At first, the social structure was much like the caste system in India, with the social classes being mostly warriors, priests, and peasants. Family and clan relationship was the main focus and males were the head of the household. As the empire grew there came a need for imperial administrators, which formed the new class of bureaucrats. These bureaucrats were the ones that became the top of the order, they broke the foundation of having elite warriors on top and put themselves there instead. This class was made up of the administrators, tax collectors, record keepers, and translators. They essentially were the heart of the empire and controlled most of what went on inside of it. The artisans, craftspeople, farmers, merchants, and low-ranking
Their social organization was class-based hierarchy under king or emperor armies. As I was reading all those four classification you can see when they go to the next classification they eventually evolve. They have more people part of the society and they start to settle and have leaders. Also, the individuals start performing one task.
For example, the Han Dynasty had an censorate group of officials who controlled the militia and carried out the law of the emperor to ensure it was the same for all of China this made the people share the amount rights they got, therefore joined them together. Similarly, the Han Dynasty had bureaucracy which mainly had them enforce Confucianism to unify the people. A similar political structure occurred in the Mediterranean in the Roman Empire. During the Pax Romana, a group of male officials called the Senate appointed governors to each province, which made it easier for the emperor to directly rule. This in turn made the citizens unite because it made the system of court more just.
They were known to show power through public works such as protective walls, bridges, roads, and canals. Both empires really emphasized the importance of family. The empires both strongly
This resulted in the merchants having a lot of power within the empire. Similar to the Aztec empire,
Since there were so many people in the empire, the local governments could make sure everybody was happy and enforce stability and laws. It was also their duty to keep the economy running and in good
The noble class comprised the top echelons of Aztec society; they dominated the priesthood, the government, and practically all of the empire's riches. They also occupied the majority of the influential posts in those three spheres. The Aztecs had a rigid social structure in which people fell into one of four categories: nobles, commoners, serfs, or slaves. High ranking priests, nobles, and members of the military made up the noble class. Society was firmly under the authority of the nobility.
Men farmed their own or nobles land. There were three classes. On the top was the emperor who was supported by the military. 1st was the nobles who were military and government authority. Next were artisans then commoners.
Thirdly, They adopted the centralized government, but they softened the harsh ruling style. They had many government officials to help run the vast empire. During this time, the government “functioned as a large, complex organization that functions under a given set of rules and conditions”. People that were above them in each level of bureaucracy directed people a level below them. The highest level of Han officials got to live in the capital to give the emperor advice.
Finally, they had a sophisticated way of controlling their empire, as they maintained communication with everyone throughout the empire,
The man was in command of the family and he was to teach them and provide for them as best he could. The rights for women were finally recognized, but even so they were inferior to men. Girls ' marriages were arranged, but they could own property, and if they were a weaver they were held in high respect. Social classes were more easily seen. In order of highest to lowest these are the classes: Ruler’s Family, military, government roles, scribes, artisans, healer, serfs, and lastly slaves and criminals.
The Aztecs had four social classes. Their first class was the nobility, these people had all the political jobs. The next social class was the commoners which 90% of the Aztec people were. the commoners could never become upper class like the nobles but they could earn privileges by success on the battlefield. The highest class was the king, and all lower ranks were required to basically pay him and give him gifts as a way to say “thank you” for ruling the empire.
The first and highest of them all were the Gentry, consist of the wealthy landowners, then the Peasants, next were the farmers. Farmers make up 90% of the population, as farming was the most common job as the wealthymen owned land. Then comes the craftsmen and the merchants, are the lowest social class as their income comes from other wealth. With the different social classes , it come with an Emperor, who controls and maintain all citizens privileges. In addition, like other past empires, men were seen as the more dominant gender than women.
Having many artisans and traders allowed goods to be made and traded rapidly. With complete control over trade the Ottomans economy was booming and they easily stayed in power for many
During the Middle Ages, the prevailing system of government was feudalism. Under feudalism, there was the use of a definite social structure. People were born into a social class and usually stayed in that class for the rest of their life. The three social classes were the nobility, clergy, and peasantry and each of these classes had different roles to perform in the society.
The essay will discuss a paper written by anthropologist Gregory Possehl – Sociocultural complexity without the state: the Indus Civilization. It will first present the usual classification when approaching ancient civilisations and briefly summarise Possehl’s main argument. The essay will then dig more deeply into the Indus case, relying on archaeological findings, to see how far Possehl’s position can be supported. Archaeologists and anthropologists are usually classifying social groups considering their social organisation and material culture – one widely accepted classification recognizes four levels of development: (1) the band, a hunter-gather, kinship-based group, (2) the tribe, an organised collection of bands, (3) the chiefdom, a centrally organised kinship-based group with hierarchy and single leader, and (4) the state, a complex, hierarchical, centrally organised, non-kinship-based social organisation (Young 2014:19). Such a classification has stirred debates among scholars, as it conveys the preconceived idea that social groups ‘progress’ following this linear trajectory – furthermore, it is difficult to define the moment and the circumstances associated to a change of status (when does a band become a tribe?)