However Xenophon’s view is not a totally fair one, considering his past military experiences with Spartans, as well as the fact that he was not a Spartan citizen and therefore only knew the official laws laid out to him. The ancient Greeks believed that the world was created perfect, and that every change made it a little worse. This made conservatism fundamental in preventing decay in the world. The Spartans therefore found it essential to live by the laws, which were mainly military based, that the legendary Lycurgus had laid out for them in the first half of the 7th Century. Unlike other Greek states, who were much less rotated around the military and had women responsible for making clothes, the Spartans left that duty for the slave women, so that the higher class women could concentrate on physical training just as much as the men did.
One aspect of his reign that is often seen in a positive light is the artistic reform that occurred in the Amarna period. Overall he had a short reign that did not achieve much, and yet did not leave much of a negative impact on Egypt. Akhenaten's reign brought about massive religious reform, deemed by most as a failure. His choice to switch from the traditional worship of many gods to the worship of only one god brought about massive social and political changes in Egypt. Certainly these changes were massive, quite abrupt and differed drastically from the norm; however that does not necessarily make them bad.
Originally, the chief deities of Vesta, Jupiter, Mars and Venus did not have mythology in Rome (with many being quite animistic). As cultural fusion continued through the years, the Roman pantheon eventually made inroads to allow for compatibility between Roman and Greek religions, though this did not always work. Mars, the god of war, was one of the most important gods in
A government was established in which people were elected into upper house and lower house, however the governors rarely made an appearance. Their independance meant that they had a wider franchise so they could pass useful acts to benefit themselves. Lack of communication was a major issue between the two, as Britain was over 3000 miles away. This meant that it was extremely difficult for Britain to have any involvement with the colonies, which resulted to salutary neglect. It could be argued that salutary neglect weakened the relationship, however the colonist's may have enjoyed this freedom to do what they wanted and make there own decisions.
Whilst the later Egyptian rulers, such as Hatshepsut in her temple Speos Artemidos, named the Hyksos as “barbarians... who ruled in ignorance of Re” the names of each Hyksos king contradict this. An example is Sheshi, whose throne name – which was Egyptian - means “Seeing is the heart of Re” . The names of the kings suggest that the Hyksos adopted the Egyptian life style and provide evidence that the Hyksos period was later used as propaganda by the New Kingdom Pharaohs. Whilst many historians assume that there were no Egyptian rulers in Egypt at the time of the Hyksos reign, it has been proven by Egyptologists that the Egyptian rulers still held quite a lot of control over Egypt. The Egyptian
Although conversely, the very dissimilar landscape between the two swayed their political growth. The mountainous terrain and numerous islands that make up Greece made it difficult for city-states to interact with each other, which resulted in each city-state growing individually. The ruling class of every city-state was against forming any kind of monarchy and defended their independence. Rome was very flat in comparison to the Greek terrain with mountains on the east side and what is now the Tyrrhenian Sea off to the west, which caused Rome to grow to become one huge city-state. Rome dealt with immigrants and intruders from the north and south.
The Aztecs transformed their political organization by introducing a monarchial system similar to that found in more powerful neighboring states. Aztec rulers did not have absolute power, and royal succession was not based on primogeniture. A council of powerful aristocrats selected new rulers from among male members of the ruling lineage. Once selected, the ruler was forced to renegotiate the submission of tribute dependencies and then demonstrate his divine mandate by undertaking a new round of military
that the Saite king Psamtik I was able to reassert control over the southern area of the country dominated by Thebes. For the next 130 years, Egypt was able to enjoy the benefits of rule by a single strong, native family, Dynasty 26. Elevated to power by the invading Assyrians, Dynasty 26 faced a world in which Egypt was no longer concerned with its role in international power politics but with its sheer survival as a nation. The Egyptians, however, still chose to think of their land as self-contained and free from external influence, unchanged from the days of the pyramid builders 2,000 years earlier. In deference to this ideal, the Saite pharaohs deliberately adopted much from the culture of earlier periods, particularly the Old Kingdom, as the model for their own.
Mostly would call this empire a informal or hegemonic empire. You also need to remember that the Aztecs didn't necessarily rule connected territories. Because they were conquering cities, they sometimes had power in "pockets" over an area. But don't think that this was a weak empire. Ruling through a local government ensured that the locals
In addition, theses models are steeped in the modern colonial and post-colonial experiences and consequently both obscure ancient realities of Greek-Egyptian cooperation and elide the fact that the Ptolemies had no conscious policy of "hellenization." Manning contends that there were more factors than the king and his directives at play, and that there were limits on the king's ability to direct either the economy or social hierarchies, especially on the local levels, simply by the strength of his own will. The