The Social Structures of the Middle Ages, Rome, and China
Among China, the Middle Ages, and Rome, there were many differences and similarities between their social structures. China’s social structure was very organized. Social structure is an orderly and fixed arrangement of parts making up an integral whole: a society, a community, or an institution. The Chinese had different positions in their social society. In Confucianism, there were 5 positions in social society. Starting from the highest to the lowest: ruler, subject, teacher, student, noble, or peasant. Children must obey, respect, and honor their parents and teachers. The ruler was the highest position in society. The subject was the second most highest position in society. The subject was usually important, and the subject was involved in anything important. The teacher taught students, which was very important, followed by the student, and finally the noble or the peasant. Besides Confucianism, there was also other positions in society. There were Shi - Gentry Scholars. Shi weren't really rich, but they were respected because of their knowledge. Then, there were Nong - Peasant Farmers. Farmers were in the second position because they planted food for people, and also paid for land taxes, which was a source of state income for the ruling dynasties. Then there were Gong - Artisans and Craftsmen. They made artful objects and had skill to make useful objects. They were the engine of trading. Finally, there were Shang - Merchants and Traders. The traders and merchants were in the lowest position because they just bought goods. They sometime bought land in order to command more respect from society.The Middle Ages was more organized and had a more advanced social structure than anything before it except for the Roman empire. However, with the fall of Rome the entire western part of Europe fell into a Dark Age with very little structure and small kingdom states that ruled only through power by being stronger than their neighbors. The Middle Ages advanced a social structure called the feudal system. The Feudal System was basically like a type of pyramid of protection. It worked when a king or the highest ranking government official gave land to a group of people, also called a fief, to a person. This second rank of people were usually a noble, who had in most cases to go to war if the king or the highest ranking government official needed them. In a fief the owner could have knights and guards at their fief. The agreement worked with those knights because they would go to war with the noble if the king needed so the king could have a bigger army. At a fief there were serfs and peasants who would grow all of the food and keep the fief going. The lord or noble,the person who owned the fief, could give some of their land to another person so they could have their own fief but they would have to go to war with the king too if their was a war. This system made armies more powerful because the more fiefs the more knights the more soldiers. In the Roman times the Person at the top of the social structure was the Emperor. They had total power and control over everything. They could make laws and order wars and people had to do whatever they said. The Upper Class was made up of Senators, who were politicians and had a lot of money, and the Equestrians, who could have been a very wealthy shop owner or a very wealthy merchant. The middle class was made up of Commoners who were free people who were born in the Roman Empire. Also in the middle class was Latins who were people born in the city of rome. Also there were foreigners who were born outside of the roman empire and did not have citizen but still had rights. The lower class was made up of slaves, who had no freedom and were constantly abused and beaten, they often lived short lives. These were the social structures of China, the Middle Ages, and Rome.
Social Structure of Rome
China's Basic Social Structure
Social Structure of The Middle Ages
Works Cited
Books
Ganeri, Anita, John James, and David Salariya. How Would You Survive as an Ancient Roman? New York: F. Watts, 1995. Print.
Immell, Myra. The Han Dynasty. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Farmington Hills, MI: Lucent, 2003. Print. Ser.
Scott Foresman Social Studies: The World. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 2008. Print.
Cites
Park, George. "Social Structure and Organization." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 21 May. 2013.
Rithik and Angela:
The Social Structures of China, Egypt, and the Middle Ages.
In a Ancient Chinese social structure, first were the gentry, consisting of the emperor, wealthy landowners and Confucianists. Then were the peasants, like farmers or residents of small villages. Last were the merchants.
"[Regents Prep Global History] Golden Ages: Dynastic China." [Regents Prep Global History] Golden Ages: Dynastic China. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.
In the Egyptians’ social structure, first were the gods, such as Ra, Isis and Horus, Then the Pharaoh, then were the priests, army commanders, and nobles. Then the soldiers. Then the traders, artisans and shopkeepers. Then the farmers and herders. Last were the unskilled workers.
"3b. Egyptian Social Structure." Egyptian Social Structure [ushistory.org]. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.
In the Middle Ages time period social structure, first was the king and pope. Then came the nobles. After the nobles were the lords. After the lords were the knights and vassals. Then were the merchants and farmers. Last were the peasants and serfs.
"Feudalism in Medieval Europe." Feudalism in Medieval Europe. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.
There were many similarities and differences in the social structures of China, Egypt, and the Middle Ages. One similarity in all of the social structures were that the gentry were always on the top of the pyramid. The gentry were the wellborn and well-bred people, such as the ruler, wealthy landowners, and respected Confucianists. The gentry were greatly respected and often had a lot of influence to most of the country decisions. In the Chinese social structure, the emperor was on the top. In the Egyptian social structure, the Pharaoh was on the top. In the Middle Ages, the king was on the top of the social structure pyramid. Another similarity in all of the social structures, was that near the top of each social structure were also people that were related to religions. This shows that in China, Egypt, and the Middle Ages, religion was very important. In China, Confucianists were considered gentry. In Egypt, priests had a high status next to the Pharaoh. In the Middle Ages, popes were considered very important and some might say the pope was in the same class as the king! Lastly, another similarity in all the social structures, the peasants and the workers were always the subordinates of another class. Like in China, the peasants and workers worked under the gentry. In Egypt, the peasants and workers worked under the Pharaoh, the priests, army commanders, nobles and the soldiers. In the Middle Ages, the workers labored under nobles, lords, knights and vassals. There were also many differences in all the social structures. One difference in China’s social structure that the Middle Age’s social structure and the Egyptian social structure didn't have was that in the Chinese social structure, merchants were at the bottom! Even peasants were above the merchants in the ladder of life. This was because the Chinese believed that merchants got rich from others’ work. In the Middle Age’s and the Egyptian social structure, the peasants were at the bottom of the ladder of life. Another difference was at the top of the Egyptian social structure, the gods were the highest. But, in China, the highest was the emperor, since Confucianism did not believe in gods. The last difference is people from the Middle Ages had knights for an army. But, in China and Egypt, they did not have knights for their army. These are some similarities and differences between Egypt, the Middle Ages, and China. All the social structures had the gentry near the top of the ladder of life, they all had the peasants near the bottom of the ladder of life, and in the top of the pyramid were all religious people. There were also many differences, in China, the merchants were at the bottom of the ladder of life in Egypt, the gods were the highest, higher than the Pharaoh, and in the Middle Ages, there were the unique knights.
1) I think a good government and leadership to help a civilization thrive for many reasons. First, a government could help improve the civilization with leadership. If a civilization has a poor economy, the government could help guide the people in making right decisions that could help the civilization to thrive successfully. Second, in order to develop a social structure and be religious, the government has to lead the people and help them with their worries. The government has to make the social structure and help make the civilization have freedom of religion. So no genocide would happen because everybody would be too afraid because they would not want to feel the wrath of the government. These are all the reasons why I think a government and their leadership is the most important aspect in order to help make a civilization thrive and be successful.
2) With technology, I have learned a lot of information. I learned that with technology, it is easier to do projects with one another and edit it at the same time. In Google Docs, my partner and I could work together without having to see each other face to face. Technology also helps us learn because people could research and research is easier than just going through a book. Search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo speed up the process of looking through every single book there is in the library. Now we don’t have to waste as much trouble by taking time to go to the library, find a book, read some information, check it out, and repeat the whole process all over again. Without technology, it would take a lot of time to do many tasks. I have learned that I enjoy using technology and that it is more fun and easier. Technology is very important in our daily lives.
Citation
Biel, Timothy L. The Age of Feudalism. San Diego, CA: Lucent, 1994. Print. Cazel, Fred A., Jr. "Feudalism." Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 29 May. 2013. Cotterell, Arthur, Alan Hills, and Geoff Brightling. Ancient China. New York: Knopf, 1994. Print. Defrates, Joanna. What Do We Know About The Egyptians? New York: Peter Bedwick, 1991. Print. Hamilton, Robert. Ancient Egypt. N.p.: Parragon, 2007. Print. Hinds, Kathryn, 1962. Life in the Middle Ages. New York: Benchmark Books, c2001. Book. Steele, Philip. Castles. New York: Kingfisher, 1995. Print.
Sam and Sarah
Middle Ages, Rome, and Egypt
Between Rome, Egypt, and Middle Ages there are many similarities and differences between the three.
There were many differences and similarities between the social structure of Rome, Egypt, and the Middle Ages. One similarity between them is they all had royalty as the top of the social structure. Such as, the Pharaoh for Egypt and the King and Queen in the Middle Ages and the Emperor in Rome. They also had many differences. For example, in the Middle Ages after the King and Queen there were nobilis such as dukes, and barons. However, in Egypt after the Pharaoh came government officials. Another similarity between the social structure of Rome, Egypt, and the Middle Ages is at the bottom of the social structure is servants and slaves. Servants and slaves were at the bottom because they were not very powerful and people told them what to do. Another difference between those three civilizations social structure is in Egypt the government officials came after royalty instead of nobles unlike the Middle Ages. Also, in Rome the citizens came after the Emperor. However, in Rome the church was more powerful than the Emperor because the people thought the church was very important and it was God’s manor. Another similarity is they all had the church high in their structure.
That is how the Middle Ages, Rome, and Egypt had many similarities and differences to their social structure.
Hinds, Kathryn. Life in the Middle Ages. New York: Benchmark, 2001. Print.
Cooper, Kenneth S. "Middle Ages." The New Book of Knowledge. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 23 May. 2013.
Park, George. "Social Structure and Organization." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 23 May. 2013.
Wrong, Dennis H. "Class, Social." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 23 May. 2013.
Safi/Ahmad
China
India/Persia
Greece
Social Studies Final: Paragraph
China, India/Persia, Greece
Social Structure
China’s Social Structure
China’s classes included a ‘traditional’ lifestyle, and unlike many places, the most power in the household was with the Grandfather, however, like most places, had a servant’s quarters. The social structure was stable in the sense that some unstable governments had bad relationships between the different classes/people. The Chinese had good respect between the peoples of the home. The Great Lords held a place below the most powerful person/King and they controlled and managed the land of the king. Under the Lords were were the knightly gentry. These people held a big responsibility although they didn’t have a lot of power. They were responsible for fighting battles for the people in the household. The people with the lowest power were the peasants who basically were servants that provided everything that was necessary for all the people higher than them in the social organization. There were also people who didn’t have the privileges of the peasants. They were outside the Social structure and included merchants, and artisans. China's Social structure is similar to that of India because the different types of people are arranged in the same order of power. They are different though because many more people are included in India's social structure and are together but China has one separate group for each of the people included in the Social structure. Also, peasants in China aren't considered a part of even the Social structure because they are very poor so the Chinese won't give them so much privilages and a good reputation because they aren't self-sufficient. India, however will give the artisans, merchants, and peasants some reputation by including them in the Social Structure so this shows how some life would be easier India rather than China. Another difference that can be made out between the two Social structures is servants in India also took care of work in the household, but the servants in China would onlhy take care of work outside by growing crops and keeping them fertile and healthy.
India’s Social Structure:
The nobles of india were divided into categories, The priests, The warriors, and those who are ‘normal’ called Vaishya. This was like the ‘traditionals’ of china. Obviously, there was the people that lived in the land they conquered, who were the servants, not unlike china. Similar to most of our past, the priests were above the ordinaries, and the warriors are the highest of all. India divides their social structure into a Caste System. Every Hindu is part of a Caste. Hindus were born into a certain Caste for the rest of their life, they would be a part of this Caste and it would depend on the wealth of their family and how much power the family had. The highest Castes consisted of Priests and teachers and other jobs that are highly privileged. Next, were the rulers and warriors. This is similar to the structure of China because warriors are falling under the highest level of rank before the top, but it is different because rulers and knights are together. Then came farmers and merchants. In the Lower Castes, there were the servants of all the others. This is another similarity between China because servants were like the peasants, but the peasants weren’t included in the social structure while servants in India are. India has a social structure that is similar to China but it can be contrasted deeply with the social structure of Greece. The people of Greece from any rank of power were spread out by huge mountains which made communication harder. Greeks spoke the same language and practiced the same religion. In India, many groups of people came making different groups in India who made there own language, alphabet, and other educational or natural resources. Greece started in Europe, but only the Myceaneans and Minoans influenced it and expanded it. This shows how much Greece was divided and the people in upper classes didn't have so many slaves to do work. The contrasts of the social structures of India and Greece give an overview for what life is like in these two countries today and in the past.
Ancient Greece’s Social Structure:
Greece’s sociality was scattered. Divided by mountains, no one even seemed to speak the same language. Communities were self sufficient and they were spread around the mountains. The social structure was surprisingly stable, because of the outdoor activities, such as many open markets. Sports were another thing that kept the many people of the diverse communities together. It was a hard life in Greece, because the communities were commonly attacked.Greeks spoke the same language and practiced the same religion although communication between people was scarce and not much of it could be done. People from the upper classes couldn't have a job as a worker and had to be a citizen. A member of the upper class must be free from tasks involving economics like trading. The Elite Class was small because a good reputation was needed, but people needed a special talent that is considered professional. A member also needed slaves to attend to his minor duties while he could focus on his major duties. Money during the time period of Ancient Greece was called Talents. The elite class mainly consisted of teachers and landowners. To be considered wealthy, a landowner or teacher must have at least 20 talents. The middle class in Greece consisted of non-citizens who weren't considered slaves though. The free men of foreign birth had spent there whole life in Athens and consisted of professional men such as manufacturers, merchants, contractors, tradesmen, and craftsmen. Members of the Middle Class were forbidden to own land or marry into a family of a citizen. This law allowed citizens to buy land at a cheaper price because no one would fight for it. The Middle Class was responsible to make sure that the navy fleet was maintained, the empire was supported through high taxes, and the commercial supremacy of Athens was preserved. The Lower Class of the social structure was mainly made up of freedman who were not citizens and had been slaves once in their lives. These characteristics make the freedman worthy of only getting to the middle class. Freedman could gain freedom by paying for it with their money or if a friend or family member paid it off. According to Greeks, there citizenship is one of their most prized treasures and it would probably create the most disgrace if it were taken away.
Sources:
Cotterell, Arthur, Alan Hills, and Geoff Brightling. Ancient China. New York: Knopf, 1994.
Schafer, Edward H. Ancient China. New York: Time-Life, 1967. Print.
Boyd, Candy Dawson., and Carol Berkin. Scott Foresman Social Studies. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 2003. Print.
Guerber, H. A., W. E, Edwina Dakin. Williams, and Rose Williams. The Story of the Greeks. New York: American Book, 1896. Print.
Cayden and Daniel
The Social Structures of the Middle Ages, Rome, and China
Among China, the Middle Ages, and Rome, there were many differences and similarities between their social structures.
China’s social structure was very organized. Social structure is an orderly and fixed arrangement of parts making up an integral whole: a society, a community, or an institution. The Chinese had different positions in their social society. In Confucianism, there were 5 positions in social society. Starting from the highest to the lowest: ruler, subject, teacher, student, noble, or peasant. Children must obey, respect, and honor their parents and teachers. The ruler was the highest position in society. The subject was the second most highest position in society. The subject was usually important, and the subject was involved in anything important. The teacher taught students, which was very important, followed by the student, and finally the noble or the peasant. Besides Confucianism, there was also other positions in society. There were Shi - Gentry Scholars. Shi weren't really rich, but they were respected because of their knowledge. Then, there were Nong - Peasant Farmers. Farmers were in the second position because they planted food for people, and also paid for land taxes, which was a source of state income for the ruling dynasties. Then there were Gong - Artisans and Craftsmen. They made artful objects and had skill to make useful objects. They were the engine of trading. Finally, there were Shang - Merchants and Traders. The traders and merchants were in the lowest position because they just bought goods. They sometime bought land in order to command more respect from society.The Middle Ages was more organized and had a more advanced social structure than anything before it except for the Roman empire. However, with the fall of Rome the entire western part of Europe fell into a Dark Age with very little structure and small kingdom states that ruled only through power by being stronger than their neighbors. The Middle Ages advanced a social structure called the feudal system. The Feudal System was basically like a type of pyramid of protection. It worked when a king or the highest ranking government official gave land to a group of people, also called a fief, to a person. This second rank of people were usually a noble, who had in most cases to go to war if the king or the highest ranking government official needed them. In a fief the owner could have knights and guards at their fief. The agreement worked with those knights because they would go to war with the noble if the king needed so the king could have a bigger army. At a fief there were serfs and peasants who would grow all of the food and keep the fief going. The lord or noble,the person who owned the fief, could give some of their land to another person so they could have their own fief but they would have to go to war with the king too if their was a war. This system made armies more powerful because the more fiefs the more knights the more soldiers. In the Roman times the Person at the top of the social structure was the Emperor. They had total power and control over everything. They could make laws and order wars and people had to do whatever they said. The Upper Class was made up of Senators, who were politicians and had a lot of money, and the Equestrians, who could have been a very wealthy shop owner or a very wealthy merchant. The middle class was made up of Commoners who were free people who were born in the Roman Empire. Also in the middle class was Latins who were people born in the city of rome. Also there were foreigners who were born outside of the roman empire and did not have citizen but still had rights. The lower class was made up of slaves, who had no freedom and were constantly abused and beaten, they often lived short lives. These were the social structures of China, the Middle Ages, and Rome.
Works Cited
BooksGaneri, Anita, John James, and David Salariya. How Would You Survive as an Ancient Roman? New York: F. Watts, 1995. Print.
Immell, Myra. The Han Dynasty. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Farmington Hills, MI: Lucent, 2003. Print. Ser.
Scott Foresman Social Studies: The World. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 2008. Print.
CitesPark, George. "Social Structure and Organization." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 21 May. 2013.
Rithik and Angela:
The Social Structures of China, Egypt, and the Middle Ages.
In a Ancient Chinese social structure, first were the gentry, consisting of the emperor, wealthy landowners and Confucianists. Then were the peasants, like farmers or residents of small villages. Last were the merchants."[Regents Prep Global History] Golden Ages: Dynastic China." [Regents Prep Global History] Golden Ages: Dynastic China. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.
In the Egyptians’ social structure, first were the gods, such as Ra, Isis and Horus, Then the Pharaoh, then were the priests, army commanders, and nobles. Then the soldiers. Then the traders, artisans and shopkeepers. Then the farmers and herders. Last were the unskilled workers."3b. Egyptian Social Structure." Egyptian Social Structure [ushistory.org]. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.
In the Middle Ages time period social structure, first was the king and pope. Then came the nobles. After the nobles were the lords. After the lords were the knights and vassals. Then were the merchants and farmers. Last were the peasants and serfs."Feudalism in Medieval Europe." Feudalism in Medieval Europe. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 May 2013.
There were many similarities and differences in the social structures of China, Egypt, and the Middle Ages. One similarity in all of the social structures were that the gentry were always on the top of the pyramid. The gentry were the wellborn and well-bred people, such as the ruler, wealthy landowners, and respected Confucianists. The gentry were greatly respected and often had a lot of influence to most of the country decisions. In the Chinese social structure, the emperor was on the top. In the Egyptian social structure, the Pharaoh was on the top. In the Middle Ages, the king was on the top of the social structure pyramid. Another similarity in all of the social structures, was that near the top of each social structure were also people that were related to religions. This shows that in China, Egypt, and the Middle Ages, religion was very important. In China, Confucianists were considered gentry. In Egypt, priests had a high status next to the Pharaoh. In the Middle Ages, popes were considered very important and some might say the pope was in the same class as the king! Lastly, another similarity in all the social structures, the peasants and the workers were always the subordinates of another class. Like in China, the peasants and workers worked under the gentry. In Egypt, the peasants and workers worked under the Pharaoh, the priests, army commanders, nobles and the soldiers. In the Middle Ages, the workers labored under nobles, lords, knights and vassals. There were also many differences in all the social structures. One difference in China’s social structure that the Middle Age’s social structure and the Egyptian social structure didn't have was that in the Chinese social structure, merchants were at the bottom! Even peasants were above the merchants in the ladder of life. This was because the Chinese believed that merchants got rich from others’ work. In the Middle Age’s and the Egyptian social structure, the peasants were at the bottom of the ladder of life. Another difference was at the top of the Egyptian social structure, the gods were the highest. But, in China, the highest was the emperor, since Confucianism did not believe in gods. The last difference is people from the Middle Ages had knights for an army. But, in China and Egypt, they did not have knights for their army. These are some similarities and differences between Egypt, the Middle Ages, and China. All the social structures had the gentry near the top of the ladder of life, they all had the peasants near the bottom of the ladder of life, and in the top of the pyramid were all religious people. There were also many differences, in China, the merchants were at the bottom of the ladder of life in Egypt, the gods were the highest, higher than the Pharaoh, and in the Middle Ages, there were the unique knights.1) I think a good government and leadership to help a civilization thrive for many reasons. First, a government could help improve the civilization with leadership. If a civilization has a poor economy, the government could help guide the people in making right decisions that could help the civilization to thrive successfully. Second, in order to develop a social structure and be religious, the government has to lead the people and help them with their worries. The government has to make the social structure and help make the civilization have freedom of religion. So no genocide would happen because everybody would be too afraid because they would not want to feel the wrath of the government. These are all the reasons why I think a government and their leadership is the most important aspect in order to help make a civilization thrive and be successful.
2) With technology, I have learned a lot of information. I learned that with technology, it is easier to do projects with one another and edit it at the same time. In Google Docs, my partner and I could work together without having to see each other face to face. Technology also helps us learn because people could research and research is easier than just going through a book. Search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo speed up the process of looking through every single book there is in the library. Now we don’t have to waste as much trouble by taking time to go to the library, find a book, read some information, check it out, and repeat the whole process all over again. Without technology, it would take a lot of time to do many tasks. I have learned that I enjoy using technology and that it is more fun and easier. Technology is very important in our daily lives.
Citation
Biel, Timothy L. The Age of Feudalism. San Diego, CA: Lucent, 1994. Print.
Cazel, Fred A., Jr. "Feudalism." Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 29 May. 2013.
Cotterell, Arthur, Alan Hills, and Geoff Brightling. Ancient China. New York: Knopf, 1994. Print.
Defrates, Joanna. What Do We Know About The Egyptians? New York: Peter Bedwick, 1991. Print.
Hamilton, Robert. Ancient Egypt. N.p.: Parragon, 2007. Print.
Hinds, Kathryn, 1962. Life in the Middle Ages. New York: Benchmark Books, c2001. Book.
Steele, Philip. Castles. New York: Kingfisher, 1995. Print.
Sam and Sarah
Middle Ages, Rome, and Egypt
Between Rome, Egypt, and Middle Ages there are many similarities and differences between the three.
There were many differences and similarities between the social structure of Rome, Egypt, and the Middle Ages. One similarity between them is they all had royalty as the top of the social structure. Such as, the Pharaoh for Egypt and the King and Queen in the Middle Ages and the Emperor in Rome. They also had many differences. For example, in the Middle Ages after the King and Queen there were nobilis such as dukes, and barons. However, in Egypt after the Pharaoh came government officials. Another similarity between the social structure of Rome, Egypt, and the Middle Ages is at the bottom of the social structure is servants and slaves. Servants and slaves were at the bottom because they were not very powerful and people told them what to do. Another difference between those three civilizations social structure is in Egypt the government officials came after royalty instead of nobles unlike the Middle Ages. Also, in Rome the citizens came after the Emperor. However, in Rome the church was more powerful than the Emperor because the people thought the church was very important and it was God’s manor. Another similarity is they all had the church high in their structure.
That is how the Middle Ages, Rome, and Egypt had many similarities and differences to their social structure.
Pictures from-
http://www.ushistory.org/civ/3b.asp
http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/cicero/politics/politics.html
http://culturaleducation.wordpress.com/category/analysis/
Grolier- and Books
Hinds, Kathryn. Life in the Middle Ages. New York: Benchmark, 2001. Print.
Cooper, Kenneth S. "Middle Ages." The New Book of Knowledge. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 23 May. 2013.
Park, George. "Social Structure and Organization." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 23 May. 2013.
Wrong, Dennis H. "Class, Social." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2013. Web. 23 May. 2013.
Safi/Ahmad
Social Studies Final: Paragraph
China, India/Persia, Greece
Social Structure
China’s Social Structure
China’s classes included a ‘traditional’ lifestyle, and unlike many places, the most power in the household was with the Grandfather, however, like most places, had a
servant’s quarters. The social structure was stable in the sense that some unstable governments had bad relationships between the different classes/people. The Chinese had good respect between the peoples of the home. The Great Lords held a place below the most powerful person/King and they controlled and managed the land of the king. Under the Lords were were the knightly gentry. These people held a big responsibility although they didn’t have a lot of power. They were responsible for fighting battles for the people in the household. The people with the lowest power were the peasants who basically were servants that provided everything that was necessary for all the people higher than them in the social organization. There were also people who didn’t have the privileges of the peasants. They were outside the Social structure and included merchants, and artisans. China's Social structure is similar to that of India because the different types of people are arranged in the same order of power. They are different though because many more people are included in India's social structure and are together but China has one separate group for each of the people included in the Social structure. Also, peasants in China aren't considered a part of even the Social structure because they are very poor so the Chinese won't give them so much privilages and a good reputation because they aren't self-sufficient. India, however will give the artisans, merchants, and peasants some reputation by including them in the Social Structure so this shows how some life would be easier India rather than China. Another difference that can be made out between the two Social structures is servants in India also took care of work in the household, but the servants in China would onlhy take care of work outside by growing crops and keeping them fertile and healthy.
India’s Social Structure:
The nobles of india were divided into categories, The priests, The warriors, and those who are ‘normal’ called Vaishya. This was like the ‘traditionals’ of china. Obviously, there was the people that lived in the land they conquered, who were the servants, not unlike china. Similar to most of our past, the priests were above the ordinaries, and the warriors are the highest of all. India divides their social structure into a Caste System. Every Hindu is part of a Caste. Hindus were born into a certain Caste for the rest of their life, they would be a part of this Caste and it would depend on the wealth of their family and how much power the family had. The highest Castes consisted of Priests and teachers and other jobs that are highly privileged. Next, were the rulers and warriors. This is similar to the structure of China because warriors are falling under the highest level of rank before the top, but it is different because rulers and knights are together. Then came farmers and merchants. In the Lower Castes, there were the servants of all the others. This is another similarity between China because servants were like the peasants, but the peasants weren’t included in the social structure while servants in India are. India has a social structure that is similar to China but it can be contrasted deeply with the social structure of Greece. The people of Greece from any rank of power were spread out by huge mountains which made communication harder. Greeks spoke the same language and practiced the same religion. In India, many groups of people came making different groups in India who made there own language, alphabet, and other educational or natural resources. Greece started in Europe, but only the Myceaneans and Minoans influenced it and expanded it. This shows how much Greece was divided and the people in upper classes didn't have so many slaves to do work. The contrasts of the social structures of India and Greece give an overview for what life is like in these two countries today and in the past.
Ancient Greece’s Social Structure:
Greece’s sociality was scattered. Divided by mountains, no one even seemed to speak the same language. Communities were self sufficient and they were spread around the mountains. The social structure was surprisingly stable, because of the outdoor activities, such as many open markets. Sports were another thing that kept the many people of the diverse communities together. It was a hard life in Greece, because the communities were commonly attacked.Greeks spoke the same language and practiced the same religion although communication between people was scarce and not much of it could be done. People from the upper classes couldn't have a job as a worker and had to be a citizen. A member of the upper class must be free from tasks involving economics like trading. The Elite Class was small because a good reputation was needed, but people needed a special talent that is considered professional. A member also needed slaves to attend to his minor duties while he could focus on his major duties. Money during the time period of Ancient Greece was called Talents. The elite class mainly consisted of teachers and landowners. To be considered wealthy, a landowner or teacher must have at least 20 talents. The middle class in Greece consisted of non-citizens who weren't considered slaves though. The free men of foreign birth had spent there whole life in Athens and consisted of professional men such as manufacturers, merchants, contractors, tradesmen, and craftsmen. Members of the Middle Class were forbidden to own land or marry into a family of a citizen. This law allowed citizens to buy land at a cheaper price because no one would fight for it. The Middle Class was responsible to make sure that the navy fleet was maintained, the empire was supported through high taxes, and the commercial supremacy of Athens was preserved. The Lower Class of the social structure was mainly made up of freedman who were not citizens and had been slaves once in their lives. These characteristics make the freedman worthy of only getting to the middle class. Freedman could gain freedom by paying for it with their money or if a friend or family member paid it off. According to Greeks, there citizenship is one of their most prized treasures and it would probably create the most disgrace if it were taken away.
Sources:
Cotterell, Arthur, Alan Hills, and Geoff Brightling. Ancient China. New York: Knopf, 1994.
Schafer, Edward H. Ancient China. New York: Time-Life, 1967. Print.
Boyd, Candy Dawson., and Carol Berkin. Scott Foresman Social Studies. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 2003. Print.
Guerber, H. A., W. E, Edwina Dakin. Williams, and Rose Williams. The Story of the Greeks. New York: American Book, 1896. Print.