Real socialism can't exi-

Nazi Germany was also destroyed by an unstoppable outside force, doesn't stop them from being idealized

>obviously inferior

This isn't a zero-sum game; there are a million and one ways to be inferior and as many to be superior. Were they martially and technologically inferior? Of course. That is all that mattered here, and history is written by the victors, who can declare the vanquished to have been subhuman apes if they want, and the masses will buy it, especially if it makes them feel better for destroying such a prosperous empire.

Were they culturally or genetically inferior? Of course not, not on the whole, and it is ridiculous to even broach that subject without strictly setting it into a very narrow context. They were better at being conquered by Spaniards, and that is about as much as we can say.

this, by their logic the Soviet Union was the strongest culture; best quality race and society in the world from 1945 to 1985

they sure were genetically inferior in their resistance to smallpox

>all these australians and leafs and burguers mistaking incas for aztecs

What do you think all the Holodomors and Great Leaps were?

Fucking yawn, all this cultural relativist bullshit.

How were the Incans superior in any fucking way to the Spainards? I'm sure you can come up with one obscure reason for it, but to say they're equal is stupidity.

Spanish Inquisition vs nonfatal blood sacrifice lol

Yeah fuck nuance, let's just say that one was better than the other and that's that!

Not that guy but are you for real right now?

I never said they were superior, but it is certainly relative and certainly not black-and-white. Again, there are myriad different measures of the supposed "superiority" of a society. Take your pick; it's always going to be arbitrary and very, very subjective.

That having been said, the Incas had a quasi-socialist and pretty peaceful empire while the Spaniards were 99% (hyperbole) peasants at this point, so I wouldn't jump to call them "superior".

>peaceful
Their empire was not only built on conquest, but when the spanish came they had just came out of a civil war

Spanish literature, philosophy, mathematics...you fucking name it.

Playing the moderate and saying "well both sides had good and bad" doesn't work when one side is overwhelmingly better in nearly every aspect.

It has nothing to do with "playing the moderate", it's just not being retarded and reducing two giant cultures to a single axiom.

As far as large empires go, and the Incan was among the largest right before its conquest, I'd say it was fairly peaceful. The power struggle itself was likely incurred by smallpox.

Seriously, I challenge you to find me one meaningful aspect in which Incan society was better than Spanish.

This: Also the Spaniards inherited most every significant advent of every nation from Algeria to Japan; it isn't really fair to compare them to the Inca, who were extremely more isolated.

Sure, Spanish had proximity to other great nations...but Algeria? Really? The fuck are you on about

And it wouldn't be hard for the Incans to maybe try seafaring, or cross the northern hills and engage in commerce.

andean populations endured smallpox

as far as being peaceful relative to its size that probably has to do with the lack of any neighboring states, only small tribal groups. also the Inca didn't have written records so we wouldn't be able to know of many specific battles that didn't occur right before the spanish conquest unless we found archaeological evidence.

>The power struggle itself was likely incurred by smallpox
how so? my understanding is that it was a dynastic dispute

Algeria was under the Caliphate, and so was Spain itself. Islamic empires were in fact the most significant recent influence on Spain by fair at the time of the Incas' conquest.

Please go back to pol if you're gonna start talking about how savage shitskin sandniggers are. Read a book.

not as well as europeans who had developed a resistance to it over the centuries. I wasn't making an honest argument that they were genetically inferior, just a very literal one

You're fucking kidding, right? You're saying around the time of the Renaissance the most significant influence on Spanish society was the fucking Umayyad caliphate?

>the /pol/ boogeyman
Great argument.

Why does it matter how they achieved it? Did Spain's prosperity have no contribution from geography?

Also Atahualpa's father probably succumbed to smallpox; the Empire would have been unified at the time if Europeans hadn't encroached.

Incas did practice human sacrifice m8

Clearly you're out of your depth. The Spanish Golden Age (and not the fairly local Rennaissance of Italy) only began decades after Spain conquered the Incas. Just prior to the Reconquista, the Arab world literally OWNED Spain, and their influence persists even today. Give up.

Lol. Cite me one legitimate source for this and I'll believe you.

I made more than one claim, kiddo. Again, I'd suggest reading something other than Cambodian basket-weaving board posts.

The only claim you made was of Arabian influence on Spanish society.

It's not a "claim" that the Ummayyads controlled Spain for a few centuries dumbass.

Although calling the Renaissance of Europe "local to Italy" is dangerously stupid.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
>inb4 Wikipedia
It's common knowledge the Renaissance was a European period.

>Seriously, I challenge you

Geez you take this "internet arguments" really serious eh? I know a board that will really fit you.

>death of the untimely death of the king results in a civil war
Are you saying that this circumstance could only happen during an outbreak of smallpox? I'm almost certain that this wouldn't be the first time that this had occurred, but we don't have written records.

>Why does it matter how they achieved it? Did Spain's prosperity have no contribution from geography?
my point is it's like saying the Indians of the Great Plains were peaceful just because they didn't have large scale wars like Europeans states. having smaller neighbors they would have less "wars" but they likely had many small scale raids on both sides. also you ignore that this "peacefulness" is also potentially false since the Inca didn't have written records.

I'm here for discussion. If you don't wanna discuss, don't reply or leave...?

just prior to the Reconquista Grenada was a tributary

>for discussion
> starts an "argument" with such a vague axioma as "Birds are clearly superior to prokaryote"

lol, ok, those sure are fun in the youtube comment section

Nothing vague about it; I already gave you three examples; math, literature, philosophy.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spaniards
Want more? Check those categories.

You're just unable to keep an argument going apparently.

Incans achieved some pretty astonishing feats despite their seemingly vast, technological inferiority.

Not to ancient aliens you, but tour guides in Cuzco will tell you that we still aren't quite certain how they were able to carve some of the great rock structures that they built. We have some textual source that suggest they used a string they made from some material in the jungle, which seems ludicrous to science today; however, there are unfinished rocks that have string-like, unnatural fissures which suggests this may be true.

Also, their knowledge of astronomy was just as advanced as any European nation.

>Also, their knowledge of astronomy was just as advanced as any European nation.
Probably more comparable to the ancient greeks. I don't think they had come up with the idea of a heliocentric solar system or telescopes to identify sun spots and the moons of jupiter. If they did come up with a heliocentric solar system, did they realize that the orbits of the planets were not perfect circles?

I didn't start the argument with you m8, just pointed out you really should start thinking about quality statements instead of bold obvious and vague facts.

Seriously Incas were inferior to spaniards? what's next? rock beats scissors?

You still haven't made any case proving otherwise.

they were better builders and miners for sure

>rock beats scissors?
not him, but how is that comparable? I wouldn't say that the Incas were inherently inferior per se, but in every way that you could potentially measure their development they were less advanced. really the only way you could say that you can't objectively compare them would be culture.

I never said there was something to prove or that I disagreed with you , Not everybody who gives you (You)'s has the same mindset nor is the same person m8.

So you're just chastising me on my bold use of language?

Come on dude lol

you have now seen the genius of post-processual archaeology. not an archaeologist myself but I'm taking an introductory course for fun and I've had to deal with my professor pushing post modernist bullshit all semester

>true socialism

Yes and no.

The normal Inca people had a social system called Ayllu, which was basically a "today for me, tomorrow for you".

The government, which was composed by curacas (vassals) paid workers with food were given royal privileges along with the military high ranks and the Inca royal family.

Don't mix European ideals with Native American civilization you marxist.

They weren't technologically inferior, but the knowledge of how to read their quipu (the knotted strings they used to write) was lost a long time ago so we don't know how to use their crystals anymore.

>bold use of language

bold use of argumentation

can't see why not, we are here for discussion, there is nothing wrong about "discussing" your levels of argumentation

Which brings us back to my point; if you can prove my boldness was unfounded by all means go ahead.

Otherwise you're being a doting mother about this shit.

I don't think it was on par with modern european thinking but they were without a doubt the most advanced of their contemporaries in the new world.

Taking a classics course right now, same deal.

Prof is cool but my god, he will sperg out if you ask any slightly un-pc question.

One kid asked if the Macedonians were the same people's as the Greeks, and the prof said "are you implying that the Macedonians weren't pure Greeks?"

Another asked if there was any cultural relation between Greek women wearing veils and Muslim women, and he said "are you trying to say that Muslims are misogynist?"

Like Jesus dude, relax.

>unfounded

never mean to do that, just pointed out how blatantly obvious your statement was in the context of the discussion. Like serious levels of /pol/ baits axiomas

If it was that obvious you should be arguing with the dude who is saying it isn't true.

Fucking hell lol

>They weren't technologically inferior
but they were. they didn't have firearms or well-developed metallurgy for one. having a writing system of some kind doesn't mean they were the same technologically as Europe. I'm not saying that this is the result of the Incas being dumber and there aren't other factors at play such as not having access to wide trade networks across a massive land mass like the Old World but in an objective sense they were technologically inferior in many aspects.

Being obvious and being vague aren't mutually exclusive.
It's up to the quality of your axioma. Being bad at it, either accidentally or purposely (setting baits) are both low quality entries of a discussion.

I've already been through this, I wasn't fucking vague mate. Just because a subject is broad doesn't mean it's vague or not up for discussion.

>taking the bait

He's joking; quipu were never used to write (as per the definition of true writing) and were instead used to record quantities, and little else. Most everything else I agree with you on.

Different technology doesn't mean worse technology.

Old World tech is steel-based. It uses steel to conduct electricity and generate power.

New World tech was mostly crystal-based. They used prisms to focus light into electricity. But we don't really know how they did it because the knowledge was mostly lost post-contact because they hid it from the Spanish.

oh, your right. kek, crystals should have been a give away.

>They used prisms to focus light into electricity

why didn´t they use electrical superweapons against the spaniards?

>Muh Civ V

Go back to /Gsg/ pleb and stay there.

are you implying metalurgy isn't a good way to compare technological development? it isn't simply just a matter of having better cutting weapons

Metallurgy isn't though, Assyria had one of the best metallurgic systems in history, but 90% of its people lived in profund poverty, and it would go to war weekly.

There's no universal civ metric, just like you can't judge between a sprinter and a swimmer, they both have things they do best.

Spaniards didn't really make an argument that Aztecs and Incas were inferior genetically or anything like that. They made an argument their unchristian way of life sealed their doom. There are plenty of monks from era that speak very high praise of Incas and Aztecs. Not everyone Spaniard was Christopher Colombo or Pizerro for fucks sake.

Hell even Hernan Cortes was disgusted himself with Spaniards with him and wrote to Charles V that the Spaniards with him were of low quality and character, being violent and barbaric.

but we aren't discussing social inequality, we're discussing technology

Spanish inquisition and blood sacrifice are both overblown, one side by retarded leftists other by retarded nationalists. By the way witch burning weren't done by inquisition, Spanish inquisition "just" waterboarded and tortured for confession.

Technology comes from the amount of energy available in a system dumbass, Whites Law of Complexity is a thing.

Actually ancient aryans did that, none of this brown people bullshit thank you very much.

wtf, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing they were """""inferior""""", I'm saying that in many ways they were technologically inferior. I've already said that this is a product of their opportunities and their circumstances overall, that doesn't change that they were objectively less technologically developed in every meaning full sense of the term

You're implying that technology is an evolutionary progression towards "better" and more complicated technology while forgetting the most import rule of evolution.
It's not the most advanced species that's the evolutionary best, it's the one best adapted to that environment and change. In the
Andes, the best technology was the ones they could make locally. If the Conquistadors dropped their guns off a cliff they're not going to be able to make new ones, no matter how "superior" their technology is.

Technology comes from how much you want to be a hedonist with a comfy life

It's not made up though. We literally have manuscripts showing them. Trying to make me look dumb with a reaction image isn't an argument.

And I bet you believe flying vimanas were real too because there are depictions of them.

I also eagerly await joining the post-societal collapse Veeky Forums anarchy-primitivist commune

if they knew where to get the materials to make gun powder in the Americas, lead, etc they could. not feasible specifically for the conquistadors but it is for an established state that has knowledge of how to make guns. I acknowledge that Incan technology is a result of their circumstances, but that doesn't mean that it's a perfect adaptation. for example, it's well known that farming initially resulted in a very poor lifestyle compared to hunter-gathering and only developed initially in a few places that where the ability to gather enough wild grains became restricted. this doesn't mean that farming isn't a nearly universally good adaptation for most environments, as seen by its spread and replacement of most hunter-gathering in the world. so an adaptation may only occur under certain circumstances but this doesn't mean that it doesn't result in something that is superior in a sense and will cause the group with the adaptation to spread and replace others without this adaption or for others to acquire this adaptation for their own benefit. Old World civilizations had the benefit of both of these, technology among other things spreading both through conquest and trade. so yes, the Incas' technology was an adaptation to their specific environment, but it is also the sum of previous interactions that develop it, which result in them being "behind" Europeans in many different types of technology. don't tell me that metallurgy has absolutely no usefullness in Peru. Even Inuits, who obviously can't farm and never will because of their environment, have taken up firearms. you know why? because firearms are better for killing things. yes, objectively.

By starvation and hypothermia, not bloodletting. The only case of a violent death related to incan human sacrifice was a boy that apparently freaked out and was knocked by the priests.

They've taken up firearms because they live in an environment when they can take a snow ski down to Wallmart and buy ammunition. In a pre-contact environment when that was impossible, they used the best technology they had available, spears made from bone. Your point doesn't argue for the superiority of firearms, it only argues they're the best choice in an environment where you have access to them.

Finally the Bedouin, Aborigines, Amazonian Indians and other peoples who've lived unchanged for literally hundreds of years is an argument against your assumption that farming is innately superior to hunter gathering. The fact that a farming community demands a strong state which grows in power by subjugating others and forcing them into their society was a bigger cause of its spread than any "superiority."

>The fact that a farming community demands a strong state which grows in power by subjugating others and forcing them into their society was a bigger cause of its spread than any "superiority."
That's exactly my point: that's evolutionary "superiority". farming in many ways causing the development of states led to it's spread. it's similar in a way to an invasive species that dominates new environments it comes upon.

>They've taken up firearms because they live in an environment when they can take a snow ski down to Wallmart and buy ammunition. In a pre-contact environment when that was impossible, they used the best technology they had available, spears made from bone.
you are right about this. but getting the materials for firearms is less of a problem in a place like Peru if you have the trade links and the knowledge of how to make them. even moreso for metallurgy. I'm pretty sure the Incas had access to copper, certainly gold. I'm sure with the right knowledge developing bronze, perhaps even iron tools and weapons would certainly be useful for them. again I'm saying that there is a reason they didn't ever develop this, but it would have been more useful to them than their stone implements if they knew how to process the metal ores. more useful, therefore better adapted, therefore more developed technology.

>Finally the Bedouin, Aborigines, Amazonian Indians and other peoples who've lived unchanged for literally hundreds of years is an argument against your assumption that farming is innately superior to hunter gathering.
also need to add that I've already addressed this: farming isn't better for every environment, but it is better adapted for most environments in the world, as shown by its spread

>it would have been more useful to them than their stone implements

Not to go all New Agey on you, but the Incans still managed to pull off feats of engineering that impress us today without metal tools. Their own tools were as useful as they needed to be. The fact they fell was not because of the Spanish's firearms or steel, it's because they, like with the Aztecs, found the natives willing to take any opportunity to overthrow their rulers.

"Blood sacrifice" does not mean that blood was literally spilled. It just means something (or someone) was killed for ritual purposes.

>Not to go all New Agey on you, but the Incans still managed to pull off feats of engineering that impress us today without metal tools. Their own tools were as useful as they needed to be.
that doesn't matter, stone tools are less useful than metal tools. there's no downside to the change. perhaps you are right that they didn't "need" metal tools. I think that this is an important part of technological development, the "need". humans quite often are complacent to their current life and if there isn't a push towards a need for high productivity they'll stick with what they got. in every sense higher productivity in farming, in warfare, etc is "better" but it doesn't come often unless there's an environment strain or one caused by competition. this is why the Egyptians didn't have chariots or bronze weapons before they were invaded by those that did. technological development in action, as bloody as it may be. both the Egyptians and hypothetically the Incas would/ could have benefited by this technological advancement, in more than just their abilities in warfare, but it won't happen unless they have a push

More like they kept coming until one group showed up in the middle of a civil war, got into the capital, ransomed the emperor for ludicrous amounts of gold and silver (and killed him after getting the ransom), and bolted.

>steel to conduct electricity
WEW LAD

>he didn't read Zhukov's memoirs detailing satanic rituals after every battle

Conquistadors had a significant amount of Jewish converts amongst their ranks, those who fled to the New World to avoid persecution in Iberia.