CH. 4

In chapter four, “Precolumbian imperialism: theories and evidence,” Conrad and Demarest gives insight on the theories of Precolumbian expansion with evidence to support their views. They attempt to provide an explanation that would satisfy the question of ‘Why?’ that has lingered since the time of Cortes and Pizarro.  Conrad and Demarest’s would begin by pointing out that the most common mistake is that scholars would assume that the two imperial expansions were superficial parallels. In fact, they view that the expansions were much more complex. (152)

Chapter four is dissected into five major components: The ideological adaptations of the Mexica and Inca states, Environmental factors, Demographic factors, The economic and political rationale of Precolumbian imperialism, and A comparative appraisal of Mexica and Inca expansionism.  Conrad and Demarest believes that it is imperative to understand each component without having a “single-factor” as “prime movers” for the Precolumbian imperialism, and simultaneously without disregarding any other theories. Therefore, they suggest that scholars should have a “cause and effect” approach to better understand the theories presented, as well as their counter-theories as rebuttal.  (154)

In short, Conrad and Demarest both conclude that there are no defining factors for the reasons behind the imperialistic expansions. They uncover that religion did play a fundamental role in the rise and fall of the civilizations as well as the economic and political factors. Ultimately, the rise and fall of the two empires can only be labeled as a multicausal process, rather than a singular process. (178-187)

Aztec and Inca Imperialism

This week’s reading was very interesting because there were a lot of theories taken in explaining the weaknesses and strengths of the Aztec and Inca Empires. Specifically looking at chapter four, it compared the Aztec and Incan religious ideologies. It’s very compelling to realize how both these empires, even though they were in different regions, shared the same religious culture. Both of their major gods were sky gods. The Aztec and Inca both manipulated politics and religion to legitimize expansion (153). Conrad and Demarest agree that religion was a driving force for imperialism; nonetheless, they do consider how religion could be manipulated for self-interest (154). It’s important to realize that while their religious structures was highly organized and some leaders might have been greedy for personal advancement, the religious format was highly adaptable. Conrad and Demarest argue that why religion aided in growing the empires it was because it simply worked. It made sense in respect to how their empires functioned. We can’t use religious ideology to justify everything; Conrad and Demarest urge us to look into how the environmental role for imperialism, even though it isn’t as big as the role religion played. In respect of population pressures, some theorists’ arguments provided great insight like Cook. Cook argues that through warfare and sacrifice there is a mortality rate that balances overpopulation (165). While that makes more sense and evidence can support it, there are some absurd theories such as Harner’s protein sufficiency theory. Conrad and Demarest want to provide us with perspectives and analogies from their own to educate the readers on the controversial debates regarding the Aztec and Inca imperialism. Still, it seems that ideological adaptation is the strongest argument in why the Aztec and Inca empires grew and fell (186).

Restall vs. Conrad and Demarest..

Restall’s book gives us the general outline of misconceptions about the conquest, how these misconceptions came about, and what happened in the conquest of Latin America in a simple enjoyable reading book. Whereas, Conrad and Demarest book gives the readers a more in-depth look of how the experts got their theories about the start and end civilizations from analyzing 3 types of “ethnohistorical documents” (5). This book is a high level of college reading compared to the leisure read of Restall’s book.

Both books analysis multiple sources and ideas about how the great civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas came into existence and how these groups fell into decline after a century. There are similarities as well as many differences in each book. For example, Conrad and Demarest book focuses more on how the analysis of the sources they used tell about the empires.  In Restall’s book the focal point is about the truth of the 7 most common myths of the Spanish Conquest. Conrad and Demarest book expands upon some of the myths of conquest from Restall's book. Such as The Myth of Exceptional Men that states that Cortez and his few men conquered the Aztecs by themselves (Restall 3), where in reality "..Cortez's handful of men led an army of tens of thousands of Indian allies, most of them vengeful Tlaxcalans"(Conrad and Demarst 70). Thus Comrad and Demarest Book agrees also that it wasn't just the Spanish who were fighting aganist the Aztec Empire but it was those surrounding native tribes like the Tlaxcalans who were enemies and wanted to be rid of the power of the Triple Alliance.

                

Comparing Conrad & Demerest and Matthew Restall

I think that while Conrad and Demerest and Resteall have different goals in their writings they do have some common things that they talk about. First Restall's book is all about clearing up Myths associated with the conquest of Mexico while Conrad and Demerest are discussing what an important role religion had in creating the Aztec and Inca empires. Restall is able to use documented history as evidence to support his arguments where as Conrad and Demerest don't have that luxury. They have to use mostly archaeological evidence. The fact that they are discussing very different time periods is one of the reasons they are using different types of evidence to support their arguments. One of the ideas that both books agree on is the fact that the Aztecs were not a weak culture that were easily taken over by the Spanish. In chapter 3 of his book Restall talks about how there were native allies that helped the Spanish conquer and Conrad and Demerests whole attitude about the Aztecs were that they were always fighting neighbors and trying to expand their territory and gain more power. From this we can see how the Aztecs may have made enimies and they would have liked to help the Spanish take over the Aztecs. Conrad and Demerest devote the first part of their book telling us how the Aztecs advanced and made their empire strong. Restall devotes a whole chapter to the myth that the Aztecs were weak. One thing I think is interesting is how both the Aztecs and the Spanish use their religion to expand their empires. The Spanish used their religion to justify the Spanish conquest. They believed that human sacrifice was horrible and that the Aztecs were monsters who need to be saved and converted. The Aztecs in kind of the same way used their religion to justify their expansion. They needed more warriors to sacrifice and so they would make war with their neighbors and take them over. The Spanish and the Aztecs used religion as a reason for their expansion efforts.

Week 5 prompt

Restall and Conrad and Demarest are telling two different stories in their books. In some parts they intertwine in what they are covering, however they mainly stick with the focus of their stories and do not cross over too much on details of the other. Restall’s story is about the myths of the Spanish conquest which from the title shows evidence that there will be some crossover is his title over to Conrad and Demarests’. Once you begin reading Restall though he does not go into the same detail that the other two authors do. For example he mentions human sacrifice where the Mexica capture and sacrifice an enemy conquistador. Conrad and Demarest mention the same thing in their book, however they do not mention Spaniards so much instead they focus more on the role sacrifices played in the expansion of the Aztec empire. The authors also differ in their tone in how they tell their stories. Restall likes to use firsthand accounts from individuals such as Bernal Diaz. On the other hand Conrad and Demarest have focused more on archaeological and secondary sources in their text. Where the two books mainly differ is in their topic. Restall reviews the Spanish conquistadors and how some of their ventures throughout the new world had been over exaggerated, with only a little insight being given about the people that were being conquered. Conrad and Demarest focused on the rise of the Aztecs and Incas, and how their civilizations were run.

Through the Eyes of the Ancestors

            We have had many discussions on the potential of religion to be a driving force in the expansion of Pre-Columbian Latin America, and in Spain. The difficulty seems to arise for many of us in seeing religion as an all pervasive institution of these societies. It is more convenient, I think, for some of us to point to religion as a justification for self-interested actions. In this regard I believe it is worth noting that our society (the United States and European nations of similar culture) has become one in which this might be true for many people. After the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on the power of rational thought and human potential, many societies began to distance themselves from religious institutions and ideas, creating a separation of church and state. This separation became so important that the United States even wrote it into its Constitution.

            Keeping that in mind, we should try to separate our inclination of viewing a stratified society with defined lines like those from how we view these past societies. Conrad and Demarest point out that religion was intrinsic to all socio-political aspects of these societies. Even Restall makes note of it when he compares the style of Aztec warfare to that of the Spanish. The Aztecs entered war to capture sacrifices and tribute, not to “conquer” in the sense which is usually associated with the word. It was ceremonial in purpose, highly ritualized, a form of worship for their deities (Huitzilopochtli in particular).

            Even when viewing the Spanish we should remove our modern perspective from how we analyze their actions. In the era of Conquest, Spain was actually a group of kingdoms with various languages and rulers, most of whom had competing agendas. The unifying factor for most of them was the same as it was for most of Europe during the “Dark Ages”: religion. While the rest of Europe was in the middle of the Crusades, the kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula were in the midst of the Reconquista, a holy war against the Moors who had occupied most of the peninsula between CE 711 and CE 1492. We have read the Requirimiento, and while we and many historians have agreed that the actual application of the document was effectively a joke (read in Latin from on board ship or over the horizon), but the document itself is reflective of the fact that Ferdinand and Isabel were Catholic rulers. They were not conquering as such, but simply taking possession of those lands granted to them by the Pope and taking responsibility for the new subjects within those lands granted. It was not an act of war, but of conversion and failure to convert was heresy. They were merely punishing unruly subjects.

            That is not to say that there were no selfish motivations among individuals, but simply to point out that for us to whole heartedly dismiss religion (as some have done in our discussions) is to not take into account the context of the time and people who we are studying. We cannot force our preconceptions from the twenty-first century on a society which flourished in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Restall v. Conrad & Demarest

Let's get the easiest similarity about Restall and Conrad & Demarest out of the way:  both deal with the Aztec and Inca empires in some way or another.  Restall's book is more about what happened during the Spanish conquest while Conrad & Demarest also look at the histories of these people before the Spanish arrived. 

Both works focus on debunking the myth that the Spanish came in and destroyed the mighty empires of the Aztec and Inca, but both look at it from different perspectives.  Restall focuses more on the Spanish perspective on the conquest and points out that the conquest did not happen as quickly as we are led to believe.  The Spanish conquistadors made it sound like that to prove to the Spanish monarchy that progress was being made.  Conrad & Demarest focus more on the perspective of the natives and show that the religious practices of the Aztec and Inca people, human sacrifice and mummy worship, had already started taking their toll and were already causing a decline in these empires that were barely a century old to begin with. 

The evidence used in both works is very different.  Restall's work focuses on debunking popular myths about the Spanish conquest, so he gives the reader the facts from credible sources.  Conrad & Demarest are dealing with a subject that has very few reliable primary sources about it, that being what the Aztec and Inca empires were like before the Spanish arrived.  Because of this, Conrad & Demarest must rely on hypotheses about cultural evolution and they go into great detail about the different theories out there, such as the difference between etic and emic.  The difference in evidence gives each work a very different tone and thus makes one (Restall) a more popular read and the other (Conrad & Demarest) more of a read for history students and professional historians. 

Restall through Conrad and Demerast

What up?  This is Conrad and Demarest in response to Mathew Restalls’ Book Seven myths of the Spanish. While our books may be looking at different sides of the conquest of Central America we would like to put in our two cents about your take on the subject of Spanish conquest. We are firm believers in the way in which religion can influence the world but you seem to take a tone that makes religion a guise to conquer new lands. On only page 9 of your book, You rather callously assert that Vasco Fernandez made a “pitch” to Pope Innocent VII. Cunning linguistics seem to subvert the whole notion that Vasco could have actually been sincere in not only wanting to bring great wealth to the Spanish empire through exploration but to glorify the state religion of Catholicism. We firmly believe that the brutal and tactical methods used by conquistadors, should be viewed as Machiavellian attempts to conquer not only a people but an entire ideological culture. You also appear to use the word justify quite frequently. Pgs. 14, 18, 19. The narrative formed by your use of justification leads one to believe that they needed a clumsy and half baked excuse in order to perform such a conquest and used religion as just that. Finally on page 113 you talk about the Franciscans who concerns you say were “more religious than political.” You say this as if the converse is true about the motivations of the conquistadors. Is it so difficult to believe that both the religious ideology and the personal goals of conquistadors could work in tandem? We suggest more serious forays into the religious beliefs of the Conquistadors before we dismiss outright that they could have any noble albeit misguided objectives.