Rise+-+Essay

back Our 21st century society and the Aztecs Massimo Gordillo (please note that this site cannot, for some reason, comprehend formatting, so, i will be handing in a solid copy to Aivars on Monday the 11th of May)

The Aztec Empire was a highly complex society based upon a very well organized system. Although our modern day society is much more technologically advanced, we can still greatly benefit from studying this system and its prosperity. The Empire’s success lay within 3 things: its religious imperative for war, its strict overseeing of goods and trade, and its non-totalitarian governance of its subjects. Our society can learn a lot from the rise of the Aztecs. Firstly, religion was a very important part of Aztec culture, unlike in the secular western society of today. The Aztecs strongly believed that human sacrifice was necessary for the continuation of the universe, and “[t]he initial military campaign of [an Aztec] ruler was carried out to obtain prisoners for sacrifice and tribute” (Hodge 30). These rites were so important because

[w]ithout these sacrifices, the Aztecs believed, the gods would die, and the world would end; hence the stories of scared rites in which each year thousands of people captured in war were lead up temple pyramids in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan, where their hearts were used to feed their gods. This insatiable demand of the gods drove the Aztecs toward war, and the very fate of the world depended on their success (Hassig 3). This religious precept compelled the Aztecs into battle whenever possible, propelling expansion at an ever increasing rate, killing tens of thousands. Having this as an example, our 21st century society can see the destructive potential of religion in politics.

Secondly, the Aztecs were very coordinated when controlling trade routes and marketplaces, similar to our modern culture. The Aztecs had a very precise method of administration for goods and trade, where “market directors oversaw exchanging and pricing of merchandise. They also collected taxes from the sellers, and they enforced regulations concerning the market, including rules regarding theft and escapes of slaves” (Hodge 23-24). But, the Aztec’s success lay not in their administration but in their dissimilarity to other ancient empires. Lattimore once said,

[e]conomically, empires attempt to monopolize the flow of goods within a large area, and often, to do this, they control trade routes. In scale, ancient empires were restricted by their ability to maintain communications between all parts; thus, ancient empires invested in communication facilities such as roads, messengers, and tribute record keeping (Hodge 2). The difference between this system and the Aztec’s was that they did not control trade in each city-state, but allowed administration to be run within that city-state, and expected only tribute from each; reducing amount of regulation from the capital. This reduced the amount of resources needed to sustain a strong economy, which is something our society could learn much from. Finally, our modern society, while conquering an area by force or by other means, uses a territorial system to maintain control over an area, where the Aztecs used a hegemonic system, which was a much different approach. The following defines the two governing systems.

While both territorial… and hegemonic systems use force and power to dominate and control, the territorial system emphasizes the latter, with… different [outcomes]. . . . The object of a territorial empire is to conquer and directly control and area using the minimum force necessary to conquer and the administer it. The object of a hegemonic empire is to conquer and indirectly control an area. . . . Since no imperial troops remain in the conquered areas, overwhelming force and extraordinary measures may be used in the initial conquest to intimidate the local leadership into continued compliance after the conquering army leaves. . . . Territorial conquest may require less force than hegemonic conquest, but territorial control requires a constant level of force in the area thereafter, whereas hegemonic control does not (Hassig 19).

The hegemonic system was very similar to the system used by the Aztecs, but their structure was slightly different. Their modification of the hegemonic system proved very useful for the Aztecs.

[The Aztecs] could have conquered areas and consolidated their political hold by replacing local leaders and conquered troops with Aztec governors and garrisons. By exercising this much political control, the Aztecs could have extracted large quantities of goods from the conquered areas, but the cost in terms of administration, security, and threat of rebellion would have been very high. On the other hand the Aztecs could have left the government of conquered areas in local hands. This approach would not have permitted so much economic extraction from the conquered area, but its administrative costs were relatively low. (Hassig 17)

Using this system, the Aztecs were able to lower the chance of rebellion, reduce the amount of manpower needed to control the area. On the other hand, it reduced the amount of resources gained by conquering this area. If, when occupying an area during our modern age, we were to use this system, people in the area would be much more content with their new hierarchy. In conclusion, our society can learn many valuable lessons from the rise of the Aztec empire. Whether it’s removing religion from governance, firm administration of trading and goods, or using the hegemonic system during the occupation of an area, there is a lesson to be learned. The Aztecs built a very prosperous empire, with its faults and successes, and our 21st century society can learn a lot from learning the history of its rise.

Works cited: Hassig, Ross. //Aztec Warfare//. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. Hodge, Mary G. “Aztec City States.” //Studies in Latin American Ethnohistory and Archaeology// volume 3 1984.

back