I&S - 10.5 - 23/24 by Anushree Sarkar

I&S - 10.5 - 23/24 by Anushree Sarkar https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62 en-us 2023-08-04 05:15:31 UTC 2023-08-10 07:10:58 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/1f3af.png Answer the following questions in pairs. anushreesarkar1 https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2655932182

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?

]]> 2023-08-04 05:19:12 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2655932182 anushreesarkar1 https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657398866 2023-08-07 17:17:13 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657398866 anushreesarkar1 https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657399056 2023-08-07 17:17:38 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657399056 Aashika, Avni, Josh https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657675802 1. The author defines an empire is a complex political system where the central state controls weaker peripheral states. The early empires were short lived but overtime they become better at expressing their control and command over other people/states.
2. No, the author doesn't think Ancient Egypt is an empire. The author explicitly states that "though Egypt was larger [than Sargon's Mesopotamian empire], it didn't become an empire like Akkad. It was actually a kingdom." This is because empires are multiple states or regions under one rule. However, the empire is controlled from a central region known as the core, and the edges are known as the peripheries and are treated unequally, as not "true" citizens. Kingdoms, on the other hand, have an assimilated culture, where the entire kingdom is seen as equal.
3. The author reasons that early states formed empires for the easy access to resources. If a state lacked certain resources, they would conquer other states that were rich in those resources, so that the resources themselves would be cheaper and more accessible to the conquering state. However, states also conquered for wealth, power, or to maintain their status. The early states didn't have advantages in this process, as they didn't have prior examples and experiences to look back and learn from.
4. The core was the main head of the empire, while the periphery lay at the fringes. The core was typically given priority, while the peripheries were treated in an unequal and unjust manner. This was not only a social issue, but also one reflected in the justice system at the time, since those in the periphery weren't considered "true citizens". However, due to this inequality, peripheries were more prone to rebellions and uprisings.
5. According to Campbell, he stated that earlier empires faced many challenges. Early empires did not have any sort of role models to refer to, which made them very inexperienced in trying to control something as big and vast as an empire. Campbell gives a notable example about the Mesopotamia which was an early empire which only lasted for 200 years. He gives a simile to describe the struggles of social hierarchies as "like learning to fly a plane that was already in the air". This simply shows how early empires were very naive, it would be extremely hard for empires to feed many people, maintain and develop their land and also defend against enemies. However I feel that the role if early empires was extremely essential as recent empires could refer to the mistakes of the previous empires to learn from their mistakes.

]]> 2023-08-08 02:58:02 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657675802 Prerika, Shrutika, Dhruv prerikajain1 https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657678547 1. The author defines an empire as "a complex political organisation where a dominant central state controls weaker
peripheral (outer) states." The center is the core of the empire and controls everything while the outer states or peripharies often have less control. The center's control over it's peripheries can fluctuate and an empire could loose it's peripheries.

2. The author didn't think Ancient Egypt was an empire since the citizens of both Upper and Lower Egypt identified as Egyptians. Usually, citizens of other regions of an empire don't identify with the centre state and have their own identities.

3. Early states formed empires for various reasons that were specific to that certain group and their issues, such as not having enough resources, lacking important materials, security and wealth, fear of powerful neighbors etc... These stats had many advantages as through the empires their issues were solved which caused them to be more powerful than others.

4. How does the author explain the power dynamic of the core's control over the periphery? the author explains it as an inequality because of the unfair advantage that people who lived in the center had, they were treated with respect and were provided security as citizens of the empire while the people living in the periphery were faced with abuse and were treated like outsiders.

5. What challenges did early empires face? the challenge they faced was that they did not have any previous concepts or ideas they could use because they did not have any such situation in the past to refer to, so they had to use a trial and error method to figure out how to keep an empire running since no one had any experience themselves.]]> 2023-08-08 03:02:49 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657678547 Amritha and Ateeksh https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657684662 1.The author defines an empire as a complex political organisation where there's central. dominion state that controls the weaker outer states known as the peripherals.

2. The author believes Egypt was more of a kingdom than an empire.Even though Egypt was significantly larger than the Akkad Empire Egypt was mostly controlled by the centre and shared the land between its own territory. The author believes that to have a successful empire you need to have control whereas a kingdom possesses unity within its own land. The author believes that a kingdom is made up of land from the same region or territory just like when the leader of the Upper Egypt took over lower Egypt. Instead of taking control they united and merged them together as one by interchanging culture, values and so on. We can see that Egypt focussed on territories that lived next to its central state.

3. The author states that there were many reasons why empires formed. Some kingdoms needed to establish better trade routes due to a lack of important resources which would provide a better source of these resources, but for many, this was not the primary benefit of such a system. Many empires were formed for security against neighboring powers or to accumulate wealth.

4. The author explains the power dynamic of the centers control over the periphery as a double edged sword. It lead to inequality in the peripheries, which was a feature of the empire and it allowed the center to justify the control. But it was also a flaw in the system, Inequality lead to rebellion in the empire which were expensive to subdue. This could lead to the downfall of the empire as they may run out of resources, their access to the perifery and it may lead to more rebellion.

5.Early empires faced several challenges. One challenge was the lack of role models or previous examples to learn from. The Mesopotamian empire only lasted about four generations, because each one had to figure out how to run an empire without no knowledge about feeding the population, creating a hierarchies and defending the empire. These were difficult to challenge and led to many mistakes
the periphery issue was another problem where powerful centers oppressed weaker peripheries, but if the peripheries were strong peripheries It made it hard to control them.Overextending was an issue as well because it was difficult to govern the edges of expanding territory. A greater border required more resources to defend, and people further from the centre felt less allegiance. Both the Han and Roman Empires struggled to keep their wide frontiers free from attack.

]]> 2023-08-08 03:14:13 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657684662 Ayaan and Vivaan https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657685119 1. The author defines an empire as a political organisation where a powerful central state controls the weaker, peripheral states. In order to create an empire, the key ingredient is always control.
2. The key characteristic for an empire is control and inequality between the centre and periphery. In the case of the Egyptian empire, the author doesn't directly call it an empire. Instead, its described more as a kingdom. Despite being conquered at first (which is an empire-like thing to do), Egypt then went on to develop itself into a kingdom like system. At this time, both halves of the empire began working together in unison and referred to themselves as Egyptians rather than the specific region they belong to. Empires on the other hand, define themselves through control, and divide between different parts of the empire.
3. The early states mainly formed empires to efficiently direct resources. Additionally, conquering other states served as a more reliable and cheaper medium in which resources were acquired.
4. The relationship between the centre and periphery is mainly defined by inequality. The centre is the main seat of power and identifies as superior to the periphery. The centre usually controls the management of resources throughout the empire, and therefore hold most of the power. They also possessed legal protection, and had rights that the periphery didn't. This further emphasised the power dynamic between the two states.
5. Early empires didn't have role models to follow, and therefore faced issues when the next generation was forced to take over. Once one generation is complete, the next is forced to take over and learn how to run an empire as they do it. This lead to many errors, which would then lead to the downfall of said empire. For example, empires usually just lasted 200 years (the Mesopotamian empire lasted about 4 generations). Additionally, problems like overextension, semi nomadics and rebellions also caused major problems for empires. ]]> 2023-08-08 03:15:01 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657685119 Riyaa and Vansh https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657791306 1. Riyaa - The author defines an empire as a complex political system - often with a very stringent social hierarchy - where a dominant central authority controls the weaker peripheral states.

2. Riyaa - The author called Egypt a "Kingdom" because after Upper Egypt had conquered Lower Egypt, citizens of both the states had voluntarily agreed to give up their individual sovereignty and be recognised as "Egyptians" (rather than being known as the people from a particular state or region). This, usually, is not the case with empires because the people of the invaded state are forced into giving up their sovereignty without the right to choose for themselves.

3. Riyaa - Empires, in the past, were formed and expanded for various reasons which include the need for security, wealth and resources. For instance, the initial expansion of Rome was "the result of a fear of powerful neighbours" who they perceived as a threat - Therefore, before the enemy attacked, Rome conquered their territory which also provided them multiple advantages such as access to resources such as grain, ore, labour and even fish sauce. This also added to the prosperity of the empire and its people.

4. Riyaa - The relationship between the centre and peripheral regions was very strained because the former considered itself as the superior of the latter. Moreover, the dwellers of the peripheral regions were not granted the same rights as those who lived in the centre which also caused a lot of riots between the two groups. To summarise, the centre saw people living in the periphery of the empire as "expendable" and naturally, it created a very deeply-rooted inequality between them - At times, when the empire expands too much, it is also very difficult for the centre to control the peripheral regions because they are continuously bombarded with infiltration attempts (triggered by the prevalent disparity).

5. Vansh - The first empires didn’t have role models, and that was a challenge.That's because they all had to learn how to run an empire. There was a much to learn about ruling and feeding millions, defending against foes, and maintaining social hierarchies. It was like learning to fly an already-flying plane. .Also Then there's the issue of the peripheral. We've talked about how the strong centre frequently oppresses the weak outsiders.But if the periphery is strong there is a difficulty for the centre to control it.Each time the Akkadian empire died.The weaker the periphery gets.]]> 2023-08-08 06:52:40 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2657791306 Prerika, Dhruv, Avni https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659253907 Characteristics:
- Culture assimilation: Spread of Greek culture far and wide, as it was incorporated into local tradition. Alexander was relatively very tolerant to local cultures
- Short–lived: Very quickly established – barely more than a decade, when usually it takes generations, however it was "held together by the personality, legend, and military victories of one man" – so it was very short–lived, considering he died at only 32
- Authority: Persian administration structures kept largely in place, for a smooth transition in authority, unlike in other empires where peripheries or conquered states were treated unequally and governed by the centre.
- More education opportunity for women
- More diversity
- More trade and wealth]]> 2023-08-10 06:48:52 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659253907 Vivaan, Aarav, Shrutika https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659257224 Characteristics:

Size/Population: At the time the Persian empire ruled over 50 million people. For context, the world population was ranged from 100 million - 160 million (meaning they ruled over either 1/2 or 1/3 of the world).

Women in Society: Unlike many empires at the time, women were treated relatively well (in contrast to the Greeks at least). Royal women held legitimate power in the empire, and held high ranks (eg: nobles). Meaning, women could gain high positions in the hierarchy which was uncommon at the time. Additionally, women could own estates and properties. They could roam across the empire freely, without a male escort.

Religion and Belief: Persians followed a religion called Zoroastrianism. They didn't hail kings as divine as much as the Greeks.

Government - Persian people were really good at incorporating conquered people into the persian empire. Bringing conquered kings into the government. This helped the government and the conquered people stay loyal to the emperor. They also were very respectful to local traditions and did not exile conquered people. This also ensured cooperation between the conquered empires and the government.

Strong control- There was a general advisory that all these empires followed, that said not to expand an empire further than all the distance you can cover on horseback in two weeks, because then it would be harder to control, so in order to not restrict their growth, they built a road that would let them cover all the distance in two weeks on horseback without having to stop any expansion.

]]> 2023-08-10 06:53:28 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659257224 Aanya, Ateeksh, Josh, Amritha https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659261551 -Tolerant: Open to other religions and cultures and accepted their peripheries belief system.
-Strategic: The kings made sure they have control and kept the governor of each state satisfied. Instead of limiting expansion they made sure that two weeks of horse travel made it easier for them to connect and cover their empire.
-Open minded: Eventhough according society women main goal was to be a mother of a son Persian's were quite open minded to pursue the same jobs as men and own lands just like them.
- Visionary: They always cared about the future and focussed a lot on stability. An example could be when Darius created a common measure of value called the daric so that it's easier for merchants to trade.They also had an advanced infrastructure that was ahead of it's time.
-Rigid social hierarchy: The king is always at the top of the system while the male and female nobles were one step below the king this also included the king's mother, wife, sisters and daughters. This shows that they were organised and had a clear system. Followed by the non-aristocratic members who were ranked according to occupation.
- Oral History: The Persian empire did have a tradition of written text but it wasn't as popular as oral information so there aren't many written text from that time and many are from other empires like the greek ]]> 2023-08-10 07:01:29 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659261551 Riyaa, Aashika and Nathan https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659262780 - At first, the Greeks had been "a divided people" but later, the city-states united to serve a common cause (Greek against Persia)
- The Macedonian empire ensured to preserve the local culture and architecture of the conquered regions (while also spreading their own customs and traditions)
- The government majorly depended on Alexander's success (If he faltered, so did the entire system)
- The Greeks, however, had a social hierarchy with elites and multiple other statuses
- The Macedonian empire, sometimes, also kept certain officials in power despite conquering their region to help smooth the transition in authority
- The valued roles for women generally included marriage, motherhood, and virtue
- Privileged (or wealthy) women were also able to participate in local politics as magistrates (Women also signed a lot of contracts and public records)
- Non-Greek women enjoyed more freedom and rights as compared to who belonged to more restricted city-states]]> 2023-08-10 07:03:36 UTC https://padlet.com/anushreesarkar1/x1kbm5yyzutagq62/wish/2659262780