Difference between Inca, Maya and Aztec?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Discription: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18814
Printed Date: 03-May-2024 at 10:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Difference between Inca, Maya and Aztec?
Posted By: pekau
Subject: Difference between Inca, Maya and Aztec?
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 17:22
|
Inca, Maya and Aztec Civilizations... I can kind of picture what they are... but are there distinct difference between them, other than where they conquered? Are they like Canada and US, or are they plain different? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 19:10
|
As different as China, Rome and Greece. Inca is a Peruvian civilization, part of the long family of civilizations that start from Caral, and that ends on Inca, and that have Chavin, Moche, Tiahuanaco and many others cultures as the predecesors. Inca was the largest state in the Americas of the pre-contact age.
Maya is Mesoamerican (Mexico + Central America), and its predecesors are the Olmecs. Mayans are the classical culture of Mesoamerica that gave origin to many others. Aztecs were the last Mesoamerican culture and the more powerful empire of that region. Aztecs and Mayas were different people that spoke different language, although they shared some cultural elements.
|
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 04:53
|
Aztecs empire was a ferderation, based on the alliance between aztecs city and other two citiesbut the aztecs was the most powerful one,so the federation followed her name, but Inca was a relatively centralized country. ------------- leung |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 14:41
You got that right. Incas are peruvian. and Peruvians also invented Pisco. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 15:45
|
Which were their military characteristics? Was there any similarity btw their armies? I know a little bit about the Aztecs but almost nothing about the others.
The sure thing is that they didn't use horses... Why was that?
Were the horses transfered to the region after the contact? ------------- 
|
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 19:46
|
Because before 1492, there was no horse in America. I think Inca army conquered lots of the neighnours, they were foot soldiers, with stone or bone made weapons, Both three cultures used stone or bone made weapon, but the army had different kind of position, there were generals, captains, ------------- leung |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 21:35
Just remember that Chile is a former province of Peru
 . And Pisco was invented during the Viceroyalty  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 21:41
There were many weapons in precontact Americas. Incas had stone and bronze weapons. Incas were not in the stone age but in the bronze.
http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/bolivia/fi/0000000a.htm">
 Aztecs used obsidiane. Besides throwing darts, cerbatanas (bowing pipes), bows and arrows and slings. Natives of the Amazons had curare, a poison that kills at contact with which they poisoned theirs darts. And the natives of Patagonia have bolas, a quite dangerous weapon if well used.
The horse is post contact. Only a decade after the arrival of the Spaniards, Natives were using horses to attack them.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 22:34
But what was the viceroyalty called? hmm? Pisco is 100% Peruvian! 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 01:23
|
I won't continue with the topic of Pisco. Nobody else would understand this dispute |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 12:18
| hey i am glad we both come to the agreement about the pisco issue. Now to convince those "monos" to the north! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 12:25
|
Pisco is just a variety of brandy, isn't? Actually, pisco is the name of the pottery jars which come from pre-contact times.
If you preffer we could argue who is the owner of "chicha"
 . We say it is the most typical chilean drink |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 22:56
|
Anyone actually tried Pisco? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 23:50
|
I have. Only Chilean Pisco though .
Actually, Pisco is a brandy developed in Colonial times in the Viceroyalty of Peru. People usually forgets that Chile was part of Peru at those times. And Pisco is the brandy developed in Peru and Northern Chile.
Since long time ago there has been a dispute between Peru and Chile about the ownership of the name "Pisco". Actually, I don't care much, because we could change Chilean Pisco to another name, like "Elqui" for example, and the product would be the same.
Chilean and Peruvian piscos are not the same liquor because they are prepared following different recipees. Chilean pisco is made of moscatel grapes and is produced in the Elqui valley. Is so strong that is diluted in water. Peruvian liquor is made following other formula.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 09:10
|
So about the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs... I do not have much of chronology in my head here... Were the Incas and the Mayas at the same time and the Aztecs later? Or am I blabbing here?
If they were at the same time, would might there have been contact? And who lived in the lands inbetween?
And is it true they had so much gold they considered it of low value? Or is that a myth? ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 09:18
|
Both the Incas and the Aztecs appeared in the 14th century, and were in full expansion by the beginning of the 16th when they were conquered by the Spanish. Both of them started out as "barbarians" who took over areas of civilization with a history that stretched back over several thousands of years (about 4000 for Mexcico and 5000 for Peru). The Mayas started to develop in the 4th century AD, reached their peak in the 7th to 10th and were in a period of decadence by the time of the Spanish conquest, although the last Mayan city held out until 1697.
To my knowledge, there was no contact between Mexican and Peruvian civilizations. As for gold, though abundant, it was still considered of fairly high value, but there were other materials such as jade and quetzal feathers which were even more prized. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 09:53
|
Yes, you are right. Incas were contemporary to the Aztecs, and Classical Mayas to Moche and other Peruvian cultures.
There was a very small degree of commerce between Mesoamerican and the Peruvian region. That's show by the presence of central american sea shells that were used in Inca ceremonies. The commerce (which was small) was done mainly by large balsa rafts that followed the Pacific sea coast from Colombia to Central America.
|
Posted By: kotumeyil
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:53
|
Is the reason of this thread the movie "Apocalypto"? By the way, did you see it? On the cover of the VCD the local society is said to be the Mayas and it's filmed in Mayan language. However, had the Mayans been living in cities when the Spanish arrived (Decebal you said that they held until 1697 but did that last city still had the Mayan features as they were at their height?)? AFAIK they left their cities for some reason; is it correct? ------------- [IMG]http://www.maksimum.com/yemeicme/images/haber/raki.jpg"> |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:05
|
The 'classic' cities in the Central Mayan area (Tikal, Palenque, Calakmul) were abandoned in the 7th century, probably because of climatic change in combination with malmanagement. The heavy point of Mayan civilization switched to the edges of the Mayan area, both to the north of Yucatán and the highlands of Guatemala. The cities in the north were probably under the influence of the Toltecs. Initially Chichén Itzá was the most important center. The (Maya-Toltec) dynasty of Chichén Itza was overthrown in the 13th century, after which a league of cities led by Mayapan became the main power in the northern Maya area. By the time the Spanish arrived however Yucatán had again fallen apart into numerous warring city states. ------------- |
Posted By: Laine
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 20:10
| They were also founded off of much different agricultural systems. Basically there were two neolithic revolutions in the America's: Central America and Peru. While central america's staple was corn the Andean regions subsided off of potatoes. Corn was generally only available to the elite in Andean societies. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 20:24
| Potato was better addapted for the high mountains agriculture of the Incas. Natives of the plain, though, and in southern south america cultivated maize |
Posted By: Laine
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 20:40
| True but maize was introduced from mesoamerica therefore I find it to be quite different. Supposedly the economies of the regions were quite different as well. Where as the Aztec triple alliance had open markets the Andean societies had a state run economy closer to communist economy with no open markets. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 20:43
|
Well Maize was not only present in the large civilizations but in remote cultures as well, from the U.S. to southern South America. And, indeed, Maize is of Mesoamerican origin. Potato is either Peruvian or from Chiloe.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Laine
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 20:46
| I've only read briefly on the different economic systems. So would you from your own sources that it is the case that their economies were vastly different? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 23:11
|
Do you mean, from Mesoamerica and the Incas? The Inca was an Empire where the state controlled the economy, and the people, like resources. Mesoamerica was never an unity of the size of the Inca empire. It was a network of city states and small states. Now, in the Americas in general you had thousand of different peoples with different level of developments, organizations and customs. From people that live in a unbelievable primitive lifestyle, to quite sofisticated people that took steam baths every day, song poems and made astronomical calculations. That's the problem. Remember that the Americas cover the 40% of earth's emerged lands, so it is not possible to reduce the variety of its peoples to a single stereotype.
In pure terms of economics, I could be wrong but it look to me that the Aztec Empire was free-market driven, while the Inca empire was a state controlled economy.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Laine
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 18:17
| Okay that is what I have read as well. It is interesting that most economists predict that a socialist economy would fail and yet the Inkas more or less destroyed starvation throughout much of their incluenced lands. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 18:29
|
The Incas failed. When the Spanish arrived they were in the middle of an internal civil war for succesion. That's why they were conquered so easily (lucky Spaniards). The Inca empire was a though dictatorship controlled by a hierarchy of bureocrats that exploit people through the mita, the labour tax. From the political point of view the Incas were not much different than the U.S.S.R. under Stalin or China under Mao. The romantic view of the Inca empire is not very close to the reality, unfortunately. In the inca empire people was only knots in the counting strings.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Laine
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 18:39
| You have your points indeed and I don't doubt the strife during their reign but still ridding hunger is quite the achievment for any civilization if it is true that they did that. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 19:14
|
Well, unlike in Europe, in pre-contact Americas hunger was not a big issue at all, except in some particular climatic dissasters like the one that suffered the Moche culture. In here people have maize, potatoes, tomatoes and a generous nature to survive. (Remember that potato solved unger in Europe). Hunger and contagious disseases came to the Americas came from Europe. Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 21:29
Even without a Spanish arrival I believe the Inca empire would have collapsed in the 16th century anyway, at least as a political unit. The Sapa Inca, the Inca 'emperor', was believed to be divine. In order to keep the lineage divine, he had to marry his sister, and only children he produced with his sister were considered divinely enough to succeed him. In the end such incest continued throughout generations causes children with huge mental and physical disabilities (just look what happened to Charles II of Spain for example, and compared to the Sapa Inca's that was only a mild case of inbreeding). In the early 16th century most children produced by the Sapa Incas were simply not able to succeed him any more. This caused unclearness about succession, eventually leading to a civil war in which the Spanish succesfully intervened. But even without the Spanish the Inca Empire would have fallen apart sooner or later anyway. ------------- |