The armies that toppled the Aztecs and Inca were ninety-nine percent local troops, not Spanish soldiers
Spanish soldiers made up less than 1% of both conquests; the real outcome-deciders were centuries-old blood feuds between conquered tribes—technological advantages just won individual skirmishes.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · timestamps estimated from transcript position
Control of the emperor gave you control of the empire, not military superiority
Cortés immediately recognized the deep resentments among Aztec tributaries. The Tlaxcalans, long starved of salt and trade by Aztec siege, saw a few hundred foreigners as their only shot at breaking out of strategic encirclement, and volunteered thousands of warriors. Cortés then staged a palace coup: he used a coastal incident as pretext to seize Montezuma himself, holding him under ‘protection.’ Once you control the emperor, you control the empire's command structure. Pizarro copied this playbook exactly in Peru.
— Si SheppardPsychological terror from unfamiliar weapons killed more than the weapons themselves did
Pizarro arrived at Cajamarca with 160 to 190 men to ambush Atahualpa, fresh from winning a civil war and commanding tens of thousands—some accounts say close to two hundred thousand. Inca soldiers had never heard cannon fire, never seen cavalry charge. The psychological blow towered over actual damage dealt. Terror triggered retreat and panic-trampling more deadly than bullets or steel. Pizarro's side killed nearly ten thousand of Atahualpa's army that day. Spanish casualties: one—Pizarro's hand, slashed by friendly fire.
— Si SheppardIndividual decisions, not structural inevitability, determined the conquest's outcome
When Dwarkesh asked if Spain would almost certainly win if history ran again, Sheppard said the contingency was huge. Cortés nearly died multiple times; had he fallen midway, the leaderless expedition would likely have collapsed. If Atahualpa had sent an emissary instead of walking into Pizarro's narrow courtyard, and held his distance to negotiate, his empire still intact from the just-won civil war might have turned the tables and trapped the Spanish. Short-term battle outcomes depend heavily on specific decisions. Long term, though, Old World diseases kept grinding down indigenous coordination—a deeper variable than any single victory.
— Si SheppardPlundered silver created no new wealth, just redistributed it, and impoverished Spain instead
The gold and silver Spain seized from the New World didn't create new wealth—it just reshuffled wealth within Europe plus triggered inflation, like a government printing extra currency. The structural impact happened in China. Ming dynasty paper money had lost credibility; the monetary system pivoted to silver. Spain routed New World silver through Manila to buy Chinese porcelain, silk, spices. By the 1640s, silver inflow collapsed. The Ming, unable to fund its army as Qing forces closed in, fell faster. Spain itself, having lived off silver windfall for centuries, never developed real capital markets or banks, and fell behind the Dutch and English, who had no choice but to innovate. Spain stayed backward for centuries.
— Si SheppardAztec honor culture—capturing enemies alive for sacrifice—undermined military effectiveness
Aztec warfare centered on the honor of taking captives alive for ritual. Soldiers who had Cortés on the ground multiple times didn't kill him—they tried to drag him alive back to the temple. That hesitation gave him room to escape. In the Siege of Cuzco, hundreds of Spanish troops held two narrow-doored buildings while thousands of Inca troops surrounded them. Cuzco's streets were too tight to deploy full force; attackers pressed only from dawn to dusk, never hitting the garrison continuously through the night to exhaust them. Spain's bottlenecks and cavalry counterattacks in open plazas held the line, and steadily absorbed disaffected tribes the Incas had conquered and ruled with resentment.
— Si SheppardPoverty and desperation, not moral conviction, drove the Spanish conquest
Most conquistadors came from Extremadura, the poorest province in Spain—landless, but steeped in the martial culture of the Reconquista. Staying home to fight Moors or Turks looked high-risk, low-reward. Crossing the ocean to the New World looked lower-risk, higher-reward. Religion was the fig leaf they draped over the plunder: having witnessed Aztec sacrifice rituals firsthand, many felt genuine horror, and took moral absolution from expunging heresy. But the show speaks plainly—massacres of women and children, rape, and organized genocide remain genocide. The Inca didn't practice large-scale sacrifice, so Spain's excuses don't stick there. The atrocities stand.
— Si SheppardCompanies fired incompetent managers for profit; dynasties kept them for bloodline
After Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire lost authority fast. A weak successor had no self-correcting mechanism. The East India Company, by contrast, could sack any manager at will—it answered to profit, not genealogy. This agility let the English and Dutch, starting latest and poorest, leapfrog past the others. In Bengal, the nawab class of an earlier generation could play the English off against other powers; the generation after, incompetent, pivoted to allying with the East India Company instead, which looked more competent. The bulk of English armies were Indian sepoys—the same logic as Cortés: outsiders employing locals to conquer locals.
— Si SheppardDiplomacy and coalition-building mattered as much as technology in conquest
The Aztec Empire was formally the Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. In 1516, Texcoco's king died. His two sons warred over succession; Montezuma backed one of them. When Spaniards arrived, the son who lost that internal war immediately switched to Cortés. Neither side foresaw that Europe would later pour in overwhelming numbers and flip from guests to majority. Sheppard sums it up: the conquistadors could win each battle, but without local allies' backing, they couldn't win the war. The conquest succeeded because indigenous factions chose to ally with foreigners against their own neighbors.
— Si SheppardIn their own words · checked verbatim
this would not be the first time in history that an alien force, with motivations that the natives don’t understand, is able to use diplomatic cunning and technological advantages to outmaneuver and then take over a much larger and well-established order.
Dwarkesh Patel3:30
If you allow this man inside your house, he will take your house away from you.
Si Sheppard22:39
There’s a saying in Peru that Atahualpa was planning to have Pizarro for lunch, but Pizarro ended up having him for breakfast.
Si Sheppard29:28
But be careful what you wish for, because you may just actually get it.
Si Sheppard56:59
This was some of the hardest fighting I’ve ever been through.
Si Sheppard1:14:16
My men and I suffer from a disease of the heart that only gold can cure.
Si Sheppard1:14:16
They could win battles. They could not have won the war, though, at the end without the support of those indigenous allies.
Si Sheppard1:32:34
Figures
| Aztec Empire population | 6 million | 36:55 |
| Inca Empire population | 10 million | 29:28 |
| Time to conquer Aztec Empire | Two and a half years | 36:55 |
| Spanish soldiers at Cajamarca | 160-190 | 29:28 |
| Casualties at Cajamarca | ~10,000 Inca dead, zero Spanish dead | 29:28 |
| Spanish unification year | 1492 | 1:13:11 |
| Battle of Lepanto | 1571 | 56:59 |
Glossary
- encomienda
- Land and indigenous labor rights granted by Spain to conquistadors; essentially a feudal tribute system.
- hidalgo
- Lowest rank of hereditary nobility in Castile; held title but usually little wealth.
- sepoy
- Indian soldier hired by the East India Company; formed the bulk of English colonial forces.
- huey tlatoani
- Aztec emperor's title, translating to ‘great speaker.’
- Sapa Inca
- Title of the Inca emperor.
- La Noche Triste
- ‘The Night of Sorrows’—Cortés's costly retreat from Tenochtitlan with heavy losses.
How to listen
Founders and investors interested in geopolitics and organizational collapse, historians, and anyone reasoning by analogy about AI takeover risk.