Pizarro's Defeat Of The Incas Summary

Thesis statement: Yali posed an important question that involves the relationships of people from all times. The answer is intricate, but still unclear. However, the link between Pizarro’s easy defeat of the Incas is a clue further into the answer.

Yali’s question is an age old inquiry. Yali is inquisitive as to why caucasian people developed so many goods/ cargo and brought them to New Guinea but black people had so little goods themselves. On the surface, the question appears simple, but is complex to answer. Essentially, he is asking: Why did human development proceed at such different rates on different continents, or, why do their lifestyles contrast so greatly? Why did Europeans end up with more goods than New Guineans despite intellectual
disadvantage?

There is no single, definite answer to Yali’s intricate question.
Humans developed at such different rates on different continents and their lifestyles differ so vastly due to a number of reasons. Inequalities dating back to 1500 A.D. influence life today. A generally thought explanation to this question would be that biological differences, how and where people were raised, and what humans were taught and how they were taught them contributed to dissimilarity. However, there is no genetic answer, and the idea that climate contributes to dissimilarity can be disproven. This leaves the proposition that what humans were taught and how they were taught them contributes to cultural variation. This is a supported and debated hypothesis because, in relation (not right word) to Yali’s question, New Guineans are taught different things than Westerners. This is due to the fact that the different cultures need different life skills to survive. There seems to be no obvious advantage or disadvantage in between cultures. However, Europeans had the advantage of guns, germs, and steel. New Guineans had only developed stone and wood tools, had no guns, and immune systems that had never been exposed to foreign germs that the Europeans
carried.

The Spanish Conquistador Francisco Pizarro easily defeated the Incan empire. With odds stacked enormously against the Spaniards, Pizarro prevailed in his conquest against the Native Americans. Why is this? Based on records kept by Pizarro’s companions of the events that occurred at Cajamarca, it is concluded that although good battle strategy/ trickery did play a large role in the success, the Spaniard’s steel weapons, guns, horses, and superior armor provided a large imbalance between Atahualpa’s army that only had dismal weapons made out of stone, bronze, and wood, as well as quilted army which wasn’t nearly as effective as the Spaniard’s proper armor, made out of chain mail/ steel. Among the Incan weapons were wooden clubs, maces, hand axes, and slingshots. Though the Spaniards only had 12 guns, the novelty of the unknown was terrifying to the Indians and the never before seen horses were also psychologically upsetting. Furthermore, the Spaniard’s employed trickery to help them defeat the Incas. Pizarro sent a message saying that he wanted to speak to Atahualpa in a friendly manner, and when they finally spoke, Pizarro’s army showed up with weapons, horses, and in their armor while the Inca’s were not fully prepared.

Pizarro’s easy defeat of the Incan empire can help understanding of Yali’s question. For some reason, European and Western societies developed at a faster rate than