Throughout their violent conquest and feuds, the Spanish were remarkably legalistic. They constantly sought royal charters, had judges pronounce verdicts, handed down indictments, and appealed for pardons. This obsession with legal process coexisted bizarrely with their extralegal violence and betrayal, used to legitimize their actions.
The primary conflict that destroyed leaders like Pizarro and Almagro wasn't the war against the Incas, but their own bloody, multi-generational vendetta over power and control of cities like Cusco. Their greed turned them against each other, leading to their mutual destruction and assassinations.
During the civil war between Spanish factions, thousands of native people gathered on hillsides to watch battles like Las Salinas. They reportedly cheered for both sides, hoping for mutual destruction. This portrays the conflict not just as a war, but as a gruesome spectator event for the conquered population.
When the Spanish crown passed laws to protect indigenous people, colonial settlers led by Gonzalo Pizarro rebelled. They protested loyalty to the king but demanded the freedom to exploit the land they conquered, mirroring the American colonists' rebellion against a distant government infringing on their local 'rights.'
Despite being hardened by years of brutal warfare, figures like Diego de Almagro and Manco Inca repeatedly made fatal errors by naively trusting their Spanish rivals. Almagro released hostages on a flimsy promise, and Manco sheltered his own assassins, showcasing a recurring, fatal gullibility.
The narrative of a small Spanish force conquering a vast empire is misleading. The Spanish heavily relied on indigenous allies, like the puppet emperor Paolo Inca, who provided thousands of warriors. These alliances were decisive in key battles, revealing the conquest was also a native civil war exploited by Europeans.
The widely held view of Spanish colonial brutality wasn't just Protestant propaganda. It originated from firsthand accounts by Spanish conquistadors and priests like Bartolomé de las Casas. This internal criticism and moral debate over the treatment of indigenous peoples was present from the conquest's very beginning.
The conquest's story is personalized through the dictated account of Tito Cusi, son of Emperor Manco. His memory of witnessing his father's murder at age nine provides a rare, powerfully human perspective on the violence, shifting the narrative from epic history to intimate, personal trauma.
Francisco Pizarro, one of history's richest men, showed no interest in the luxuries his gold afforded. He wore old clothes, disliked fine food, and spent his time playing simple games with soldiers. This reveals a motivation driven by abstract glory or adventure rather than material comfort.