celtman

I was just reading the thread on largest empire (by mileage) and I was wondering why there was never a large empire in South America? The Aztecs controlled a nice portion of Mexico and Central America, The Incan empire went pretty much all down the west coast of South America... but were there any empires that stretched across the whole continent in a way that the Mongols strecthed across asia?

If there wasn't any empire that big, then why not? Was the land to inhabitable? Were the people living in South America not advanced enough to make such voyages across the continent? or did they just not have that same desire for exploration and conquer?

dienekes

thats a good question, Spain and Portugal controlled ALOT of South America and what they didnt conquer they thought would be of no value to them. And many of the militaries that went into South America didnt have the logistics to finish it. Especially crossing the Andes and going into the invaluable land at the Southern Tip. But Spain and Portugal didnt have vast amounts of man power to draw from to conquer and effectively garrison the areas. they also had other problems with European factions. i.e. the Spanish armada took up much of the resources to have a full fledged conquest.

dienekes

also, the more "barbaric" tribes saw no need for a large conquest, they had what they needed and were content, maybe we should take a lesson from them...

Ymeto

I think that hits the nail on the head. The certainly had the man power and the technology to have a larger empire, but I guess they understood a larger empire means more of a cost to control it.

Commander

The Incans certainly had the man power and financial resources to conquer most of South American during their prime in the 1400s or so. And had the Spanish not come to South America and killed off all the Incans with disease, it's quite possible they would have migrated beyong the Andes into Brazil and Argintina

dienekes

Thats true i guess. i dont specialize in the Americas, im European and Asian warfare.

Ritocal

I think they didn't take all of South America because of the terrain.

The Mongols had the Asian plains, hills and mountains. Although not the easiest to cross.. reliable transportation was there.

South America has the Amazon covering almost the entire middle. This would, and still does today, create problems with keeping in contact with people in it or on the other side of it.

I think for the Aztecs and Incas the problem was not if they could make a huge empire.. but why would you want to try and conquer the rainforest only to reach a mountain zone with difficult farming.

Simon Bolivar

I agree with Ritocal. Im from south america and over there even now there are parts where the jungle is impossible to cross and you have no choice but to fly over it. At the height of the incan empire the jungles in south america were even denser and another reason was that besides the incan empire and a few sorrounding tribes there were no other civilizations in south america, there were just savage indians who were impossible to trade with and had nothing to offer anyways.

htmlmaster

The Aztecs had a good part, but you need to remember how hard it is to control that land. Most of it was rainforest.

DigitusImpudicus

The lesson I take is: they are gone. They were no less nasty and vicious than the invading Europeans (they just uncovered evidence the the Aztecs boiled and ate invaders) , just technologically backward.

Given a choice between being part of a culture that achieved successful conquest and flourished, and the ones that failed and became extinct, I choose the former.

How about you :wink:

Chris--