kiss my butt whats your answer
The farmers farmed the land, the priests ran the religion, the pharaohs ruled assisted by the nobility, the wormen bore and raised children and worked on the farms, and the slaves worked for them all.
As far as we know, they did not a standardized medium of exchange- that is Money. The Egyptian kingdom operated on a moneyless economy- though they did have a slave system ( possibly prisoners of war or of criminal cases) and a rigid caste structure- nothing along the lines of coinage, paper money- gold or silver ingots- or anything resembling Banks or Mints- have ever been recovered or dug up- in a country as thoroughly explored by archaeologists as Egypt. another oddity was they did not draw in perspective, despite the fact the Pyramid is one of the 5 Platonic solids! My Dad, who had some background as an art student, could never figure this one out!
The social structure of ancient Sparta was highly stratified and primarily divided into three main groups: the Spartiates, the Perioikoi, and the Helots. The Spartiates were the ruling class of full citizens who underwent rigorous military training and were granted political rights. The Perioikoi were free non-citizens who lived in surrounding areas, engaging in trade and crafts, while the Helots were state-owned serfs who worked the land and served the Spartiates, often facing harsh treatment and oppression. This rigid hierarchy reinforced Sparta's militaristic and communal values, prioritizing strength and discipline.
Ancient Sparta's weaknesses included its rigid social structure, which limited individual freedoms and stifled innovation. The reliance on a large population of enslaved Helots created tensions and fear of revolt, undermining stability. Additionally, Sparta's focus on military prowess often came at the expense of economic development and cultural advancement, making it less adaptable in times of change. Finally, the oligarchic governance system limited political participation, leading to potential inefficiencies and discontent among its citizens.
The Aztec class system was rigid primarily due to its hierarchical structure, which was deeply rooted in cultural beliefs and social norms. Society was divided into distinct classes, including nobles, priests, commoners, and slaves, with each class having specific roles and responsibilities. This rigidity was enforced by the Aztec religion, which emphasized the divine right of the ruling class and the importance of social order. Additionally, economic control and land ownership further solidified class distinctions, limiting social mobility for most individuals.
The social pyramid in ancient Egypt was rigid due to a combination of religious beliefs, economic roles, and political structures. Social status was largely determined by birth, with pharaohs and nobles at the top, followed by priests, scribes, artisans, and farmers. The belief in divine kingship reinforced the idea that the pharaoh was a god-king, legitimizing their authority and the hierarchical structure. Additionally, the lack of social mobility was maintained through cultural norms and the economic dependence of lower classes on the upper classes.
Egypt today has no rigid social structure. However, there is certainly an entitled wealthy class and the lower class of working poor which predominates in most developing nations, for which Egypt is no exception.
It is because of the Nile River, they that it was a God. ;) lol jk What I meant was that the pharaoh kept it stable.
Ancient Egypt had three main social classes--upper, middle, and lower. The upper class consisted of the royal family, rich landowners, government officials, important priests and army officers, and doctors. ... Ancient Egypt's class system was not rigid. People in the lower or middle class could move to a higher position.
This is a statement. A statement can't be answered.
It is because of the Nile River, they that it was a God. ;) lol jk What I meant was that the pharaoh kept it stable.
The farmers farmed the land, the priests ran the religion, the pharaohs ruled assisted by the nobility, the wormen bore and raised children and worked on the farms, and the slaves worked for them all.
Both ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia had well-defined social hierarchies characterized by a stratified structure. In Egypt, society was typically organized with the pharaoh at the top, followed by priests, scribes, artisans, and farmers, while Mesopotamia featured a similar hierarchy with kings, priests, and nobles at the top, followed by merchants and laborers. Both civilizations emphasized the importance of religion and governance, which reinforced the power of the elite. However, social mobility was more pronounced in Mesopotamia, where trade and commerce allowed for some upward movement, unlike the more rigid stratification in Egypt.
Sparta was a city-state in ancient Greece. One of the things it's well-known for is its rigid social structure. The main religion practiced in Sparta was Greek Polytheism.
During the postclassical era in India, the caste system was primarily a rigid social system. It was characterized by strict social hierarchy and limited social mobility based on birth. This rigid structure was reinforced by religious beliefs and societal norms.
Each social division is called a caste.
caste