Factors That Encouraged or Inhibited the Development of Certain Types the State Systems - Essay Example

Factors that encouraged or inhibited the development of certain types the systems Introduction There are many factors, which served to encourage or inhibit the development of systems of state all over the world, and among the best cases of these are the Ancient Greek states and the Persian Empire. There are a large number of factors which determined the variations between the political organizations of these ancient states, while the Greece fierce since of intendance prevented the many states from uniting expect doing war against a common enemy. The primary focus of this paper is to examine the systems of governance that were applied by the aforementioned empires especially; their structures, comparative effectiveness and functions. The rulers of the Persian Empire used autocracy, which was a practical tool to handle the vast and extremely social-culturally diverse empire. This is contrasted with the Greeks whose fierce sense of independence is meant that only through democratic systems could their state systems be maintained. Among these factors is that when the Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great, it consisted of a large number of peoples from different ethnic groups within it stretching from the borders of Greece in the west to India in the east. It was for this reason that this far-flung empire had to have four main administrative centers which were headquartered in the cities of Pasargadae, Babylon, Ektabana, and Susa. Because of the diversity of the of the peoples within the empire, the rulers of Persia allowed the various regions which they ruled some autonomy in the form of the satrapy system and this consisted of administrative units that were organized according to a geographical basis. The geography of Persia proper was harsh, being mostly arid or semi-arid, and this was influential in creating a hardy race of people who had to look outside their own homeland to acquire the items which were necessary for their survival (Mojtahed-Zadeh 275). As a result of the geographical as well as the population diversity of the empire, the rulers of the empire tended to appoint regional governors known as satraps, whose duties included being a vassal king to the Persian emperor. This administrative system was developed in such a way that these satraps administered the region on his behalf and oversaw the recruitment of the military whenever the emperor had a need for it. For such a large empire to function well, it was necessary to keep accurate records so that all the administrative activities within it could be carefully scrutinized and organized. In order to fulfill these purposes, under the authority of the various satraps, there were often officials whose work was to ensure that all the records of the government of these units were well kept and maintained. The administrative system of the Persian Empire was highly autocratic and this was necessary because the Persians had acquired their empire through conquest (Mojtahed-Zadeh 273). This meant that they had to govern their acquired territories with an iron fist to ensure that any forms of rebellion within their empire were suppressed. Therefore, the Persian administration gave immense power to the emperor who had the power of life or death over all his subjects meaning that he was an absolute monarch whose authority could not be questioned. The forms of democracy which were prevalent in the Greek cities were absent in Persia, and this may have been a factor in keeping the empire unified since all the authority within it was vested in the emperor, who could either delegate it to individuals or take it away as he pleased. It can therefore be said that the Persian Empire developed its autocratic system of government as a response to the diversity in the population within it and it is this, more than anything else which ensured that the empire remained stable for several centuries. Ancient Greece on the other hand consisted of several hundred city states which were completely independent of each other and the political system which developed in Greece came about as a result of the geographical divisions which separated the Greek people in their different city states. These divisions often included ranges of hills and valleys which prevented many of the Greek cities from uniting under a single state. The Greek administrative system was extremely unique in the ancient world since in that period, societies tended to be either organized into tribes or kingdoms under a single ruler. The Greeks fiercely defended the independence of their city-states and it was very rare for them to even think of the idea of unifying themselves into one cohesive state (Christ et al 514). Their fierce sense of independence was clearly demonstrated when most of these states tended to fight against one another in an attempt to ensure that their independence was protected. In fact, after the Persian invasion of Greece and its eventual defeat, despite the fact that they had allied against a common enemy, these city states promptly resumed their independence. It can therefore be said that the Greek city states tended to be different from other states of the same era mainly because of their fragmentary nature, meaning that their main focus was on their home cities rather than in their identity as a people of common origins who shared the same culture. Most of the Greek city-states, except for the kingdoms, had a form of government which was based on some form of democracy. This meant that all adult males in the city had a right to take part in the administrative affairs of the city as long as they were not bound to slavery, and they were native to the city (Christ et al 513). In those cities which practiced the democratic system, there was a popular assembly in which all adult male citizens were members, and in addition to this, matters of a judicial nature were often decided on by large juries which consisted of members of the citizen body. The main reason for the emergence of democratic systems in these city states was the fact that there was always conflict between the noble houses which had dominated the affairs of these cities for a long time, and other freeborn citizens, who felt that they had earned the right to participate in the affairs of government. To prevent the rise of internal conflict within these city states, it was prudent for the free born citizens to be given equal rights to that of the nobility to govern the city and this helped to create a balance within the majority of the Greek society. Conclusion Ultimately, the two systems albeit the different approaches to governance they entailed were relatively successful because the nature of the empires dictated what could or could not work. The Persian Empire was extensive and due to the multicultural composition, it was difficult to bring together all the different elements owing to the multiplicity of contradicting beliefs and practices. Ergo, any leader hoping to control the empire had to use force, the Greeks on the other hand were culturally interconnected and their interest differences were mostly political. They thought of themselves as a people and everyman was considered equal, based on that autocracy would not work, neither was it needed and democracy was the natural option. Work Cited Christ, Matthew R., et al. "Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece." The Classical Review 58.2 (2008): 513-4. Mojtahed-Zadeh, Pirouz. ""Boundary" in Ancient Persian Tradition of Statehood: An Introduction to the Origins of the Concept of Boundary in Pre-Modern History." GeoJournal 66.4 (2006): 273-83. Read More