Week 6 Prompt

It appears that after meticulously analyzing the Mexica and Inca, Conrad and Demarest compare and contrast several aspects of both civilizations. They note the evolution of both from small, backward polities into strong states. Both societies were highly organized with hierarchal structures that included nobility, warriors, and laborers. Lastly, both the Mexica and Inca were adaptable and relied on religious ideologies for their economic and political expansions. Indeed the entire book closely observes the role of religion, or ideology, in the formation of these empires, as well as its activities and rituals. However, the authors’ comparisons are limited, and rightly so because both cultures were far too different to group together.

But is comparative history useful in this case? It’s quite difficult to answer. Given their proximity and their roles as the two biggest empires in the pre-Columbian Americas, it’s easy to see why historians often study both. And in some respects, comparisons are appropriate – particularly the emphasis on Gods and warfare. Conrad and Demarest correctly relate both the Mexica and Inca, but not in a simplistic manner. Instead, their fourth chapter examines various theories utilized to explain ideological adaptations. Moreover, they often refute or question those popularly held claims. These types of comparisons are acceptable. But too often, comparative history grossly undermines important cultural features or fails to understand beliefs and unfairly forms generalizations. In this case, it seems to me that the Mexica and Inca political structures are not carefully explained in regards to their individual religious ideologies. Conrad and Demarest avoid this drawback by relating religion to their social, economic, and political achievements.