Conquest was also a war of alliances: Si Sheppard on the Mexica and Inca empires

One of the interview's most striking scenes unfolds at Cajamarca. Pizarro brings a small force to meet Atahualpa, the recent victor of a civil war. In military historian Si Sheppard's account, the Spanish prepare an ambush in a confined space and capture the Inca ruler. The immediate effect is military; the effect Sheppard wants to explain is political. Seize the ruler and try to command a much larger structure.

Dwarkesh Patel's interview with military historian Si Sheppard was published on October 1. Over more than ninety minutes, they return to one question: how did Cortés and Pizarro prevail against much larger empires? Sheppard's answer rests as much on alliances and political decisions as it does on weapons.

Tenochtitlan: the story began before the final battle

Sheppard portrays Cortés as a commander who grasped the divisions inside an empire. In the episode, the Totonacs see the newcomers as an opening against Mexica domination. The Tlaxcalans first fight Cortés, then ally with him. That sequence rules out an account in which a handful of Spaniards brought down Tenochtitlan unaided.

Malintzin, known in many sources as doña Marina, appears in the conversation as an interpreter at the encounter between Cortés and Moctezuma. Her presence is a reminder that translation and negotiation were part of the conflict. It also points to a limit of the account: we hear far more about the conquerors' decisions than about those who helped them or resisted them.

In the opening section, Sheppard distinguishes firearms, with slow reloads and a powerful psychological impact, from steel and the mobility supplied by horses. He also acknowledges Spanish casualties and says Cortés tried to conceal them to maintain an image of invulnerability. A technological advantage did not mean the absence of resistance.

Cajamarca: exploiting a conflict already under way

When the conversation turns to Peru, the Inca empire has just been torn by the contest between Atahualpa and Huáscar. Sheppard describes Pizarro's attempt to repeat a political method: get close to the center of authority and capture the person who holds it. At Cajamarca in 1532, surprise, horses and weapons enabled Atahualpa's capture.

The ratio of attackers to defenders is not enough to explain the scene. The setting of the encounter, the ambush, the preceding civil war and Atahualpa's decision to meet the strangers all matter. Epidemic disease had deepened the empire's fractures.

The discussion then turns to military advantage. The host raises very high estimates of deaths and claims about Spanish casualties. Sheppard concentrates on psychological shock, steel and cavalry. The episode alone cannot establish a universally accepted casualty count; sources count people and events differently.

What the closing argument adds

At the end, Patel and Sheppard return to diplomacy. It is a useful lens for the whole conversation: Europeans exploited existing disputes, sought intermediaries and recruited local support. Indigenous allies had goals of their own, though the colonial order that followed did not necessarily deliver the power they expected.

The interview offers a compelling way to understand how a small force used institutions, rivalries and technology. It has limits, too: the conquerors' perspective dominates, and treating empires as structures that could simply be captured from the top compresses diverse experiences. The questions to keep in mind are who negotiated, who supplied troops, who resisted and who got to tell the story afterward.