City States vs. Empires

Ancient city-states and empires both had numerous cultural and economic benefits due to their structure of not only development, but also social classes, religion, and trade accompanied by fiscal responsibilities. These benefits differed between the two formations of civilizations in many ways, but complemented by similarities, resembled each other in additional ways. With the advancement and development of city-states to empires, culture and economics changed drastically. The social classes of the two arrangements of civilizations were altered, but some factors stayed the same. In ancient city-states, councils of nobles usually governed and ruled. In the Greek city-state of Athens a democracy and ruling of the people was established. Numerous councils were opened up to the people of Athens, for their voices to be heard. As we moved into empires, social classes become more apparent with a ruler, or emperor, on top and other classes falling below him. In both organizations, there is some type of hierarchy leader on top, whether it is the emperor or the leader of the council or general in high office, such as Solon. Another noticeable change in the transition of city-states to empires is the alteration of religion and its effect on culture. Many city-states were centers for religion, accepting numerous religions and the people who practiced them. Moving into empires the rule of one religion and the force put upon people to practice that religion becomes obvious. Usually the religion of the emperor or a new religion presented to the emperor that he is fond of becomes the religion of the people. As we look further into the conversion of city-states to empires we see that there are more factors that have been changed. We can see the change of trade and economics when we look at the transition. In city-states, trade was a large part of everyday life, with people from all cultures and areas trading their goods in the center of these metropolises. There were even