[RichardFG435]

for the Americas I voted:
USA
Maya
Inca

for Europe I voted:
Italy
Germany
England
France
Spain

for Greco-Roman I voted:
Rome
Greece
Byzantium

[Vemnagelignc]

USA
Mayas
Aztecs

Italy
Germany
England
France
Spain

Byzantium
Greece
Rome

[new-nickname-zanovo]

for the Americas I voted:
USA
Inca
Aztec

for Europe I voted:
Italy
Germany
England/UK
France
Spain

for Greco-Roman I voted:
Rome
Greece
Byzantium

[bushomeworkk]

Aztecs have no special civilizatory merit, unless you measure in sacrificed bodies - their culture was hardly very original and built upon earlier civilizations. Which reminds me that I forgot to nominate the Toltecs in the first place.

Similar with the Inka. But nominating Tiwanaku or the Chimu would probably have been pointless...

[Proodustommor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What, does the religion of the Aztec (Triple Alliance, to be more accurate) not rate? Or the cities it built, Tenochititlan being central? Or their poetry and other crafts? Simply because they built on early civilzations is no reason to denegrate their own cultural achievements... unless you are going to smack down the Romans for stealing heavily from the Greeks? The religion of the Aztecs is virtually the same as that of the Toltecs, contributing a handful gods (Huitzilopochtli), whom they had to force into mythology, and a high sacrifice rate. Teotihuacán was wurely more of a great city than Tenochtitlan, without negating that Tenochtitlán must have been awesome. I don't know about the poetry more than that an "Aztec" ruler from Texcoco (Nezhualcoyotl) was conseidered a great poet. Then again, I'm confident the earlier cultures had equals, but poetry was not recorded back then. Other cratfs --> cf. Toltecs, the Aztecs actually adopted the word "toltec" to mean craftsmen. The Aztec codices were nothing compared to Mixtec codices, etc.

I think the biggest merit of the Aztecs compared to the Toltecs or the Classic Mexico of Teotihuacán (for the people of that period we don't even have a good label) is that they were around when the Spanish came, thus more of their culture was recorded.

In the same guise, the Inca (or Tawantinsuyu) had cities, a very unique (for the time) federalized, multicultural empire, the architecture of Cuzco and Maccu Picchu, the the Quipu, etc. I was focussing more on my argument about the Aztecs, so I grant you this, albeit the last bit, that we simply know more because they were the last in the row, is fully valid.

[DuesTyr]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Aztec poetry was also a big pastime, intended for warriors when they were not fighting. A great deal of it still survives as well. And you can say that other cultures may have had equals, but if there is no proof, it just looks like you are searching for a reason to knock them down. No I'm referring to the fact that how we perceive Ancient America is mostly a snapshot from the time of Conquest, while previous cultures go mostly unnoticed because of the lack of records. The Aztecs made not more records than their predecessors, thus had the Spanish arrived a few centuries later, we'd know as little about their society as we do about the Toltec.

One again, it sounds very similar to what the Romans did. The Romans took most of their culture from the Greeks and added their own gloss and also added things from conquered territories to the mix. So did the Aztec... but no one is denigrating the Romans for simply "borrowing" all their civilization. There is a difference between the cases in which I insist.
The Romans (and the Inca for that matter, which is why I withdrew my initial statement) went completely new ways in state matters, administration and infrastructure, while the way the Aztecs ruled was hardly original: install garrisons and send tribute collectors through the country. Romans "romanized", "civilized"?, some of the more barbaric parts of Europe over many centuries.
The Aztec rule over Mexico started to be significant starting with the rule of Moctezuma I., from 1440 onwards - that is 80 years of political domination of a common cultural area already existing for milennia, to which only a certain number of proper cultural elements were introduced.
If I needed to make an Old World comparison I'd rather make this one: Assyrians (Aztecs):Old-Babylonians (Toltecs):Sumerians (Olmec).

More later, gotta go.

[kilibry]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
No I'm referring to the fact that how we perceive Ancient America is mostly a snapshot from the time of Conquest, while previous cultures go mostly unnoticed because of the lack of records. The Aztecs made not more records than their predecessors, thus had the Spanish arrived a few centuries later, we'd know as little about their society as we do about the Toltec. Only if the Aztec had fallen in that time, of course. Though one cannot deny that the Aztec had the largest empire of the bunch. Probably millions of souls under their command, streaching over most of present day of Mexico.

A larger empire than the Toltecs at any rate. Then again, recent scholarship believes that the Toltecs were mostly mythological, promogated by the Aztecs, claiming they took from them.

There is a difference between the cases in which I insist.
The Romans (and the Inca for that matter, which is why I withdrew my initial statement) went completely new ways in state matters, administration and infrastructure, while the way the Aztecs ruled was hardly original: install garrisons and send tribute collectors through the country. Romans "romanized", "civilized"?, some of the more barbaric parts of Europe over many centuries.
The Aztec rule over Mexico started to be significant starting with the rule of Moctezuma I., from 1440 onwards - that is 80 years of political domination of a common cultural area already existing for milennia, to which only a certain number of proper cultural elements were introduced.
If I needed to make an Old World comparison I'd rather make this one: Assyrians (Aztecs):Old-Babylonians (Toltecs):Sumerians (Olmec).

More later, gotta go. The Aztec system of tributary empire was definately unique in its utter scope. No other MesoAmerican empire was anywhere near as large. In addition the Aztecs were responsible for an intricate road system that amazed the Spaniards as to how well maintained they were, with couriers walking constantly along the path, latrines every 10-15 km, and even woman could be safe walking alone. They were very large in mixing the cultures of Central America, as they would be in controlling such a large trading network.

[Fvmfrctt]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if the Aztec had fallen in that time, of course. Though one cannot deny that the Aztec had the largest empire of the bunch. Probably millions of souls under their command, streaching over most of present day of Mexico. A larger empire than the Toltecs at any rate. Then again, recent scholarship believes that the Toltecs were mostly mythological, promogated by the Aztecs, claiming they took from them.
The Aztec system of tributary empire was definately unique in its utter scope. No other MesoAmerican empire was anywhere near as large. In addition the Aztecs were responsible for an intricate road system that amazed the Spaniards as to how well maintained they were, with couriers walking constantly along the path, latrines every 10-15 km, and even woman could be safe walking alone. They were very large in mixing the cultures of Central America, as they would be in controlling such a large trading network. Not only probably, the Aztecs definitely ruled over several million people. The Toltecs never had a proper "empire" at all, as did the Aztecs.
However, I'd argue that the area of influence of Teotihuacán was superior, and mixture of cultures is much more evident in Teotihuacán than it was in Tenochtitlan. Teotihuacán was a multi-ethnic metropolis, there were districts for different ethnicities not only from (proper) Mexico but also from Maya regions.
The Aztecs did not rule over most of what is today Mexico, but only the central/southern regions with an outpost in the very south, in total maybe 15% of what is Mexico today.

About the infrastructure, I'm not trying to say that the Aztecs were inapt or something, after all they were the first imperial power in the region after 500 years, so they must have had something to them. I'm trying to set them in the right frame. The bit of "women walking safe" however sounds more like a topos, originally written by some Aztec-friendly Spanish chronicler (possibly Sahagún) and thereafter repeated without much quellenkritik (the dictionary suggests "verification of sources", but that isn't quite what the German word means).

As for the Toltecs being rather mythical - this is a two-edged thing. Of course, most of what we know draws from mythological sources and is rather nebulose and doubtful. For example the "Empire of Tula" has most probably never existed. But "Toltec" is also how the Aztecs referred to the Nahua-speaking people living in central Mexico already at the time of their own arrival, and they surely existed and conquered even muchof the Maya lands in the south-east - not as an empire but as independent groups of warriors.

[StincPriene]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Pssh, Frenchie. Problem?

[Roferurse]

Where is teh Africa poll? My nomination has been left out

[Fetowip]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Problem? USA > Aztec, Inca, Maya