World History Chapter 3

Chapter three of Ways of the World, titled “State and Empire in Eurasia/North Africa (500 B.C.E.-500 C.E.), covers what the book calls the second wave of civilizations following those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Norte Chico, and the like. There is a lot of comparisons going on in this chapter First was “Empires and Civilizations in Collision,” basically: The Persian Empire Vs. the Greek Empire. Then there is the literal comparison of the Roman and Chinese empires, which, according to the reading, rose around the same time but had very little direct contact with each other. And then it goes into what it calls the “intermittent empire,” that of India.

I’d just like to mention or comment on, as I usually do and will continue to do, the things I found interesting.

The chapter discusses what an empire is. At one level, they are “simply states, political systems that exercise coercive power” (106). This is strikingly different from the emergence of chiefdoms during the Paleolithic era, where rulers used generosity, gifts, ritual status, and charisma, among other things to bolster support; less methods of coercion (45). But of course, with many of these second wave and even first wave civilizations that became increasingly militarized, it is not a surprising thing that this would become part of the definition of an empire. It seems to be a pattern and a vehicle to conquering and expanding an empire as well. The book goes on to say that the term “empire” is “normally reserved for larger and more aggressive states, those that conquer, rule, and extract resources from other states and peoples (106).

I found it a peculiar statement when I read that one of the reasons why people might study empires is because “the fall of the mighty seems somehow satisfying, perhaps even a delayed form of justice” (106). I can’t put my finger on what bothers me about it. I can see why this would be a reality of thought for some, but I can’t imagine it would be for all. I am not sure what I think of it myself, obviously. Maybe I don’t feel I can judge those empires of the past to that extent, since I never lived through them.

I do, however, find myself judging based on my own life experience. And then the statement makes sense depending on the circumstances. For example, the story of Darius, a Persian absolute monarch, having a nobleman and his entire clan killed because Darius was interrupted while being with his wife. First off, hold up. Did you really have to react like that? Seriously? The fact that his words and commands were absolute is that scary to me, who lives in a completely different time. I know it was scary and lethal for the people being killed. I cannot say what it was like for those who had to carry out those commands. The book says that “In the eyes of many, Persian monarchs fully deserved their effusive title,” (108) so therefore, I must conclude that those who followed these leaders saw what they were doing as right, even as if they were carrying out the will of the gods, as many of these civilizations’ leaders attributed their status to being descended from or as carrying out the will of gods or heaven.

I found reading about the Chinese Emperors’ duty to rule by the Mandate of Heaven, which “was neither a place nor supreme being, but rather an impersonal moral force that regulated the universe” (125) to be slightly relieving. This was because, according to this mandate, the emperor needed to rule morally and benevolently. But then I wondered what constituted morals and benevolence among these people and to those they conquered and assimilated into their culture. I suppose I would need to study Confucianism and more of their history to find the answer. I would need to do similar things with the other empires covered in this chapter as well, since it does not go in depth about it. It looks like the next chapter, might though, so I may touch on this again.

I always knew that Greek culture and thinking suffused itself through conquering, but I never really thought about how it would diffuse itself even after being conquered. And I mean how, not if, seeing as so much of its ideas, architecture, art, and other things survive to this day, much of it expanded upon by the Romans and others. It is important to remember that their political experiments, though far different from today, helped shape the political ideologies of the Western world. How significant that is.

The last thing I liked reading about, which helped put into perspective the statement I found peculiar, was the Trung Trac rebellion. She, a Vietnamese woman, along with her sister, led a rebellion against the conquering China. She gained an entire army of support, literally, with thirty-six female generals. And yet, records would later explain the failure of this revolt as women’s leadership. Wow… Does that not sound like a very subjective answer? Nonetheless, it inspired later resistance movements and the Trung sisters are celebrated even today.

This chapter was intriguing because I have learned so much about these civilizations in school when I was younger, with the exception of India perhaps, which information came to me more through pop culture for some reason. It was fun reading more about India, that it made strides in mathematics and astronomy, and that “the absence of consistent imperial unity did not prevent the evolution of a lasting civilization” (135).