Changes and Continuations of the Ptolemaic Administration and Social Structure in Roman Egypt
The Ptolemaic Dynasty was successful in Egypt overall, although not successful enough to last. Rome took the place of the Ptolemies and began trying to create a state that was more successful than their predecessor. To do this, the Romans maintained some things the Ptolemies were doing, yet changed others. This paper argues that the Romans changed the Ptolemaic administrative system by giving the military a much more active role while maintaining its reliance on local educated Greeks, also arguing that the Romans maintained the social identity of Egypt as an agricultural base while adding a Roman status aspect to the social structure. In regards to administration of Egypt, the Romans changed the system from the Ptolemaic way, the most notable difference being the use of the Roman military. The military was the main way to reach the administration (Lloyd). Thus, the Roman military presence was quite strong in Egypt. Having shown their reluctance to be ruled over in the past by the Persians and Greeks,
…show more content…
The Romans did likewise. In fact, the Romans tried to further elevate the position of the Greeks to offset Egyptian influences (Mieroop). The Roman Empire spanned from Spain in the west, the British Isles in the north, Mesopotamia to the East, and Egypt to the south which is a very large, very diverse swath of land. Ruling over the empire from Rome alone would have been impossible. To circumvent this issue, local governments were set up mostly in the form of senatorial governors. In Egypt however, a prefect was appointed. Even then there was too much work for one man. That is why the Greeks were a necessity to Roman administration of Egypt. The Greeks were already successful and affluent in Alexandria, and capable of administering the region which is why the Roman Empire continued to use
Pharaohs were governors of the Ancient Egyptian realm who broadcasted themselves as sons of gods who upheld Ma’at – the Egyptian order of life. Most pharaohs ruled in a typical and expected way carrying the beliefs of their ancestors- though not all ruled this way. Akhenaten of the 18th Dynasty New Kingdom was not an “archetypal” pharaoh as seen through his goal to change Egyptian religion from polytheism to monotheism and through his building project in Amarna. Though he used traditional means to incorporate his changes he did so in an atypical way. After all his attempts at reform all was forgotten when he died and Egypt returned to the religious beliefs it had beforehand. This essay will analyse historical evidence that demonstrates his religious changes, the significance of his building project in Amarna and the aftermath of his death.
Through military expansion, Egypt grew over centuries and became an empire controlling most of the ancient Middle East. Its territory extended nor...
Family roles in ancient Egypt and ancient Rome were a very important part of life.
to 2650 B.C., changed his name to the more commonly known Zoser. It was Zoser
‘The Hyksos forced Egyptian Pharaohs to look beyond their own borders, and involve themselves in the affairs and lives of their neighbor’s’ Through the notion of looking beyond their own borders, the necessity of constant battles was not only to expand but also protect Egypt’s borders, this eventually led to the image of the ‘Warrior Pharaoh’. Egypt became the pre-eminent power in the east due to talented civil, military and religious bureaucracies. The Hyksos ‘encouraged new nationalism and patriotism’ this could be seen through formation of administration, stable rule, gods and building externally while taking on board the establishment of the extensive diplomatic and trading contacts with the eastern Mediterranean region and Nubia. The economic influences created by the Hyksos include various influences that furthermore excelled New Kingdom Egypt to be a greater society. The ‘foreign rulers’ introduced olive and pomegranate trees as well as domesticated cattle to the agricultural practices to Egyptian society.
Okay, onto the plot I mentioned long ago. It would start in Ptolemaic Egypt around 300 bc. This was when Egypt was taken into the hands of one of Alexander's favored generals Ptolemy. At first, it was a long of corruption, depravity, and often Greeks taking advantage of the people. Luckily though Ptolemy was quite a skilled administrator, warrior, and kind. He reformed the whole system. Now back to the present the place is mourning in the wake of his death his favored son Zerches has arisen to the throne. Sadly his elder son Arsinoe(mc) has been passed up for the position due to many arguments with his father. His mother has enjoyed many of the luxuries their father allowed her and she doesn't intend to lose them. So, in an attempt to gain
Ancient Egypt was a single tightly organized state for much of its history (Centanni, n.d.). In all its phases, the Egyptian government was led by the pharaoh. The pharaoh was held to be descended from gods, with the power to assure success and control the rituals that assured the flow of the Nile and the fertility derived from irrigation. Wanting gods to favor Egypt, the entire population of people did not hesitate to carry out laws that the pharaoh placed upon them. Egypt’s pharaohs claimed additional power and authority as actual incarnations of the gods
The early Dynastic Period was Egypt?s era of initial unification and state building under the guidelines of its first three royal dynasties. In the years between 2660 and 2180 B. C. the basic marks of the cultures of Egypt arose. Egypt was one kingdom and it was divided into provinces, or the names of provinces. Ruling over the kingdom was a pharaoh, who was not only a king but was also seen as a god. Provinces were ruled by nomarchs better known as provincial governors. The Egyptians devised themselves into classes, upper class, middle class, and a lower class. The pharaoh and his family were at the top of the Egyptian class system. People could move from one class to another depending on their situations.
Wilkinson, Toby A. H.. The rise and fall of ancient Egypt. New York: Random House, 2010. Print.
Ancient Egypt is said to be one of the most successful of the ancient civilizations. This entire nation, based around the Nile river, was able to develop in areas such as mathematics, medicine, and astronomy that others so far hadn’t been able to do. They adapted to their environment and used the Nile river to their advantage, using it as a trading route, a means of protection from invaders, and a very successful system of irrigation system for their agriculture. The Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt (the Delta and Valley) is what started the evolution of the ancient Egyptian civilization. Being a united kingdom with a single, powerful ruler, allowed them to have a long and successful reign over the land,
According to history there existed two of many important ancient civilizations that left a significant mark in the history of human development that even today leaves modern society in awe of its greatness. In spite of being distant civilizations, Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece share similarities and difference in terms of how they practiced religion,political structure, everyday life style, and how they built the monumental architectures that continued to amaze the modern world of today. These comparison and contrast explain their difference in history and their dynasty's long term success. Through the early developmental age these two ancient civilizations contrasted in many ways perhaps due to the geographical location that helped shape their diverse cultures.
A. A. From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World. New York: Michael Grant Publications Ltd, 1982. Jones, Prudence J. Cleopatra: The Last Pharaoh. London: Haus, 2006.
Roman vs. Greek Civilization Although both Roman and Greek civilizations shared similarities in the areas of art and literature, their differences were many and prominent. Their contrasting aspects rest mainly upon political systems and engineering progress, but there are also several small discrepancies that distinguish between these two societies. This essay will examine these differences and explain why, ultimately, Rome was the more advanced civilization of the two. Greece, originally ruled by an oligarchy ("rule of the few"), operated under the premise that those selected to rule were selected based not upon birth but instead upon wealth.
The society of the ancient Romans has often been considered the bases for our modern society. When one thinks of the Roman society, pictures of grand villa's and of senators wearing Toga's come to mind. Also, Roman society is often associated with great feasts and extravagance among the rich. There is more to Rome, however, then these symbols and the Classical Roman society is one with a complicated history that covers the history of the ancient city and involves the family, the home, education and much more. The social structure of ancient Rome was based on heredity, property, wealth, citizenship and freedom. It was also based around men: women were defined by the social status of their fathers or husbands. Women were expected to look after the houses and very few had any real independence.
Metz, H. C. (1990). Egypt: A Country Study. (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, Ed.) Retrieved from Country Studies: http://countrystudies.us/egypt/15.htm