In class discussions and in blog posts some of you have compared the Aztec and Inca empires to other examples of empire. Do you think that such comparisons are illuminating for historians? Why or why not? And would you say that Conrad and Demarest are doing comparative history, or is their project something different? (Please consider both parts of this question.)
Note: There is no free choice option this week.
I believe such comparisons are illuminating for historians because it allows for them to compare how each empire has developed politically, socially, economically, and religiously. I believe all these topics are interesting to investigate and compare with other empires because it allows historians to see how each empire has industrialized individually and what similarities they might have. For example, how the community is structured, what beliefs they might have, what language they may speak, how they communicate amongst others, their technological advancements, and architecture styles can all be viewed in each empire. What I think historians find interesting was the rise and fall of many of these empires and being able to compare to other similarities could give further evidence to how they were developed and destroyed, for instance, when the Spanish conquered the Aztec and Inca empires. I think using other sources could be useful to compare, but could also be challenging when investigating a specific ideology or interpretation of a religious belief from one empire to another. Conrad and Demarest do comparative history within their book, as they explain the rise and fall of the Aztec and Inca Empire by giving specific examples of deities, rulers, human sacrifices, and people’s lifestyles.
ReplyDelete