Such comparisons to other empires can be beneficial
depending on the research at hand.
If one was purely looking at how advanced each civilization became at a
period of time it would fit, but factors such as geography and ideology play
into how it could be a downfall.
In Conrad and Demarest’s case I believe that it is not illuminating
because the Aztec and Inca Empires are on the opposite side of the world and
have very different geographic environments than other empires such as the
Egyptian, for example. They lived
in an opposite climate from the Latin American Empires. While they both became superpowers for
their time, they are worlds apart and never came in contact with the Aztec and
Inca’s. Although it seems like the
Empires had many similarities it is not just to put them in the same category
together. As human knowledge
advances, thinking becomes the same and those similarities could just be mere
coincidences due to how common growth patterns are for societies. I think that comparing the Aztec and
Inca Empires with others can confuse not just historians but individuals and
can mislead or contribute to misconstrued information.
I
do not believe that Conrad and Demarest are engaging in comparative
history. They seem to be going
back and forth debunking certain information that has been disproved in some
way by other scholars. They are
using information from others to try to justify what caused the Inca and Aztec
rise and demise. They show that
each has similarities such as their religious ideologies, but in my opinion,
they are using their differences, like the background behind the Empire’s quest
for land, to further prove that they were two separate entities with many de-habilitating
factors. Jamie explained the
meaning behind my thinking perfectly with the fact that the Aztec’s sought out
expansion for religious ideologies and the Inca’s expanded for wealth and land
due to split inheritance and the mummies control. The Inca’s merely used religion as a stepping-stone, but it
was not their main factor in expanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment