Comparing Aztec and Inca empires to other empires from different time periods is quite difficult and the conclusions taken from these comparisons should be analyzed carefully. I think some historians choose to compare differing empires to try to get a better understanding of the rise, the fall, and the lifestyle of these empires. But doing so can lead to unfair generalizations about these empires because each empire has its own unique story, and there is no one reason why every empire was created or why they collapsed.
However a justification for wanting to compare empires would be if those empires were around during the same time and had the similar cultures, like Rome and Greece. With that said, one could also compare the Aztec and Inca empires because of their close proximity in location and time and their similarities in cultural aspects.
I think Conrad and Demarest are doing comparative history between the Aztecs and the Incas. Their comparisons are acceptable to an extent because the Aztec and Inca empires are so similar. They even admit to comparing these to empires on page 152 when they say “Our presentations of Aztec and Inca history in the previous chapters have been organized so as to highlight these parallels in the developments and demise of Aztec and Inca imperialism.” It does help to compare conclusions of archaeological findings of these two because there is so little written history about these empires but while that is helpful it can also hinder our understanding and realization that these empires were inherently different.
I agree with you in that comparative history needs to be done carefully and I would also add that it needs to be noted like in the part you quoted where it clearly states that they are comparing the Aztec and Inca history.
ReplyDeleteI agree when you say that the conclusions need to be analyzed carefully because that is exactly what can alter our learning experience. It should be kept in mind by both the source and the those that are relying on the source (in this case us as students) that these conclusions cannot be taken as complete truths just because the difficult work of comparison between empires in completely different time frames are being presented to us. We should rather take these into consideration together with other readings, previous knowledge on the subject, and finally keep it in mind for future learning on the subject.
In comparing two empires, I think it is difficult as well because even if they are around the same time there are many other factors to consider such as location and interaction between such empires if it exists at all. . But I definitely agree with you that it would be a much better base if the empires being compared were around the same time such as the Rome and Greece as you mention. You do address the location part in the possible comparison between Aztec and Inca due to their proximity in location and time so I still agree with you. I like your post overall because you address a very important aspect that we need to think of as we rely on sources such as Conrad and Demarest’s comparative history.