Diana - Illuminating Comparative History

Diana P. Espinoza

HIST 365

Blog post week #6

Comparisons in general are risky because you always have to consider the factors that influence the two objects being compared, this is specially true in history because the objects being compared tend to have different time periods, different locations, different ideologies, different influences, different developing timeframes and most importantly that in some instances we are not certain of the history historians uncover.  Nevertheless, comparisons have always worked for pointing out possible similarities, possible reasons for similarities or differences, possible effects of similarities and differences, and the possible causes behind them.  This being said, comparisons between empires such as the Aztec and the Inca can be illuminating for historians.  These comparisons can uncover possible truths about these empires; I say possible truths because it is difficult to consider all history as a complete truth.  The only way that comparing two empires would not be illuminating is if these empires are completely different, and any similarities found are more coincidental rather than significant. 

I would say that Conrad and Demarest are in fact doing comparative history but I would also specify that comparative history is not the sole purpose or focus of their book.  Comparative history is just a part of what they do to explore the Aztec and Inca Empire and to present a different view for us as readers.  The comparative history helps them with their overall project, which is mainly to explore the Aztec and Inca empires as individual empires focusing more on the uniqueness of each rather than how similar they can be.  The similarities in ideology, political rule, military practices, and way of life in general can be explored later to determine further details of each empire.