From the development of agrarian society, to the origins of democracy, Chapter 2 of Patterns of World History Volume One spans a crucial era in the development of large humans civilizations or empires. First, The“Fertile Crescent” between the Tigris and Euphrates river allowed for increased agricultural success, paving the way for agrarian society. Furthermore, Mesopotamian and Egyptian government commenced with similar political structure but soon after developed into two distinct empires. The fall of the Mycenaean empire led to various reforms which ultimately resulted in the shift from rule by Kings to an Assembly style government. The modern world today has evolved directly as a result of the increased population due to means of mass food
…show more content…
In terms of the ruling leadership Mesopotamian cities were ruled by a leader or "Great One" who was chosen by the priests and imposed a dynastic rule (Sivers, Desnoyers, and Stow 41). In contrast, Egypt was originally ruled by Kings who controlled the various cities in Egypt, however once egypt was unified a single king ruled the empire (Sivers, Desnoyers, and Stow 44). Both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian leaders claimed their divinity, although the Egyptian king claimed to be a living God. To conclude, Mesopotamia and Egypt are similar in the sense that both were broken up into small cities with their own ruler, however Egypt was eventually unified. Both civilizations were also run similarly by several Kings who imposed a dynastic rule and consider themselves divine, although Egypt was eventually ruled by a single …show more content…
The fertile lands in between the Tigris and Euphrates river enabled for mass food production which could sustain a large population, while defining wealth for the first time. The rule of Mesopotamia, and Egypt were both run by dynastic Kings, however the Egyptian empire was unified. The fall of the Mycenaean empire allowed for a transformation in government, which led to the first assembly style government. Ultimately, the developments in Chapter 2 of Patterns of World History Volume One enabled the growth of both human population, the distinctions within social classes, and various forms of
In terms of the ruling leadership Mesopotamian cities were ruled by a leader or "Great One" who was chosen by the priests and imposed a dynastic rule (Sivers, Desnoyers, and Stow 41). In contrast, Egypt was originally ruled by Kings who controlled the various cities in Egypt, however once egypt was unified a single king ruled the empire (Sivers, Desnoyers, and Stow 44). Both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian leaders claimed their divinity, although the Egyptian king claimed to be a living God. To conclude, Mesopotamia and Egypt are similar in the sense that both were broken up into small cities with their own ruler, however Egypt was eventually unified. Both civilizations were also run similarly by several Kings who imposed a dynastic rule and consider themselves divine, although Egypt was eventually ruled by a single …show more content…
The fertile lands in between the Tigris and Euphrates river enabled for mass food production which could sustain a large population, while defining wealth for the first time. The rule of Mesopotamia, and Egypt were both run by dynastic Kings, however the Egyptian empire was unified. The fall of the Mycenaean empire allowed for a transformation in government, which led to the first assembly style government. Ultimately, the developments in Chapter 2 of Patterns of World History Volume One enabled the growth of both human population, the distinctions within social classes, and various forms of