The Old World And The New World Kingdoms And Empires

Nonetheless, during the 12th Dynasty, there was a temple built for Amun’s worship and toward the end of the 18th Dynasty, Amun’s status increased even more and he became known as “…the great royal deity who was “Father of the Gods” and ruler of Egypt and the people of its empire (Rosalie 104).

It is evident that the two main largest classical empires were the Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire under the rule of the Han kings. These two empires had many social, political, and economic features in common, but likewise many of those features different from one another. A political feature that both classical empires shared was that both had powerful executive emperors who held absolute power. A second political feature that both empires had in common is that both empires had a central governmental body which maintained order, organized funds, collected taxes, and made executive decisions. Socially, the two empires also had features in common. The first similarity between the Roman social organization and the Han social organization

The Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian Empires possess government structure and classification that is both unique and comparable. The Egyptian Empire was formed under a divine institution and part of a universal cosmic order: Kingship. Egypt has a government of absolute monarchy, which allows the leader of Egypt to have unlimited power along with the idea of “Divine Right,” a right to rule given from god. Furthermore, the Egyptians have developed an extraordinary administrative government organization and procedures: the bureaucracy. At the top of the hierarchy was the Pharaoh who had absolute authority over the people. Pharaohs are considered gods; by obeying the will of their pharaohs, subjects believed that they are contributing to the development of a world order. Next to the pharaoh, the official who held the most authority was the vizier, “steward of the whole

Chau’s thesis that the rise and fall of empires was due to tolerance, inclusion, difference, and diversity is shown to be true of the Roman Empire because of the way that tolerance allowed and caused the empire to rise, enter its golden age, and fall. The Roman Empire was a “hyperpower” that lasted from 44 BCE to 476 CE. The empire contained Western, Southern, and Eastern Europe, along with North Africa; thus, there was an abundance of culture from many different conquered groups. Romans wanted to make these conquered nations provinces of Rome. The Roman Empire began (and the Roman Republic ended) with the assassination of Julius Caesar, who wanted to be a dictator. No longer a republic, the lands already ruled by Rome became part of an empire. The government became centralized with a single ruler, the emperor. However, even before the empire, during the Republic, there was also the similar feeling of wanting to conquer other nations was there.

However, the Amun priesthood soon controlled 1/3 of all of Egypt’s wealth, warranting them a significant amount of power which rivalled that of the Pharaoh- in interpreting Amun’s will which even the Pharaoh himself was obliged to obey.

Just like any other civilization, the Israelites had multiple social classes. At the foundation of the civilization was the working class. This was made up of the farmers and artisans who labored all day and produced the items that were often traded throughout the kingdom. The next tier was the military and royal court. Anyone that served in the military was well respected by people of all classes. The royal court consisted of any government officials, scribes, and the king’s royal cupbearer. Scribes were the secretaries and typically involved in judicial and financial affairs. The royal cupbearer was tasked with filling the king’s goblet with wine and serving it to him. Second to the top of the social classes were the priests. Similar to Ancient Egypt with the gods, priests were believed to have direct contact with the god the Israelites worshiped: Yahweh. Because of this connection, priests were considered to be very sacred to the Israelites. At the top of the social pyramid was the king. The king of the Israelites ruled over the kingdom, defended it, but also “rules on behalf of Yahweh, the Israelite god” .

Documents 3, 4, and 5 all show that their cultures incorporated their values into their respective laws, governments, and methods of exerting political power. Clearly, all of these documents incorporated their respective cultures’ values into their governments and methods for asserting their political power. Despite this common trait, these documents can be grouped by their cultures’ differences in government. Documents 2, 5, and 6 show that their cultures had very liberal governments while documents 3 and 4 show that their cultures had strict governments. The Greeks had a very lenient form of government, a democracy, while the Confucian Chinese believed that humans were naturally inclined towards being good. Finally, the Romans had a liberal government which allowed almost anyone to become citizens, even people who weren’t Romans. In contrast with these lenient governments, the Legalist Chinese and the Indians under King Ashoka’s rule had strict laws which firmly controlled the citizens. The Legalists believed their ruler should govern his people by giving out strict punishments or rewards while King Ashoka passed strict edicts which firmly controlled the people through officials who reported back to the

The world of the ancient Near East believed in a creator deity as member within a plethora of deities; that is, there was no supreme being. Within this plethora, each deity held a specific responsibility, representing such matters as order, justice, love, and truth, to name but a few. Among ANE inhabitants, according to Philip J. Nel, “a normative principle of justice was maintained as part and parcel of the created universe. The human life-world and the order of nature were seen as inextricable entwined.” It is not surprising, therefore, how ancient civilizations understood justice to be a concomitant attribute of a deity within a pantheon of deities; a pantheon where members had origins and, in most instances, were familial in nature. According to their understanding of creation, ancient civilizations held views on social and economic justice as a means that would “facilitate the service of the community to the divine world.” Nel observes that, “The principle of justice was . . . not so much regarded as a system of moral order, but rather the assumption of an existing/created autonomous design/order which should be upheld and adhered to in all sectors of society.” The Sumerians, and the Egyptians, serve as examples.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, kingship is defined as, “the position, office, or dignity of the king.” Mesopotamia and Egypt were the first to practice and recognize kingship however, both dynasties illustrate the responsibilities of a “king” in varying ways. Both dynasties developed kingship to enact a cordial society that promoted morality. The similarities and differences between King Hammurabi and Queen Hatshepsut’s successions to the throne, the roles of ma’ at, and their duties to each of their perspective kingdoms illustrate that the Code of Hammurabi is more effective than Queen Hatshepsut’s reign in portraying the significance of kingship.

The king or emperor had the most power, but because the societies held their polytheistic views so high, the priest often had a very high amount of power too. The Aztecs also believed that human blood had to be sacrificed in order for the sun to rise each day; the usual sacrifices were prisoners of war. The Aztec and Mayan kingdoms were divided into city-states that each had their own independent government, but the in the middle of each Aztec city-state there was a large city that was the most powerful and demanded tribute from the smaller cities. The Inca had one emperor who ruled all of the land. Each “pueblo” or village was its own community but they all shared similar langue and customs. The Pueblo peoples would choose representatives for the council that lead them, sometimes they even alternated between a summer and winter chief, but the most important things like war, agriculture, hunting and religion were handled by priests. The priests were very powerful in the Pueblo people’s communities and made most of the decisions. The Pueblo peoples worshiped hundreds of divine creatures that they believed spoke to their god on behalf of humans. So both had their priests and another type of leader at the top of the government, but the Pueblos gave their priest much more power than the

The governing legal, moral and religious codes of ancient civilizations were written and enforced by a minority that exercised power and authority over the majority. This minority consisted of priests, rulers and elites with established power and influence in society. In these codes of early civilizations, there was an overarching emphasis on maintenance of structure and order in society. Simply put, while these codes reflect the conditions, needs and values of the times in which they were formulated, they also unveil the authors’ agendas to preserve their power by maintaining the status quo. Therefore, these codes acknowledge and uphold the prevailing social, gender and racial inequalities as natural conditions of human existence and reveal the manifold biases present in early civilizations.

Its street lay out is a checkboard pattern with roads palaces and temples scatterred throughout

With powerful militaries, vast amounts of territory, and millions of people of diverse cultures and roles operating under an organized civil bureaucracy, the Han Dynasty and ancient Rome were truly empires of great power and influence in Afro-Eurasia between 300 BCE to 300 CE. While the methods of gaining the position of globalizing empires were similar for the two empires, the social obligations possessed by the people of various social classes differed for the empires, leading to contrasting perspectives towards the empires’ governments. ALTHOUGH THE HAN DYNASTY AND ANCIENT ROME WERE BOTH EMPIRES OF IMMENSE POWER, LAND, AND INFLUENCE SUSTAINED BY PEOPLE OF ALL SOCIAL CLASSES, THE SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE RULERS, SOLDIERS,

Upper and Lower Egypt were united for the first time under one ruler, however, this would come to an end around 2200 B.C.. In much of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Pharaoh was often depicted as almost larger than life, with great power and much of Egyptian art is a celebration of his accomplishments. The formation of a royal absolutism occurred during this period, with the Pharaoh and a small-centralized administration, composed mainly of royal kin and relatives, overseeing all aspects of Egyptian life. The Pharaoh was looked at as a living god among the Egyptian people, who assured the success of Egypt as well as its peace. "The Pharaoh belonged both to the world of the gods and the world of men, and he was seen as a bridge between them. Some of the local deities represented various aspects of nature, such as the earth and the sky, or the Nile and it's gifts of fertility. So the king, living in their midst, could bring the Egyptians into a harmonious relationship with their divinities and with the forces of nature upon which their whole existence depended" (Hawkes 43).

In the readings, there are many trends regarding ancient concepts of law, government, and social structure. The code of Hammurabi played a significant role in Mesopotamian law, while the Nile River had a large part in the development of Egyptian civilization. In addition, the Hebrews moved toward pure monotheism and the Persians enhanced the Near Eastern model of monarchical government. “The evidence reveals that on the one hand, peoples then living in the Near East, Africa, and the Mediterranean developed their own distinctive beliefs, mythologies, customs, and sense of identity. On the other they shared many attributes such as large populations, the use of writing, devotion to religion, and economies based on trade and agriculture.” (Lualdi, 15) Overall, each society had similarities and differences in their way of life, but some are key to showing the maturation of the area as a whole.