Jordan Peterson

The political systems of Ancient Egypt and Sumer, between 3500-2000 BCE, were very
similar, with some minor differences. In both Egypt and Sumer, the social and political ranking
systems were very similar, the history of city-states was common, and the role of political
advisors for leaders was also exercised in both.
In Ancient Egypt, the social ranking, from top to bottom, was: Pharaoh, Priest, Noble,
Commoner, Slave. In Sumer it was: King, Priest, Noble, Commoner, Slave. The Pharaoh and
King both controlled the land as a whole, and dished out land to the nobles to govern it. The
Priests in Sumer and Egypt were responsible for appeasing the gods, however in Egypt, they
also were responsible for Mummification. The Nobles controlled the land for the King/Pharaoh,
who needed help controlling all of the empire. The Nobles and Priests in both were the main
advisors of the King/Pharaoh. The Commoners were artisans and farmers and merchants. The
Slaves worked for higher classes, and were generally prisoners of war or debt-slaves, who were
temporarily given as a service to pay for a familys debts. The structures of social ranking
between the two countries were very similar. The political past of both were also similar: first
they were city-states, and then they eventually united into empires, although Sumer was much
less stable and had conflicts between the cities. Sumer was made of city-states, and then it was
invaded by Sargon, an Akkadian, who easily took all of the cities because of the poor support
between Sumerian cities. Egypt was originally city-states, but eventually split into 2 general
unions, the north and south; these were united by Narmer, of the north, who took his place as
first Pharaoh of Egypt. Both groups started as city-states, but grew into empires.
A minor difference between Ancient Egypt and Sumer is that in Egypt, the Pharaoh really
owned and lead over all of the land. In Sumer, the king lent out land to lords (nobles) who
watched over the city-states, but the land was still generally controlled. The thing was, Sumer
has much less control over the unity of the city-states for most of its lifetime, much less than
Egypt, especially for how long it was considered an empire in comparison. Sumer has much
less coordination as an army; Egypt didn't really need/have an army, but based on how they
could coordinate workers for building Pyramids and large forced structures, it would be possible
to make a more successful army.
In conclusion, though there were several political differences in the minor details, both
Sumer and Ancient Egypt had overwhelmingly similar structures of society and fairly similar
pasts. They developed into empires, both showing the same growth pattern, and Sumer only fell
when Egypt did not because of ecological disaster and likely-coordinated enemies.