold. Further, the spanish introduced disease to the area that severly reduced the population from that time. No inca in 1000AD? Ok, but what culture were the local inhabitants before? Methinks there was something broadly similar or perhaps less unified and sophisticated.

Edited October 20, 2007 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.

Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.

 

 

Actually the huge difference was the fact that when the Inca were visited by the stinky white man, they were in a state of Civil War. The Inca could have easily whomped on the Spaniards except for two reasons besides this. One-Incan warriors fought like European athletes played sports. Strictly one on one. There was no unified body. Soldier would fight soldier in combat. There was no team work. And they played sports like the Europeans like the Europeans fought. See the irony? Two the biggest thing of them all, the Incan population had been decimated by that great European addition, Small Pox! But the Incans did strike back with syphillis.

 

The 'stinky white man' should have played the game just like the Incas would have. And the Romans should have played the game the way the Gauls did.

 

 

Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.

Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.

 

Except in most cases the inca populations welcomed their visitors as the return of the White Bearded God. There was hardly any resistance, and the spanish did some nasty things on the quiet, including the assassination of the inca prince in order to nab his gold. Further, the spanish introduced disease to the area that severly reduced the population from that time. No inca in 1000AD? Ok, but what culture were the local inhabitants before? Methinks there was something broadly similar or perhaps less unified and sophisticated.

 

Methinks that the nasty Spanish should have gone easy on people who took the hearts out of kids and prisoners with their bare hands. As a matter of fact, they should have surrendered themselves for such a joyous occasion.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Methinks that the nasty Spanish should have gone easy on people who took the hearts out of kids and prisoners with their bare hands. As a matter of fact, they should have surrendered themselves for such a joyous occasion.

Methinks there were the Mesoamerican people (Aztecs, Mayas and so on) and not the Incas who took the hearts out of kids and prisoners.

[caldrail]

Yes those mass sacrifices are extraordinary aren't they? I saw a tv prog some time ago that suggested an interesting theory about it. It said that what was going on was an attempt to delay the 'end of the world' by appeasing the gods with these endless killings. Apparently they had a prophecy that the world would end and considered that 'a bad thing'.

 

Then I consider the christian end-timers who believe the apocalypse is due any day now, with its instant disappearances of the faithful and the hell and torment to be suffered by the rest of us left behind, and I wonder if there's a parallel here? That there's something buried in human psychology that drives people to these strange excesses of belief and action. Ok, these end-timers aren't ripping out hearts on a production line, but they do commit some awful atrocities on the quiet now and then.

[Kosmo]

Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.

Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.

 

Except in most cases the inca populations welcomed their visitors as the return of the White Bearded God. There was hardly any resistance, and the spanish did some nasty things on the quiet, including the assassination of the inca prince in order to nab his gold. Further, the spanish introduced disease to the area that severly reduced the population from that time. No inca in 1000AD? Ok, but what culture were the local inhabitants before? Methinks there was something broadly similar or perhaps less unified and sophisticated.

 

This White Bearded God thing it's a joke. The incas did not bow in reverence to the spaniards, they thought the spanish "army" was an embassy from an unknow andine population.

I have a great admiration for the feats of Pizzaro and a low opinion on incas. They and the meso americans were not the great civilisations of Noble Savages as some try to portray them. Just some underdeveloped agricultural populations. Giving the technological gap between the Old World and the isolated pockets of agrciulture in the western emisphere the outcome of the meeting was never in doubt.

[caldrail]

Well.. ok... But it must be said that Pizzaro and his men were nowhere close to saintly.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Well.. ok... But it must be said that Pizzaro and his men were nowhere close to saintly.

Well, it's hard to believe any potential Roman conqueror (let say of the contemporary Mesoamerican early classic period and the andine Nazca culture) would have done it otherwise given the chance (even they would have had a favourable technological and biological gap against the American populations; vg. iron weapons, horses and smallpox).

 

BTW, all these cultures were at the Neolithic stage at best when the Spanish conquered them, with the potential but very controversial exception of the very late Tarascan (P'urh

Edited November 6, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

I think the important thing to remeber here is that the spanish did not come to the americas to conquer - they were few in number and didn't expect successful military conquest. They were adventurers out for whatever valuables they could find, justifying their attitude by doing so in a heathen land. The fact that inca opposition crumbled was a bonus.