Similarities Between Classical Greece And Classical India

From 600 BCE to 600 CE, the classical age, religions and culture were developing, as well as empires, and transregional trade was emerging across India, China, and the Mediterranean. The social organization of classical Rome and India were similar through the caste system and the dynamics between the Plebeian and Patrician class, while classical Rome and Chinese social organization also shared a patriarchal structure; however, those that were considered the elite of Indian and Greek society differed with the Brahmins in India and aristocrats in Greece.

The caste system determined India’s social organization, and the relations within society, similar to the divide in Rome’s society as a result of the Plebeian and Patrician class. The Aryans

introduced the caste system in order to establish control and define the importance of each role in society. Like in India, the two separate social classes in Rome distinguished the ruling upper class from the lower class, after creating the Republic. The Aryan epic, The Rig Veda, was significant in the rise of the caste system in the way it “divided the original Man” so that “the brahman was his mouth, of his arm was the warrior. His thighs became the vaisya, of his feet the sudra was born.” This description starts with the Brahmins, the priests and scholars, as the top of the body, then works down to the lowest caste, the Sudras, which were the peasants. The caste system defined every aspect of society. A person was born into a particular caste, and only married, worked with, and associated with those within their caste. The caste system interrelated with Hinduism, and their belief in karma and reincarnation. People worked to do good so that in the next life, after reincarnation, they would be reborn into a higher caste. India’s caste system helped to “support a Hindu way of life”, while it also paralleled the divisions in society among other classical civilizations. The Roman republic was divided into two classes: the patricians and the plebeians. While the plebeian class made up a majority of the population at 90%, the patricians were members of the Senate, and therefore ruled the plebeians, which were represented by a weak General Assembly. This varied ability to participate in government created tension among the classes. Like the Shudras, the Plebeians were ruled by the upper class, and confined to their respective class with little opportunity for objection. Though the formation of the caste system and the plebeian and patrician class occurred centuries apart, the two mirror each other in the way that they defined and assigned roles within society.
A patriarchal structure formed the basis of social organization in both classical China and Rome. This shared element of patriarchy impacted the social organization of each region in the way that the divide between men and women increased, and the power of men was absolute. During the Han Dynasty of classical China, women were considered inferior to men, so the fathers had control of family matters, such as whom their daughters would marry, as well as broader matters within the society, like politics, for example. This form of organization resulted in a significant barrier between men and women, further increasing the divide between the two genders. Like the social classes of India and Rome, patriarchy led to assigned roles within society, with the men having control over the wives and children, and the women having to take care of the children and the house. Classical Rome is known for pater familias, which means “father of the house”, a title bestowed upon the eldest male of the house. Similar to China, Roman men had complete dominance and mandated the family’s marriages, punishments, and slaves. The man of the house would be the one to accept the punishment for a crime committed by a family member, but could also sell his wife or children into slavery to pay off debt, for example. The idea that the men of the society had total jurisdiction of their families deepened a form of society in which men had the power of all people. Even though a patriarchal society was common throughout Asia and the Mediterranean, individual regions considered the top of society differently.
Though social classes were in place in both India and Greece in the 600s BCE to 600s CE, the individuals that were considered the highest of society were different in these regions.

In classical India, the priests and scholars, known as the Brahmins, were at the top of the caste system, as opposed to the aristocrats, who were at the top of classical Greece’s social class structure. The priests and scholars were the pinnacle of Indian society because they understood dharma, which was the concept that a person’s caste was determined by birth. Having the brahmins in leadership positions “reshaped Indian ideas about the gods”, since these religious figures were more closely associated with Hinduism than government. As opposed to the religious figures that were held to a higher value in Indian society, aristocrats were the highest of classical Greek society. Aristocratic rule, which is “rule by leading families”, was one of the forms of government used among the Greek city-states. Aristocrats formed the upper class as wealthy landowners, and were in charge of all government affairs. They also enjoyed a leisurely lifestyle, often depicted at plays or a symposium, for instance. The upper class individuals of India were associated with religion, education level, and the caste system, whereas those individuals in Greece were associated with social, economic, and political prestige linked to a ruling

family.
The caste system of classical India and the plebeian and patrician class in classical Rome represent the striking resemblance in social organization, as well as the patriarchal structure evident in both classical Chinese and Roman society, compared to the contracting ideas of who constitutes society’s upper class, such as the Brahmins of India and aristocrats of Greece. These similarities and differences that are notable of Indian, Chinese, and Mediterranean society reflect those of the postclassical period of 600-1450 BC, where society saw the most change in the spread of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, not politics. During this time, society throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe was closely related to religion and trade, less so on political status. Similar to India, the leaders of society were religious leaders who “looked down on merchants as likely to be seduced from a life of piety by the lure of wealth.” This arrangement with the wealthy religious leaders at the height of social organization and the merchants making up the lower class reflects the common social organization of Asian and Mediterranean societies of the classical period.