How would you describe the major differences in Egyptian society?

Marketing Strategies

Haha! you said egypt

Marketing Strategies

Haha! You both said Egypt!

Marketing Strategies

egypt is bad because they made the pyramids

Marketing Strategies

I wish i could give you a better answer but i know very little of egypt.the only things i can think of are that compared to the old when they had kings and pharaohs and the lower class were more or less slaves to them.compared to now where its a more systematic government and people have more rights.technology,military,jobs etc.are more advanced.I think religions have changed and are more diverse now than they were then.I’m sure women have more rights as well.
Like i said.these are just things that are kinda obvious.other than those things i really dont know much detail about the different time periods there.
well if anything i hope it kinda gave you a few ideas where to start looking.wish i could help more.good luck with your research.

Marketing Strategies

there society got better

Marketing Strategies

Egyptian civilization, formed by 3000 B.C., benefited from trade and
technological influence from Mesopotamia, but it produced a quite different society and culture. Because its values and its tightly knit political organization encouraged monumental building, we know more about Egypt than about Mesopotamia, even though the latter was in most respects more important and richer in subsequent heritage.
Basic Patterns Of Egyptian Society
Unlike Mesopotamia and the Middle East, where an original river-valley
basis to civilization ultimately gave way to the spread of civilization
throughout an entire region, Egyptian civilization from its origins to its
decline was focused on the Nile River and the deserts around it. The Nile focus also gave a more optimistic cast to Egyptian culture, for it could be seen as a source of never- failing bounty to be thankfully received, rather than a menacing cause of floods. Egyptian civilization may at the outset have received some inspiration from Sumer, but a distinctive pattern soon developed in both religion and politics.

Farming had been developed along the Nile by about 5000 B.C., but some time before 3200 B.C. economic development accelerated, in part because of growing trade wi,h other regions including Mesopotamia. This economic acceleration provided the basis for the formation of regional kingdoms. Unlike Sumer, Egypt moved fairly directly from precivilization to large government units, without passing through a city-state phase, though the first pharaoh, Narmer, had to conquer a number of petty local kings around 3100 B.C. Indeed Egypt always had fewer problems with political unity than Mesopotamia did, in part because of the unifying influence of the course of the Nile River. By the same token, however, Egyptian politics tended to be more authoritarian as well as centralized, for city-states in the Mesopotamian style, though often ruled by kings, also provided the opportunity for councils and other participatory institutions.
By 3100 B.C. Narmer, king of southern Egypt, conquered the northern
regional kingdom and created a unified state 600 miles long. This state was to last 3000 years. Despite some important disruptions, this was an amazing record of stability even though the greatest vitality of the civilization was exhausted by about 1000 B.C. During the 2000-year span in which Egypt displayed its greatest vigor, the society went through three major periods of monarchy (the Old, the Intermediate, and the New Kingdoms), each divided from its successor by a century or two of confusion.
In all its phases, Egyptian civilization was characterized by the strength of the pharaoh. The pharaoh was held to be descended from gods, with the power to assure prosperity and control the rituals that assured the flow of the Nile and the fertility derived from irrigation. Soon, the pharaoh was regarded as a god. Much Egyptian art was devoted to demonstrating the power and sanctity of the king. From the king’s authority also flowed an extensive bureaucracy, recruited from the landed nobles but specially trained in writing and law. Governors were appointed for key regions and were responsible for supervising irrigation and arranging for the great public works that became a hallmark of Egyptian culture. Most Egyptians were peasant farmers, closely regulated and heavily taxed. Labor requisition by the states allowed construction of the great pyramids and other huge public buildings. These monuments were triumphs of human coordination, for the Egyptians were not particularly advanced technologically. They even lacked pulleys or other devices to hoist the huge slabs of stone that formed the pyramids.
Given the importance of royal rule and the belief that pharaohs were
gods, it is not surprising that each of the main periods of Egyptian history was marked by some striking kings. Early in each dynastic period leading pharaohs conquered new territories, sometimes pressing up the Nile River into present-day Sudan, once even moving up the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. One pharaoh, Akhenaton, late in Egyptian history, tried to use his power to install a new, one-god religion, replacing the Egyptian pantheon. Many pharaohs commemorated their greatness by building huge pyramids to house themselves and their retinues after death, commanding work crews of up to 100,000 men to haul and lift the stone. The first great pyramid was built around 2600 B.C.; the largest pyramid followed about a century later, taking 20 years to complete and containing 2 million blocks of stone, each weighing 5 1/2 tons.
Some scholars have seen even larger links between Egypt’s stable, centralized politics and its fascination with an orderly death, including
massive funeral monuments and preservation through mummification. Death rituals suggested a concern with extending organization to the afterlife, based on a belief that, through politics, death as well as life could be caEgyptian civilization, there were surprisingly few basic changes in styles and
beliefs. Egyptian emphasis on stability was reflected in their view of a
changeless afterlife, suggesting a conscious attempt to argue that persistence
was a virtue. Change did, however, occur in some key areas. Egypt was long
fairly isolated, which helped preserve continuity. The invasions of Egypt by
Palestine toward the end of the Old Kingdom period (about 2200 B.C.) were
distinct exceptions to Egypt’s usual self-containment. They were followed by
attacks from the Middle East by tribes of Asian origin, which brought a period
of division and chaos, including rival royal dynasties. But the unified
monarchy was reestablished during the Middle Kingdom period, during which
Egyptian settlements spread southward into what is now the Sudan, setting
origins for the later African kingdom of Kush.
Then followed another period of social unrest and invasion, ending in the
final great kingdom period, the New Kingdom, around 1570 B.C. During this
period trade and other contacts with the Middle East and the eastern
Mediterranean, including the island of Crete, gained ground. These contacts
spread certain Egyptian influences, notably in monumental architecture, to
other areas. It was during the New Kingdom that Egyptians first installed
formal slavery, subjecting people such as the Jews. It was also in this period
that the pharaoh Akhenaton tried to impose a new monotheistic religion,
reflecting some foreign influence, but his effort was renounced by his
successor Tutankhamen, who restored the old capital city and built a lavish
tomb to celebrate the return to the traditional gods. After about 1150 B.C.,
new waves of invasion and internal conspiracies and disorganization, including
strikes and social protest, brought fairly steady decline. It was around this
period that one people, the Hebrews, followed their leader Moses out of Egypt
and into the deserts of Palestine.
Egypt And Mesopotamia Compared
The development of two great early civilizations in the Middle East and
North Africa encourages a first effort at comparative analysis. Because of
different geography, different degrees of exposure to outside invasion and
influence, and different prior beliefs, Egypt and Mesopotamia were in contrast
to one another in many ways. Egypt emphasized strong central authority, while
Mesopotamian politics shifted more frequently over a substructure of regional
city-states. Mesopotamian art focused on less monumental structures, while
embracing a pronounced literary element that Egyptian art lacked.
These cultural differences can be explained partly by geography:
Mesopotamians lacked access to the great stones that Egyptians could import
for their monuments. The differences also owed something to different
politics, for Egyptian ability to organize masses of laborers followed from
its centralized government structures and strong bureaucracy. The differences
owed something, finally, to different beliefs, for the Mesopotamians lacked
the Egyptian concern for preparations for the afterlife, which so motivated

the great tombs and pyramids that have made Egypt and some of the pharaohs
live on in human memory.
Both societies traded extensively, but there was a difference in economic
tone. Mesopotamia was more productive of technological improvements, because
their environment was more difficult to manage than the Nile valley. Trade
contacts were more extensive, and the Mesopotamians gave attention to a
merchant class and commercial law.
Social differences were less obvious because it is difficult to obtain
information on daily life for early civilizations. It is probable, though,
that the status of women was greater in Egypt than in Mesopotamia (where
women’s position seems to have deteriorated after Sumer). Egyptians paid great
respect to women at least in the upper classes, in part because marriage
alliances were vital to the preservation and stability of the monarchy. Also,
Egyptian religion included more pronounced deference to goddesses as sources
of creativity.
Comparisons in politics, culture, economics, and society suggest
civilizations that varied substantially because of largely separate origins
and environments. The distinction in overall tone was striking, with Egypt
being more stable and cheerful than Mesopotamia not only in beliefs about gods
and the afterlife but in the colorful and lively pictures the Egyptians
emphasized in their decorative art. Also striking was the distinction in
internal history, with Egyptian civilization far less markd by disruption
than its Mesopotamian counterpart.
Comparison must also note important similarities, some of them
characteristic of early civilizations. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia emphasized
social stratification, with a noble, landowning class on top and masses of
peasants and slaves at the bottom. A powerful priestly group also figured i