More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of the caste system in India
The influence of the caste system in India
The influence of caste system in india
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The influence of the caste system in India
Their social organization was class-based hierarchy under king or emperor armies. As I was reading all those four classification you can see when they go to the next classification they eventually evolve. They have more people part of the society and they start to settle and have leaders. Also, the individuals start performing one task.
The position of rulers was not hereditary, instead advisors decide who the next ruler would be, usually from the previous emperor’s family. Every new ruler was expected to achieve something and obtain his own possessions. Nobles consist of government officials, priest, and military leaders. The job of some nobles were to rule cities, collect tribute, and construct public places.
For example, the Han Dynasty had an censorate group of officials who controlled the militia and carried out the law of the emperor to ensure it was the same for all of China this made the people share the amount rights they got, therefore joined them together. Similarly, the Han Dynasty had bureaucracy which mainly had them enforce Confucianism to unify the people. A similar political structure occurred in the Mediterranean in the Roman Empire. During the Pax Romana, a group of male officials called the Senate appointed governors to each province, which made it easier for the emperor to directly rule. This in turn made the citizens unite because it made the system of court more just.
This resulted in the merchants having a lot of power within the empire. Similar to the Aztec empire,
They know how to get stuff done and keep everything running smoothly. Plus, they have some smart admin practices that make life easier for everyone. They built roads and stuff to make it easy to get around, and their standard weights and measures made trading a breeze. All in all, they were one of the most organized empires of their time.
They did not need a military or government as large as the land based empires and because of their location many were able to explore, find, and conquer new
Thirdly, They adopted the centralized government, but they softened the harsh ruling style. They had many government officials to help run the vast empire. During this time, the government “functioned as a large, complex organization that functions under a given set of rules and conditions”. People that were above them in each level of bureaucracy directed people a level below them. The highest level of Han officials got to live in the capital to give the emperor advice.
They controlled the government and owned the land, slaves, and household staff. They oversaw the troops as well. Control over land, labour, and tribute was the foundation of Aztec nobility's riches and power. Being a noble required having noble parents
Finally, they had a sophisticated way of controlling their empire, as they maintained communication with everyone throughout the empire,
In the Tang dynasty, the social structure was rigid. It consisted of 50 to 60 million people divided into eight social classes. The social classes were emperor, aristocracy, bureaucracy, eunuch, peasants, artisans, traders, and slaves. Though women were not in the social order for a long time, it was still possible. Women in the era of the Tang dynasty had more freedom then they had in preceding eras.
Having many artisans and traders allowed goods to be made and traded rapidly. With complete control over trade the Ottomans economy was booming and they easily stayed in power for many
The essay will discuss a paper written by anthropologist Gregory Possehl – Sociocultural complexity without the state: the Indus Civilization. It will first present the usual classification when approaching ancient civilisations and briefly summarise Possehl’s main argument. The essay will then dig more deeply into the Indus case, relying on archaeological findings, to see how far Possehl’s position can be supported. Archaeologists and anthropologists are usually classifying social groups considering their social organisation and material culture – one widely accepted classification recognizes four levels of development: (1) the band, a hunter-gather, kinship-based group, (2) the tribe, an organised collection of bands, (3) the chiefdom, a centrally organised kinship-based group with hierarchy and single leader, and (4) the state, a complex, hierarchical, centrally organised, non-kinship-based social organisation (Young 2014:19). Such a classification has stirred debates among scholars, as it conveys the preconceived idea that social groups ‘progress’ following this linear trajectory – furthermore, it is difficult to define the moment and the circumstances associated to a change of status (when does a band become a tribe?)
During the Middle Ages, the prevailing system of government was feudalism. Under feudalism, there was the use of a definite social structure. People were born into a social class and usually stayed in that class for the rest of their life. The three social classes were the nobility, clergy, and peasantry and each of these classes had different roles to perform in the society.
In the Elizabethan age, social class structure was paramount. The class ranking dictated how the people of each level could dress, the diet and food available, and career standing. Social hierarchy classes consisted of a monarch, nobility, gentry, merchants, yeomanry, and laborer. The monarch was the highest and most superior class ranking, it was based off of bloodline only and the oldest monarch would take the throne and become the most powerful(“Elizabethan Era.”).
After the victory over Khmer, the kingdom of Sukhothai was established in the 12th-century, when King Sri Indraditya was the first ruler. The system of government was feudal, in which social status depended on the amount of land owned. However, the king was excluded, as it was believed that the king owned the whole country. Social statuses in the Sukhothai era can be classified as follows; 1. The ruling monarchs and nobilities.
