Conrad and Demarest discussed the role of religion in the
rise and fall of the Inca Empire but showed that while religion played an
equally significant role in the rising and falling of both the Aztec and the
Inca Empires, the two ideologies were very different. Conrad and Demarest
explained in detail that the Inca expansion was driven by the Inca emperors’
necessity for new land, servants, and possessions. As they venerated the dead emperors
as immortals, the property and possessions of the deceased emperors had to be
honored and maintained. Thus, the practice of split-inheritance became
institutionalized.
One aspect of the Inca expansion that I found especially
interesting were the “initial” benefits there were for the common people. While
most expansions offer great benefits to the rulers and leaders of the
expansions, the common people often have nothing to gain. However, the
expansion of the Inca Empire had much to offer to the commoners who made up the
workforce and backbone of the empire. As
the authors discuss on pages 122 and 123, the acquisition of additional lands
allowed for additional agricultural production. The increase of agricultural
production offered the farmers more flexibility in terms of the variety of
crops and also the dependability of food in case of droughts or other natural
factors. But farmers and emperors weren’t the only ones with an incentive to
assist the expansion efforts, “from the emperor down to the village ayllus,
every level of Inca society had reasons to see constant warfare as desirable”.
What I found interesting is how the Inca rearranged their social structures in
a way that encouraged warfare. Warriors who should particular valor would be
honored with political positions, land grants, additional wives, etc. It was a
system built for war. The ideology of the Inca required war and expansion and
the society evolved to encourage the practice, benefitting all members of their
society.
Well you know, I do not think the Aztecs ideology was that much different from the Incas. The authors explained the difference between both empires; however, they suggested that both empires fell because they were prisoners of their ideologies. Ideologies that could not function in the end, they became thin for the maintenance and growth of an empire.
ReplyDeletePleasing the gods with warfare sacrifices was the ideology of the Aztecs. Meaning, they had to look for expansion, in that way, they would always have humans to sacrifice, “The weakening of the sacred bond of the sacrificial cult led inevitably to defeat, to resentment among the people, and to bitterness between the Mexica and their gods” (69). It is illogical to say that this was the only factor that led to the fall of the Aztecs. Politics and the economy was part of the ideology equation.
The ideology of the Incas was to venerate their dead kings as living kings because that would keep the ancestors in heaven happy. As a result, they had to seek new lands and new kings had to look for their own fortune. More importantly, they had to keep up with the dead kings maintenance, as if it was a living person, “political advancement for the state’s leadership, social mobility for commoners, and an honored afterlife for deserving individuals/by providing the wherewithal for the proper care of the kings, living and dead, conquest would insure Tawantinsuyu of heaven’s favor” (125).
Thus, both the Incas and the Aztecs built an empire with religious ideologies that would not work in the end. However, Conrad and Demorest write that religious ideologies will follow by politics and economy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Aztec’s and Inca’s religion were both very different from each other but in the end they both caused uncontrollable growth. The Aztec’s religion focused on sacrifice to their sun god while the Inca’s religion centered on the cult of the mummies. Why didn’t they figure out that uncontrollable growth was impossible? The Egyptian and the Roman both worshipped theirs’ ancestors but they never went as far as the Inca did. I have never heard of any societies that practiced split-inheritance before the Inca.
ReplyDeleteI agree that initially theirs’ religion benefited them. The Inca’s religion gave them a distinctive identity which helped them expand. I don’t agree with you when you say that most expansions do not benefit the common people. Most expansions do benefit the common people but maybe not as much as the Inca expansions.
The Incan were similar the Roman. Roman and Aztec society were interconnected; from theirs’ religion down to theirs’ warfare. You can’t speak of one without speaking about the others. It is hard for us in the modern society to understand the Roman and Aztec way of thinking.
I think that you can compare and contrast many religions and will have similar outcomes. Yes, there are many differences between these two particular religions, but again there are similarities that lead to these two groups being put in to the same book and category. While you have said the that Conrad and Demarest write that the leaders and rulers are the ones who benefitted and not the commoners the same can be said about the Aztecs. Initially in the cappullin system people could move up in ranks, which is partly why there was so much determination and ferocity, until there were too many warriors who became elites and the Inca's had a system that seemed to fit with war very well. The idea that the Inca's ideology was built was war is interesting, because they wanted to continuously expand their society to sustain the dead.
ReplyDeleteI think you make an accurate point in saying that these two religions set high standards and then were unable to keep up with them. There is no way of knowing what they thought, especially since any Inca documents were written during the Spanish conquest, but their actions show us that they believed in maintaing the old and perpetuating the "life" of their dead kings and those king's deceased children. It was an impossible feat to think that you can keep up with the dead.