Egypt

Alexander, son of king Philip II and Olympias was born in 356 B. C. E, and at age 19, became king of Macedon. With a great army at his disposal and his brilliant military mind, he started his conquest. From 337-323 B. C. E Alexander conquered Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and a large part of Asia. Alexander ruled from Macedonia to the northern part of India. He defeated the Persians numerous times with his incredible military strategies, even when his armies were outnumbered by almost 200,000 Persian soldiers.

The sheer size of his empire was unlike anything ever seen before but when he died in 323 B. C. E, the three main areas he conquered (Greece/Macedonia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia/ Asia) were split up and became their own kingdoms. The area that was once Greece and Macedonia became the Antigonid Kingdom, the Egyptian are became the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Asia/ Mesopotamia area became the Seleucid Kingdom. The Ptolemaic Kingdom came about when one of Alexander’s cavalry companions, Ptolemy, took his loyal troops to the Egyptian area to take over the wealthy land. Once there, Ptolemy diverted Alexander’s body to Egypt, which was originally being sent to Macedonia for burial.

Once in Alexandria, Ptolemy took Alexander’s body and built a massive and imposing tomb for his late king. After defending Egypt from some of Alexander’s other generals who wanted Egypt, the Ptolemies ruled Egypt as their god/kings. This only took place after they struck up a bargain with the Egyptian priests and in which the Egyptians could continue living under the same Egyptian god belief system while the Ptolemies ruled as kings. Along with that agreement, the Ptolemies promised to allow the priests to maintain the up keeping of their temples and deceased pharaohs.

The Ptolemies departed from the beliefs and rules set forth by Philip and Alexander by allowing the Queens of the rulers more power then they ever had before. The perfect example of this was Cleopatra VII who even challenged the growing power of Rome. The Ptolemies also didn’t really blend with the Egyptians, which was a major idea Alexander wanted to make happen (the blending of Page 2 cultures). This can be seen when the Ptolemies stayed in Alexandria conducting business and trading with Rome, where the Egyptians maintained their old religion.

The Seleicid Kingdom is named after one of Ptolemy’s generals, Seleusid. After the death of Alexander, Seleusid entered Babylon in 311 B. C. E and captured the imperial treasure there. With the vast wealth at his disposal, Seleusid claimed the land as the old heartland of Persia. Unfortunately because the area was so large, Seleusid had to trade back northern India and eventually lost Asia Minor. Seleusid imported Greek and Macedonian bureaucrats and colonists. North of Babylonia a new city was built and it was named Seleucia and would eventually become its capital.

Knowing that trade with the eastern countries were vital to their survival, Seleucid’s major cities were built around trade routes that connected the countries. Around 20,000 Macedonians came to Seleusid and they felt as if they were world conquerors and felt they needed to be compensated. The Macedonians were given a significant amount of farmland because when they arrived, Seleusid realized that these people were the backbone of their society because they had no religion already set up in the area. Unlike the past rulers, Philip and Alexander, Seleusid was very worried about expanding, rather he was worried about losing land.

This was because when Seleusid came to Babylon to start his new Kingdom, he had only brought a few military forces with him. This was a problem because he controlled so much land that he didn’t have enough military personnel to control the kingdom. If I was in Seleusid’s position I would have asked for everyone in the old countries such as Greece and Macedonia to come over. Doing so would give me a much larger army and then I would not have to worry about losing land, rather I could expand. The last area of land left was Alexander’s home country, Macedonia, and Greece which he conquered.

This land would become Antigonids once Alexander died and would be situated in Greece. The kings of Antigonids were descendants of Antigonus the one eyed, who was a general in Alexander’s army when Alexander died. Unfortunately, Antigonus died without conquering the land, but his descendants eventually claimed Macedonia and Greece as Antigonids. At the time of Alexander’s death, many of Alexanders treasures that he took were taken back to Page 3 Macedonia. It was said that the last shipment taken back to Macedonia before Alexander’s death took 110 warships just to carry all the treasure back.

So the country was very wealthy but the wealth hardly even changed society. In fact, hardly anything had changed in Macedonia since Philip II was king. The army in the kingdom still consisted of only Macedonia nobles who fought for the king and unfortunately in the 280’s B. C. E the Gauls (group from the north) invaded Antigonids and caused them serious damage. Along with the damage from the north, in the south, the Greeks, who had never really accepted the Macedonians, started revolting against the Antigonids.

The Antigonids branched away from their past rulers, Philip II and Alexander by never expanding and never blending the neighboring cultures together. The Greeks never accepted the Antigonids’ rule and although total warefare never broke out, it damaged the Kingdom as a whole. Not only did the Kingdom fail to expand, they couldn’t even keep their own citizens in tact. If I were any of the kings in the Antigonids kingdom, I would have tried to resolve the differences with Greece and the Gauls because if they could have become allies, there would have been room for expansion.

There are many historical events that marked the British Imperialism of 1870 to 1914. Great Britain’s African rule was established and consolidated. This was focused mainly in the East and Southern Africa. British won the conflict with the French in Fashoda in 1898. Further, Britain also defeated Dutch resistance in the Boer War between 1899 and 1902. Britain also annexed Rhodesia into its territory. Great Britain got power over Burma and Malaysia. The two “opium wars” one in 1839 to 1842 and the second 1856 to 1860 widened the trade with China and the loss of Port of Vladivostok along the Pacific Ocean.

Most importantly, Great Britain won the conflict for rule over India against France. The British East India Company was instrumental in consolidating the British rule in India. The British policy was very clear and that was to exploit India economically. There were problems for the British no doubt, for instance there was the “sepoy” mutiny of 1857-58 that was quickly put down. Further, in 1885 Indian National Congress was established and that marked increased nationalism in India. This imperialism paid because during the World War I India supported Great Britain with men and finances (Matias.

P 267). This brings us to the reason for British Imperialism between 1870 and 1914. The most important reason for the imperialism was economic. This was fuelled by the industrial revolution. This generated large amounts of capital in Great Britain as well as a huge demand for raw materials to feed the factories. There was a need for Britain to procure raw materials from abroad as well as seek investment opportunities for the new capital. Adding to this reason was the need to express nationalism. Imperialism provided Great Britain an opportunity to expand colonialism.

There was a spirit of acquisition and a political race among the European countries to acquire more and more colonies (Laity, P. 74). Finally, the most powerful impetus in Great Britain was the military. The military exerted great power in Britain and the military stressed the need for Britain to control importantly located areas and the need to set up military bases in key locations. To add to this cauldron of reasons was a religious fervor that favored imperialism. The extension of colonies was believed to be an act of humanitarianism in Great Britain.

There are very mixed opinions on what benefits imperialism brought to Britain. There are suggestions by economists that with unemployment and industrial stagnation at home, the export of capital was a miscalculation. Economists believed that Great Britain would have been much better off with its capital at home rather than investing it abroad in colonies. The investments in colonies were not believed to be productive. Capture of new markets and expansion of economic imperialism was sadly behind schedule and satisfactory.

Late nineteenth century capital investments in colonies were believed to be non-productive. The returns were lower than investments made back in Great Britain. On the other hand the argument that imperialism was humanist is nature is refuted by ‘nationalist’ writers who discuss the economic costs of British imperialism to Britain’s colonies, most prominently India. These writers claim that the British did not bring finances, medical advancement or prosperity to India; instead they brought with them a lasting legacy of backwardness and poverty.

In other words it is argued that British imperialism brought economic impairment both to Britain and its colonies. Those who insist that British Imperialism brought benefits assert that Great Britain brought economic openness to its colonies especially in the period 1870 to 1914. This openness was brought not only to African and Asian colonies but also to South America and Japan. In addition, the proponents of British Imperialism point out that Great Britain allowed some emigration to some of its colonies and so promoted the migration of labor from less developed to more developed societies.

Moreover, historians claim that British Imperialism led to greater movement of investment capital to agrarian societies. Further, in its colonies British Imperialism has brought about good governance that includes the right to private property, reasonable and efficient government, What the British did in its colonies was to hold taxes to moderate levels. The British Imperialism is reputed to have provided its colonies with honest governments; there was not much nepotism. The government provided in the colonies was responsive to the needs of the people.

The government and the law provided backing to enforcement of contracts and most importantly, the British imperialism provided in its colonies a right to individual liberty, especially against felony and corruption (Heyck, T, 35). The British established the common law in its colonies. From 1870s the British practiced the principle of keeping the tariffs low and the practice of cheap bread. In much of the British colonies the tariffs were also kept low except for the Dominions that were given the right to set their own tariffs in late nineteenth century.

Had Britain withdrawn from its colonies in the late nineteenth century then larger tariffs would have been imposed against its exports and tariff barriers would have become the norm (Twaddle, M 17). The British Imperialism took place in the context of increasing tussle in Europe over strategic position, resources and esteem. During the period preceding 1870 that is between 1815 and 1871, Great Britain enjoyed profits of industrialization relatively easily. The British industry could produce expertly produced goods that could capture any market and out compete any other local products.

However, the Franco-Prussian war in 1871 challenged the position of Britain. From the economic point of view what happened was that the industrial supremacy was gradually replaced with a need for financial conquest. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the industrial and commercial sluggishness in Britain spurred the formation of large companies and even conglomerates. The financial sector increased its influence over the British politics. There was a clamor that the government should protect the foreign investments.

What prompted such demands was that the foreign investments were in assets like railroads and there was political unrest in several colonies where the investment had been made. In 1875 Britain purchased the shareholdings of the Egyptian ruler Ismail and managed to establish control over the Suez Canal. The French control in the area ended when the British occupied Egypt in 1882. After this the British wanted to control the Nile valley. For this they conquered Sudan between 1896 and 1898. The focus of the British Empire then focused on South Africa and in 1899 completed the takeover of that country.

The British Empire had reaped great harvests from occupying Transvaal with its deposits of gold and the Orange Free State (Cain, P 250). The British High Commissioner Alfred Miller pleaded for a British Empire that ranged from “Cape to Cairo” and that should be linked by railroad. This he explained would help exploit the minerals of the region. The military still exercised its say in the expansion of its Imperialism. To counter the expansion of Russia in 1878, Great Britain occupied Cyprus and established a base there. On the other side Afghanistan was annexed and occupied to block any Russian advance in that direction.

This military strategic advancement led to the gory confrontation in Tibet (1903 – 1904). Economic explanations were provided for the far ranging increase of the British Empire. The explanation was that Great Britain was trying to protect its shrinking markets. It was under these explanations that Great Britain modified its policies in 1890 and tried to grab as much of the tropical African territories as possible. In India after the ‘sepoy’ rebellion, there was a formal transfer of power from the British East India Company to the British government.

The Governor-General the highest Company official in India was now appointed by the British government. In 1876 Queen Victoria was proclaimed the Empress of India and replaced the administration with civil servants trained in top British Universities. The princely states of India accepted the lordship of British. In 1880s British imperialism saw its expansion with the occupation of Burma. To sum, the British Imperialism of 1870-1914 saw the almost unbridled growth of the British Empire that gave birth to the saying “The sun never sets on the British Empire”.

Even though there were costs that Britain had to bear in general it made several gains and established itself as a superior economic, military and political power. Reference: Cain, P. Hobson and Imperialism: Hobson Imperialism C, Oxford University Press,2002. Heyck, T, A History of the Peoples of the British Isles Routledge, Great Britain, 2002. Laity, P. The British Peace Movement 1870-1914, Oxford University press, 2001. Matias. P, The First Industrial Nation: The Economic History of Britain, Routledge, Great Britain, 1969. Twaddle, M. Imperialism and the State in the Third World, British Academy Press, 1992,

The 1940’s were marked by wars for independence. The postwar period witnessed the end of the old foreign rule of colonial masters Britain and France. They were, however, replaced by the United States and former USSR competing for allies and resources and embroiled the area in what came to be known as the cold war. From the 1970s, and especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U. S. emerged as the supreme foreign power alongside domestic turbulence ravaging the region.

The military staged coups against Arab old ruling landed elites during the 1950s and 1960s and key figures in installing new regimes composed of predominantly the military and senior bureaucrats. These new political order embraced radical ideologies, notably pan-Arabism and socialism, and implemented populist programs. One such program was land reform. However, at the time education levels were well below other developing regions, with adult illiteracy estimated at 85 percent in 1939 and only 23 percent of children ages 5–19 enrolled in school.( Yousef 2004).

The 1970s showed a dwindling down of these ideologies, giving way to a certain economic liberalization as well as pragmatism in foreign policy. But Political regimes saw no democratization and most of which even developed into highly authoritarian regimes with little or no tolerance for any opposition. A number of major wars, both within and between states, has marked regions history, causing great losses to life and property.

The most notable is the Arab-Israeli wars which emerged as a seemingly permanent condition after 1948, when the Arab states and the Palestinians vowed to destroy the newly created state of Israel and put an Arab Palestinian State in its place. After four bloody wars failed to dislodge the Israelis who gained territory and perhaps fatigue, realism prompted diplomatic courses of action which brought about historic peace treatises among the nations of the region.

Although the promise of Israel as America’s strategic asset was never quite fulfilled, Washington’s pursuit of such relationship was part of a more ambitious quest. (Little 2002). Happening alongside where the major conflicts of war for independence by the Algerians in 1954, Yemen and Lebanon experience civil war in 1962 and 1975 respectively, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Morocco’s long war in the Western Sahara which begun in 1976 and culminating in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. However, during these tumultuous times, the Middle East saw rapid demographic and economic growth.

The region’s population grew at an astonishing rate, accelerating from about 2 percent per year in 1945–60 to almost 3 percent per year in 1960–93. The total population rose from about 61 million in 1945 to 255 million. Massive rural-urban migration fueled this population explosion and has in turn establishes family planning. The 1950 swept the region in an economic boom. The standard of living improved everywhere and the economy was becoming more diversified and less dependent on agriculture which expanded its production but still represented a diminishing share of total output.

It was the onslaught of industries driven by fossil fuel that made considerable advances despite only a modest level of development by world standards. Most Arab States took an active and sometimes exclusive role in directing their national economies. Their bureaucracies and public sectors swelled to unprecedented dimensions, especially as a high proportion of their budgets went into the military and internal security forces, which expanded tremendously.

In 1970s, the region’s oil industry gained world importance, and especially when oil prices soared. An immense amount of wealth flowed into the oil states from the West and set in motion several regional trends: large-scale investment in development schemes; a massive migration of workers to the oil states; a growing gap between rich and poor countries; increasing dependence of the oil states on the West for goods, expertise, and investment opportunities; and economic liberalization in the poorer states as a way of sharing in the boom.

This also created liberalization in terms of culture where the position of women changed with the great socioeconomic transformations of the period. When prohibited not a long time ago, women now entered the educational system and the workforce in unprecedented numbers. Several countries passed laws to reduce social inequalities and to provide women with a greater measure of security within the family. The feminist cause gained some ground, although conservative elements insisted on keeping women in more traditional social roles.

The cultural scene was also transformed, especially by the expansion of education and the spread of the mass media. The number of schools and students increased dramatically at all levels, and illiteracy rates declined. Radio and then television became commonplace and, together with the cinema, formed the prime sources of popular entertainment as well as exposure to the wider world. Along with audio and video media are the output of novels and poetry which has immensely increased. The region has produced two regional writers, S. Y.

Agnon of Israel and Najib Mahfuz of Egypt and won Nobel Prizes for their literary accomplishments. However, a remarkable and somewhat scary phenomenon amid these changes has spawned and this is the emergence of militant Islamic opposition movements throughout the region at which point or thereabout appeared the words “fundamentalist” to refer to these emerging militants. The programs of the various “fundamentalist” groups differed in methods and demands, but all shared a rejection of secular government and the desire to impose an Islamic identity on state and society.

Although only in Iran was a government overthrown by Muslim opposition, movements everywhere won wide appeal among the disaffected. Their clashes with the authorities, often violent, intensified a long-standing, bitter debate over the nature and future of Muslim societies. The rise of fundamentalism also triggered bitter cultural disputes among intellectuals in countries such as Egypt between the fundamentalists and the defenders of more pluralist traditions and secular outlooks.

But in the 1960s and 1970s, Egypt and other countries of the Middle East experienced robust economic growth, based largely on high levels of investment in physical capital that facilitated substantial increases in per capita income. However, despite the increase in economic growth the GDP decelerated in 1970s. It might seem obvious that the higher oil prices of the 1970s should have sustained the growth cycle in this oil-exporting region, but GDP growth per worker in the Middle East decelerated in that decade, and factor productivity growth actually turned negative.

In the 1980s and even well into the 1990s, growth per worker in the region was decreased steadily, and modest gains in human capital were largely offset by a continuous decline in total factor productivity. This prompted a wide range of explanations for the economic slowdown in the Middle East and one of them was expressed, including structural economic imbalances, in the so-called “curse” of natural-resource abundance deficient political systems, conditions of war and conflict and even culture and religion. ,

Known as one of the earliest civilizations, Mesopotamia and Egypt both share set amounts of similarities along with a share of striking distinctions. Environmentally, these two civilizations were formed in similar surroundings, yet their weather patterns show distinctions. Politically, both governments derived from a monarch, yet their laws and punishments distinguished the two’s court systems. Economically, they both shared prosperous success in similar manners.

Socially, although the two lands followed a hierarchy, the value of women contrasted.Culturally, they both believed in a higher order of creation; however, their views of them were polar opposites. Intellectually, these two societies developed skilled abilities and creations that changed history forever. In terms of environment, these two civilizations were formed in similar surroundings. They were both the earliest river-valleys to be charted by anthropologists. Because they were both formed near rivers, it’s no coincidence that the life of both of these places depended mainly on rivers.The Tigris and Euphrates rivers aided in Mesopotamian life, while the river Nile supporting the Nile civilization of Egypt.

However, one difference between Mesopotamia and Egypt is the weather patterns of their respected localities. The Nile civilization admired and celebrated at the mineral waters that came in the favorably regular floods that provided lush vegetation and ease for society support, where in contrast, Sumerians had to settle for ruthless and unpredictable floods that lead towards more destruction than aid to their settlement.Politically, both governments derived from a monarch. Mesopotamia and Egypt had a sole and absolute ruler who rained over their respective territories, usually for life and by heredity. However, the laws these two civilizations lived by with their people were dissimilar. Laws of the Nile were based on “common sense view” of right and wrong that emphasized reaching agreements and resolving conflicts rather than strictly adhering to a complicated set of statuses.A large factor as to why this is so is because of the Pharaoh’s (name given to the ruler of Egypt) duty as a ruler to provide Ma’at or the personification of the fundamental order of the universe.

The Mesopotamian laws, in contrast, were hard and unfortunate, which were set by King Hammurabi himself during his long reign of Babylon. In Hammurabi’s court, it did not matter if you were rich or poor, if you broke the law, and were found guilty, you would be punished and required to follow the laws and punishments that were clearly written in stone (the code of Hammurabi).Economically, these two civilizations both shared prosperous success in similar manners. One connection between Mesopotamia and Egypt is that they both manipulated their designated rivers to perform critical trade operations by using them as routes. They were able to communicated and send goods with other civilizations in a farther location via the river system. Also, these two civilizations were very productive in the agricultural field due to the strategically created irrigation systems that provided water to their fertile soils to provide lush vegetations in Nile and Sumer.The one difference between Mesopotamia and Egypt in terms of economy is that the Nile government controlled most if not all of the trading monopoly, and they had their citizens pay substantial taxes.

In social terms, Egypt and Mesopotamia followed a hierarchy. A body of people with authority, categorized according to their ability or status, such as king, priests, and peasants, is what dictated daily life in both civilizations. Women, conversely, were treated and thought of differently. The Egyptians believed in equality of women and marked them decently high in terms of respect records show.In Mesopotamia, women were much considered inferior compared to men. Anthropologists theorize that women lost social standing and freedom with the spread of agriculture. The standing of women seems to have declined further in the second millennium B.

C. E. , perhaps because of the rise of an urbanized middle class and an increase in private wealth. Culturally, these two river valley civilizations both believed in a higher order of creation. Similar to one another, both practiced polytheism or the belief and worship of more than one God.However, their views of these deities were polar opposites. Optimistic by the stability of their environment, Egyptians conceived a positive notion of the God’s designs for humankind.

They believed that despite the hardships their people went through, the righteous spirit could journey to the next world and look forward to a blessed existence. In contrast the Mesopotamians believed that due to the harsh conditions they went through were signs of the displeasure of the gods, and they needed to appease them in order to survive the unpredictable world they lived in.Along with a strong belief of the afterlife, Egyptians built lavish tombs within gracious pyramids to honor their pharaoh so that as they live among the deities, he will aid in bringing prosperity to the land he once came. Mesopotamians, however, build step pyramids not to worship the gods, but to worship the king himself whole currently ruled their territory. It was mainly culture, not physical appearance that served as the criterion of personal identification in both Egypt and Mesopotamia. Intellectually, these two societies developed skilled abilities and creations that changed history forever.Egyptians and Mesopotamians were skilled mathematicians due to the accurate recordings and construction involved in creating the irrigations that derived their agricultural success.

Both societies maintained an interest in astronomy, which later, Egyptian agronomists created one of the first accurate 365 day calendars up to date. There have also been ancient records that demonstrate Mesopotamian use of the potter’s wheel. In addition, the Egyptians were expert chemists, as they modified and improve their ability to preserve the bodies of their righteous leaders or loved ones through the process of mummification.In addition, these civilizations both created sophisticated writing system to differentiate their culture from others, such as Egyptians developing hieroglyphics written on papyrus while the Mesopotamians lived by the cuneiform writing system. These first civilizations developed high levels of political centralization, urbanization, and technology due to their situations in river valleys, and their need to support agriculture through rainfall forced these communities to work as one ton construct and maintain canals, dams, weirs, and dikes.Their intellect seeks fat as to create their own original forms of writing as well. Not only did the crops support the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, but the surplus was able to support specialized artisan experts in engineering, mathematics, and metallurgy.

It was the culture, not appearance that separated these two civilizations. Both followed the system of a hierarchy, yet Egyptians held their women high in respect while the Mesopotamians saw them as inferior to society.Egyptians cherished their kind Gods and Pharaohs for the prosperity they bring to their land in terms of agriculture and weather, why the Mesopotamians scrambled to appease their harsh deities to survive their unpredictable weather conditions. Kinship governed these two societies, yet the Code of Hammurabi was the critical difference in their respective political systems. It is no doubt that the origin of human civilizations first started in these locales, and both have made a huge impact in future societies for many years to come.