River Civilization Essay

The Neolithic revolution made agriculture the base of new civilized societies. These civilized societies then led to division of labor and political organizations which in turn led to technological advancement eventually leading to the prosperity of modern day. But it cannot be forgotten that all the cultural and technological achievements of a civilization can only exist with a reliable food surplus. This surplus is what allows the freeing of labors, and without it a civilization must turn all its resources toward the acquiring of food and quelling civil unrest. Egypt was the resilient nation that it was because of the stability provided by its geography.

        Egyptian geography differed from Mesopotamia in two key ways, its rivers, and its deserts. The Nile was not only more reliable and slower than the Tigris and Euphrates rivers but it also carried along far more silt that the river of Mesopotamia leading to greater fertility. These two combined to produce a larger, and more reliable surpluses. The deserts that surrounded Egypt also lent it stability as these isolated it from malevolent outside forces. While the Mesopotamian river valley had been invaded 4 times by 480 B.C.E., Egypt had only been attacked in 1,000 B.C.E. and managed to maintain self-rule.

        First and foremost the economies of these two regions were set by their rivers. While Egypt had a reliable flood which allowed for surplus to be put to use in big projects such as large temples, statues, pyramids, etc. Mesopotamia had to spend nearly its entire surplus on ensuring survival.  While some of this went towards religion, Mesopotamia’s religion was also focused on near-term survival. These differences compounded as Egypt could put some of its surplus into better infrastructure further ensuring stable and plentiful harvests while Mesopotamia which desperately needed such infrastructure could not afford to build such complex structures. This lack of infrastructure may have meant when Mesopotamia was hit by a particularly weak or strong flood they may have lost a significant portion of their population. Egypt on the other hand could handle its infrequent natural disasters with over-flow mechanisms and stored-up surplus. The stronger and more stable economy of Egypt would have created a cycle in which it would have become more stable as time passed giving Egypt strength to endure hardship that Mesopotamia lacked.

        The natural protection afforded by the deserts would have also benefited Egypt as they would not have had to put as many resources towards defense. Mesopotamia fell many times to outside group signaling that they did not have enough resources to properly ensure the common defence. Mesopotamia also probably suffered more severely than Egypt as they killed those who were caught. Mesopotamian laws around thievery also signify that the lower classes lived on the edge and could not withstand the losses associated with thievery as insurance against thievery was built into the law. In sum, Egypt may have been able to remain unified for so long due to its isolation from outside forces and ability to muster a strong militia.

        The strength of Egypt’s military and its democratized religion may also have allowed it to endure through bad rulers. Despite Akhenaten’s negligence towards administration the Egyptian empire remained strong for centuries after. This was likely because Egypt’s military and the surrounding infrastructure was too strong to disappear in a single reign. Egypt’s democratized religion ensured that civil unrest at home would be quelled and no revolutions would occur. This is clearly not the case in Mesopotamia as Hammurabi’s code specifically discusses rebels and their are strict punishments for those who aid them. In conclusion, Egypt’s military and religion would have helped it to weather bad rulers.