Aztec vs Inca: Key Differences & How They Differ

The Aztec Empire, centered in Mesoamerica, and the Inca Empire, flourishing in the Andes, represent two of the most complex pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas; Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, possessed a sophisticated urban infrastructure, while Cusco served as the political and religious center of the Inca. Governance in Aztec society was characterized by a decentralized system of city-states paying tribute to the Triple Alliance, contrasting with the Inca's highly centralized, bureaucratic administration under the Sapa Inca; furthermore, the role of religion, manifested through the Aztec's elaborate human sacrifice rituals dedicated to deities like Huitzilopochtli, contrasted with the Inca's state-sponsored worship of Inti, the sun god, alongside ancestor veneration; hence, examination of social structures, political systems, religious practices, and economic strategies reveals how did Aztec society differ from Inca society, showcasing divergent paths in response to unique environmental and historical contexts.

Unveiling the Majesty of the Aztec and Inca Empires

The Aztec and Inca civilizations stand as testaments to the ingenuity and organizational capabilities of pre-Columbian societies. Flourishing in distinct geographical landscapes and time periods, they left behind legacies that continue to captivate historians and archaeologists alike.

Aztec/Mexica Civilization

The Aztec, or more accurately, the Mexica, rose to prominence in Mesoamerica, specifically in the Valley of Mexico. Their reign spanned roughly from the 14th to the 16th centuries. They established their capital, Tenochtitlan, on an island in Lake Texcoco.

This strategic location facilitated control over resources and trade routes. The Aztec civilization was characterized by its complex social hierarchy, intricate religious beliefs, and sophisticated agricultural techniques, including the renowned chinampas, or floating gardens.

Inca Civilization

Simultaneously, the Inca civilization thrived in the Andean region of South America. From the 13th to the 16th centuries, they constructed a vast empire stretching along the Andes Mountains.

Their dominion, known as Tawantinsuyu, encompassed diverse ecological zones, from the Pacific coast to the Amazon rainforest. The Inca are celebrated for their impressive engineering feats, such as the extensive road system (the Qhapaq Ñan) and the architectural marvel of Machu Picchu. Their centralized government and unique labor system, known as Mit'a, enabled the efficient management of resources and infrastructure projects.

Key Achievements and Notable Aspects

The Aztec civilization is particularly distinguished by its:

• Sophisticated understanding of astronomy.
• Complex calendar system.
• Skillful craftsmanship in creating elaborate works of art and sculpture.

Their capital city, Tenochtitlan, was a marvel of urban planning and engineering, rivaling many European cities of the time.

Conversely, the Inca civilization is recognized for its:

• Remarkable organizational skills.
• Ability to integrate diverse populations into a cohesive empire.
• Innovative agricultural techniques tailored to the challenging Andean environment.

The Quipu, a system of knotted strings used for record-keeping, stands as a testament to their administrative capabilities.

Thesis Statement

This analysis will comparatively explore the political structures, economic systems, agricultural practices, and communication/infrastructure of the Aztec and Inca civilizations. By examining these key areas, we aim to illuminate the distinct approaches each civilization took to managing their empires. The goal is to highlight both the similarities and differences in their strategies for achieving prosperity and stability.

Political Power: Centralized Rule in the Andes vs. Tribute-Based Authority in Mesoamerica

Having explored the foundational elements of the Aztec and Inca civilizations, it is crucial to examine the political structures that governed these expansive societies. The contrasts are stark: the Inca developed a highly centralized state in the Andes, while the Aztec relied on a more decentralized, tribute-based authority in Mesoamerica. Examining the nuances of each system reveals distinct approaches to power, governance, and imperial control.

Aztec Political System: The Triple Alliance

The Aztec Empire was not a monolithic entity, but rather a Triple Alliance formed by the city-states of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. This alliance was primarily for military cooperation and expansion.

Each city-state maintained a degree of autonomy within its own territory. Tenochtitlan, due to its dominance, gradually became the leading power.

The alliance functioned through mutual agreements and shared spoils of war, with each member receiving a portion of the tribute collected from conquered regions. This decentralized structure allowed for regional variations in governance and administration.

The Role of the Tlahtoani

At the apex of Aztec society stood the Tlahtoani (also spelled as tlatoani), the ruler of a city-state. The Tlahtoani held significant power and was responsible for overseeing military campaigns, religious ceremonies, and judicial matters.

For instance, Moctezuma II, the Tlahtoani of Tenochtitlan at the time of the Spanish conquest, exemplified the complexities of this role.

He faced the dual challenge of maintaining imperial authority and responding to internal dissent, as well as the unprecedented arrival of the Spanish. The Tlahtoani position was not strictly hereditary, but typically passed within a select lineage, often through election by a council of nobles.

The Aztec Tribute System

A cornerstone of the Aztec economy and political control was the tribute system. Conquered regions were obligated to provide goods and resources to the Triple Alliance.

This tribute included agricultural products, precious metals, textiles, and other commodities. The collected tribute was redistributed among the members of the Triple Alliance, with the majority flowing to Tenochtitlan.

The tribute system served not only as a source of wealth but also as a means of exerting control over subjugated populations. The constant demand for tribute could lead to resentment and rebellion, requiring the Aztecs to maintain a strong military presence throughout their empire.

Inca Political System: Tawantinsuyu

In stark contrast to the Aztec model, the Inca Empire, known as Tawantinsuyu (the "Four Regions Together"), was a highly centralized state. The empire was divided into four administrative regions, each governed by an Apu, a high-ranking official directly appointed by the Sapa Inca.

This hierarchical structure ensured that all aspects of governance were tightly controlled from the capital city of Cusco. The Inca implemented standardized laws, weights, and measures throughout the empire, promoting uniformity and efficiency.

The Sapa Inca: Divine Ruler

The Sapa Inca, meaning "the Only Inca" or "the Supreme Inca," was the absolute ruler of the Inca Empire. Revered as a divine figure, believed to be a descendant of the sun god Inti. The Sapa Inca held supreme authority over all aspects of life.

His pronouncements were law, and his commands were carried out without question. The Sapa Inca resided in Cusco, the imperial capital, and oversaw the empire's administration through a network of officials and administrators. The Inca believed in the Sapa Inca's divine status as a means to legitimize their rule.

The Inca Mit'a System

The Inca economic and political system revolved around the Mit'a system, a form of mandatory public service. Instead of paying tribute in goods, commoners were required to contribute their labor to state projects, such as building roads, temples, and agricultural terraces.

This system allowed the Inca to mobilize a vast workforce for large-scale construction projects, effectively managing resources and infrastructure throughout the empire. The Mit'a system also fostered a sense of collective responsibility and social cohesion, as communities worked together for the benefit of the state.

Comparative Analysis: Centralization and Efficiency

The degree of centralization represents a key distinction between the Aztec and Inca empires. The Inca's highly centralized system enabled greater control over resources and labor. This approach facilitated the construction of an impressive infrastructure network.

The Aztec's more decentralized system, while allowing for regional autonomy, also led to inconsistencies in governance and a greater risk of rebellion.

Assessing the efficiency of administration reveals further nuances. The Inca's standardized laws and administrative structure enabled effective governance over their vast territory. In contrast, the Aztec empire's reliance on tribute and indirect rule meant that its control was more tenuous, particularly in distant regions.

Economic Engines: Tribute Collection vs. Labor Obligations

Having explored the political structures of the Aztec and Inca civilizations, it is essential to examine the economic systems that fueled their growth and sustained their populations. The economic landscape of Mesoamerica under the Aztecs differed significantly from that of the Inca Empire in the Andes. The Aztecs relied heavily on a tribute-based economy, while the Inca employed a system of mandatory labor obligations. This section will analyze these contrasting approaches to resource management and labor organization, comparing the tribute system with the Mit'a system and examining their respective impacts on society and economic development.

Aztec Economic Practices: Tribute, Markets, and Land

The Aztec economy was primarily based on the collection of tribute from conquered city-states. This tribute encompassed a wide array of goods, including agricultural products, precious metals, textiles, and craft goods. The vast quantities of resources acquired through tribute allowed the Aztec Triple Alliance to finance its military campaigns, support its ruling elite, and undertake monumental construction projects.

The implications of this system were far-reaching, creating economic dependencies and fostering resentment among subjugated populations. While the tribute system enriched the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan, it also contributed to the empire's instability by placing a heavy burden on its peripheries.

Beyond the tribute system, marketplaces played a vital role in the Aztec economy. The most famous of these was the market of Tlatelolco, a bustling center of commerce where a diverse range of goods were traded. Professional merchants, known as pochteca, facilitated long-distance trade, exchanging luxury items and essential commodities across the empire and beyond.

The calpulli, or ward, also played a crucial role in the Aztec economy, particularly in land distribution and resource management. Each calpulli controlled a specific territory and allocated land to its members for cultivation. This system ensured access to land for most of the population and fostered a sense of community responsibility for resource management.

Inca Economic Practices: Labor Taxation and State Control

In contrast to the Aztec tribute system, the Inca economy was characterized by a state-controlled system based on labor obligations. The Mit'a system required all able-bodied citizens to contribute a certain amount of labor to the state each year. This labor was used for a variety of purposes, including the construction of roads, bridges, and temples, as well as agricultural production and mining.

The Mit'a system allowed the Inca state to mobilize a vast workforce and undertake large-scale projects that would have been impossible under a tribute-based system. It also ensured a steady supply of labor for essential tasks, contributing to the empire's overall stability and prosperity.

Notably, the Inca Empire lacked a traditional market economy. The state controlled the distribution of resources, ensuring that all citizens had access to basic necessities. This system aimed to eliminate poverty and promote social equality, although it also limited individual economic opportunities.

The ayllu, a traditional Andean kinship group, formed the basis of Inca society and played a vital role in the economic system. Each ayllu controlled a specific territory and managed its resources collectively. The ayllu system fostered a sense of community and mutual support, ensuring that all members had access to land and resources.

Comparative Analysis: Contrasting Economic Models

The Aztec and Inca economic systems represent fundamentally different approaches to resource management and labor organization. The Aztec tribute system was primarily extractive, focusing on acquiring resources from conquered territories and concentrating wealth in the capital. While this system enriched the Aztec elite and fueled imperial expansion, it also created economic inequalities and resentment among subjugated populations.

The Inca Mit'a system, on the other hand, was primarily redistributive, focusing on mobilizing labor for the benefit of the entire empire. This system promoted social equality and ensured access to basic necessities for all citizens, but it also limited individual economic opportunities and placed a heavy burden on the labor force.

In terms of social stratification, the Aztec tribute system likely exacerbated economic inequalities, creating a clear divide between the ruling elite and the commoners. The Inca Mit'a system, while promoting social equality, may have also limited social mobility by restricting individual economic opportunities.

Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each system reveals that the Aztec tribute system was more flexible and adaptable, allowing for a greater degree of economic specialization and trade. However, it was also more prone to instability and exploitation. The Inca Mit'a system, on the other hand, was more rigid and centralized, ensuring stability and social equality but limiting individual initiative and innovation.

Ultimately, the Aztec and Inca economic systems reflect the distinct cultural values and political priorities of each civilization. While the Aztecs prioritized imperial expansion and the accumulation of wealth, the Inca prioritized social welfare and the equitable distribution of resources. These contrasting approaches to economic management shaped the trajectories of these two remarkable empires and continue to offer valuable insights into the complex relationship between economics, politics, and society.

Agricultural Innovation: Chinampas and Terraces - Feeding Expanding Empires

Having explored the economic engines that powered the Aztec and Inca states, it is crucial to investigate the agricultural innovations that enabled these empires to feed their burgeoning populations. Both civilizations faced unique environmental challenges that necessitated ingenious solutions. The Aztecs, situated in the Valley of Mexico with its shallow lake system, developed chinampas, while the Incas, nestled in the steep Andes Mountains, mastered terrace farming. These contrasting approaches reflect their distinct geographical contexts and underscore the remarkable adaptability of these ancient societies.

Aztec Agricultural Techniques: Floating Gardens of Tenochtitlan

The Aztecs skillfully transformed the marshy environment of the Valley of Mexico into a highly productive agricultural zone.

Chinampa Construction and Function

Chinampas, often referred to as “floating gardens,” were artificial islands constructed in the shallow waters of Lake Texcoco. These were created by layering mud, decaying vegetation, and other organic materials within a framework of interwoven reeds and posts.

The resulting raised plots were incredibly fertile and well-irrigated, providing a stable platform for cultivation.

These human-made wetlands allowed for intensive farming, yielding multiple harvests per year.

Adaptation to the Valley of Mexico and Lake Texcoco

The chinampa system was perfectly adapted to the unique conditions of the Valley of Mexico. The surrounding lake provided a constant source of water and nutrients.

The fertile mud dredged from the lakebed replenished the soil, ensuring continuous productivity. The network of canals surrounding the chinampas facilitated transportation and irrigation, creating an integrated system of agriculture and aquaculture.

The shallow lake waters were ideal for the raised plots and canals.

Inca Agricultural Techniques: Engineering Food on Mountain Slopes

The Inca Empire, stretching along the Andes Mountains, faced the challenge of cultivating crops on steep, uneven terrain.

Terrace Farming: Steps to Sustainability

To overcome this obstacle, the Incas developed an intricate system of terrace farming. Terraces were carved into the mountainsides, creating level platforms for planting.

These terraces were supported by retaining walls made of stone, which prevented erosion and conserved water.

The design of the terraces also incorporated sophisticated irrigation systems, channeling water from mountain springs to the fields below.

The Vertical Archipelago System

The Incas developed an understanding of microclimates to use resources. The vertical archipelago system allowed them to cultivate a wide variety of crops at different altitudes. Different altitudes allow for a variety of plant life.

This system ensured access to diverse resources and minimized the risk of crop failure.

Adaptation to the Andes Mountains

Terrace farming was ideally suited to the steep terrain and varied climate of the Andes Mountains. The terraces maximized arable land, conserved water, and prevented soil erosion, ensuring sustainable agricultural production in a challenging environment.

Comparative Analysis: Efficiency, Sustainability, and Societal Impact

Both the Aztec and Inca agricultural systems were remarkably efficient and sustainable, considering the limitations of their respective technologies.

Efficiency and Sustainability

Chinampas offered high yields and continuous productivity due to their fertile soil and constant irrigation. However, they were limited by the availability of suitable shallow water environments.

Terraces, on the other hand, could be constructed on a wider range of terrains but required significant labor investment and careful maintenance. Both were sustainable.

Impact on Population Growth and Urbanization

The success of both agricultural systems played a crucial role in supporting population growth and urbanization. The Aztecs were able to sustain the large population of Tenochtitlan through the intensive cultivation of chinampas.

Similarly, the Incas were able to feed their vast empire through the efficient management of terrace farming and the vertical archipelago system. These innovations allowed each society to thrive in challenging environments, creating complex and sophisticated civilizations.

Bridging the Distances: Roads, Canals, and Communication Networks

Having explored the agricultural innovations that powered the Aztec and Inca states, it is crucial to investigate the communication and infrastructure systems that enabled these empires to function effectively. Both civilizations faced unique geographical challenges that necessitated innovative solutions for connecting their far-reaching territories, facilitating trade, and disseminating information. While both empires achieved remarkable feats of engineering, their approaches to infrastructure and communication differed significantly, reflecting their distinct political and economic structures.

Aztec Communication and Infrastructure: A Lacustrine Network

The Aztec civilization, centered in the Valley of Mexico, ingeniously utilized its unique lacustrine environment to develop a sophisticated network of canals. These canals served as vital arteries for transportation, facilitating the movement of goods and people throughout the capital city of Tenochtitlan and its surrounding areas.

Canals and Waterways

The intricate system of canals not only enabled efficient trade and transportation but also played a crucial role in irrigation and flood control, contributing to the remarkable agricultural productivity of the chinampas. The Aztecs skillfully engineered these waterways, creating a network that integrated seamlessly with the city's urban fabric.

The Limits of Written Communication

In contrast to their impressive infrastructure, the Aztecs possessed a less developed written system. Their communication relied heavily on oral tradition and pictographs. While pictographs served as a means of recording historical events and transmitting information, they lacked the complexity and versatility of a fully developed writing system. This reliance on oral tradition undoubtedly shaped the dissemination and preservation of knowledge within Aztec society.

Tenochtitlan: A Central Hub

Despite the limitations of their written communication, the strategic location of Tenochtitlan as an island city within Lake Texcoco made it a natural communication hub. Causeways connected the city to the mainland, facilitating the flow of information and goods. The city's central marketplace, Tlatelolco, served as a vibrant center for trade and communication, further solidifying its role as a nexus of activity within the empire.

Inca Communication and Infrastructure: The Majesty of the Inca Trail

The Inca Empire, sprawling across the rugged terrain of the Andes Mountains, faced formidable challenges in connecting its vast territory. To overcome these obstacles, the Inca engineers constructed an unparalleled network of roads known as the Inca Trail, or Qhapaq Ñan, a testament to their ingenuity and organizational prowess.

The Inca Trail: An Imperial Artery

The Inca Trail was more than just a road; it was a complex system of pathways, bridges, and tunnels that stretched for thousands of kilometers, connecting the far reaches of the empire. This extensive network facilitated the rapid movement of troops, the transportation of goods, and the efficient dissemination of information. The Inca Trail served as a vital tool for maintaining imperial control and facilitating economic integration.

The Quipu: A System of Record-Keeping

The Inca also developed a unique system of record-keeping known as the Quipu. It consisted of knotted strings used to record statistical data, historical events, and other important information. While not a written language in the traditional sense, the Quipu represented a sophisticated method of encoding and transmitting knowledge, allowing the Inca to effectively manage their vast empire. The Quipu showcases a complex system that emphasizes their mathematical and organizational expertise.

Cusco: The Navel of the World

Cusco, the capital of the Inca Empire, served as the center of its communication network. From Cusco, the Inca Trail radiated outwards, connecting the city to all corners of the empire. The city's strategic location and its role as the administrative and ceremonial center of the empire made it a natural focal point for communication and governance. It was the heart of their empire, enabling command and control of the realm.

Comparative Analysis: Imperial Control and Communication Efficiency

The contrasting approaches to infrastructure and communication adopted by the Aztec and Inca civilizations reflect their distinct political and economic structures. The Aztecs, with their decentralized empire and reliance on tribute, utilized canals to facilitate trade and transportation within the Valley of Mexico. Their less developed written system, while limiting in some respects, did not hinder their ability to manage their empire.

In contrast, the Inca, with their highly centralized state and emphasis on labor obligations, constructed an extensive road system to maintain imperial control and facilitate the movement of troops and resources. The Quipu system of record-keeping enabled them to efficiently manage their vast empire and collect detailed information on its population and resources.

The Inca system was demonstrably more focused on centralized control, while the Aztec approach was more adaptive to the regional characteristics of their tribute-based empire. Both empires, however, demonstrate the critical role that infrastructure and communication played in facilitating imperial expansion and maintaining social and political order.

Deities and Rituals: Exploring Aztec and Inca Religious Beliefs

Having explored the communication and infrastructure systems that powered the Aztec and Inca states, it is crucial to investigate the religious beliefs and ritual practices that underpinned their societal structures. While both civilizations were polytheistic, their pantheons, cosmologies, and ritualistic expressions differed significantly, reflecting their distinct cultural and environmental contexts. Understanding these differences offers valuable insights into their worldviews and values.

Aztec Religious Beliefs and Practices

Aztec religion was characterized by a complex pantheon of gods and goddesses, each associated with specific aspects of nature, human life, and the cosmos. Among the most prominent deities was Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent god, revered as a bringer of civilization, knowledge, and the arts.

Quetzalcoatl's mythology is rich and multifaceted. He was often depicted as a benevolent figure who opposed human sacrifice, advocating instead for offerings of flowers, incense, and precious objects.

However, the Aztecs also embraced other deities with more demanding requirements.

Huitzilopochtli, the god of war and the sun, held immense importance. The Aztecs believed that Huitzilopochtli required constant nourishment in the form of human blood to sustain the sun's journey across the sky and ensure the continuation of life.

This belief led to the widespread practice of human sacrifice.

Inca Religious Beliefs and Practices

Inca religion revolved around the worship of Inti, the sun god, who was considered the divine ancestor of the Inca rulers. The Sapa Inca, the emperor, was regarded as the son of Inti, solidifying the connection between the ruling dynasty and the celestial realm.

The Inca also venerated Pachamama, the earth mother, who represented fertility, abundance, and the interconnectedness of all living things. Offerings and rituals were performed to honor Pachamama and ensure the success of agricultural endeavors.

Unlike the Aztecs, human sacrifice was relatively rare in Inca society, primarily reserved for times of extreme crisis or to commemorate significant events. Instead, the Inca favored offerings of llamas, textiles, and precious metals.

Comparative Analysis: Contrasting Deities and Rituals

While both the Aztec and Inca civilizations were polytheistic, the nature and focus of their religious practices diverged significantly. The Aztec pantheon was more diverse and volatile. The Aztec beliefs emphasized a cyclical view of creation and destruction, with a strong emphasis on appeasing the gods through elaborate rituals.

The Inca religion, on the other hand, was more closely tied to the natural world. Inca religion emphasized ancestral veneration, and the maintenance of cosmic order through reciprocal relationships with deities.

The differing approaches to sacrifice also highlight contrasting worldviews. Aztec sacrifices, while serving a religious purpose, also fulfilled a political function. Aztec sacrifices displayed the power and authority of the state. Inca sacrifices, being rare, reflected a more conservative and pragmatic approach to resource management. Inca sacrifices were performed only when absolutely necessary to avert disaster or ensure stability.

Social Hierarchies: Examining Class Structures in Aztec and Inca Societies

Having explored the communication and infrastructure systems that powered the Aztec and Inca states, it is crucial to investigate the social hierarchies that structured daily life. These hierarchies, though distinct in their specific contours, dictated access to resources, power, and prestige within each empire. While both civilizations featured stratified societies, the degree of social mobility and the rigidity of class boundaries differed considerably, shaping the lived experiences of their populations.

Aztec Social Stratification: A Fluid System

Aztec society was characterized by a relatively fluid class structure. While nobility existed, social mobility was possible through military achievement, religious service, or success in commerce.

The Pipiltin, or nobility, occupied the highest echelons, holding positions of power in government, the priesthood, and the military. They were distinguished by their lineage, land ownership, and access to education.

Below the Pipiltin were the Macehualtin, the commoners, who constituted the majority of the population.

This group comprised farmers, artisans, merchants, and laborers who contributed to the empire's economy through tribute and labor. Although primarily engaged in subsistence activities, skilled artisans and successful merchants could elevate their social standing.

Warriors also held a prominent position in Aztec society. Through bravery and skill in battle, commoners could ascend the social ladder, earning prestige, land, and even noble status. This emphasis on military achievement fostered a meritocratic element within the Aztec social system.

Slavery, or tlatlacotin, also existed within Aztec society, although it was not always hereditary. Individuals could become slaves through debt, punishment for crimes, or capture in war. Slaves had certain rights and could purchase their freedom, further demonstrating the relatively flexible nature of Aztec social stratification.

Inca Social Stratification: A Rigid Pyramid

In contrast to the Aztec system, Inca society was characterized by a more rigid and hierarchical structure. Social mobility was limited, and individuals were largely bound to the social stratum into which they were born.

At the apex of the Inca social pyramid stood the Sapa Inca, the emperor, who was considered divine and held absolute power. Below the Sapa Inca was the nobility, comprising royal relatives, high-ranking officials, and local rulers who had been incorporated into the empire.

These nobles controlled vast tracts of land and resources, wielding significant influence in the administration of the empire. The Curacas, or local chieftains, played a crucial role in governing their respective communities, subject to the authority of the Inca state.

The Hatun Runa, or commoners, formed the base of the Inca social pyramid. They were primarily farmers who worked the land and provided labor for state projects through the Mit'a system.

The Inca state meticulously organized the lives of its commoners, dictating their occupations, marriages, and movements. This level of control ensured a stable labor force and facilitated the efficient extraction of resources.

Below the Hatun Runa were the Yanaconas, a class of retainers or servants who were permanently removed from their communities and served the Inca elite. Their status was often hereditary, and they lacked the rights and privileges of commoners.

Contrasting Social Mobility: Achievement vs. Ascription

The contrasting degrees of social mobility in the Aztec and Inca empires reflect their differing approaches to governance and social control.

The Aztec emphasis on military achievement and economic success allowed for a degree of upward mobility, fostering ambition and rewarding individual merit.

In contrast, the Inca system prioritized social stability and state control, limiting social mobility and reinforcing a rigid hierarchy.

While the Inca system may have ensured a more equitable distribution of resources within each social class, it also stifled individual initiative and perpetuated social inequalities.

In conclusion, both the Aztec and Inca civilizations developed complex social hierarchies to organize their populations and maintain order. However, the relative fluidity of the Aztec system, with its emphasis on achievement, stood in contrast to the rigid, ascriptive structure of Inca society. These contrasting approaches to social stratification shaped the dynamics of power, opportunity, and social life within each empire.

So, there you have it! Hopefully, this clears up some of the confusion between these two fascinating civilizations. While both were undeniably impressive, it's clear how did Aztec society differ from Inca society in terms of their political structures, religious practices, and even their approaches to empire-building. Definitely a lot to chew on, right?