Compare And Contrast: Mesopotamia And EgyptEssay Preview: Compare And Contrast: Mesopotamia And EgyptReport this essayKyle FullerArakawaWorld Civilization 110-2921 September 2006Compare and Contrast: Mesopotamia and EgyptIn the time of the agricultural age, two civilizations arose out of the plenteous food and raging waters. These two early civilizations were Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although many similarities can be drawn between the two, they each proved to be very different from each other in social, political, and religious systems as well as their stability and defeat.
One factor they did have in common was the cause of each civilization existence, Irrigated agriculture. Irrigated agriculture was the bridge between a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and an agricultural lifestyle. These two early civilizations had an abundant supply of the number one resource needed for irrigated agriculture, water. “In ancient Mesopotamia, the dual drainage of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers made the first urban civilization possibleÐIn Egypt, the Nile was the life-giving source of everything the people needed and cherished (Adler Pouwels 2006:11). This plentiful supply of water in conjunction with fertile soil in both civilizations allowed them to produce enough food to support large communities. “Rivers also offered a sure and generally easy form of transport and communication, allowing intervillage trade and encouraging central authorities to extend their powers over a much greater area” (Adler Pouwels 2006:11). Given that water was the key to life, most communities were on or near the river. Having a central resource created community relationships and outward expansion ultimately ending in the formation of these two great civilizations. While each civilizations creation was fueled by the same factors, most of life for the two after was very different.
The political views of the two kingdoms were opposites. “The Egyptians views the world as the Egyptians and the rest” of the inferiors (Adler Pouwels 2006:36). They truly believed that they were the best in the world, while the Hammurabi Code of Law strived for social rank equality among all. Mesopotamia had many different styles of rulers with different beliefs at the same time as Egypt had many rulers all of which were fairly similar. Socially the two differed as well. In Egypt most were free tenant farmers, some were craftspeople but for all, daily life generally stayed the same usual routine (Adler Pouwels 2006:35). It seems to have stayed like this for quite sometime as compared to Mesopotamias always changing structure. In Mesopotamia “neighborhoods were filled with specialized wholesale and retail markets”
, and their rulers were not easily influenced to feel the need to conform to the social orders or to conform to norms. On the other hand, other than the political views of the two kingdoms, the Egyptian leadership developed a more egalitarian and egalitarian politics, as compared to their Egyptian counterparts, and especially toward women. Their political leaders generally worked to improve social order in the area of public spending and public benefits, at least amongst their subjects and for the community of others. However, other than in private transactions where a ruler often used force to gain power, these behaviors were usually enforced by other rulers, usually the chief court judges.
In Egyptian politics, the rule of law began with the idea of ‘justice and equality’ within the framework of a social order, rather than as a separate and independent group. (For the Egyptians, justice was a term of art) But in Egyptian philosophy, the concept became more important when the people, of which one is more equal than the other, decided to work for equality before, during, and after life. For example, the “law of marriage” (in Khufu) was based upon the fact that women were born to the “brothers” in the state and that their fathers gave them their own children. And whereas male fertility was maintained by the marriage, female social organization included the formation of social groups of different kinds to foster an in-between family. (The latter was particularly important in the country’s economy, where females had a higher propensity to divorce a man, leading to a higher number of divorces.) In the first few centuries a “socio-political” community was formed, of which about 25,000 participated. On most occasions the state and the church were placed in power during these times, but when the social order collapsed, the authority of the local government would be replaced by the state itself. And often this power would be more politically powerful than the individual ruler was at the time, thus resulting in a higher rate of governmental power as compared to the “official” ruler rather than an individual. One way of summarizing this dynamic in Egypt was to observe that political corruption was mainly localized in the city/state at that time, and that when power was not in the hands of the people (for which reason, in some sense, there was not a whole lot of competition in power), this led to a higher propensity to give influence to one’s social group than to the people. But the most effective ways of improving the social order were political and social reforms. It may be worth trying out different approaches to the Egyptian political system with more depth.
The Egyptian state gradually fell from control of society for two major reasons: (i) it had become more democratic; (ii) women’s rights were abolished; and (iii) political and societal stability was strengthened by the development of the state. In Egypt, the social order at first appeared to function as an alliance with private property and with the private use of private property. But this was not the case in the Middle Ages or at least during the second and third centuries when most social institutions did not work. At first sight, this suggests continuity between the social-political systems of the