The History Book Club discussion

One point raised in this chapter is that while camping out in Villacambra, common warriors were allowed coca leaf, a luxury that had only been allowed to the emperor and the nobility before the war. The book states that coca leaf suppresses appetite and gives energy, benefits that were sorely needed in the rough conditions of the mountainous war camp. This was consistent with what I’d read about the coca leaf in Intoxication: The Universal Drive for Mind-Altering Substances by Ronald K. Siegel. And since that book includes an interesting story, I figured this was the moment to share it.

As you might guess by the title, Intoxication is all about drugs. To research the book, Ronald K. Siegel went to South America where he had a guide to take him through the rural mountain areas, places similar to Villacambra. He said the guide had the strength to climb mountains all day because he was constantly chewing on coca leaf.

Siegel’s research then took him to the city where he met a cocaine dealer. He asked the dealer, “Have you ever had coca leaf in its raw form?”

The cocaine dealer scoffed. “That’s for country bumpkins.”

When Siegel went back to the mountains and met his guide again, he asked, “You’re always eating raw coca, but have you ever tried the processed stuff – cocaine?”

The guide replied, “Are you kidding? That stuff will kill you!”

by Ronald K. Siegel

Found the lawyer Espinoza’s comments concerning warfare quite interesting. (p.293) He was specifically discussing the upcoming armed conflict brewing between the Pizzarros and Almagro. He states, “The wars that are to be feared the most and are the cruelest are the civil wars.” He directly references the Roman civil wars. This got me thinking as to why this is – looking at the American Civil War, the number of causalities ( well over half a million soldiers killed -- a staggering ratio when looking at the size of the U.S population at the time), an undocumented amount of direct and indirect civilian casualties, the destruction wrought upon the economy of the southern states, and these words seem to carry their weight well into Espinoza’s future. Today, we can look at what is happening in Russia/Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere and wonder at why we at are worst among those we know best.

Steve

Very interesting observations, Steve. In the case of civil wars, both sides are fighting for the homeland so the stakes are a lot higher than there would be in another kind of war. That probably contributes to the escalation in brutality. Also, in many of the cases you mentioned ethnic and religious differences also play a very important role in convincing each side that they have right on their side.


There also seems to be more opportunity for what they other side sees as "betrayal." There was certainly that in the Almagro/Pizzaro conflict. I was amazed that Hernando Pizzaro executed Almagro after Almagro had released him earlier.

Espinoza certainly hit the nail on the head when he warned about the dangers of conflict between the two groups of Spanish. They either ended up dead or in a Spanish prison.

I know that Manco Inca went to the Amazon area because he felt he could rely on those Antisuyu bow and arrow fighters to help protect him. At 4900 ft. elevation, Vilcabamba was still 6000 feet lower than his previous capital. I was surprised that he didn't retreat to a higher elevation for his new capital, since the Incas were at home with these heights and enjoyed considerable advantages there. The Spanish horses had a very difficult time climbing the Inca step roads.

I didn't see any information that Manco had the Antisuyu Indians teach his own forces to use bow and arrows, which would have seemed an obvious tactic from a modern viewpoint. I did think the rolling down boulders on the Spanish was ingenious. And finally, as we learn on page 313, Manco Inca and 3 of his warriors had captured horses and actually learned to ride them into battle. This was a considerable advance. If they could have done this on a larger scale, their guerrilla war might have had been much more successful.

The Spanish committed so many atrocities that my sympathies are always with the Incas in this book, but I remind myself that the Incas could be equally brutal.

Ann wrote: "Very interesting observations, Steve. In the case of civil wars, both sides are fighting for the homeland so the stakes are a lot higher than there would be in another kind of war. That probably co..."

Yes on both counts Ann. Espinoza seemed like the kind of person who should have been in charge. He was quite astute.

Ann wrote: "I know that Manco Inca went to the Amazon area because he felt he could rely on those Antisuyu bow and arrow fighters to help protect him. At 4900 ft. elevation, Vilcabamba was still 6000 feet lowe..."

So true Ann - but Manco still did not possess the strategic expertise that the Pizarro brothers seemed to exhibit naturally including the dreaded Hernando.

You're right about that, Bentley. Whatever their many shortcomings, the Pizzaro brothers knew how to organize a battle.

Yes in spite of all of their foibles and distasteful personal characteristics - they were well suited for the role they chose.

The Incas were more gullible and naive - while the Spaniards were more manipulative and street smart. And the Incas I fear understood their own culture very well but failed to grasp the nuances of the Spaniard one - including how they communicated and their hidden agendas.

I found myself rooting for the Incas while reading this book in spite of their battle tactics which were as despicable as the Spaniards. Throughout the book, I saw the Incas as the underdogs facing insurmountable odds - they were not immune to the diseases of the Spaniards, nor the guns, nor the steel armaments, nor the 1000 pound horses and cavalry. Tough odds.

Yet in spite of the above - they did have many missed strategic opportunities where sometimes even their own culture held them back.

I know Kathy - I felt the same way.

The torture and execution of Cura Ocllo, the Inca queen was difficult to stomach. It seems that there were two simultaneous wars: The civil battling between the natives, and then the fighting against the external forces. Each fed off the other to grow into a convoluted mess. By this point, it is as though these conflicts became deeper, more personal. It was not just about plunder and control, but also about vengeful retaliation to bring on ultimate humiliation in the most despicable forms.

Actually, the infighting between the Spaniards was another layer of conflict that added to this mix of murder and mayhem. Multiple wars, internal and external = complex struggle.