Comparative governance — empire (Rome, Han, Sasanian, Mauryan, Gupta) vs. city-state (Classical Maya divine kingships at Tikal, Palenque, Calakmul) vs. kingdom (Aksum, early Ghana / Wagadou) — what governs which form emerges? — per Charles Tilly and Walter Scheidel scholarship
Exercise
Difficulty 4
~8 min
hist.g6.s.ex_34
Rubric Response
Prompt
Apply Charles Tilly's coercion-capital framework — why did the Classical Maya develop a city-state NETWORK rather than an empire? Write 3-5 sentences.
How it's presented
mode
text
Answer criteria
type
rubric scored
rubric
Per Martin & Grube and Stuart, the Maya region's geographic structure (lowland tropical-forest, low-density agriculture, scattered urban centers competing for resources + tribute + alliances) made empire-formation difficult; a network of sovereign divine-kingship city-states was the political-economic optimum for the region's conditions
Hints
- Tilly's framework: large territory + sustained military pressure + agricultural surplus + ideological glue → empire; smaller territory + competing cities + trade-network → city-state.
- Per Martin & Grube and Stuart — Maya region's geographic structure (lowland tropical-forest, scattered urban centers) made empire-formation difficult.
Misconceptions to watch
- Treating city-state as 'failed empire'
Used in lessons