Compare And Contrast Inca And Aztecs

835 Words4 Pages
All civilizations — while similar in several aspects — have differences. For example, Rome and Greece may have similar architecture and art, but their language and cultures are notably different. Although a few civilizations may not have borrowed ideas from other societies, many follow the same path to success, which would result in similar governments, religions, and culture. The Aztec and Inca, seemingly similar, were advanced and had their own complex, organized societies. Both of their beliefs were based on polytheism and held the Sun God in an important place compared to the other deities in their religions. Unlike the Inca, the Aztec conducted human sacrifices to a higher scale than the Inca did. To emphasize, the Aztec and the Inca differ…show more content…
The Aztecs didn’t govern lands that they have conquered but forced conquered people to pay tribute. These tributes helped the conquered societies and Aztec empire coexist in peace, which helped the Aztec empire grow rich from such tributes. The rise in wealth helped the noble people and leaders grow richer in the Aztec empire. The Aztec also had five social classes: the king, nobles, commoners, peasants, and the slaves. Namely, the king and nobles would be the upper class of society, while the commoners, peasants, and the slaves would be the low and working class. Unlike the Aztec, the Inca “..functioned to extract land and labor from subject populations” (Schwartz, par. 10). Conquered people were also enlisted in the Inca armies, and were often rewarded with goods. The Incas desire for economic gain was what pushed them to conquer lands. The social class of the Inca was the Sapa Inca (including their family), nobles, conquered nobles, and commoners. The Sapa Inca, nobles, and conquered nobles were upper/middle class, while the commoners were the low and working class. Overall, the Aztecs and Incas social class were similar in the “king, nobles, and commoner” hierarchy, but how they gained wealth through conquest (one through tribute and other by conquest) was ultimately…show more content…
As I said before, the Aztecs didn’t govern the lands that they had conquered but forced the (conquered) people to pay tribute. The Aztec empire was also a monarchy, and during an emperor’s rule, they would be worshipped as a god. But the Aztec wasn’t just a large city or empire, it was three city-states called Tenochtitlán, Texcoco, and Tlacopan that formed a “Triple Alliance.” Eventually, with their rise to power, Tenochtitlán became the city-state that dominated the Aztec empire. Similar to the Aztecs, the Inca had a monarchy and their ruler (Sapa Inca) was treated as intermediaries with the gods. The Incas also adopted the practice split inheritance for the Royals, which meant that the titles of the said ruler and their political power went to their successor. When a ruler becomes deceased, they would also become mummified. In all both empires had their political/social life infused with their respective religions. Unlike each other, the Aztec didn’t directly control conquered lands while the Inca managed and took over new

More about Compare And Contrast Inca And Aztecs

Open Document