Structure
The Inca army was divided in the following manner:
| Inca Rank | Current equivalent | Number of soldiers under their command |
|---|---|---|
| Aucac Runa | Soldier | 0 |
| Púcara Camayuk | Castillian | 0 |
| Runancha | Guide | 0 |
| Quipa Camayuk | Trumpeter (wooden trumpet) |
0 |
| Choru Camayuk | Trumpeter (conch shell) |
0 |
| Huancar Camayuk | Drummer | 0 |
| Unanchayanac | Subaltern | 5 |
| Chunga Kamayuk | Sub-lieutenant | 10 |
| Piccka Chunka Kamayuk | Lieutenant | 50 |
| Pachac Kamayuk | Centurion | 100 |
| Guaranga Kamayuk | Battalion Leader | 1,000 |
| Kamayuk | Officer | - |
| Apu Randin | Captain Lieutenant | - |
| Hatun Apu Randin | Lieutenant Commander | - |
| Apu | Captain | - |
| Hatun Apu | Brigadier General | 4,000-5,000 |
| Apusquin Rantin | Major General | 10,000 |
| Apusquispay | Army General | The whole field army |
The largest units in the Inca army were composed of 10,000 men, under the command of a Major General or Apusquin Rantin. This was generally a nobleman from Cuzco who would have been a veteran of several campaigns. The head of the field army was the Apusquispay, he would have been a noble chosen by the Inca and he would have shown himself to have been in good physical and mental condition at the Huarachico trials. In order to give orders the generals used conche blowers, trumpeters or drummers to communicate with their lieutenants.
Read more about this topic: Inca Army
Famous quotes containing the word structure:
“With sixty staring me in the face, I have developed inflammation of the sentence structure and definite hardening of the paragraphs.”
—James Thurber (1894–1961)
“If rightly made, a boat would be a sort of amphibious animal, a creature of two elements, related by one half its structure to some swift and shapely fish, and by the other to some strong-winged and graceful bird.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)