@19dec1981 So far I do not agree with this "Guns, Germs and steel" 100%. I mean how about most of Africa? They had the animals to work with, they also have or had the most resources in Earth! More then The Romans, Celts, Teutons, Egyptians, Chinese, Ethiopians, Aztecs, Greeks, or many others can dream of! But yet most of Africa lack behind of them by millenniums! I mean how do you explain a tribe of Celts or Germans that made the first or one of the Pattern welled steels in about 800BC?
@xxTeutonicKnightxx you are right. There are plenty of native animals in Africa that could have been domesticated yet the native people of Africa domesticated mainly animals brought from outside their lands. Zebra, antelopes, elephants, and warthogs are all domestic-able.
Africa doesn't have the most resources on earth when it comes to farming. Only a small percentage of Africa has fertile soil and there's never been a crop as sustainable and nutritious as the ones found in the middle east. Add to that the fact that there is too little precipitation and difficult access to water.
@shengshaoyi One doesn't need allies or even superior tactics to destroy a numerically superior force and Pizzaro used neither against the Incas. What is required is superior arms and armor and he had both. The potency of steel cannot be overestimated when employed against combatants not even outfitted with metal. The english used only superior weaponry against the french at Cercy and won at 8:1 odds so I don't find it strange at all that a handful of spanish could kill thousands of incas
@PatrickEngSU 8:1 might be long for Crecy (I got that number from an english doc), but it was at least 3:1 and everything was equal except the longbow like most battles inthat war
@PatrickEngSU True... but not ONE spanish conquistador died. That, regardless of weapons and/or armour, is very impressive. And taking in disease. Lets say small pox infected 1 person, then the next hour infected 10, then 100, and so on, and lets say that the spanish killed 2000 incas every hour, and the inca killed 5 spanish every hour. The spanish would still lose. I meant to say that I did not get how 200 spaniards beat 80000 inca with out a single causualty.
@shengshaoyi 80000 inca with out a single causualty? Hmm Steel plate armor does wonders… But also to be fare this vidoe left out that the fact is that the Spaish had Native Allies that heated the Aztecs, the Aztecs took everything from them and killed the people they knew as well...
@xxTeutonicKnightxx germs were also the MAIN FACTOR THAT ALLOWED Europeans to colonize the Americas because diseases like small poxes and measles from European colonists have already decimated entire villages of Natives before the Europeans even arrived in certain parts of the Americas.
@supersmash43 Oh yes, I agree with you there, I was not debating that. But it is just I personally think “Guns, Germs and Steel” does not give to much credit to the Europeans for being inventive & clever. Europeans were not simply successful because they had the resource... Jared Diamond fails at comparing many other factors, like the mentality of the people living there, their culture, way of thinking & so on... For example look up: /watch?v=vXiX8DALPZ8
@xxTeutonicKnightxx That's true. Culture also plays a big role. The ancient Chinese had a great and powerful civilization, but their political instability and infighting prevented the Chinese fleets from conquering many parts of the world. Had their cultural problems not hindered them, perhaps the Chinese would have been the first to colonize parts of North America.
But Pizarro did use Indian allies. The Huancas for example. Secondly, the attendants to Atahualpa at Cajamarca were unarmed. A mistake on Atahualpa's part but unarmed opponents are pretty much helpless.
Francisco Pizarro a great warrior? He was nothing but a mere butcher.
Why didn't he conquer Ottoman Empire if he was such a great warrior, but Indians of South America armed with nothing more than spears, wooden swords, stone axes and slingshots? Why didn't he defend Europe from Ottoman attacks and conquests? Why didn't he defend Spain's conquests in North Africa (Tunis and Algeria) from Ottomans?
Because he was a fucking pussy, that's why. Don't make me laugh with this "great warrior" shit.
@mickeypopa,Also they didn't mention that the Spaniards had help from the other Native tribes who had beef with the Native Empire of the Inca. So in other words,without the help from the other native tribes,the Spaniards would have been defeated by the Inca Empire no matter how much equipped the Spaniards were.
That was not my point. No matter how many people Pizarro had, or who did or didn't help him, fighting against way inferior opponent in terms of weapons and technology is not what makes a great warrior.
In fact, it's something to be ashamed of because it's not a fair fight but a slaughter.
Something like America today, and it's "warriors" who bomb people from altitudes of 10,000m.
A fight against your superior makes you a great warrior, not the other way around.
{fighting against way inferior opponent in terms of weapons and technology is not what makes a great warrior}
ok, ok already... we get it. Pizaro wasn't a great warrior... because he was a superior warrior fighting against inferior warriors
We'll be certain to get history straightened out. From this point forward, Francisco Pizaro is no longer a "great warrior". But rather, a "superior warrior"
Can't argue with that. After all, he did conquer & that's done by superiors
@mickeypopa The Spaniards and Italians took a defensive position against the Ottomans and defeated them at Lepanto. In the grand scheme of things, the Western strategy was correct. They conquered the Western Hemisphere and gained vast amounts of gold and silver. They also created sea routes to the East and let the Ottoman Empire collapse under their own poverty and backwardness.
@mickeypopa Alexander the great was a butcher, Ghengis kahn was definitly a butcher. , most of the great ones were in fact butchers. but what define them as great Warriors were their adbility to handle logistics, stratergy, and to adapt to the enviremoment.
yes Pizzarro was a butcher, but he was certaindly a great warrior by the standards we measure other great warriors by, and a brilliant strategist.
there were other great "warriors" in europe, defending Europe.
@mickeypopa ghenhis chan nearly exterminated the entire chineese race because he wanted to keep his horses there, alexander the great exterminated entire cities whenever he felt like it.
when you have 200 people, even with muskets, fighting 30.000 men and winning, you cant possibly atribute that purely to the guns.
Cæsar fought against barbarians who did not even have metal, yet he used elite legionaries clad in iron, and with iron swords. does that diminish his exploits?
Yelü Chucai, saved millions of lives when he convinced Ghengis kahn to stop razing every city he captured in china.
Alexander Razed and killed the people of Thebes, he destroyed Tyre and annahilated countless tribes and cities on his way to india just to set an example.
with the 16th century arquebus you have a rate of fire between 1 and 1,5 round per minute,
only the nobles in the barbarian armies had metal weapons at cæsars time , they rarely engaged.
Genghis Khan razed many cities, so what? How is that "near extermination" of a race?
Alexander the Great also destroyed many cities and conquered people, sometimes even setting examples by doing cruel things, so what? He was making an empire as very young man, and he had to make some order in it. He wasn't doing it because it was his whim, but because it was necessary to keep the empire going.
@mickeypopa The greek Phalanx formation used by Alexander was the Arquebus of that age.
Ghenghis infact did exterminate many races, among them every tartar he could find, china has only 5000 tartans even today.
Ghenghis exterminated 90% of all persians, they exterminated almost 80% of all Han chineese, he ethnicaly clensed Afghanistan, he exterminated virtually every last Tangut and Kankalis.
he killed more than 4 times as many people as the Nazis...
Like I said before, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan lived in an entirely different age. And different rules applied then.
Pizarro basically used new age guns against the people still living in an "Alexander the Great" age. That's what I have against him being called a great warrior.
He may have been a good strategist and he may have used his advantages well, but he fought against significantly inferior enemy, and that does NOT make him great warrior.
@mickeypopa@evilblades an European army armed with only swords, or even knives could have easily dealt with 200 arquebusiers in a flat fight if there were 7000 europeans...
Pizzaro had less soldiers than Custer at big horn, and defeated an enemy numbering more than 40 times as many. Pizzaros conquest is one of the most improbable in history.
Pizzaro also fought rival Europeans at times, expertly so, just look at the Battle of Las Salinas.
@mickeypopa@evilblades an European army armed with only swords, or even knives could have easily dealt with 200 arquebusiers in a flat fight if there were 7000 europeans...
Pizzaro had less soldiers than Custer at big horn, and defeated an enemy numbering more than 40 times as many. Pizzaros conquest is one of the most improbable in history.
Pizzaro also fought rival Europeans at times, expertly so, just look at the Battle of Las Salinas.
@mickeypopa an European army armed with only swords, or even knives could have easily dealt with 200 arquebusiers in a flat fight if there were 7000 europeans...
Pizzaro had less soldiers than Custer at big horn, and defeated an enemy numbering more than 40 times as many. Pizzaros conquest is one of the most improbable in history.
Pizzaro also fought rival Europeans at times, expertly so, just look at the Battle of Las Salinas where he fought another conqistador flawlessly.
And to close my argument, I never said Genghis Khan wasn't a butcher.
He didn't exterminate races like you said (totally wipe them out) but he was cruel.
No argument there.
But he was a great warrior because he fought on an even plain with his enemies, meaning he had no technological advantages over them like Pizarro had over his.
Khan only had an organized and well prepared army.
So did Alexander.
You brought them up, and I'm telling you you can't compare them at all.
1.5 rounds per minute is more than enough. Wars and conflicts didn't last 5 minutes so you could barely squeeze 3 shots within that time. They lasted for days at a time, and whoever had powerful weapons had plenty of time to use it, they didn't kill all the opponents in 30 minutes.
You said barbarians didn't have metal. I said you were wrong. Now you're changing your story to "only nobles had metal".
Tell you what - get your facts straight first and then talk.
@mickeypopa at the time of Cæsar, the gaul warbands used only wooden spears, axes, war-darts, javlins, slings and clubs. the nobles used swords yes, but nowere near enougth to even consider. they de-facto did not have metal at that time.
if all 200 fired non stop, they still fought against 30.000 people, every single spaniard had to kill 150 people...
In a time of need, production of metal would be increased so warriors on the battlefield would have it. A battle against the mighty Romans certainly qualifies as a time of need.
As for Conquistadors, they didn't fight all the natives at once. They fought them selectively, causing fear and doubt to creep into the rest.
They also had horses. Those two alone (guns and horses) were huge advantages over Natives, and it would be pretty hard to lose with such an upper hand.
@mickeypopa alexander had the phalanx, this rendered even longspears useless, no one could get close to the greek phalanx. and the shields rendered the slings used by most in the east useless. just like the inca weapons were useless against the spaniard armor.
yes they did not fight all the inca at once, but that is what made him a great warrior, organizing such an sucessfull war, with so few soldiers is no small feat.
sure, the guy was a greedy asshole, but he was a great warrior.
Columbus may have lied to hide his true background , Some say he was really from Catalonia and created a false identity to conceal the fact he had fought against the Spanish crown earlier in his career as a rebel ship captain for the cause of Catalonian independence, There is no documented proof to verify his claim of being italian and he never once used Italian in public or in private correspondence.
{i bet the spainards didnt even thank the moors for bringing them out of the dark ages}
Well, actually, the Moors were every bit as much embroiled in warfare, as were the Spaniards. In fact, the two were each others opponents. However, as is always the case, the inferior is determined by considering who loses in the end. History records that, in the end, the Moors lost that contest & that is usually the inverse to advancement
However, you're at least, partially correct. Somehow I get a feeling that the Spaniards never did thank the Protestants for bringing the world out of the Dark Ages. That would explain why, after having gained a approx. 100 year head start in the New World and having amassed phenomenal wealth, Spain, saw their European dominance dissipate in merely 100 years. That was a very short time, considering the potential contained within the circumstances after the rediscovery of New World
@Chuichupachichi so you are saying that Spain eventually lost in the colonization game to the English despite having 100 year head start? You are correct but Spain still has a huge impact in its former colonies.
The Protestant Reformation took root and flourished within Britain & precisely there & then is what history records as the beginning of Western Civilization's great advancements that progressed it far beyond the rest of the world. This phenomenon was rooted in Britain & advanced further within Protestant founded America. On the heels of the Protestant Reformation, were the legal recognition of the rights of man, the Renaissance and the birth of modern science
before you make assumptions about the whole animal and fertile soil situation, watch the first part of the documentary and don't make ill informed comments
It is about time that the archaeological facts that Europeans arrived and populated the Americas prior to the so called "native indian americans" be made more public. The documented irrefutable evidence is shown in the above video documentary.
l@Achilles1389 you dont get it do u? this book is to tell why the conquered. To prove the people that think that genetics conquered is wrong. you are the person that Jared Diamond is trying to teach a lesson to. if u dnt want to except that then dnt even comment at all. ill pray for you, cause the rode youre going to is Hell. and i am also from European blood. FYI.
@JacobBlacksSweety Jared Diamond? Are you serious? Do you even know a single thing about the man ?Jared Diamond is a Jewish professor who stated that race does not exist, but at the same time he stated the importance of DNA studies in helping to identify who is a real JEW, to assist them to immigrate to Israel ". Jared Diamond is a hypocrit, like all Jewish extremists.Jews are the most racist people on the face of the earth.You quote Jared Diamond as someone who can teach people to shun racism?
@MichaeIRedd I was replying to the post made by "JacobBlacksSweety" where he specifically refers to Jared Diamond. So I was obliged to point out to him that Jared Diamond is nothing but a super hypocrit & a Jewish extremist.
@Achilles1389 Well I have seen no evidence that proves your point. Everything that I've ever seen from him is that he is the farthest thing from racist. Not saying you are wrong, it's just that I haven't seen anything that supports your point of view. I must not have seen or read what you have. Would you please like to link to me evidence that supports your claim?
@Achilles1389 How do you explain Europeans conquering Africa (using the theories put forth in Guns, Germs & Steel) given that Africa has more natural wealth and resources than Europe does? The European conquest of Africa shows that it was genetics that gave Europeans the creativity they needed to successfully conquer the entire world.Europeans by themselves created electricity, aircraft,spacecraft, computers, the transistor, motor vehicles, etc everything they needed to be number one on earth.
@Achilles1389 Africa today has more natural wealth because it hasn't been exploited to the same degree as the European natural wealth. There is also good conditions for farmlands across most of the European continent. As genetical difference between human "races" has been proven, time and time again, to be of no real importance the European domination of the world is caused by the interplay between culture, climate and luck. Europeans simply developed a practically superior way of doing things.
{The European conquest of Africa shows that it was genetics that gave Europeans the creativity they needed to successfully conquer the entire world}
You can find several videos here on Youtube, in which groups of men of European descent, with firearms, very narrowly escaped death while hunting Lions that turned on their human predators. In contrast, there exist videos in which practically butt naked Africans without firearms, but merely spears, make Lions hide, then try to run away
The Lions seem to recognize the difference between African hunters & non Africans. The Lions don't even attempt to turn on the Africans because when they simply abandon their grassy cover in attempting to run away, they instantly get 5 or 6 spears into them & they're dead
The most amazing thing I've seen was 3 African men who simply walked towards a pride of Lions, feasting on a kill. When the men got within a particular distance, the Lions ran for cover. The men took a rear leg & went home
I've heard it said that the Creator put something within all creatures... that if man conducts himself as man is intended, then all other creatures recognize the difference between man & animal & they submit unto man
The difficulty is walking directly at wild Lions, while feeling like man & not like a oven warmed Honeybaked ham.
I don't even like getting close to a dog if he's eating
Jared Diamond is correct, the difference is not genetics. I believe he discovered part of the answer, not all
@mrblingist Not true, the Jewish and Muslim population were expelled out of Spain by the Christian kings,not wiped out. Throughout history the Jews have been persecuted and expelled from any European country, England was the first country in Europe to expel them in 1290 by the King Edward I.
You keep talking about my skin. Are you discriminating against me bacause im white.? If it would have been 168 indians against 80000 spaniards, and the indians would have won, i would have acknowleged it too. I would have said how braved the indians were..........Are you some kind of a recist.?
@hellblazer9261 Nevertheless, the Aztecs were just as stone age as the Incas. They employed stone age tactics to achieve stone age strategic goals. Of the two, the Incas were probably better organized and enjoyed a more defensible position. Neither empire was popular with its neighbors, nor were they flexible enough to adapt to the new situation. Flexibility and reliable allies might have saved them. No amount of militarism will help against an attack from the future.
@hellblazer9261 los incas no tenian una religion tan sangrienta como los aztecas pero sabian mas de guerra que ellos por algo ellos formaron el imperio mas grande que nacion india haya tenido en toda america se puede ver la verdad de la conquista en el video de "LA GRAN REBELION INCA " y tambien "LOS INCAS DE VILCABANBA" ademas del ultimo inca "TUPAC AMARU el REBOLUCIONARIO"
{should give us some of their knowledge and enlighten us then. How about a lesson. ?}
Thats all you need to do is ask. When Europeans arrived in the New World in 1492, they possessed steel. The entire New World, from Iceland to Patagonia was, technologically, in the stone age. Doesn't it seem strangely unnatural that such an enormous part of the globe would remain isolated from the world that lay between the Atlantic & the Pacific, long enough to cause such a great discrepancy?
@Chuichupachichi actually the Incas and Aztecs could smelt gold so that technically doesn't make them stone age cultures. Plus the Incas did have some copper/bronze weapons. I think the more accurate term would be neolithic or bronze age for describing the technological development of the New World at the time of Columbus.
The Aztec & Maya were right at the heart of the pre-Colombian new world and being amongst the most complex & advanced of the new world cultures, they make a fitting representative example of the advancement extent of pre-Colonbian cultures. Everyone possesses the same correct image or perception of Aztec & Maya civilization... stone pyramids, stone carved images & figures & information recorded in stone, including calendars. Along with the wheel's new world absence, makes Stone Age
@Chuichupachichi ok that's right but they (Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas)did smelt gold and at least the Incas had Bronze smiting which makes them Bronze Age.
From stone age to steel is a great difference & existent are quite a few suggestive facts & a well reasoned explanation of that the 1492 rediscovery of the New World was intentionally delayed by particular people from the civilizations east of the Atlantic. The vast majority of New World natives shared a particular cultural commonality which had been predominant in many cultures east of the Atlantic, until something caused it to fall, along with Rome. The New World was being secretly protected??
I love reading these comments, because they make me go holy crap that is so wrong. Did you pass 8th grade? I got an A in my HST 330: Topics in Latin American History course and I feel sorry for many of the people posting comments and how wrong they are. Just sayin'.
@AguilaComandanteDGO The Incas were in the thousands, the Spaniards less than two hundred. The truth is the Incas should have exterminated this small group as easy as a person steps on a cockroach. They didn't and they couldn't do it, that says something about the bravery of the Spaniards. The truth is the truth and it may hurt and be denied by those who are of Indian descent or those white people with a politically correct guilty feeling.
@themailman43 de verdad no cuenta la verdad los españoles no estaban solos ya que a su arribo al imperio inca fue confundido por wiracocha y muchos indios de otras naciones le siguieron por ello la guerra se libro entre pizarro + aliados indigenas vs los incas
Discounting the Indian groups that used Spanish presence to revolt against the respective empires that held them in tribute, the Spanish weren't particularly brave. They just had a lot of allies on their side at the time. I know your non-Indian self hates that bit of truth.
@NopeJPeg You said, " they werent particularly brave.", that means , you were there right.? They didn't have many allies on their side, and the ones they had , they had just met them so they couln't have been completely trusted. Yes, the Spanish were very brave men, they went forward to conquer or die trying. I guess your Indian self hates that bit of truth right. ?
You were there to witness the events and confidently assess their bravery? Typical circular logic coming from a non-skin. Doesn't take away the fact that they still had allies from neighboring groups.
@NopeJPeg I wasnt there and neither were you , but any time a small group of men ( 168 ) goes against such a large group of warriors ( 80,000 ) , that's being outnumbered by 425 indian warriors against 1 spanish solider. It doesn't matter how many swords, muskets, pistols or whatever the Spaniards had , it was a total mismatch. It doesn't take somebody with half a brain to realize the bravery of these men.
Half a brain is what you've been using thus far. Downplaying Indian auxiliaries while elevating the Spaniards hand in these matters when auxiliaries numbered in the thousands. Hardly makes for an extraordinary account of battle prowess. The gap in the ratio between sides closed up if you include Indian allies. Too bad, bub.
@NopeJPeg Buddy, you've got to read your history books more carefully. You have a mix here of the Aztec conquest and the Inca conquest. Those indian auxiliaries you're talking about were the Tlaxcalan army of 50,000 warriors that helped Hernan Cortes and his band of 1000 Spaniards to bring down the Aztec or Mexica army of 200,000 warriors. Even during this conquest the spaniards and Tlaxcalans were outnumbered 4 to 1 by the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalands didn't have any armor or european weapons...
@NopeJPeg ...In the case of Peru , it was a whole diffrent matter, there Francisco Pizarro and the 168 spaniards that we're talking about in this video didn't have the kind of help that Hernan Cortes got against the Aztecs.
Incorrect as the Spaniards had allies among those that supported Huascar and not Atahualpa not to mention Canari, Huanca and Chachas support. Go have a brewski and let your views fall in a bit of grace, at least.
@NopeJPeg Insignificant help really , but ill go ahead and have my brewski anyway and make a toast...........to the valiant and brave Spanish conquistadors.!!!
@themailman43 had no idea that they were going off into a war with the Spanish, thus the reason why atahualpa went to the war unarmed. He thought he was god and thought the Spanish would bow down to his power, while the spanishs intentions were to kill all the incas because they thought atahualpa disgraced the Catholic religion (throwing the bible on the ground). The Spanish took them as evil people and massacred the innocent incas who wanted nothing more than to be left alone
@12rawr24 wrong,he didnt go there unarmed.he had 10 thousands of warriors with him,but the spanish had steel armor,horses and swords.pizarros men killed some 3000 men and the rest of the indians fled,since their weapons were useless against european armor or weapons.so with a few hundred against 10s of thousands it is quite an accomplishment.
@12rawr24 Yeah the Incas just wanted to be left alone , conquering and subyugating all other smaller indian tribes around the andes. Just like the Aztecs, they just wanted to be left alone and kill , sacrifice and enslave all other smaller poor indian tribes around them.
it kind of makes me wonder why did it take so long for someone to do research on this subject...this is such a fascinating question...its seems so logical to ask and yet only one person attemtped to answer it recently..
@sweetreview Good question.. People have been doing research for years, not until recently though has science been able to back all of this research up.
It's amazing the bravery of these men , they threw themselves against impossible odds. A small band of Conquistadors fighting fearlesly and winning against thousands of Indian warriors.............JUST AMAZING !!!!!!
The Conquistadors were murderers and thieves. There's nothing amazing about them. They did what they did out of greed. They weren't against impossible odds. Impossible odds would have been if they went up against many more soldiers with the same or superior technology. I think your missing the point of this program.
the wars against protestant nations fucked the spanish catolic fanatic empire...in the same time spain faced england, prussia, netherland, france, sweden, ottomans, czechs and they have to mantain a monster empire in america and spain in that time have around 10 milions habitant SO IMPOSSIBLE
@Romeowasbleeding1 yes, the house of habsburg united the kingdons of catholic Austria and Spain and also they bring alot of enemies...counter reform...spain was decided to exterminate protestantism in europe, and also they losed... in great battles like armada 1588 against england and Rocroi in france...but this objetive fucked the spanish supremacy and austrian...read paul kenedy about the hapsburgs!
@Romeowasbleeding1 in battle of white mountain near prague! austrians imperial tercios defeated czechs because austria and spain united they forces and their kingdons to smash protestantism in germany and north lands...and you should read about nikolaus federmann the conquistador of venezuela he is not spanish...he is austrian and he is was in service of hapsburg empire
If it was not for these white men from Spain there would be no America. America is an advanced place look at all the cities we have all the technology all the movies music - New York - Las Vegas - Texas - Chicago - Los Angeles - + many other advanced Cities - America even went to the moon thank god for the Europeans.
Your view is very racist. Dr. Diamonds whole point is to show that the race of the people have nothing to do with their advancement in the world. You need to read the book that this film is based on so that you have a better understanding of what this is about!
@legionarymaximiliano You racist pig! The conquistadors brought nothing but disease to this part of the world! They wern't warriors they were themselves savages who won wars here because of their nasty germs!
@shakeeldawud u fucken shithead whipe ur mouth be4 talking shit, u live in the most scandalous country in this world wichs foundations are based on the most disgraceful happenings of human history, indioholocaust to take their land- english speaking people invented the slavery, nagasaki and hiroshima cause the japs kicked ur ass so u gifted their civilisation with the nuke. till now ur country is a global shister and u dare to spitt big words u knucklehead
@shakeeldawud ur country has several president assasinations and stood over international vetos not just ones, we spanish surely made mistakes but that was in a time when the whole globe still lived ruff, but now aday when we al learned of our own mistakes and also of the ones others did there is still one outstanding nation called usa that terrorize the world and threat global peace in the year of 2010. 120 years with 125 military attacks against different nations, u dickhead
These weren't even soldiers either these were gentlemen adventurers, they didn't have the latest weaponry either. Most of them had crossbows instead of Arquebuses.
Most people are so focussed on the evil white invader spin that they forget one of the critical reasons they were so successsful-auxilaries. The Aztecs were hated by other natives because they farmed them for ritual sacrifice. These people were all too happy to fight alongside the Spaniards.
Capitalism would help new guienians cover the gap very fast. Singapore used to be poor now they are richer than americans. Irish people now make over 10,000$ a year more than British people even though Ireland used to be a poor colony of Britain.
i just dont understand it. what happened? how could only 168 tired Spaniards conquer entire tribes? the 17th century the much more numerous French Colonial Army tried it on the Mohawks and got theyre asses kicked! and the Mohawks didnt have muskets at first! ...arrows and wooden war clubs had tremendous effect! so why was this not so in the south??
@acerb45666555 - The answer lied in plate steel armor. The spaniards wore plate steel, while the French 100 years later did not. The reason for the plate armor of the spaniards was they were still used to conflict with swords and arrows, and firearms were only a recent addition to their arsenal and still too expensive for the common man. Clubs don't affect plate steel the way they do chain mail, leather, or bare flesh, and arrows can penetrate chain mail, while deflecting off plate steel.
@Slipknotyk06 ...........ive seen native bows, theyre long bows!! with 5 foot arrows! such an arrow would hit with great force, (as at Agincourt), but the problem was using flint arrow heads. if only they had gotten some metal barrel bands to make arrow heads from like natives did up here! they hammered them out! 2-3 inch long iron arrow heads! ...up here two bows were used.( especially on the plains), a short one for hunting. a longer bow for war!
@acerb45666555 - Like I said, the Conquistadors wore plate steel which was nearly impregnable by flint arrow heads. The French, when they conquered much of North America, were wearing mostly chain mail and leather because they were at that point used to fighting with firearms and stuff that could penetrate plate armor. The conquistadors had steel armor protecting their center vital mass. Plus, the incas took the weapons from their soldiers before this battle, so of course it was a massacre!
I don't think his theory is "highly original" as stated in the beginning of the video, much of what he says has been stated before. Yet he does provide some new fascinating insights.
stupid book----
tamaduni 5 days ago
Comment removed
Englishgrammar 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Englishgrammar 2 weeks ago
I'm watching this because my teacher forced me to...
7thSwell 2 months ago
this is a good documentary.
but seeing this after reading the book... well... it's only about 10% of it. and only general ideas are revealed
so read the book you wont be disappointed!
19dec1981 2 months ago in playlist Guns, Germs and Steel
@19dec1981 So far I do not agree with this "Guns, Germs and steel" 100%. I mean how about most of Africa? They had the animals to work with, they also have or had the most resources in Earth! More then The Romans, Celts, Teutons, Egyptians, Chinese, Ethiopians, Aztecs, Greeks, or many others can dream of! But yet most of Africa lack behind of them by millenniums! I mean how do you explain a tribe of Celts or Germans that made the first or one of the Pattern welled steels in about 800BC?
xxTeutonicKnightxx 2 months ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx you are right. There are plenty of native animals in Africa that could have been domesticated yet the native people of Africa domesticated mainly animals brought from outside their lands. Zebra, antelopes, elephants, and warthogs are all domestic-able.
supersmash43 2 months ago
@supersmash43 These animals cannot domesticated for a number of reasons that are explained in the book.
balistik94 2 days ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx Watch Part 5 here : /watch?v=0edh5Itvhy8
Africa doesn't have the most resources on earth when it comes to farming. Only a small percentage of Africa has fertile soil and there's never been a crop as sustainable and nutritious as the ones found in the middle east. Add to that the fact that there is too little precipitation and difficult access to water.
balistik94 2 days ago
lmao the funny thing is that the "Europeans" in this documentary talk like Mexicans...
whatorwellsaid 2 months ago
@whatorwellsaid Hmmmm Why is that? Is it because the Mexicans today have heavy Spaniard heritage?
xxTeutonicKnightxx 2 months ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx the spaniards have a different accent, they are not supposed to sound like Mexicans in this documentary.
whatorwellsaid 2 months ago
@whatorwellsaid True to that.
xxTeutonicKnightxx 2 months ago
@jayhorse13
Don't post a typical youtube joke on an academic video. No one who watches this is going to like your comment.
palindrome234 2 months ago
Well this whole part is a rehash of 1-6..
Balgore8 3 months ago
If Jarred Diamond Is Around What University Is He Teaching Now ?
derrick20102010 3 months ago
14 Conquistadors disliked this
joyhorse13 3 months ago
Viva España ! Como te atreves, indio perro ?
Occiden89 4 months ago
I still don't get how 200 or so Spanish with guns could beat 80000 Inca's
shengshaoyi 4 months ago
@shengshaoyi if you every played nazi zombies, thats how.
ericlikespenus 4 months ago
@ericlikespenus comparing intelegent warriors to zombies is very ignorant
and you are forgetting that the firearms back then were less sophisticated thats not their only advantage to list
Gobln15 4 months ago
@shengshaoyi Most of them died from diseases.
HybridD91 4 months ago
@shengshaoyi One doesn't need allies or even superior tactics to destroy a numerically superior force and Pizzaro used neither against the Incas. What is required is superior arms and armor and he had both. The potency of steel cannot be overestimated when employed against combatants not even outfitted with metal. The english used only superior weaponry against the french at Cercy and won at 8:1 odds so I don't find it strange at all that a handful of spanish could kill thousands of incas
PatrickEngSU 2 months ago
@PatrickEngSU 8:1 might be long for Crecy (I got that number from an english doc), but it was at least 3:1 and everything was equal except the longbow like most battles inthat war
PatrickEngSU 2 months ago
@PatrickEngSU True... but not ONE spanish conquistador died. That, regardless of weapons and/or armour, is very impressive. And taking in disease. Lets say small pox infected 1 person, then the next hour infected 10, then 100, and so on, and lets say that the spanish killed 2000 incas every hour, and the inca killed 5 spanish every hour. The spanish would still lose. I meant to say that I did not get how 200 spaniards beat 80000 inca with out a single causualty.
shengshaoyi 2 months ago
@shengshaoyi 80000 inca with out a single causualty? Hmm Steel plate armor does wonders… But also to be fare this vidoe left out that the fact is that the Spaish had Native Allies that heated the Aztecs, the Aztecs took everything from them and killed the people they knew as well...
xxTeutonicKnightxx 2 months ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx germs were also the MAIN FACTOR THAT ALLOWED Europeans to colonize the Americas because diseases like small poxes and measles from European colonists have already decimated entire villages of Natives before the Europeans even arrived in certain parts of the Americas.
supersmash43 2 months ago
@supersmash43 Oh yes, I agree with you there, I was not debating that. But it is just I personally think “Guns, Germs and Steel” does not give to much credit to the Europeans for being inventive & clever. Europeans were not simply successful because they had the resource... Jared Diamond fails at comparing many other factors, like the mentality of the people living there, their culture, way of thinking & so on... For example look up: /watch?v=vXiX8DALPZ8
xxTeutonicKnightxx 1 month ago
@xxTeutonicKnightxx That's true. Culture also plays a big role. The ancient Chinese had a great and powerful civilization, but their political instability and infighting prevented the Chinese fleets from conquering many parts of the world. Had their cultural problems not hindered them, perhaps the Chinese would have been the first to colonize parts of North America.
osallent 3 weeks ago
@osallent Thank you! You know what I am talking about...
Well they may have been there first or not, but they would have had some sort of colonizetion some were...
xxTeutonicKnightxx 2 weeks ago
@osallent they did!
dragonflyxj 17 hours ago
@PatrickEngSU
But Pizarro did use Indian allies. The Huancas for example. Secondly, the attendants to Atahualpa at Cajamarca were unarmed. A mistake on Atahualpa's part but unarmed opponents are pretty much helpless.
NopeJPeg 2 months ago
Francisco Pizarro a great warrior? He was nothing but a mere butcher.
Why didn't he conquer Ottoman Empire if he was such a great warrior, but Indians of South America armed with nothing more than spears, wooden swords, stone axes and slingshots? Why didn't he defend Europe from Ottoman attacks and conquests? Why didn't he defend Spain's conquests in North Africa (Tunis and Algeria) from Ottomans?
Because he was a fucking pussy, that's why. Don't make me laugh with this "great warrior" shit.
mickeypopa 4 months ago 10
@mickeypopa,Also they didn't mention that the Spaniards had help from the other Native tribes who had beef with the Native Empire of the Inca. So in other words,without the help from the other native tribes,the Spaniards would have been defeated by the Inca Empire no matter how much equipped the Spaniards were.
98bigbutt 4 months ago 5
@98bigbutt
That was not my point. No matter how many people Pizarro had, or who did or didn't help him, fighting against way inferior opponent in terms of weapons and technology is not what makes a great warrior.
In fact, it's something to be ashamed of because it's not a fair fight but a slaughter.
Something like America today, and it's "warriors" who bomb people from altitudes of 10,000m.
A fight against your superior makes you a great warrior, not the other way around.
mickeypopa 4 months ago 3
@mickeypopa,That's true because that's the definition of Imperialism.
98bigbutt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mickeypopa
{fighting against way inferior opponent in terms of weapons and technology is not what makes a great warrior}
ok, ok already... we get it. Pizaro wasn't a great warrior... because he was a superior warrior fighting against inferior warriors
We'll be certain to get history straightened out. From this point forward, Francisco Pizaro is no longer a "great warrior". But rather, a "superior warrior"
Can't argue with that. After all, he did conquer & that's done by superiors
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@mickeypopa You are fucking retarted, the Spanish already drove them out years ago.
ImaRageQuitter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ImaRageQuitter
Shut the fuck up, ignorant cunt.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa The Spaniards and Italians took a defensive position against the Ottomans and defeated them at Lepanto. In the grand scheme of things, the Western strategy was correct. They conquered the Western Hemisphere and gained vast amounts of gold and silver. They also created sea routes to the East and let the Ottoman Empire collapse under their own poverty and backwardness.
Rexanglorum 1 month ago
@mickeypopa Alexander the great was a butcher, Ghengis kahn was definitly a butcher. , most of the great ones were in fact butchers. but what define them as great Warriors were their adbility to handle logistics, stratergy, and to adapt to the enviremoment.
yes Pizzarro was a butcher, but he was certaindly a great warrior by the standards we measure other great warriors by, and a brilliant strategist.
there were other great "warriors" in europe, defending Europe.
evilblades 1 month ago
@evilblades
Pizarro can't even be compared with Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.
The latter fought against equally powerful opponents, several of them.
Pizarro "fought" against technologically undeveloped tribes who had no concept of any real weapons or military strategy.
That's the main difference between Pizarro and other two, and it's a big difference.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa ghenhis chan nearly exterminated the entire chineese race because he wanted to keep his horses there, alexander the great exterminated entire cities whenever he felt like it.
when you have 200 people, even with muskets, fighting 30.000 men and winning, you cant possibly atribute that purely to the guns.
Cæsar fought against barbarians who did not even have metal, yet he used elite legionaries clad in iron, and with iron swords. does that diminish his exploits?
evilblades 1 month ago
@evilblades
Genghis Khan did no such thing.
Alexander the Great did no such thing.
200 people x 150 rounds each = 30.000 dead.
Barbarians didn't have metal? Wrong.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa
Yelü Chucai, saved millions of lives when he convinced Ghengis kahn to stop razing every city he captured in china.
Alexander Razed and killed the people of Thebes, he destroyed Tyre and annahilated countless tribes and cities on his way to india just to set an example.
with the 16th century arquebus you have a rate of fire between 1 and 1,5 round per minute,
only the nobles in the barbarian armies had metal weapons at cæsars time , they rarely engaged.
evilblades 1 month ago
@evilblades
Genghis Khan razed many cities, so what? How is that "near extermination" of a race?
Alexander the Great also destroyed many cities and conquered people, sometimes even setting examples by doing cruel things, so what? He was making an empire as very young man, and he had to make some order in it. He wasn't doing it because it was his whim, but because it was necessary to keep the empire going.
CONTINUES
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa The greek Phalanx formation used by Alexander was the Arquebus of that age.
Ghenghis infact did exterminate many races, among them every tartar he could find, china has only 5000 tartans even today.
Ghenghis exterminated 90% of all persians, they exterminated almost 80% of all Han chineese, he ethnicaly clensed Afghanistan, he exterminated virtually every last Tangut and Kankalis.
he killed more than 4 times as many people as the Nazis...
evilblades 1 month ago
@evilblades
Like I said before, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan lived in an entirely different age. And different rules applied then.
Pizarro basically used new age guns against the people still living in an "Alexander the Great" age. That's what I have against him being called a great warrior.
He may have been a good strategist and he may have used his advantages well, but he fought against significantly inferior enemy, and that does NOT make him great warrior.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa @evilblades an European army armed with only swords, or even knives could have easily dealt with 200 arquebusiers in a flat fight if there were 7000 europeans...
Pizzaro had less soldiers than Custer at big horn, and defeated an enemy numbering more than 40 times as many. Pizzaros conquest is one of the most improbable in history.
Pizzaro also fought rival Europeans at times, expertly so, just look at the Battle of Las Salinas.
evilblades 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mickeypopa @evilblades an European army armed with only swords, or even knives could have easily dealt with 200 arquebusiers in a flat fight if there were 7000 europeans...
Pizzaro had less soldiers than Custer at big horn, and defeated an enemy numbering more than 40 times as many. Pizzaros conquest is one of the most improbable in history.
Pizzaro also fought rival Europeans at times, expertly so, just look at the Battle of Las Salinas.
evilblades 1 month ago
@mickeypopa an European army armed with only swords, or even knives could have easily dealt with 200 arquebusiers in a flat fight if there were 7000 europeans...
Pizzaro had less soldiers than Custer at big horn, and defeated an enemy numbering more than 40 times as many. Pizzaros conquest is one of the most improbable in history.
Pizzaro also fought rival Europeans at times, expertly so, just look at the Battle of Las Salinas where he fought another conqistador flawlessly.
evilblades 1 month ago
@evilblades
And to close my argument, I never said Genghis Khan wasn't a butcher.
He didn't exterminate races like you said (totally wipe them out) but he was cruel.
No argument there.
But he was a great warrior because he fought on an even plain with his enemies, meaning he had no technological advantages over them like Pizarro had over his.
Khan only had an organized and well prepared army.
So did Alexander.
You brought them up, and I'm telling you you can't compare them at all.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@evilblades
CONTINUES
1.5 rounds per minute is more than enough. Wars and conflicts didn't last 5 minutes so you could barely squeeze 3 shots within that time. They lasted for days at a time, and whoever had powerful weapons had plenty of time to use it, they didn't kill all the opponents in 30 minutes.
You said barbarians didn't have metal. I said you were wrong. Now you're changing your story to "only nobles had metal".
Tell you what - get your facts straight first and then talk.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa at the time of Cæsar, the gaul warbands used only wooden spears, axes, war-darts, javlins, slings and clubs. the nobles used swords yes, but nowere near enougth to even consider. they de-facto did not have metal at that time.
if all 200 fired non stop, they still fought against 30.000 people, every single spaniard had to kill 150 people...
evilblades 1 month ago
@evilblades
In a time of need, production of metal would be increased so warriors on the battlefield would have it. A battle against the mighty Romans certainly qualifies as a time of need.
As for Conquistadors, they didn't fight all the natives at once. They fought them selectively, causing fear and doubt to creep into the rest.
They also had horses. Those two alone (guns and horses) were huge advantages over Natives, and it would be pretty hard to lose with such an upper hand.
mickeypopa 1 month ago
@mickeypopa alexander had the phalanx, this rendered even longspears useless, no one could get close to the greek phalanx. and the shields rendered the slings used by most in the east useless. just like the inca weapons were useless against the spaniard armor.
yes they did not fight all the inca at once, but that is what made him a great warrior, organizing such an sucessfull war, with so few soldiers is no small feat.
sure, the guy was a greedy asshole, but he was a great warrior.
evilblades 1 month ago
Pizzaro was not a hero, he was greedy scum!
Beef1188 4 months ago 8
i bet the spainards didnt even thank the moors for bringing them out of the dark ages...the spainards are assholes. Colubums in particular.
UtopiaMinor666 6 months ago 2
@UtopiaMinor666 lol columbus wasnt spanish
SuperLechaim 6 months ago
@UtopiaMinor666
Columbus was Italian. Genoese, if I'm not mistaken.
Rodriguez87 5 months ago
@Rodriguez87
Columbus may have lied to hide his true background , Some say he was really from Catalonia and created a false identity to conceal the fact he had fought against the Spanish crown earlier in his career as a rebel ship captain for the cause of Catalonian independence, There is no documented proof to verify his claim of being italian and he never once used Italian in public or in private correspondence.
Obasiliasfilosofos 4 months ago
@UtopiaMinor666
{i bet the spainards didnt even thank the moors for bringing them out of the dark ages}
Well, actually, the Moors were every bit as much embroiled in warfare, as were the Spaniards. In fact, the two were each others opponents. However, as is always the case, the inferior is determined by considering who loses in the end. History records that, in the end, the Moors lost that contest & that is usually the inverse to advancement
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@UtopiaMinor666
However, you're at least, partially correct. Somehow I get a feeling that the Spaniards never did thank the Protestants for bringing the world out of the Dark Ages. That would explain why, after having gained a approx. 100 year head start in the New World and having amassed phenomenal wealth, Spain, saw their European dominance dissipate in merely 100 years. That was a very short time, considering the potential contained within the circumstances after the rediscovery of New World
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@Chuichupachichi so you are saying that Spain eventually lost in the colonization game to the English despite having 100 year head start? You are correct but Spain still has a huge impact in its former colonies.
supersmash43 1 month ago
@UtopiaMinor666
The Protestant Reformation took root and flourished within Britain & precisely there & then is what history records as the beginning of Western Civilization's great advancements that progressed it far beyond the rest of the world. This phenomenon was rooted in Britain & advanced further within Protestant founded America. On the heels of the Protestant Reformation, were the legal recognition of the rights of man, the Renaissance and the birth of modern science
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
before you make assumptions about the whole animal and fertile soil situation, watch the first part of the documentary and don't make ill informed comments
Pattycakeman1 6 months ago
you gotta understand... when Cortes conquered the Aztecs and {izzaro the Incas, Spain was the hegemon of continental Europe
Spain was in control of territories in North Western France, Belgium, Holland, and portians of Southern Denmark and Western Germany....
from 1492-1703 (When Scotland and England formed Britain) Spain fucked the globe like America does today !
because they made good wine according to Jared Diamond?
achilles... Africa had no animals to domesticate
RimlandThesis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH the VIDEO on You Tube titled...
" Ice Age Columbus "
It is about time that the archaeological facts that Europeans arrived and populated the Americas prior to the so called "native indian americans" be made more public. The documented irrefutable evidence is shown in the above video documentary.
Achilles1389 7 months ago
Comment removed
Achilles1389 7 months ago
@Achilles1389 the spainish have help by enemy natives tribes of the Incas and Aztics
abarrathemaster 7 months ago 2
@Achilles1389 you are an ordinary idiot
piranogu 6 months ago 3
@Achilles1389 you are an idiot.
UtopiaMinor666 6 months ago
l@Achilles1389 you dont get it do u? this book is to tell why the conquered. To prove the people that think that genetics conquered is wrong. you are the person that Jared Diamond is trying to teach a lesson to. if u dnt want to except that then dnt even comment at all. ill pray for you, cause the rode youre going to is Hell. and i am also from European blood. FYI.
JacobBlacksSweety 5 months ago
@JacobBlacksSweety Jared Diamond? Are you serious? Do you even know a single thing about the man ?Jared Diamond is a Jewish professor who stated that race does not exist, but at the same time he stated the importance of DNA studies in helping to identify who is a real JEW, to assist them to immigrate to Israel ". Jared Diamond is a hypocrit, like all Jewish extremists.Jews are the most racist people on the face of the earth.You quote Jared Diamond as someone who can teach people to shun racism?
Achilles1389 5 months ago
@Achilles1389 That has nothing to do with Guns, Germs, and Steel.
MichaeIRedd 5 months ago
@MichaeIRedd I was replying to the post made by "JacobBlacksSweety" where he specifically refers to Jared Diamond. So I was obliged to point out to him that Jared Diamond is nothing but a super hypocrit & a Jewish extremist.
Achilles1389 5 months ago
@Achilles1389 Well I have seen no evidence that proves your point. Everything that I've ever seen from him is that he is the farthest thing from racist. Not saying you are wrong, it's just that I haven't seen anything that supports your point of view. I must not have seen or read what you have. Would you please like to link to me evidence that supports your claim?
MichaeIRedd 5 months ago
@Achilles1389 How do you explain Europeans conquering Africa (using the theories put forth in Guns, Germs & Steel) given that Africa has more natural wealth and resources than Europe does? The European conquest of Africa shows that it was genetics that gave Europeans the creativity they needed to successfully conquer the entire world.Europeans by themselves created electricity, aircraft,spacecraft, computers, the transistor, motor vehicles, etc everything they needed to be number one on earth.
Achilles1389 5 months ago
@Achilles1389 Of course it was creativity that allowed Europeans to conquer Africa... Oh and Europeans created electricity? LOL.
SamoaMoSamoa537 5 months ago
@Achilles1389 Africa today has more natural wealth because it hasn't been exploited to the same degree as the European natural wealth. There is also good conditions for farmlands across most of the European continent. As genetical difference between human "races" has been proven, time and time again, to be of no real importance the European domination of the world is caused by the interplay between culture, climate and luck. Europeans simply developed a practically superior way of doing things.
PoddaJawada 4 months ago
@Achilles1389
{The European conquest of Africa shows that it was genetics that gave Europeans the creativity they needed to successfully conquer the entire world}
You can find several videos here on Youtube, in which groups of men of European descent, with firearms, very narrowly escaped death while hunting Lions that turned on their human predators. In contrast, there exist videos in which practically butt naked Africans without firearms, but merely spears, make Lions hide, then try to run away
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
The Lions seem to recognize the difference between African hunters & non Africans. The Lions don't even attempt to turn on the Africans because when they simply abandon their grassy cover in attempting to run away, they instantly get 5 or 6 spears into them & they're dead
The most amazing thing I've seen was 3 African men who simply walked towards a pride of Lions, feasting on a kill. When the men got within a particular distance, the Lions ran for cover. The men took a rear leg & went home
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
I've heard it said that the Creator put something within all creatures... that if man conducts himself as man is intended, then all other creatures recognize the difference between man & animal & they submit unto man
The difficulty is walking directly at wild Lions, while feeling like man & not like a oven warmed Honeybaked ham.
I don't even like getting close to a dog if he's eating
Jared Diamond is correct, the difference is not genetics. I believe he discovered part of the answer, not all
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
Joder se me ponen los pelos de punta.... que huevos tenian mis antepasados....
cocotena 7 months ago
@mrblingist Not true, the Jewish and Muslim population were expelled out of Spain by the Christian kings,not wiped out. Throughout history the Jews have been persecuted and expelled from any European country, England was the first country in Europe to expel them in 1290 by the King Edward I.
yosyesyo 7 months ago
Humans are pathetic.
HybridD91 8 months ago
I surprise the Mexica Movement didn't write a comment about this.
98bigbutt 8 months ago
Sociopathy does not equal bravery
ClaytonsVids 8 months ago
You keep talking about my skin. Are you discriminating against me bacause im white.? If it would have been 168 indians against 80000 spaniards, and the indians would have won, i would have acknowleged it too. I would have said how braved the indians were..........Are you some kind of a recist.?
themailman43 9 months ago
Thanks for posting
BARCACROSSESTHEALPS 9 months ago
lol the incas werent the most powerful state of the new world, the aztecs were far more powerful, being more militaristic and warlike
hellblazer9261 11 months ago
@hellblazer9261 Nevertheless, the Aztecs were just as stone age as the Incas. They employed stone age tactics to achieve stone age strategic goals. Of the two, the Incas were probably better organized and enjoyed a more defensible position. Neither empire was popular with its neighbors, nor were they flexible enough to adapt to the new situation. Flexibility and reliable allies might have saved them. No amount of militarism will help against an attack from the future.
jannevellamo 10 months ago
@hellblazer9261 los incas no tenian una religion tan sangrienta como los aztecas pero sabian mas de guerra que ellos por algo ellos formaron el imperio mas grande que nacion india haya tenido en toda america se puede ver la verdad de la conquista en el video de "LA GRAN REBELION INCA " y tambien "LOS INCAS DE VILCABANBA" ademas del ultimo inca "TUPAC AMARU el REBOLUCIONARIO"
Eldocchikana 9 months ago
Those who think that they know so much about history, should give us some of their knowledge and enlighten us then. How about a lesson. ?
themailman43 11 months ago
@themailman43
{should give us some of their knowledge and enlighten us then. How about a lesson. ?}
Thats all you need to do is ask. When Europeans arrived in the New World in 1492, they possessed steel. The entire New World, from Iceland to Patagonia was, technologically, in the stone age. Doesn't it seem strangely unnatural that such an enormous part of the globe would remain isolated from the world that lay between the Atlantic & the Pacific, long enough to cause such a great discrepancy?
Chuichupachichi 11 months ago
@Chuichupachichi actually the Incas and Aztecs could smelt gold so that technically doesn't make them stone age cultures. Plus the Incas did have some copper/bronze weapons. I think the more accurate term would be neolithic or bronze age for describing the technological development of the New World at the time of Columbus.
supersmash43 2 months ago
@supersmash43
The Aztec & Maya were right at the heart of the pre-Colombian new world and being amongst the most complex & advanced of the new world cultures, they make a fitting representative example of the advancement extent of pre-Colonbian cultures. Everyone possesses the same correct image or perception of Aztec & Maya civilization... stone pyramids, stone carved images & figures & information recorded in stone, including calendars. Along with the wheel's new world absence, makes Stone Age
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@Chuichupachichi ok that's right but they (Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas)did smelt gold and at least the Incas had Bronze smiting which makes them Bronze Age.
supersmash43 1 month ago
From stone age to steel is a great difference & existent are quite a few suggestive facts & a well reasoned explanation of that the 1492 rediscovery of the New World was intentionally delayed by particular people from the civilizations east of the Atlantic. The vast majority of New World natives shared a particular cultural commonality which had been predominant in many cultures east of the Atlantic, until something caused it to fall, along with Rome. The New World was being secretly protected??
Chuichupachichi 11 months ago
I love reading these comments, because they make me go holy crap that is so wrong. Did you pass 8th grade? I got an A in my HST 330: Topics in Latin American History course and I feel sorry for many of the people posting comments and how wrong they are. Just sayin'.
stonelm191 11 months ago
@AguilaComandanteDGO The Incas were in the thousands, the Spaniards less than two hundred. The truth is the Incas should have exterminated this small group as easy as a person steps on a cockroach. They didn't and they couldn't do it, that says something about the bravery of the Spaniards. The truth is the truth and it may hurt and be denied by those who are of Indian descent or those white people with a politically correct guilty feeling.
themailman43 11 months ago
@themailman43 de verdad no cuenta la verdad los españoles no estaban solos ya que a su arribo al imperio inca fue confundido por wiracocha y muchos indios de otras naciones le siguieron por ello la guerra se libro entre pizarro + aliados indigenas vs los incas
Eldocchikana 9 months ago
@themailman43
Discounting the Indian groups that used Spanish presence to revolt against the respective empires that held them in tribute, the Spanish weren't particularly brave. They just had a lot of allies on their side at the time. I know your non-Indian self hates that bit of truth.
NopeJPeg 9 months ago 3
@NopeJPeg You said, " they werent particularly brave.", that means , you were there right.? They didn't have many allies on their side, and the ones they had , they had just met them so they couln't have been completely trusted. Yes, the Spanish were very brave men, they went forward to conquer or die trying. I guess your Indian self hates that bit of truth right. ?
themailman43 9 months ago
@themailman43
You were there to witness the events and confidently assess their bravery? Typical circular logic coming from a non-skin. Doesn't take away the fact that they still had allies from neighboring groups.
NopeJPeg 9 months ago 7
@NopeJPeg I wasnt there and neither were you , but any time a small group of men ( 168 ) goes against such a large group of warriors ( 80,000 ) , that's being outnumbered by 425 indian warriors against 1 spanish solider. It doesn't matter how many swords, muskets, pistols or whatever the Spaniards had , it was a total mismatch. It doesn't take somebody with half a brain to realize the bravery of these men.
themailman43 9 months ago
@themailman43 i meant , racist....
themailman43 9 months ago
@themailman43
Half a brain is what you've been using thus far. Downplaying Indian auxiliaries while elevating the Spaniards hand in these matters when auxiliaries numbered in the thousands. Hardly makes for an extraordinary account of battle prowess. The gap in the ratio between sides closed up if you include Indian allies. Too bad, bub.
NopeJPeg 9 months ago 2
@NopeJPeg Buddy, you've got to read your history books more carefully. You have a mix here of the Aztec conquest and the Inca conquest. Those indian auxiliaries you're talking about were the Tlaxcalan army of 50,000 warriors that helped Hernan Cortes and his band of 1000 Spaniards to bring down the Aztec or Mexica army of 200,000 warriors. Even during this conquest the spaniards and Tlaxcalans were outnumbered 4 to 1 by the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalands didn't have any armor or european weapons...
themailman43 9 months ago
@NopeJPeg ...In the case of Peru , it was a whole diffrent matter, there Francisco Pizarro and the 168 spaniards that we're talking about in this video didn't have the kind of help that Hernan Cortes got against the Aztecs.
themailman43 9 months ago
@themailman43
Incorrect as the Spaniards had allies among those that supported Huascar and not Atahualpa not to mention Canari, Huanca and Chachas support. Go have a brewski and let your views fall in a bit of grace, at least.
NopeJPeg 9 months ago 9
@NopeJPeg Insignificant help really , but ill go ahead and have my brewski anyway and make a toast...........to the valiant and brave Spanish conquistadors.!!!
themailman43 9 months ago
@themailman43
Not when the auxiliary forces numbered in the thousands but if you want to toast your ethnocentric ignorance go ahead.
NopeJPeg 9 months ago
@NopeJPeg a non-skin? what does that mean?
royalKINGvidz 2 months ago
this is good basic information about how people got rich and poor right????
royalKINGvidz 2 months ago
when they get there they scream "hay mujeres" hahaha There are women!!!....men haha
Vivaflora 1 year ago
@themailman43 had no idea that they were going off into a war with the Spanish, thus the reason why atahualpa went to the war unarmed. He thought he was god and thought the Spanish would bow down to his power, while the spanishs intentions were to kill all the incas because they thought atahualpa disgraced the Catholic religion (throwing the bible on the ground). The Spanish took them as evil people and massacred the innocent incas who wanted nothing more than to be left alone
12rawr24 1 year ago
@12rawr24 wrong,he didnt go there unarmed.he had 10 thousands of warriors with him,but the spanish had steel armor,horses and swords.pizarros men killed some 3000 men and the rest of the indians fled,since their weapons were useless against european armor or weapons.so with a few hundred against 10s of thousands it is quite an accomplishment.
TheBXpress 1 year ago
@TheBXpress They also had guns
jclatinpride 1 year ago
@themailman43 the reason the Spanish one against the incas was because the incas had no idea they
12rawr24 1 year ago
@12rawr24 Yeah the Incas just wanted to be left alone , conquering and subyugating all other smaller indian tribes around the andes. Just like the Aztecs, they just wanted to be left alone and kill , sacrifice and enslave all other smaller poor indian tribes around them.
themailman43 11 months ago
Thank god i am European.
Antifaarefags 1 year ago
@Antifaarefags YOU DONOT HAVE ALL THE ADVANTAGES. SUCH AS YOUR SHRIVELED UP SKIN IN OOLD AGE. HMM WHATS THAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
infinity999ful 1 year ago
it kind of makes me wonder why did it take so long for someone to do research on this subject...this is such a fascinating question...its seems so logical to ask and yet only one person attemtped to answer it recently..
sweetreview 1 year ago
@sweetreview Good question.. People have been doing research for years, not until recently though has science been able to back all of this research up.
milleroh 1 year ago
WHy are people complaining about his voice? I like it.
flango8 1 year ago
It's amazing the bravery of these men , they threw themselves against impossible odds. A small band of Conquistadors fighting fearlesly and winning against thousands of Indian warriors.............JUST AMAZING !!!!!!
themailman43 1 year ago
@themailman43
The Conquistadors were murderers and thieves. There's nothing amazing about them. They did what they did out of greed. They weren't against impossible odds. Impossible odds would have been if they went up against many more soldiers with the same or superior technology. I think your missing the point of this program.
davidsmith3671 1 year ago
@themailman43 i feel the same way about the 9-11 hijackers
lamaya43 1 year ago
@lamaya43 The hijackers threw themselves against American warriors? No, they attacked unarmed, untrained civilians, and did it by surprise.
0HippyHunter0 1 year ago
@lamaya43 well said
kurd4u 1 year ago
@themailman43 Are you serious with this comment? Amazing and fearless? What they did was Evil and disgusting.
milleroh 1 year ago
the wars against protestant nations fucked the spanish catolic fanatic empire...in the same time spain faced england, prussia, netherland, france, sweden, ottomans, czechs and they have to mantain a monster empire in america and spain in that time have around 10 milions habitant SO IMPOSSIBLE
legionarymaximiliano 1 year ago
@legionarymaximiliano
When did Spain fight the Czechs?
I seriously want to know this....
Romeowasbleeding1 1 year ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 yes, the house of habsburg united the kingdons of catholic Austria and Spain and also they bring alot of enemies...counter reform...spain was decided to exterminate protestantism in europe, and also they losed... in great battles like armada 1588 against england and Rocroi in france...but this objetive fucked the spanish supremacy and austrian...read paul kenedy about the hapsburgs!
legionarymaximiliano 1 year ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 in battle of white mountain near prague! austrians imperial tercios defeated czechs because austria and spain united they forces and their kingdons to smash protestantism in germany and north lands...and you should read about nikolaus federmann the conquistador of venezuela he is not spanish...he is austrian and he is was in service of hapsburg empire
legionarymaximiliano 1 year ago
Spanish Conquistadors whip those damn Indians
chisoxnbears 1 year ago
@chisoxnbears is that a racist comment or am i taking it the wrong way.
thetariqman 1 year ago
Conquistador's unwitting secret weapon: smallpox
cobrachoppergirl 1 year ago
of all the new world civilizations the Incas were the most beautiful
1990PatMorrison 1 year ago
If it was not for these white men from Spain there would be no America. America is an advanced place look at all the cities we have all the technology all the movies music - New York - Las Vegas - Texas - Chicago - Los Angeles - + many other advanced Cities - America even went to the moon thank god for the Europeans.
FrankFrankFrank109 1 year ago
@FrankFrankFrank109
Your view is very racist. Dr. Diamonds whole point is to show that the race of the people have nothing to do with their advancement in the world. You need to read the book that this film is based on so that you have a better understanding of what this is about!
shakeeldawud 1 year ago 2
the spanish colonizations is one of the best thing for the world...crushing this sub race-the natives
thanks god that my antecessors was a conquistador
thanks god i have european blood
legionarymaximiliano 1 year ago
@legionarymaximiliano You racist pig! The conquistadors brought nothing but disease to this part of the world! They wern't warriors they were themselves savages who won wars here because of their nasty germs!
shakeeldawud 1 year ago
@shakeeldawud u fucken shithead whipe ur mouth be4 talking shit, u live in the most scandalous country in this world wichs foundations are based on the most disgraceful happenings of human history, indioholocaust to take their land- english speaking people invented the slavery, nagasaki and hiroshima cause the japs kicked ur ass so u gifted their civilisation with the nuke. till now ur country is a global shister and u dare to spitt big words u knucklehead
Mr19pedro78 1 year ago
@shakeeldawud ur country has several president assasinations and stood over international vetos not just ones, we spanish surely made mistakes but that was in a time when the whole globe still lived ruff, but now aday when we al learned of our own mistakes and also of the ones others did there is still one outstanding nation called usa that terrorize the world and threat global peace in the year of 2010. 120 years with 125 military attacks against different nations, u dickhead
Mr19pedro78 1 year ago
Comment removed
xob699 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legionarymaximiliano hey man, you should ask God that someone teaches you a little bit of english too, cause you suck at it...
xob699 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legionarymaximiliano hey man, you should ask God that someone teaches you a little bit of english too, 'cause you suck at it
xob699 1 year ago
These weren't even soldiers either these were gentlemen adventurers, they didn't have the latest weaponry either. Most of them had crossbows instead of Arquebuses.
Most people are so focussed on the evil white invader spin that they forget one of the critical reasons they were so successsful-auxilaries. The Aztecs were hated by other natives because they farmed them for ritual sacrifice. These people were all too happy to fight alongside the Spaniards.
gunninlinguist 1 year ago
A museum for Pizzaro how awful... It's like building a museum to an NAZI SS general.
RoninShinobi88 1 year ago
Capitalism would help new guienians cover the gap very fast. Singapore used to be poor now they are richer than americans. Irish people now make over 10,000$ a year more than British people even though Ireland used to be a poor colony of Britain.
whitesox889 1 year ago
The Jews killed the Indians not Europeans.
AmericaAmerica69 1 year ago
@AmericaAmerica69 lol, what?
awesome220 1 year ago
41.666 men died at the hands of every spaniard at this attack
Spanduer90 1 year ago
Makes sense why the whites colonised the world.interesting.
98bigbutt 1 year ago
que buen documental. muy bien hecho
VaniaCasacaRoja2009 1 year ago
pillsbury dough CRAP
Deguello321 1 year ago
i just dont understand it. what happened? how could only 168 tired Spaniards conquer entire tribes? the 17th century the much more numerous French Colonial Army tried it on the Mohawks and got theyre asses kicked! and the Mohawks didnt have muskets at first! ...arrows and wooden war clubs had tremendous effect! so why was this not so in the south??
acerb45666555 1 year ago
@acerb45666555 - The answer lied in plate steel armor. The spaniards wore plate steel, while the French 100 years later did not. The reason for the plate armor of the spaniards was they were still used to conflict with swords and arrows, and firearms were only a recent addition to their arsenal and still too expensive for the common man. Clubs don't affect plate steel the way they do chain mail, leather, or bare flesh, and arrows can penetrate chain mail, while deflecting off plate steel.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 ...........ive seen native bows, theyre long bows!! with 5 foot arrows! such an arrow would hit with great force, (as at Agincourt), but the problem was using flint arrow heads. if only they had gotten some metal barrel bands to make arrow heads from like natives did up here! they hammered them out! 2-3 inch long iron arrow heads! ...up here two bows were used.( especially on the plains), a short one for hunting. a longer bow for war!
acerb45666555 1 year ago
@acerb45666555 - Like I said, the Conquistadors wore plate steel which was nearly impregnable by flint arrow heads. The French, when they conquered much of North America, were wearing mostly chain mail and leather because they were at that point used to fighting with firearms and stuff that could penetrate plate armor. The conquistadors had steel armor protecting their center vital mass. Plus, the incas took the weapons from their soldiers before this battle, so of course it was a massacre!
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@acerb45666555 I've never heard of natives using bows nearly as impressive as the English longbow. Got a reference?
hrothgleas 1 year ago
@hrothgleas ......Amazon natives used a long bow about 6 feet in length!! with 5 foot long arrows!
acerb45666555 1 year ago
@acerb45666555 I guess I have seen long bows in the Amazon - but I wonder why? They sure weren't used to fire hundreds of yards, like the English...
hrothgleas 1 year ago
Incas, Aztecs, Mayans. . .
timotimekvej 1 year ago
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY SPAIN AND USA TODAY KEEP CELEBRATING AND BUILDING MEMORIALS OF MASS MURDERERS AND TORTURERS??????? Can someone tell me???
alendarzhana 1 year ago
I don't think his theory is "highly original" as stated in the beginning of the video, much of what he says has been stated before. Yet he does provide some new fascinating insights.
DanialWali 1 year ago
don't sell the viking tribes short, Kalle. they got all over the place from north america to deep russia and everywhere in between.
dings215 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the new book "The Evolution or Racial Differences In Intelligence" (written by the worlds Top Scientist Dr R Lynn)
Dr Lynn uses the work of over 500 different Scientific Research teams to show there are large Racial Differences in Brain size and IQ
Blacks have 5 cubic inch smaller brains than Whites
Dr Lynn also shows these are Genetic Differences pointing out that mixed race children also have smaller brains and lower IQs than White Children
Ooloosoon 1 year ago