> In his book, however, Binet depicts the conquering Incas as far more benevolent than their European counterparts. Atahualpa becomes known as “the Protector of the Poor” for his egalitarian policies. The Incas are horrified by the savagery of the Spanish Inquisition, in spite of their own traditions of human sacrifice.
From the Wikipedia article on Atahualpa
> The Cusquenian nobles named Huáscar (another son of Huayna) as Sapa Inca, and he appointed his brother Atahualpa as governor of Quito. The Inca Civil War began in 1529 when Huáscar declared war on Atahualpa, for fear that he would try to carry out a coup d'état against him. Atahualpa became Inca emperor in May 1532 after he had defeated and imprisoned Huáscar and massacred any pretenders to the throne. The Spaniard Francisco Pizarro captured Atahualpa in November 1532 and used him to control the Inca Empire. While imprisoned by the Spaniards, Atahualpa gave orders to kill Huáscar in Jauja, thinking Huáscar would use the Spaniards as allies to regain his throne.
It's also a risky genre. I can buy the Western Roman Empire not collapsing in the fifth century A.D., but if you extrapolate that to mean that Latin-speaking Napoleon Bonaparte becomes Emperor in 1804 and conquers China it's difficult to take your opinion on historical contingency seriously.
At face value the hypothetical Incan conquest of Spain could really go either way, but there's definitely potential for something fascinating there. I hope this is worth a read.
P.S. It's not exactly the traditional kind of Alternate History, but if you're fascinated by the genre I think the 1632 series by Eric Flint would be right down your alley.
First thing that came to mind when I read this was Guns, Germs, and Steel. It was the inspiration for the novel:
“In it Diamond wonders why it was Pizarro who came to capture Atahualpa in Peru and not Atahualpa who came to capture Charles V in Spain,” Binet said. “That sentence was a real trigger for me, and I thought: Why not tell that story instead?”