Aristotle’s theory of the political cycle provides a clear structure to understand the ancient
civilization’s political frameworks. In his political philosophy, he made a difference among
'correct' and 'deviant' constitutions, where he viewed kingship, aristocracy, and constitutional
governance are as an examples of perfect governments; whereas oligarchy, tyranny, and
dēmokratia what he saw as a degraded type of democratic are examples of poor systems
(Black,2013). The reason behind this classification was based on whether the government may
serve either the common good or the interests of its rulers,motivated by self-interest or by morals
and intelligence. He believed that governments rooted in self-interest were inherently unstable.
Furthermore,these forms of government had a tendency to break down over time; polity can
become a flawed democracy influenced by popular impulses, aristocracy into oligarchy, and
monarchy into tyranny. This results in a never-ending cycle of political crisis resulting from the
collapse of one regime and the emergence of the next as corruption increases. According to
Aristotle, the ideal and stable type of state was a well-balanced system that avoided both
extremes of tyranny and mob control. Additionally, this theory demonstrates how volatile many
systems of government are by nature which indicates different forms of governance in ancient
civilization.
There
are
different
factors
for
example
economy,geographical
location,religion,cultures that led these societies to monarchy and non monarchy.
This essay will look thoroughly at different ancient civilizations such as monarchs and
non-monarchs, hierarchical order and their governance, and also their different political
philosophy to legitimize their rule and women’s position in these societies.
Illustration: Aristotle's political cycle
The author will compare the authority structures and central hierarchical elements of Persia, a
monarchy, and Rome, a republic in this body paragraph. A noteworthy instance of a society that
actively decided for a highly centralized monarchical government is the Achaemenid Persian
Empire, which Cyrus the Great founded in 550 BCE. The administrative framework of the
empire was represented by a strong central administration headed by the King, whose rule was
frequently recognized for having been approved by Ahura Mazda. As per Farazmand (1998), the
Persian Empire divided its extensive lands into Satrapies, each a collection of diverse regions
ruled by a centrally appointed governor or Satrap, who was chosen by the central government in
Susa and assigned by the Great King. In addition to the 'King's Eyes and Ears' monitoring
satraps, Darius I expanded his authority by appointing Royal Secretaries and Treasurers for every
province. These officials increased central control by directly updating the king. Additionally,
this centralized hierarchy of control was essential for the Persian empire because of its extensive
territory and diverse population. In contrast, The Roman Republic established its non monarch
governance after overthrowing its monarch rulers. Their administration was based on a power
balance among elected magistrates, the Senate, and citizen assemblies. However, this system
may lead to political slowdown, it encourages public engagement and ensures that no single
individual has complete authority. Although both the Roman Republic and the Persian Empire
created highly advanced administrative structures to control enormous areas of land, their basic
strategies were very different. According to Briant (2002), the satrapal system was essential to
overseeing and making wealth off of the Persian empire's enormous lands, demonstrating the
effectiveness of the hierarchical administrative structure. Therefore, in this hierarchical structure,
monarchy was necessary for efficient tax collection, control over the vast army and also ensuring
consistency and maintaining peace. On the other hand, Rome's dispersed power system fostered
citizen participation and prevented dictatorship, even if it risked political stagnation, it was only
logical as the Republic’s size expanded over time they required a strong, central monarchy to
maintain authority and oversee resources. Despite using very different approaches to governance,
Rome and Persia both aimed to establish the durability and efficient control over their large and
diverse people, highlighting an issue that all ancient empires encountered.
Following the first body paragraph the author will examine and contrast the reasons behind the
monarch and non-monarchs' different political ideologies of the Han dynasty and Athenian
civilizations in order to have a better understanding of the evolution of political philosophy. To
begin with, the Han Dynasty in ancient China, beginning in 206 BCE, established a monarchical
system, integrating Confucianism into its governing framework. The Han Dynasty carefully
adopted Confucianism to improve its control by creating social stability through hierarchy and
devotion to duty, which reduced unrest. It strengthened imperial authority by linking the
emperor's legitimacy to moral conduct and the Mandate of Heaven. Moreover, the Mandate of
Heaven combined religious belief to political and moral principle to justify their rule. In addition,
the dynasty built a merit-based civil service system based on Confucian principles, which
cultivated a loyal and capable bureaucratic elite(Black,2013). This strategy brought various
communities together under a shared ethical framework, replacing the Qin Dynasty's harsh
Legalism with a system that stressed moral influence and intellectual capability, thereby
effectively maintaining control over both society and the government. On the other hand, During
its Golden Age in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, ancient Athens stood out with a
non-monarchical governmental system that pioneered direct democracy. As Black(2013) states
The central institution of Athenian democracy was the assembly (ekklēsia), where citizens
convened to debate and vote on key issues, ranging from military and financial policies to
legislation and political trials. This indicates Athenian freedom was deeply tied to its active
political engagement, viewed as both a right and a duty of free citizens. On the contrary,the Han
Dynasty's concept of freedom was strongly linked to social order and performing one's duties
within a framework of hierarchy. Thus,the Han Dynasty's concept of freedom valued a stable
social order, as opposed to Athenian freedom, which was vitally related to active engagement in
political debates. Furthermore,the conflict between individual rights and collective responsibility
in ancient Athens and the Han Dynasty exists in modern politics.The tendency of authoritarian
regimes, as seen in the Han Dynasty, to prioritize collective stability over individual freedoms
continues to be closely observed and criticized by the international community (Nathan, 2003).
This highlights how many nations today want to follow authoritarian regimes to suppress their
people and maintain control over them. Compared to today’s world, globalization and the
internet have helped to intensify the discussion about individual’s rights, regime’s policy,
freedom and security, which was unimaginable in the ancient world.
In ancient times both the monarch and non-monarch had many similarities. Firstly, both the
civilizations had hierarchies to control their territories, for example monarchical governments
like Persian Empire and Han Dynasty had kings,priests,aristocrats.On the other hand
non-monarchical civilizations such as the Roman Republic and Athens supported the wealthy
elites. In the west education and wealth created a difference in the society where the adult man
was allowed to participate in the political affairs but the people with more wealth had more
influence on state matters. Additionally, they depended largely on political command to control
the people, as monarchs had the King’s with the final decision, senates and officials used their
power in non-monarchs. The King’s in monarch governance used his army to showcase his
power on the hand non monarchical government believed influence on army gives them more
power. Furthermore, both of these civilizations had powerful armies to influence political order
and maintain large territories. Most importantly both of these civilizations had a major focus on
economic prosperity and securing more resources. Furthermore, both of these governments
promoted agriculture and trade to acquire more wealth. The non monarchical government
encouraged free trade whereas monarchs controlled trades through burrecrates. But both of the
governments needed a good economy to prosper and maintain peace.
After the second paragraph, the author will discuss the societal roles and legal freedoms women
had in ancient Persia and the Roman Republic civilization. In the Persian Empire the royal
women had a lot of power and influence in the society but they were excluded from public
duties. According to Brosius (1996), Persian royal women—such as queens and princesses—had
a big influence in court politics and business, frequently exercising power beneath the curtain.
Despite their powerful presence in the court the general women did not have any involvement in
politics. Furthermore, their lives were typically confined to household duties and families but
they were allowed to own a house, engage in business, and earn wages. On the other hand,
Roman elite women possessed a level of social influence; they were, similarly to Persian women,
excluded from formal political participation. According to Hemelrijk (123), the Roman ideal of
'pudicitia' was used to regulate women's conduct. The Roman virtue of ‘pudicitia’, emphasized
sexual modesty and virginity, influenced women's behavior through severe dress standards,
public conduct, marital fidelity, and social roles primarily within the family. Despite its effects
differed by socioeconomic class, it served as a social control mechanism that upheld patriarchal
standards and restricted individual freedoms. The monarch and non-monarch both of these
civilizations were built upon on male dominance where the women were excluded from many
common privileges such as voting,political and legal rights.
In modern societies women have political and legal rights, they have broader opportunities to
have education,economic independence and leadership positions compared to ancient times.
Unfortunately, in many societies women face gender based violence, wage gaps and are
restricted to minimal rights. Women around the world face discrimination in the workplace,
minimal power to make decisions, domestic violence and normalization of gender based
violence. Despite there being laws to protect women from these barbarities, it still remains
inefficient to save women in many nations. So the struggle for gender equality still remains a
global issue till this day.
In conclusion, the ancient civilizations monarch and non monarch governance were influenced
by many factors such as administrative hierarchies, political philosophy, religious beliefs and so
on in order to maintain their rule. However, these factors that shaped ancient civilizations served
a better purpose which continued to give us an important view of human relationship, society
mechanism,power distribution and connection between the states and individuals.
Reference:
Farazmand, A. (1998). Administration of the Persian achaemenid world-state empire:
implications for modern public administration. International Journal of Public
Administration, 21(1), 25–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699808525297
Brosius, M. (1996). Women in ancient Persia, 559-331 BC. Clarendon
Press.https://global.oup.com/academic/product/women-in-ancient-persia-559-331-bc-97
80198152552?cc=bd&lang=en&
Hemelrijk, E. A. (2004). Matrona Docta Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to
Julia
Domna.
Routledge
Press.
https://www.routledge.com/Matrona-Docta-Educated-Women-in-the-Roman-Elite-from-Cornelia
-to-Julia-Domna/Hemelrijk/p/book/9780415341271?srsltid=AfmBOoqqG4h4HBCP4PBnrUD0L
jqsTUslHyRHkvUC-Hg39UOnHK_4wvIp
Briant, P. (2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns.
https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-031-6.html
Nathan, A. J. (2003). China’s Transition. Columbia University Press.
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/chinas-transition/9780231110228
Black, A (2016). A World History Of Ancient Political Thought. Oxford University Press.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-world-history-of-ancient-political-thought-97801987
90686?cc=bd&lang=en&
Illustration:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.drishtiias.com%2Fblog%2Farist
otles-views-on-state-man-and-government&psig=AOvVaw2mZXh4wZa56fw7RRuCL-Wc&ust
=1742366335367000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=2ahUKEwjsspbFgpOMAx
UugGMGHXcID_sQjRx6BAgAEBk