|
|
|
|
|
by polartx
962 days ago
|
|
That is correct, and I feel like it supports my point..in both of those examples the incumbent empire was weakened by infighting—-a non unified front.
I’m not as steeped on the Aztecs as I am the Incas, but Pizarro and Diego de Amargo arrived as conquerors in a company whose singular purpose was conquest. They were encircled and outnumbered 500 to 1 in what was effectively a kill box. Technology and horses gave them the upper hand, but the domino which instituted the downfall of the Incan empire is that the emperor himself was present _inside_ the killbox. Pride goeth before the fall. Which allowed Pizarro to charge through his soldiers and literally seize him from his royal litter…I don’t think this exception disproves that a unified front with defensive emplacements could have withstood a few hundred horse borne conquerors. |
|