Grade my APWH Comparative Essay?

cypres
Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:36:31 +0000

My first ever AP Essay (closed book, at least). I’m proud of it, but please do pile on the constructive criticism – I need the feedback since I’m self-studying. Thanks!

Compare and contrast the state-building experiences of two of the following political units.

Mongol Empire
Abbasid Caliphate
Medieval Europe*
Feudal Japan*

Every civilization begins to unify in its own way. Once a kingdom is formed, the ruler must find a way to keep his power over such a large area. Two of the most notable state building methods that developed independently but are remarkably similar are that of medieval Europe’s, and feudal Japan’s. In both Europe and Japan, a feudal structure was used in which a lower class felt indebted to a higher class, tying together all the way to the ruler. The two state building experiences were astoundingly similar, in the structure of gov’t and also how a social hierarchy kept together a decentralized land. However, the two differed in how such a hierarchy was structured.

To begin with, feudal Japan and medieval Europe possessed many similarities. Both resulted as a means to tie together lands under one ruler by basing it on a social hierarchy. In medieval Europe, a king would distribute land to the lords/nobles, who would then distribute the land received to vassals. The ‘gift-giving’ of land tied loyalty from one social class to the class directly above it, i.e, vassal to lord. There were also knights – young men of the noble class more loyal to their lord than to the king. Feudal Japan possessed samurai, who were loyal to daimyo – land owning generals, similar to a knight-lord relationship in Europe. Although the shogun ruled over all in Japan, regionally the daimyo had more power due to the loyal samurai. The situation was similar in Europe, where the lords had more power regionally than the king, due to knights. Another similarity between the two where both were based on agriculture – the lords and daimyos required yield from their lands and both had peasants who were required to farm the land and remain in that occupation.

However Japan and Europe differed in what their feudal structure and social hierarchy was built around. In Europe, the aristocracy/nobility was primarily based on land and wealth. People in favor with the king could receive more land/wealth, as a result gain more vassals (loyalty) and therefore rise in status. Even merchants who were originally poor could rise in the hierarchy so long as they had wealth. However in feudal Japan the social structure was built on culture, honor, and in the lower classes, how one contributed. The upper classes consisted of the emperor, shogun, daimyo, and samurai. The samurai were tied to their daimyo for honor – often samurai were expected to commit seppukku, or ritual suicide, if they had failed their daimyo in any way. In the lower classes, peasants were more valued than artisans or merchants, the latter being at the bottom. Although they led a difficult life, peasants provided food for society and therefore were honored. Merchants contributed nothing to society, so they were at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Therefore, feudal Japan and medieval Europe had many similarities and differences. Both possessed a regional ruler who ultimately tied all loyalty back to the land’s ruler, but at the same time that daimyo/lord had more influence to the people they governed. They differed in cultural aspects of the social hierarchy that tied them together. One can argue the cultural effects of both feudalistic societies can still be felt today, where in the Western/European sense, the social structure is still determined by wealth, while in the Eastern/Asian sense, there is a stronger basis on duty and responsibility to society as a whole ,rather than wealth for the individual.