Comparing two vastly different civilizations from completely different time periods can not be considered a valid, or great comparison. It would be like comparing a 1908 Ford Model T to a 2008 Ford Focus. Both are, or were, cars and their purpose was to transport people back and forth, yet they are vastly different in terms of how and when they were built and in terms of the philosophy behind their construction. The same can be said of the Inca Empire and, say, the Roman Empire. Both were great Empires that sought to expand, yet their motives and philosophies for doing so were fundamentally different.
However, a comparison between the civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome could be compared successfully because of their proximity in both time periods and the fact that the Roman Empire borrowed heavily from Greek ideas. Likewise, comparing the Aztec and Inca Empires can also be considered a valid and informative comparison due to both their geographical proximity, similar philosophies, and overlapping time periods. Conrad and Demerest both follow this same trend of comparative history by comparing the Inca and Aztec Civilizations based on their similarities.
Regardless, there is a certain point in which both types of comparisons, both valid or non-valid, that information can still be taken. This is particularily useful for historians, who seek to learn about the various reasons as to how and why things happened the way they did in their place in history. They can compare and contrast as to all the reasons different civilizations came into fruition and gained supremacy. Every empire has their own unique story and to compare how different empires rose and fell would be fascinating. History always has something illuminating to tell historians, regardless of what the context may be. It is simply important to remember that when talking in context, valid comparisons do begin to matter.
I would have to agree with what you said. Comparing two different civilizations from different time periods can be dangerous. I do not agree, nor do I think it is fair, to compare the Aztec or Incan Empires to that of the Roman Empire or Egyptian Empire, as others have done. Yes, it may be a helpful tool for some to compare different civilizations, however, they might begin to misjudge or make assumptions that may not be present causing them to incorrectly analyze a civilization(s). Each civilization (Aztec, Incan, Roman, Egyptian, etc.) had their own social, political, economic, and religious beliefs and each had different motivations behind their expansions and fall. It is important for historians to examine each civilization individually before attempting to make a comparison.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it is acceptable to make a comparison between two civilizations that were present around the same time period and shared a similar geographical proximity, but first after individually examining each civilization by itself. I think Conrad and Demarest do a nice job of this, first by examining each civilization by itself then by comparing them. A comparison like this allows the intended audience to make a clear distinction between the two. I picture this like placing a white tile in front of a black surface, the distinction between the two is easily observed. First one can examine each object by itself, and then by placing them together, the differences stand out making an analysis of each object easier.