Talk:Battle of Cajamarca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This page has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. See how to rate it.


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.

200 men killed 4,000 others in about 30 minutes? That means that each Spaniard killed approximately one person every 1.5 minutes for about half an hour, with arquebuses, swords and pikes. Is this credible? How many men did the cannons kill, and how long would they take to reload? How long would an arquebus take to reload?
There is something deeply fishy here. Did the Incan soldiers meekly submit to being slaughtered? -- ALoan (Talk) 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Don´t disturb this people, ALoan. Of course it is very credible. I am Spanish, and I am quite used to tis kind of amazing statistics. One person every 1.5 minutes using basically a sword (the arquebuses used to be used just one time in each battle) is not so much. Dont forget that 1.000 of my ancestors killed about 30-40 millions of indians only in La Hispaniola (we can guess a density of population higher than that of the modern Bangla-Desh, and each Spaniard killing nonetheless 3.000-4.000 indians) making Adolf Hitler look like a silly nun. Also it is quite surprising the obsesion of the conquistadores with the civilians and the children. The first thing that the conquistadores used to do in each battle, is to kill all the children in the zone, and also the women (better if they were pregnant). I wonder why the indian warriors didnt take advantage and killed the Spaniards while the Spaniards were that busy killing the civilians...The History is a mistery...I wonder how there are nowadays so many indians in Latin America complaining and crying, if we are pretty sure that the Spaniards killed all them off...but the most amazing thing is the stupidness of the indians that some authors supposse (and that could be interpretated as pure racism, i really believe that the indians could not be SO idiot). They were 6000 (or even 80.000) but they kept in the square without moving their asses while 100 Spaniards were killing all them off. And for the last one, just to express my deep respect, esteem and admiration towards the conquistadores: Somebody able to kill 45 indians in 30 minutes using a sword is nonetheless than a God. What he deserves is a medal. Cheers guys! Nitramón

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.

[edit] Questioning name of article

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)

The matter of whether Atahualpa's royal guard drew daggers is one of speculation, but either way, WikiProject Military history recommends that you avoid "non-neutral terms such as 'attack', 'slaughter', 'massacre.'" In any case, "battle" is probably the more common term. Albrecht 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the conquistadors who fought there said that "no man would dare call [it] a battle" --219.79.33.47 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the request. Although the speculated and lacking on base ambush of Atahualpa had been true, was the well known and all-way proved Pizarro's ambush the one that finally was done with devastating effects. Cajamarca was anything but a battle, It was a Padaemonium...--Ozomatli-Tepoztli 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

The statistics are correct. Atahualpa was attacked upon throwing down the bible offered to him. The Spanish attacked them with their large horses and steel weapons which overpowered the Inca soldiers. The cause for the copious slaughter and deceive victory for Pizarro was the fact that the Inca soldiers had inferior weaponry and armor while the Spaniards had steel weapons, steel armor and horses. 168 men slaughtered over 7,000 Inca soldiers however it didn't occur in only 30 minutes. The Spanish were slaughtering them for for several hours. The initial ambush lasted about 30 minutes, however the Spaniards continued to slaughter the wounded into the night. Generally when a armed horseman yielding steel weapons charges into a mass of unprotected soldiers then massive casualties can amount. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway that of "no spanish casualties" seems to be a myth... i just readed Gauman Poma's Primer Nveva Corónica i Bven Gobierno and in it's says that five spanish soldiers die, but because of "to be fooling around like indian"(Chapter of the Conquest, p 388).

"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)

Apparantly the latest research indicates that Atahualpa never met the Spaniards at all. His entire army was taking part in a celebration and were not only unarmed but not expecting the Spanish. When the Spanish arrived and saw this they immediately attacked along with thousands of their indian allies who hated the Incas. Another error is this sentence:

"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."

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)
Any references for these claims? --Victor12 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)