Talk:Atahualpa

Atahualpa Related: South American Indian Biographies

(ätäwäl´pä) , d. 1533, favorite son of Huayna Capac, Inca of Peru. At his father's death (1525) he received the kingdom of Quito while his half brother, the legitimate heir Huáscar , inherited the rest of the Inca empire. Shortly before the arrival (1532) of Francisco Pizarro , Atahualpa invaded the domains of Huáscar, whom he defeated and imprisoned, and made himself Inca. On Nov. 16, 1532, Pizarro met Atahualpa at Cajamarca. Invited into the city, Atahualpa was seized and imprisoned. He offered a room full of gold as ransom and at the same time secretly ordered the death of Huáscar. He was tried for his brother's murder and for plotting against the Spanish and was executed. He is also known as Atabalipa.

well theres that...from encyclopidia.com

"Atahualpa" more frequently used in English encyclopedias

Most English encyclopedias refer to the Inca ruler as "Atahualpa" rather than his Quechua-sounding name of "Ataw Wallpa". These include Encyclopedia.com, Encarta.com, Britannica.com, and The Hutchinson Encyclopedia. The latter name seems more appropriate for the Quechua Wikipedia, as it sounds better and understood better by Quechua speakers. In any case, there can always be a discussion or vote. --Dynamax 04:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote against constantly renaming pages instead of contributing content... :) --Zenyu 08:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I hope our friend Huhsunqu can give us an explanation or support some evidence of why the names of various Inca leaders' names were recently changed. This can be done in the talk page to discuss before any further name changes are done. Just a suggestion before any more changes are done.. thanks. --Dynamax 06:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

168 men versus an army of 80,000

Did 168 men really destroy an army of 80,000? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Yes, although they didn't really destroy the entire army. They did most of their killing (~6 to 7 thousand) in crowd of unarmed people around Atahualpa, according to "Guns, Germs, and Steel" at least. TastyCakes 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, where the Spaniards fighting soldiers or civilians? If the natives were soldiers, then they should have had some kind of weaponary (clubs, spears, bows and arrows, ...) then they were pretty clumsy to be slaughtered like that by Spaniards. Other native populations (Zulus and other Africans or nomads of the central Asia) did much better. The Inca emperor seems like the pretty bad commander to me. If they were not soldiers, then what was Atahualpa smoking before going to "arrest" an invading army with unarmed civilians? Any way you slice it, it seems that the Spaniards were pretty darned good to have successfully defeated a vastly superior force so efficiently. Mrjahan

There was never a full-scale battle, the Inca weren't expecting hostilities from the Spanish, who had better weaponry, when they captured Atahualpa the political victory was done... The Spanish were going for war all along, the Incas didn't went that much.

From Marvin Lunenfeld's 1492: Discovery, Invasion, Encounter, which includes and excerpt from The Royal Commentaries of the Inca Garcilaso de le Vega, at the time of the attack at Cajamarca, "...all these Indians were haunted by the most famous prediction of the Inca Viracocha, and they asked themselves if the moment had not arrived when, not only the Empire and its laws, but also their religion and its rites were about to disappear like so much smoke. For this reason, they neither dared to defend themselves, not to offend the Spaniards whom they considered as gods and the messengers of Viracocha. Spanish historians themselves confirm the fact that Atahualpa forbade his troops to fight..." So, evidence on both sides of the conflict, Spanish and Inca, suggests that the Inca at Cajamarca refused to defend themselves.

You have to remember the sacredness of the Inca, Atahualpa. He was literally believed to be a "man-god", a god on earth. He was tricked by the Spanish into being captured, which worked with the Aztec in Mesoamerica. At that point, it was all over. The generals wouldn't risk the Spanish killing the Inca emperor when it seemed that the promise of gold from Cuzco and other temples in the area would secure his release once the ransom was gathered. The Spanish then killed Atahualpa after receiving the ransom, which threw everything into chaos. It has been postulated that Atahualpa was overconfident from winning the war with Huascar and therefore allowed himself to be captured pretty easily, but in the end, the overall story is rather one-sided and we'll probably never know the complete reasons for such a defeat. True the Spanish had "superior" weapons and horses, but if the Inca had fought, the story would have been different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.142.165 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of events

I read that the "ambush" was set up before Atahualpa threw the bible on the ground and as soon as he did so the cavalry and infantry came out of hiding and wiped out the people that surrounded him and kidnapped him. I also read that the Incas paid the largest ransom in history for his return, and after receiving it Pizarro killed him anyway. These are slight variations on what's written in this article, does anyone know which version is right? TastyCakes 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Conquest of the Incas (which I believe is considered one of the definitive books on this subject), Vincente de Valverde wrote that the ambush had indeed been planned prior to the meeting with Atahualpa. The "Requirement" may have been delivered before Atahualpa threw the bible on the ground. Accounts of the event vary. Unfortunately, the sources that remain on this event are primarily from the Spanish conquistadores' accounts of the attack and may be one-sided.

Atahualpa was killed, but not immediately after the ransom was collected. At first Pizarro was hoping to keep him around to keep the Inca people at bay (basically as a hostage). Atahualpa was kept as a captive for about 9 months after the battle. When Pizarro believed he was too dangerous to keep alive, Atahualpa was tried and executed, although the trial was a farce and Pizarro was in fact reprimanded by the Spanish government. Gsd97jks 13:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note I have edited the article to reflect these events chronologically - the earlier version was indeed confusing. Gsd97jks 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Standardised Spelling?

The title of the article is Atahualpa, but the first line uses a different spelling ("Atahuallpa"), and the two become intercahngable throughout. Is there any standardised spelling? Google recognised 1,020,000 for Atahaulpa, as opposed to only 61,000 for the alternative. Ariasne 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. If there is a controversy regarding which form to use, it has already been decided upon in choosing the article name. The difference seems to be purely orthographic; it doesn't seem to represent any phonological difference. Emil 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Last "true" Inca

The description of Atahualpa as the "last true emperor" seems rather a judgement-- asserting his legitimacy in the dispute of Huascar as unquestionable, while judging Túpac Amaru et al to be bogus imposters. If no counter argument to this exists, it should be better explained-- otherwise, perhaps Wikipedia should not be in the business of asserting the correctness of historic claims to thrones. In any case, I suspect the caption "Lifetime portrait of Atahuallpa, the 13th and last true (the last empereor being Tu Pac Sharu) Inca emperor" could at least be better worded. -- Infrogmation 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed "real" to "sovereign", this sounds more exactly for me 217.20.217.245 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a descendant of Atahualpa I am Carlos Duchicela. There is a book i urge you to look into it called "La Real Familia Duchicela". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchi (talk • contribs) 05:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Atahuallpa's date of death

moved from Help talk:Contents

My name is Bobbahuallpa. I am related by marriage to a lineal descendant of Atahuallpa and have intensively studied Inca culture and history. My wife's parents live in Calca, Peru, and her father, Martin Huallpa, is a lineal descendant of Atahuallpa.

I intend to make many more informative changes to your article in the near future, as I am completing an extensive treatise on the subject of the rise and fall of the Inca Empire. But in the meantime, please note that the date of Atahuallpa's death was July 26, 1533, not August 29, 1533. This fact is noted by the expert, John Hemming, in his excellent treatise, "The Conquest Of The Incas" (1970). Please see page 78 for the text and page 557 (with footnotes explaining why August 29, 1533 is incorrect and why the correct date is July 26, 1533).Bobbahuallpa 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"My name is Bobbahuallpa. I am related by marriage to a lineal descendant of Atahuallpa"

THAT'S A LAME JOKE!!! Really, no one in Peru and no professional historian uses the doble L spelling of Atahualpa presented in here... and this all seems like mere trolling changing "atah" with "bobb" as in SpongeBob, Bob the constructor and other pop bob chars... So really... Can't be taken seriously!!!

Sorry, but double L spelling (as in Ataw Wallpa) IS sometimes used in scientific sources, and July 26, 1533 IS the correct death date of Atahualpa in Cajamarca (not Quito). Compare es:wiki, pl:wiki and many written sources cited there. Due corrections made. Cien 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi I am Carlos Duchicela descendant of Atahualpa, for those who don't believe please do I am a descendant. There is a book made by my uncle "La Real Familia Duchicela". Questions about my descendence carlosduchicela@hotmail.com

Legacy

"Atahualpa's disastrous handling of the Spanish invasion notwithstanding..." doesn't sound really like a professional comment or something to be admited in a biographical article. It's judgment of Atahualpa's actions by some external or modern standard should not be accepted so lightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.164.9 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)