# data[].attributes.body
Characteristics of Persian Empire

World's first great empire

Herodotus was the “father of history” and “father of lies”

Being tolerant to foreign cultures was not seen as a sign of weakness

Reached its height in 500 bce with a population of 50 million

Did not exile conquered people

Utilised cavalry as a part of their army and had a steady supply of horses, and expanded a 1700 mile ‘royal road’ to allow easy communication, travel, trade and army movement; this helped rule the empire effectively despite its size

Tolerant of local customs, traditions, and religions, horses, roads, and regional governments of the Persian Empire united distant lands both politically and economically.

Trade was facilitated by emperor darius by standardising the gold coin

Merchants had a common measure of value wherever they went in the empire

Being a mother, especially to sons, was a priority for most women and a must for royal women

Only males from one of the king’s wives were eligible to inherit the throne

The king was at the top of the societal hierarchy

The freedom enjoyed by persian women influenced the Greeks’ negative portrayal of persians

Zoroastrianism became a prominent religion, but never became the official religion of the state

Skilled at incorporating other cultures, respectful of other cultures.

Created regional governments called Satrapies to establish regional rule

Sly, taking the conquered kings to help establish the peripheral cities.

Women had freedom and responsibilities

Trade

Persian administratives had trading networks linked with the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Central Asian societies

Established a common currency for standardised trade called the Daric

Religion

Over the years, Zoroastrianism eventually developed into a prominent religion, however it was never the official religion of state.

The Persian gods believed in the power of free will, rather than living under a law influenced by religion, which led to an eternal struggle between truth and lies.

# data[].attributes.body
1. They are not religious, they have no images of gods, temples, or alters.

2. They were very adaptable and readily welcomed new cultures, they were open-minded people, for example, they had adopted foreign customs such as Persian.

3.  Women were allowed to have a lot more freedom in comparison to most great empires. Women owned businesses too in that empire

4. One of the characteristics of the first Persian king "Cyrus the King" was that he maintained control and peace across his empire by inviting the kings of the states he had conquered to be part of his government, effectively making his rule more secure.

5. Religion wasn't an official understanding, but rather a system of belief that they followed which was called Zoroastrianism, they believe in free will and also believed that there would be a judgement day.

# data[].attributes.body
-  POWERFUL:They conquered many empires, including the Persian empire

- NOT CONNECTED (IN TERMS OF VALUE): Very short living since Alexander the Great was in power (Single person empire)

- MONARCHY: Unlike many Greek city-states that had a democracy, Macedonia was a monarchy.

- EXPANSION: Main goal was expansion over control
- Alexander the Great was a great ruler who expanded a lot, but people did not agree with his virtues.

- RELIGION: Respected other religions but enforced it very subtlety
- The king controlled the laws of the region, the religion, and the army. The king kept a small council to advise him on matters.
- They converted to Buddhism and Greeks became a part of the Indian caste system

- GENDER ROLES: This council was called a synedrion, and it was made up of upper-class Macedonian men. Woman in society had an increase in power compared to other Hellenistic empires/regions.
- Educational opportunities expanded for women, unlike Afghanistan

- TRADE: The city became an important trade centre that connected from the Mediterranean through the Middle East and into India.

- PEOPLE: On a more day-to-day basis, Macedonians are warm, generous and hospitable people.

# data[].attributes.body
Constantly expanding at great rates (in terms of power, land, religion, influence, wealth, armies)

Constantly competing for power

Completely dependent on the ruling power (Alexander the overachiever)

Fell rapidly after the death of Alexander the great.

Accepting of local religions and cultures

Integrated greek culture in  the cultures of all all peripheral states (Hellenistic religion)

# data[].attributes.body
1: In this article, the author states that an empire is a complex political organization which controls multiple weaker nations while having one dominant state.

2: The author believes that Ancient Egypt was not an Empire, rather a kingdom. The author explains: Initially, Egypt was divided into Upper and Lower Egypt. When Upper Egypt conquered Lower, they would have called themselves an empire if not for the fact that they considered themselves as Egyptians, and were politically and culturally united.

3: The author states that peripheral states did not have the same benefits and resources as the central states. For most early empires, their rulers lacked crucial resources. Their was the option to trade with other states, but if they could get those same resources which they required without having to barter  their own, it was more beneficial.

4: To summarise, the core had all of the power, and had created a legal system to serve itself while creating inequalities for the periphery states. For example, the Roman government was allowed to abuse the people in the periphery states, and could beat, rob, and kill them without facing repercussions from their judicial system.

5: The very first few empires did not have anything to base on, since they were the first of their kind. If periphery states were not weak enough they had a hard time controlling them and so they had to occasionally deal with rebellions. There were also problems with Semi-Nomadic people living beyond the empire's borders.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author has defined it as a "complex political organisation" in which the core has power over the peripheral states. An empire is also measured by the power and wealth, instead of square miles. The author also stated that the main aspect of an empire is also control.

2. Upper Egypt conquered lower Egypt between 3100-3000 BCE and formed one large kingdom - Egypt. It's a kingdom because, unlike empires, they're all politically and culturally united and collectively called themselves Egyptians.

3. When early states formed empires, they had the upper hand of still getting resources from the centre and at the same time were covertly expanding as well. They also have the power of forming their own region - different political and cultural identities, trade routes resources, etc.

4. The centre considers itself of higher priority over the periphery regions, and that's why the periphery often did not get the same privileges and resources as the core of an empire. Hence, were oppressed. They were usually denied basic rights and protection that the core had. Additionally, they reinforced these methods of oppression through the legal system.

5. Overexpansion - If the empires took over to such a large degree that they weren't able to consistently control each city and region, which could lead to them loosing connections with the peripheries, which would lead to less loyalty and ultimately rebellions. Additionally, having long borders could lead to the chance of invasions of enemies.

Nomadic and semi-nomadic problems - These people were considered outcasts and would raid villages for money, as they were typically treated as barbarians.

No role models or a handbook that guided them - Didn't have right ways to rule the empire (ruling, feeding, defending, military, hierarchies)

Periphery Power - If the periphery was stronger than that would lead to further enemy invasions and would be harder to control from the core.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author defines an empire as a peripheries controlled by a central, more powerful state, this creates inequality between the citizens and policy makers in the peripheral states. This is done to allow free trade of resources, etc.

2. The author believes that Egypt was not an empire as Upper and Lower Egypt were united and assumed similar cultural identities along with the fact that Lower Egypt was not treated as a periphery

3.  For many existing empires, the requirement for resources was secondary, and the primary goal was security and wealth. Many early states' initial expansion resulted due to the fear of powerful neighbours, therefore being able to attack and defeat invaders before they can reach their territory The expansion of empires resulted in the abundance of more resources like grain, ore, and enslaved people, which in result will improve the economy of people.

4. The author states that the power dynamic between the core and the peripheries was defined by inequality and that inequality is enforced using the legal system by denying the rights and protections available to people in the core states.

5. In early empires, nomadic and semi-nomadic people living beyond their borders can develop complicated relationships with neighbouring empires. Typically treated as "barbarians" their only often was to invade an empire in order to get anything. Another problem is related to overextension, when empires conquer more territory, controlling their periphery is harder. The population of people living further away from the centre typically do not consider themselves loyal to it. Empire requires loyalty from its borders in fight off prevent invasions.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author defines an empire as a "complex political organisation where a superior central state controls weaker peripheral states"

2. The author thought that ancient Egypt was not an empire but rather a kingdom, due to the fact that the upper and lower Egypt became politically and culturally united, with citizens of both nations identifying themselves as Egyptians.

3. The author mentions that for most states to want to turn into an empire it usually stems from the inequality face and their desire to have the same rights as the people in the centre, they mention the most peripheral people are oppressed. Resources were a secondary advantage, mainly the wealth and security were the biggest advantages of turning into an empire.

4. The power dynamic of the core's control on the empire was defined by "inequality", the centre as the main seat of power thought of themselves as better or superior to the peripheral states. The centre basically controlled the periphery and was mainly in forced by the legal system, all the people in the periphery were denied the rights and protections that were given to the people in the centre.

5. These empires faced many challenges as they’d didn’t have previous examples of empires to improve their ruling. They had to figure how to exactly rule an empire. They had to learn how to feed their people, defend themselves from enemies, making the social hierarchies. The other problem they faced was the periphery. They needed a strong centre to control the periphery, however if the periphery is strong the centre will loose all control. Another problem that was faced was the nomadic and semi-nomadic people living beyond the borders. They had complex relationships with the neighbouring empires. They needed the wealth from the empire. They were called and treated as ’barbarians’, they has to attack the empire to get what they wanted.

# data[].attributes.body
How does the author define empire?

An empire is a dominant state that holds the power and ability to control weaker peripheral states. Most commonly a political organisation. However, control and power fluctuates even within empires. Some empires can have loose or tight holds over their peripheral states, which impacts the way that the empire grows and is able to protect its borders.

Does the author think ancient Egypt was an empire? Why or why not?

The author does not think ancient Egypt was an empire; he believed it was really a kingdom because Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt were politically and culturally united and citizens from both regions identified themselves as Egyptians instead of citizens of a particular city.

What reasons does the author give for early states forming empires? What advantages did those early states have?

Though the reason for the formation of each empire varies depending on the core of said empires, some reasons why early states formed empires are: expansion and control over the periphery, obtaining resources, etc. In certain instances, peripheries tended to be weaker, which made it easier for the centre to control.

How does the author explain the power dynamic of the cores' control over the periphery?

The core’s control is the ‘seat of power’ and the centre of the empire controls the outer states, who tend to be left out of the centre’s protection, with different rights. This is how the empire divided itself, even amongst itself. The oppression often rose as plights of abuse against the peripheral states, with empires like the Roman, even having power to beat the citizens.

What challenges did early empires face?

Some challenges that early kingdoms faced were: they didn't have role models or examples to follow, which meant that each generation had to figure out how to run an empire (Ruling and feeding millions, defending against enemies, enforcing social hierarchies) effectively for themselves.

There was a lot to learn with no prior knowledge or history to research on.

Nomadic and semi-nomadic people living beyond their borders could not become part of the empire owing to their ‘otherness’, and hence relied on attacking the empire to obtain resources

Overextension led to peripheries not developing close connections to the empire and hence becoming less loyal to the empire’s core.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The author describes an empire as a complex political organisation where a stronger party controls weaker peripheral states.

2. According to the author, Egypt was not an empire since the people were politically & culturally united and independently considered themselves as Egyptians. The author previously stated that Empires are not culturally united with their periphery.

3. The reasons were unique to each empire, but the primary goal were often security and wealth. Resources were usually a secondary benefits. Some Empires had geological meteorological advantages, and as the empires expanded they also gained more resources, such as grain, ore and labourers. Additionally they also gained wealth that created a class system and their expansion installed fear in their neighbours.

4. The core is the home of the ruling/ giving  power (eg: Rome's senate and emperor). The rulers would create inequality within the empire (periphery), oppressing the people and not giving them the same rights and security as the centre. For this reason, the periphery would feel culturally disconnected from the core and would try to rebel.

5. Early empires did not have any examples or role models from the past. They could not have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors. For example, early Mesopotamia empires only lasted about 4 generations. Rebellions from the periphery were also hard to suppress. Ruling and feeding millions, ruling and enforcing social hierarchy and safeguarding the empire from enemies were also challenging. A few mistakes could make an empire fall because of the lack of trust from the people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Answer the following questions in pairs.

# data[].attributes.subject
Answer the following questions in pairs.

# data[].attributes.body
1. How does the author define empire?

2. Does the author think ancient Egypt was an empire? Why or why not?

3. What reasons does the author give for early states forming empires? What advantages did those early states have?

4. How does the author explain the power dynamic of the core’s control over the periphery?

5. What challenges did early empires face?