Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Organisations are socially contructed
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Organisations are socially contructed
Civilizations over time change, due to new ideas and insight, tools and technology, climate change and much more. Civilizations change for adaptation to their own innovations. Some civilizations differ from others. Some may follow a different religion, a different agricultural system, or a different integration of technology into their daily lifestyles. Mesopotamia and Egypt can be considered as two different cultures that consist of alternative lifestyles from each other. When you take into consideration of how their subsistence, environment, technology, economy, and social organization came into play, you will be able to find interesting distinctions between the two that allow marvel for such enquiring cultures. These two earliest and complex …show more content…
It was one of the main environmental factors that helped them achieve a sense of sustainability. It is their source of existence. The river helped the region cope with the fact that they are overwhelmed by desert land, and henceforth a very dry climate. The reason being is that the Nile tended to flood annually, but in a way that eventually allowed for the grounds and land to be suitable for agriculture. Egypt as a whole also has three supposed “defensible” borders. The east, west, and the south consists of connections among suitable and strong land. The north, which entails the Nile valley is filled with deserts ad is therefore unfitting for defenses to walk along/amongst them. In contrast, Mesopotamia was vast and open, obtaining fewer boundaries. Mesopotamia is defined by the Tigris and Euphrates River. Their flowing of water provided well enough nutrients to the land and the people around it. There was no regular cycle of flooding like the Nile; however, whenever there was flooding, there was massive destruction. Mesopotamia also has mountains that are unfortunately seen as one of their weaknesses. The routes along these mountains allowed for attacks and invasions on the civilizations. Because of this reason, there was much influence from the outside; therefore, Mesopotamia consisted of different kinds of cultures and people, such as Sumerians, Elamites, Mittanni, and much more. Whereas in Egypt, although not entirely monolith, consisted of a majority of the Egyptian
The ancient cultures of Mesopotamia and Egypt developed into successful civilizations. One civilization the Egyptians developed was in the Nile River valley. Based off the "Mesopotamia and Egypt DBQ" packet, "Ancient Egypt was an advanced civilization in many areas including religion, architecture, transportation, and trade. Ancient Mesopotamia was one of the first civilizations that developed a form of government as well as organized people in political states." Based on the documents, Egypt and Mesopotamia developed into successful and advanced civilizations by effectively using the resources that surrounded them to solve problems and live happily.
During the years of 3500 BC to 2500 BC, the geography of a land often impacted a civilizations development in great measures. Depending on the resources available or the detriments present due to certain topographical characteristics like rivers or deserts, a civilization could flourish or collapse. By studying the geographic features of growing societies like the Nile, Euphrates, and Tigris Rivers as well as the Mediterranean Sea of Egypt and Mesopotamia, the link between developing cultures and geography will be examined through sources, including Egypt: Ancient Culture, Modern Land edited by Jaromir Malek and Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization by Paul Kriwaczek. To determine the extent of its influence, this investigation will attempt to compare and contrast the role of geography in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, focusing on the civilizations’ various periods of development and settlement.
The Ancient Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia grew up to be successful civilizations. The surroundings of where they are located assisted them in survival. Although their lifestyles were different, both civilizations became successful in their own ways. Finally, their similar belief was a very helpful guidance when their rulers governed. Without these factors, the two civilizations might not have been
Egypt and Mesopotamia were two of the world’s earliest city-based civilizations, creating the basis for Middle Eastern and Western history. Both Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations existed on the banks of major rivers. While Egyptian civilization thrived along the Nile, Mesopotamia settled between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Although they shared this characteristic, it was also the cause of many of their differences in political systems, religions, and social stability.
Egypt and Mesopotamia; two different civilizations that were similar in some ways, as well as different. They had their difference of their geographical location, as well as their different aspects of life. Even though they had their different life aspects, they had also had several similarities between each other.
What similarities and differences did Egypt and Mesopotamia have and why was Egypt more politically unified than its neighbor, Mesopotamia? I think in order to answer these questions it is important to look at how both societies lived. Egypt and Mesopotamia were two civilizations existing during the time period of 2000-1200 BCE.(text, 97) These civilizations were shaped by their environment, involved with trade, and faced changes in government after the 100 year drought; however, they differed in that Egypt was shaped by the Nile, traded goods for goods and changed their outlook on the pharaoh who was ruler of all; whereas, Mesopotamia was shaped by the Tigris and Euphrates, traded money for goods, and had a ruler over rulers. The governed harmonic life style of Egypt led this society to be more politically unified; whereas, Mesopotamia’s government led to many different ways of structure, thus creating a less unified society.
The Egyptian and Mesopotamian religion and society were similar, but their government/leadership was different. Religion in Egypt and Mesopotamia were very similar because both faiths were polytheistic and had priestly authority. Both cultures had powerful priests, both had a belief of an afterlife, and religion was part of their daily lives. Both societies had similar rigid social classes, relied on slavery; both also had a religion which played an important role in their daily lives. Although, their societies were very common, they still had some differences in government. The Egypt, the government was a theocracy, whereas the government in Mesopotamia was run by a monarchy. Despite their similarities, the differences between these two civilizations were most likely a result of unique geographical and topographical conditions.
Before the beginning of history, people from across the land gradually developed numerous cultures, each unique in some ways while the same time having features in common. Mesopotamia and Egypt are important to the history of the world because of religious, social, political and economic development. Mesopotamia was the first civilization, which was around 3000 B.C., and all other countries evolved from it. Mesopotamia emerged from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The soil was rich and agriculture was plentiful. The Semitic nomads occupied the land around Akkad. The Sumerians established the city-states. Villages became urban centers. Because of the formation of the city-states everything flourished. However, Mesopotamian agriculture lacked stones; therefore mud brick became their major building block. Their diet consisted of fish from the rivers. The rivers were flooded frequently destroyed the cities. Mesopotamians made their living from crops and pottery.
In the first civilization, both Mesopotamia and Egypt relied on a hunter-gatherer economic system, during that time, every country in the world strived on it. Mesopotamia had rich soil for agriculture, but experiences floods. For the Mesopotamians, these floods would destroy major cities, but for the Egyptians it would keep the soil rich all year long without the damage that the Mesopotamians had experienced. With the rich soil foods were plentiful around the farm lands, which gave both countries the chance to establish largely dense areas, like what we now know as a city-state. The Nile River also served as a defense for the Egyptians they enjoyed centuries of tranquility and peace in which they used to develop peaceful development of their civilization. For the Mesopotamians, this wasn’t the case.
Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, and Greece were all historical civilizations that made history the way it is today. The three civilizations differed in many different ways, but they were also quite similar in other aspects. The focus of survival, beliefs, daily life, and many other focuses connect the three civilizations.
Throughout the test of time one question has remained, what does it mean to be a human? In the ancient world this question was both pondered and ignored. Two ancient civilizations had very different thoughts when it came to human life, these civilizations being the Greeks and the Egyptians. When one examines the religion and government of these two great civilizations a very stark contrast is seen. Egypt, an advanced kingdom in the northeast of Africa worshipped numerous gods, one of these gods being their pharaoh. The pharaoh had absolute rule because he was considered from the gods. In Greece the connection between church and state was less so than in Egypt, especially in Athens, and in the Athenian run Delian league. In Athens the people
The ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt began to develop circa 3,000 B.C. Located near rivers, the lands offered fertile soil and an excess of crops that drew in many people. As more people arrived, the small settlements flourished into large, thriving civilizations. Many aspects of Mesopotamia and Egypt, such as their cities, their strongly organized government, and their religion, greatly contributed to the success of these two civilizations.
Of the first civilizations, Mesopotamia and Egypt left behind the most widely available documented look at the past (92). Interestingly enough, the basis for societal rank was comparable between these two civilizations. But despite similarities in social stratification, Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization had very dissimilar views on life and the afterlife.
The Mesopotamian geography affected their society because Mesopotamia was located on an open plain without protection from foreign intrusions. Egypt, on the other hand, was centered on the Nile River ad protected by natural boundaries. This allowed Egypt?s kingdom for prosper and last for thousands of years. Mesopotamia was not considered a nation or country, it was considered a region between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers that established a number of highly organized city-states. Since each city-state was independent there was no capital of Mesopotamia.
The Nile River is arguably one of the most important water sources in the world and has an extremely rich history dating back thousands of years. Without the Nile, the ancient Egyptian civilization would have never existed. Egypt is basically a whole lot of sand and not much else, except they have the Nile River flowing through it, on it’s way to the Mediterranean sea. The ancient Egyptians lived along the Nile River and it provided them with abundant water, food (fish) and the opportunity to develop agriculture along it’s banks. The Nile River was also used for transportation and trade with other regions because land travel was more difficult than floating on the river. The Ancient Egyptians were at the mercy of the seasonal flooding and droughts but learned to work within the natural system of the River and weather cycles (Carnegie Museum of Natural History). Modern people, however were more interested in conquering nature, rather than living in harmony with it.