Traitors?

This is coolbert:

From a post of Craig: "Conquest of the Inca - The Inca were conquered by a few Europeans. But it should be remembered that any ancient empire had conquered and enslaved numerous other tribes. These tribes could easily be recruited to rebel against their current masters. A handful of Europeans backed by numerous subject tribes of the Inca joined together to defeat the Inca."

Craig is correct in what he says. It is easier to conquer when you have allies or collaborators. [If they are on your side they are allies, otherwise, collaborators!!]

Where ever the "European" conquerors went in the western hemisphere, they WERE ABLE to find either [willing and able] American Indian allies or collaborators that made the process of conquest that much easier.

Cortez did find allies among the many tribes of what is now Mexico during his conquest of the Aztec Empire.

The Aztecs were militaristic overlords that ruled with a heavy hand. Various Central-American Indian tribes, vassals to their Aztec rulers, were more than happy to assist Cortez, and DID SO! Cortez's conquest was NOT entirely a case of about one hundred fifty conquistadores alone defeating the massed army of the Aztec. Cortez did have considerable backing from the various tribes opposed to the Aztec.

In Peru, it may have well been that the task of Pizarro was much simplified by dissension within the ranks of the Inca nation itself. Dissension that Pizarro may not even been aware of!!

Atahualpa, the Inca, had become ruler of the Inca Empire only shortly before the arrival of the Spanish, and this after a civil war.

Atahualpa probably had not even consolidated power before he had to deal with the "Silver Men".

In all likelihood, Atahualpa DID NOT have the full backing and support of his subjects.

Atahualpa's power was on shaky ground to begin with.

 His own people did not feel a loyalty to him as he needed. Were not willing to sacrifice for him.

Pizarro, after the death [execution] of Atahualpa, was able to find a collaborator who ruled as Inca [the ruler of the Inca was also called the Inca]. A young Inca of royal blood volunteered his services to Pizarro. This collaborator became a proxy ruler for the Conquistadores. Did the Spanish biding and willingly too!! Made the further conquest of Inca territory and the firm establishment of Spanish rule that much easier!

A similar situation existed in North America also!

Among those killed fighting along Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn was Chief Bloody Knife.

Head of the Ree [Arikara] American Indian scouts.

Scouts that were an integral part of the U.S. cavalry in it's campaigns against "hostile" American Indian tribes opposed to white settlement. Bloody Knife DID NOT see his scouting for the U.S. cavalry as being a betrayal of his heritage. He was merely fighting with new allies [the U.S. cavalry] against his ancestral enemies, the Sioux [Dakota]. As I have mentioned in a previous blog, the word Sioux means enemy in the language of those opposed to the expansionist and militaristic American Indian tribe known as the Dakota.




We find a similar situation existing one hundred years prior to the Little Bighorn battle.

At the pivotal American Revolutionary War Battle of Oriskany the American militia under the command of General Herkimer had fighting alongside them American Indians from the Oneida nation [part of the Iroquois Confederation].

Allied with the American forces against a mixed contingent of British regular troops, Tory loyalists, and Iroquois Indians loyal to the British Crown.

For what ever reasons, the Oneida were quite willing and able to fight with the American militia against their own "Iroquois brothers", stripping off their "white man's clothes" and going into battle Indian style, wearing only a breechcloth!! Why the Oneida were loyal to the Americans and did not join their Iroquois "brothers" is not clear, other than they DID NOT!! [Maybe this is one reason the Oneida have so many casinos today?]

coolbert.