(Insert Institute)
An increase in population and wealth led to the creation of governments and in turn saw to the rise of powerful empires. Said empires have since been recorded among the most influential domains in the history of the world. Consequently, as one empire rose to power another fell in the hands of their enemies thus creating a form of competition amongst neighboring domains. For instance, Greece was a colony of the Ottoman Empire until the Greek War of Independence that lasted between 1821 and 1831 (Masters and Agoston, 2009, p. 240). Therefore, the empires rose to power depending on their wealth and the number of protectorates over which they presided. It is safe to argue that, Empires thrived from resources gained from their colonies and citizens. Among the most prominent ancient kingdoms were the Greek, Persian, and Ottoman Empires, which were all dominant and influential powers in their prime years. This research paper compares the factors that led to the rise and fall of the three empires, their methods of administration and socialization, the level of influence they each have on the present governments and societies, and finally their levels of civilization during their heydays.
The Persian Empire came into power because of political conquests and the resulting acquisition of colonies. In “The Age of Empires” Aldrich (2007) states that, the Persians employed “tolerance and diplomacy” (p.99) as evidenced by their release of the captured Jews to return to Jerusalem (p.101). Under the rule of Cyrus the Great “between 550 and 539 B.C”, the Persians began a succession of rapid conquests in wars with neighboring civilizations (Aldrich, 2007, p.99). Thus, under Cyrus’s rule, the Persians gained one colony after another and established its massive empire that covered an estimated two thousand miles of land (Aldrich, 2007, p.99). It is important to note that, Cyrus forbade the use of unnecessary violence, and plunder in his conquests, a fact that earned him the respect of the people in gained colonies (Aldrich, 2007, p.99). It was not until 530 B.C that the Persian Empire was expanded into Egypt under the rule of Cambyses (Aldrich, 2007, p.100). By the time Darius came into power, Persians ruled over two thousand five hundred miles of land, including “present-day Afghanistan” (Aldrich, 2007, p.100).
On the other hand, the rise of the Ottoman Empire finds basis in its economic activities that led to its ruler’s intuition to revive fallen towns. Langer and Blake (1932) concur as they state the rise of the Ottoman Empire was influenced by “the expansion of trade and the revival of towns” (p.501). Between the thirteenth and fourteenth century, under the ruling of Seljuq and Mongol, the towns became safer, trade routes were cleared of bandits, and structures erected to attract traders and merchants (Langer and Blake, 1932, p.502). Consequently, trade was made easier as a vast territory was controlled by Empire. In the same manner, the Greek Empire came into power as people decided to participate in trade. According to Gilpin (1998), the city the population of Greece’s major city, Athens, experienced rapid population growth due to its ability to offer “freedom from conflict” (p.597). Consequently, the Greeks grew in technological and economical aspects as its people adopted naval power and enhanced trade routes across the Mediterranean. Therefore, “states interacted more intimately, and an interdependent international economic and political system took shape” (Gilpin, 1998, p.598). Thus, while the Ottoman and Persian empires utilized military conquest, the Greek Empire was the result of the correlation of a people seeking solitude and protection from conflicting civilizations.
The empires were by default, political enemies as each sought to expand their territory and protect their already acquired colonies. The major similarity exists in the leaders’ option to divide the Empires into smaller territories. The empires opted to have smaller provinces under the rule of a common leader, in this case a king in Persia and Greece, and a Sultan in Ottoman. From that point onwards, there are some contrasts. According to Pamuk (2004), In the Ottoman Empire, the central government managed to exert its power over the aforementioned provinces using “new technologies and a better military” (p.242). On the other hand, under king Darius, the twenty provinces of Persia each had a “Satrap” as local ruler (Aldrich, 2007, p.101). Satraps were the governors of said provinces and in addition, Darius “appointed a military leader and a tax collector for each province” (Aldrich, 2007, p.101). Consequently, inspectors were sent to ensure all the appointed persons were up to par with Darius’ laws as the ultimate leader. Among the Greeks, the states were allowed self-governance rather than an appointed ruler. It is safe to argue that the central government sought to please the people by allowing them some control in choosing their local leaders. According to Powell (2001), said states were referred to as “Poleis” (p.225). Burckhardt (1999), points out that the Greeks represented their nation “as a whole, not only as countless separate poleis” (p.176).
Hence, the three empires employed the divide and rule technique to manage their territories. In Persia, the military protected the citizens and their wealth while fighting conquests for their king. For instance, Cyrus’ generals prevented the destruction of property during invasions (Aldrich, 2007, p.101). In fact, under king Darius, the only failure noted was his inability to conquer Greece (Aldrich, 2007, p.101). Consequently, as the people were allowed to maintain their traditions, Darius’ focus was on acquiring more colonies and maintaining the peace in already conquered lands. In contrast, the Greeks and Ottomans believed in the power of a large militia. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Ottoman Empire “spent revenues locally to train and equip a predetermined number of soldiers” (Pamuk, 2004, p.230). It is important to note that all three empires had large armies; the contrast came in the functioning of said armies and their allocated responsibilities within the territories.
The cultural practices among the Greeks were mainly religious as each province paid tribute to the deities. In “Athens and Sparta”, Powell (2001) attests to the reverence of divine beings by focusing on the role of religion among the Greeks as a form of cement to ensure cohesion among the citizens (p.408). It is therefore, no wonder that sacrifices and other religious rituals were in the norm in Greek culture. For example, before going to war, soldiers will pour wine as libations to gain favor from the gods (Powell, 2001, p.408). Among the Ottomans, culture entailed teachings of the Islamic religion and in some areas, such as the Balkans, Christianity prevailed. In addition, Ottoman territory had Greek and Turkish speakers thus leading to Pamuk’s (2004) assessment stating, “The Ottomans were flexible and pragmatic from the start” (p.228). Religion was also important among the Persians though it did not provide the unity evidenced between the other two empires. A stated before, King Darius was a lenient leader (Aldrich, 2007, p.99), and rather than force the people to adapt to his beliefs and cultures, he allowed the people to maintain their own (Aldrich, 2007, p.101). Hence, unlike the Greek, the Ottoman and Persian empires allowed different cultures within their territories. In turn, the social cohesion in the empires was maintained by the central governments whilst the people remained loyal.
Economically, the Ottomans were according to Masters and Agoston (2009) nomadic as “Between 1570 and 1580, 220,217 households out of a total 1,360,474” (p.437) consisted of nomads. Upon settling, the Ottomans adopted “trade on land and sea” (p.477) and agriculture in some provinces (p.20) as forms of economic activities. Similarly, the Persians invested in farming and methods to improve the trade markets and routes to aid their merchants. Such is the case as written by Aldrich (2007) where the Persian territory had “fertile farmland” (p.99) in addition to minerals that included “copper, lead, gold, silver, and gleaming blue lapis lazuli” (p.99). With the use of the minerals, Darius saw to the creation of monetary trade where coins were used as a purchasing medium (Cameron, 1948, p.419). Among the Greeks, the economy revolved around the intellectual abilities of its people. Also part of their culture, “education at Athens varied greatly in accordance with family wealth” and people that possessed said education held a higher rank in society (Powell, 2001, p.295). In fact, the Greek empire was compared to a tyranny (Powell, 2001, p.444) due to its use of military forces to govern its citizens. In addition, the people had the ability for the “technical innovation of naval power” (Gilpin, 1998, p.598) which aided in its trading enterprises. Concurrently, the three governments gained riches through revenues from imposed taxes on its citizens.
Factors leading to the decline of the Empires are similar in the sense that the governing of multiple colonies while keeping enemies at bay proved to be a hard task for the kings to accomplish. For the Ottomans, the coming of the Europeans marked the first sign of its decline. In “The Ottoman Empire: Its Rise, Decline and Collapse”, Fanani (2011) concurs by arguing that many Ottomans lost confidence “about their system after they suffered military downfall at the hand of European powers” (p.94). In fact, the country was later termed the ‘Sick Man of Europe’ due to its inability to curb the white man’s invasion (Fanani, 2011, p.95). Among the Greeks, Powell (2001) believes that the shortage of people was the first cause to its declined Empire (100). In addition, due to the hierarchy created among the intellects and the commoners, most of the Greeks opted to settle in other areas. Burckhardt (1999) suggests that the main reason for the Greeks decline in population was the “accumulation of inherited wealth in fewer hands” (p.171). The Persians were, at the time of their decline, faced by war as they fought to subdue the Greeks (Cameron, 1948, p.397). Indeed all three empires faced outside threats, but within their territories, uprisings were rising with their people seeking self-governance. For instance, the Ottomans were mainly nomadic Turks who according to Langer and Blake (1932) had “no tradition of strong autocracy” (p.487). The Persians, under King Artaxerxes faced rebel forces due to cases of over-taxation (Cameron, 1948, p.397). At the same time, internal conflicts in the Greek Empire led to the aforementioned loss of citizens. It is important to note that all three empires lost territories at a gradual pace and eventually, the power of a sovereign ruler was lost.
Conclusively, the three empires have had an impact on present day governments. In other words, there are some similarities between the ways of life and the methods chosen by the rulers to ensure social cohesion. For instance, whilst there were central government and sovereign ruler in the empires, nowadays there are governments with an elected president as the head of state. In addition, the rulers opted to divide their kingdoms for easier governance. In fact, king Darius of the Persians appointed governors to his provinces. Likewise, most countries are divided into smaller territories with a leader who is answerable to the head of state. Consequently, it is no wonder that the art of taxation is still the main source of revenue for most countries today. Education among the Greeks was valued as it is valued in many countries today. On that note, the Greeks exhibit a higher form of civilization in comparison to the Persians and Ottomans. Stevenson (2010) defines civilization as “The stage of human social development and organization, which is considered most advanced” (Oxford Dictionary of English). Consequently, with their intellectual abilities, the Greeks were more advanced in comparison to their counterparts. For instance, they developed a social order to aid in their functioning as a society. After all, there ought to be masters and servants within societies to ensure balance. The idea of people being equal is impossible if not absurd as said cohesion will be impossible.
Reference
Aldrich, R. (2007). First Age of Empires. London: Thames & Hudson.
Burckhardt, J. (1999). The Greeks and Greek Civilization . New York: St. Martin's Griffin.
Cameron, G. C. (1948). History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ekinci, M. U. (2006). the Origins of the 1897 Ottoman-Greek War: A Diplomatic History. Ankara: Bilkent University.
Fanani, A. F. (2011). THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: Its Rise, Decline and Collapse. Journal of University of Muhammadiyah Malang Salam Graduate Vol. 14, No. 1, 93-109.
Gilpin, R. (1998). The Theory of Hegemonic War. the Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4, The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars, 591-613.
Masters, B. and Agoston, G. (2009). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Infobase Publishing.
Pamuk, S. (2004). Institutional Change and the Longetivity of the Ottoman Empire, 1500-1800. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 35, No. 2, 225-247.
Powell, A. (2001). Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 BC (Second Edition). New York: Routledge.
Stevenson, A. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
William L. Langer and Robert P. Blake. (1932). The Rise of the Ottoman Turks and Its Historical Background. The American Historical Review, Vol. 37, No. 3, 468-505.
