![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 16, 2006, November 16, 2007, November 16, 2008, November 16, 2009, November 16, 2010, November 16, 2015, and November 16, 2019. |
![]() | A fact from Battle of Cajamarca appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 August 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
I removed the external link for Capturing of the Inca King as it asked for a login and password which were not supplied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.20 ( talk) 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the name of this article correct military speaking? There came no order of counter attac from the Inka, and the indians did not raise any weapons against the conquistadors. Shall actions like that be called a battle? As for the numbers of deaths, I only know (=have read) that the Spaniards did get tired by cutting in on the indians that was surrounding Atahualpa without meeting any resistans. As soon as one fell, another took his place, to carry the Inca throne. Xauxa 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have heard he came in with his 80,000 men army unarmed with the strategy to terrified them instead of defeating the Spainard to make himself look even greater. --yeah other references have 80,000 men. not 6,000. sounds like a revisionist edit.
First off, Atahaulpa didn't speak unflatteringly about the pope, he didnt know any spanish. Valverde handed him a bible and he didn't understand what it was. Handing a book to a person who has no knowledge of written language wouldnt be very effective. The only thing like a written script the Inca had was the quipus, which is kind of like a colorful abacus. And I have always heard that he brought 5k soldiers with him into the plaza, and that the spanish were waiting in ambush for him, who then proceeded to kill most of the bodygaurd and capture the Inca himself without taking a single casualty... The Inca came with an enormous army, but only so many did fit inside Cajamarca. They planned to cross the spaniards with teh weapons they carried concealed but the spaniards beat them. The previous nigth the spaniadrs had traced a plan to sieze initiative the moment the indians started violence. Atahualpa himself give the signal by trowing the Bible. He was overconfident on his own power and proved wrong. The main weapon of the spaniards was the sword.
"De la uanda de los españoles murió cinco personas de su boluntad, por ningún yndio se atreuió de espanto asonbrado. Dizen que tanbién estaua dentro de los yndios muerto los dichos cinco españoles; deue de andar tonteando como yndio, deue de tronpizalle los dichos caualleros."
anyway, only five spanish deads doesn't change the things so much... -- Ozomatli-Tepoztli 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This "audacious" scheme was standard Spanish tactics for every battle they ever fought. The sentence implies it was something unusual. Wayne ( talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"Pizarro gathered his officers on the evening of November 15 and outlined a scheme that, in its audacity, recalled memories of Hernán Cortés' exploits in Mexico: he would capture the emperor from within the midst of his own armies."
References
It's obvious there not many people here but me that has done research, so here: Video. InternetHero ( talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that various edits are made every few weeks to "increase" the military strength of the Incas in the battle. The Incas involved in the battle were Atahualpa's unarmed personal attendants and nobles (who acted as generals when needed). The rest of his 80,000 "army" who stayed behind were armed civilians who took no part. The Incas had no regular army. When needed, peasants were conscripted for campaigns or battle. These peasants supplied their own weapons and had no training. The Incas relied on overwhelming an enemy with their numbers rather than military might as we know it. Please do not edit to include the 80,000 in the battle or edit to infer that those who did take part were warriors. Wayne ( talk) 06:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw somebody using Felipe Poma de Ayala's sources for the casualties, first he was not there, second he was no there and third he was not there, so how can we cite somebody who was NOT present at the battle? Here are better sources by Kim MacQuarrie from his book the last days of the incas :
And how do we explain the one Spaniard wounded?
[2], [3], [4], [5],[ http://books.google.com/books?id=uCIQ3zTaTuUC&pg=PA20&dq=Casualties+at+Battle+of+Cajamarca], anymore?-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me. I believe you are the one who cannot understand wiki policies. More books (as I have shown) contradict Poma de Ayala and also, MacQuarrie's book does say that there were no spanish fatalities but only one wounded. So I have more sources to override Poma de Ayala's.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty one sided for a battle. For a battle, wouldn't there have to be two sides fighting? It just seems to be one military force slaughtering unarmed people. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
breaking down a fifteen-foot length of wall in the process+aftrmath2short(inkaempire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.206.64 ( talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Aftermath section about the emperor's wife, and how she became the Spaniard's "mistress". The word suggests a free choice on her part. Given she was captured aged ten and apparently became his "mistress" within six years, it seems likely this wasn't really up to her, in which case there's probably a better word for it. Mazz0 ( talk) 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's pre contemporary times, mistress can be a useful neutral word. As she's a former wife of the emperor when that age as well, should we also edit it to say child bride? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 08:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Should this section be moved into its own Wikipedia article. Additionally it's referencing needs to be improved, and might currently fall into plagiarism of Restall and Lockhart's work. Finally I think it could be summmarised more easily, the mention of tlaxaca allies in Mexico removed, and the point of de Loro being a endearing term made within the original paragraph about de Loro. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 23:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 16, 2006, November 16, 2007, November 16, 2008, November 16, 2009, November 16, 2010, November 16, 2015, and November 16, 2019. |
![]() | A fact from Battle of Cajamarca appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 August 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
I removed the external link for Capturing of the Inca King as it asked for a login and password which were not supplied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.20 ( talk) 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the name of this article correct military speaking? There came no order of counter attac from the Inka, and the indians did not raise any weapons against the conquistadors. Shall actions like that be called a battle? As for the numbers of deaths, I only know (=have read) that the Spaniards did get tired by cutting in on the indians that was surrounding Atahualpa without meeting any resistans. As soon as one fell, another took his place, to carry the Inca throne. Xauxa 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I have heard he came in with his 80,000 men army unarmed with the strategy to terrified them instead of defeating the Spainard to make himself look even greater. --yeah other references have 80,000 men. not 6,000. sounds like a revisionist edit.
First off, Atahaulpa didn't speak unflatteringly about the pope, he didnt know any spanish. Valverde handed him a bible and he didn't understand what it was. Handing a book to a person who has no knowledge of written language wouldnt be very effective. The only thing like a written script the Inca had was the quipus, which is kind of like a colorful abacus. And I have always heard that he brought 5k soldiers with him into the plaza, and that the spanish were waiting in ambush for him, who then proceeded to kill most of the bodygaurd and capture the Inca himself without taking a single casualty... The Inca came with an enormous army, but only so many did fit inside Cajamarca. They planned to cross the spaniards with teh weapons they carried concealed but the spaniards beat them. The previous nigth the spaniadrs had traced a plan to sieze initiative the moment the indians started violence. Atahualpa himself give the signal by trowing the Bible. He was overconfident on his own power and proved wrong. The main weapon of the spaniards was the sword.
"De la uanda de los españoles murió cinco personas de su boluntad, por ningún yndio se atreuió de espanto asonbrado. Dizen que tanbién estaua dentro de los yndios muerto los dichos cinco españoles; deue de andar tonteando como yndio, deue de tronpizalle los dichos caualleros."
anyway, only five spanish deads doesn't change the things so much... -- Ozomatli-Tepoztli 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This "audacious" scheme was standard Spanish tactics for every battle they ever fought. The sentence implies it was something unusual. Wayne ( talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"Pizarro gathered his officers on the evening of November 15 and outlined a scheme that, in its audacity, recalled memories of Hernán Cortés' exploits in Mexico: he would capture the emperor from within the midst of his own armies."
References
It's obvious there not many people here but me that has done research, so here: Video. InternetHero ( talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that various edits are made every few weeks to "increase" the military strength of the Incas in the battle. The Incas involved in the battle were Atahualpa's unarmed personal attendants and nobles (who acted as generals when needed). The rest of his 80,000 "army" who stayed behind were armed civilians who took no part. The Incas had no regular army. When needed, peasants were conscripted for campaigns or battle. These peasants supplied their own weapons and had no training. The Incas relied on overwhelming an enemy with their numbers rather than military might as we know it. Please do not edit to include the 80,000 in the battle or edit to infer that those who did take part were warriors. Wayne ( talk) 06:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw somebody using Felipe Poma de Ayala's sources for the casualties, first he was not there, second he was no there and third he was not there, so how can we cite somebody who was NOT present at the battle? Here are better sources by Kim MacQuarrie from his book the last days of the incas :
And how do we explain the one Spaniard wounded?
[2], [3], [4], [5],[ http://books.google.com/books?id=uCIQ3zTaTuUC&pg=PA20&dq=Casualties+at+Battle+of+Cajamarca], anymore?-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me. I believe you are the one who cannot understand wiki policies. More books (as I have shown) contradict Poma de Ayala and also, MacQuarrie's book does say that there were no spanish fatalities but only one wounded. So I have more sources to override Poma de Ayala's.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty one sided for a battle. For a battle, wouldn't there have to be two sides fighting? It just seems to be one military force slaughtering unarmed people. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
breaking down a fifteen-foot length of wall in the process+aftrmath2short(inkaempire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.206.64 ( talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Aftermath section about the emperor's wife, and how she became the Spaniard's "mistress". The word suggests a free choice on her part. Given she was captured aged ten and apparently became his "mistress" within six years, it seems likely this wasn't really up to her, in which case there's probably a better word for it. Mazz0 ( talk) 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's pre contemporary times, mistress can be a useful neutral word. As she's a former wife of the emperor when that age as well, should we also edit it to say child bride? Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 08:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Should this section be moved into its own Wikipedia article. Additionally it's referencing needs to be improved, and might currently fall into plagiarism of Restall and Lockhart's work. Finally I think it could be summmarised more easily, the mention of tlaxaca allies in Mexico removed, and the point of de Loro being a endearing term made within the original paragraph about de Loro. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 23:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)