a number of reasons, including lack of an heir to the throne
or conquest by another nation. In some civilizations, power
struggles emerged when no clear heir existed, and ruling dy-
nasties would change when, for example, a king’s brother or
nephew seized power.
Kingship was the dominant form of government in the
ancient world, but this does not mean that the ancient world
did not provide the fi rst stirrings of democracy. While mod-
ern historians make generalizations about large nations, at
the time it was diffi cult to extend rule over a wide geographi-
cal area. Th e result was the emergence of city-states. Th ese
city-states oft en shared a common language and culture with
other nearby city-states, but they tended to be self-governing.
In ancient Mesopotamia, for example, early city-states oft en
governed themselves, and this government had some of the
characteristics of a democracy, with citizens taking part in
decisions that aff ected the community. Ancient Greece, too,
consisted of a number of city-states, such as Sparta, which
were oft en in competition and confl ict with other Greek city-
states. Th ese Greek city-states, too, off ered some measure of
citizen government. Sometimes, for protection and trade, a
handful of city-states formed a league.
Another ancient form of government organization was
the oligarchy. Th is term refers to government by a small
group, usua lly prominent or powerf ul citizens who held some
interest in common. While the civilizations of ancient Eu-
rope were monarchies, they had some of the characteristics
of an oligarchy, for kings remained dependent on a class of
powerful land-owning nobles who supported the king with
taxes and military service—but who also sometimes opposed
their king when their interests demanded it.
Government and government organization necessarily
became more complex as the notion of empire became more
common. Ancient Rome provides a classic example. Rome
began humbly as a city-state in about the ninth century b.c.e.
Over the next 12 centuries, it evolved into fi rst a monarchy
ruled by a king, then into an oligarchy, and fi nally into a mas-
sive empire. Th e power of the king, and later the emperor,
was restricted by various advisory and legislative bodies. Th e
Roman Senate, for example, was a body that served in an ad-
visory capacity to the emperor, who found it diffi cult to rule
without the Senate’s support. Over time, a large class of of-
fi cials was appointed to administer the aff airs of the empire.
In the outlying provinces another class of offi cials was ap-
pointed to administer the aff airs of each province.
AFRICA
BY JUSTIN CORFIELD
Ancient Africa was largely made up of kingdoms controlled
by hereditary rulers. Most followed the domestication of ani-
mals, which ended the nomadic existence of many tribes and
resulted in the introduction of more structured governmen-
tal systems. Although the extent of some of these entities can
be ascertained from archaeological evidence, information on
how most were run comes from oral sources, so there are ob-
vious doubts about their accuracy. However, the Greek his-
torian Herodotus, of the fi ft h century b.c.e., recorded a few
descriptions of kingdoms in North Africa that predated the
dominance of Carthage, which was, for several centuries, the
major economic and military power in North Africa. Egyp-
tian, Persian, Greek, and Roman sources also provide some
information.CARTHAGE
Th e city of Carthage, founded by Phoenicians from Tyre, was
initially ruled by a governor appointed by the king of Tyre.
Th is was the same as for other Phoenician settlements such
as Hadrumetum (modern-day Sousse), Utica (Bordj bou
Chateur), Hippo Regius (Hippone, near Annaba/Bône) and
Hippo Diarrhytus (Bizerta). Similarly, the Greeks also estab-
lished colonies such as Cyrene, ruled by the Th eraeans since
its foundation in 630 b.c.e. At Cyrene the Greek merchants
seem to have established an intermediary center of trade,
which may have been controlled by a business class, with the
minting of their own coins to a similar standard of those pro-
duced in Athens, Corinth, and Samos.
It appears that by the seventh century b.c.e. Carthage
was ruled by hereditary kings, including Mago, who may
have reigned from 550 to 530 b.c.e.; his son Hastrubal, who
also reigned for about 20 years; and Hamilcar, a grandson
of Mago, who ruled from about 510 to 490 b.c.e. Hanno the
Navigator was the ruler who extended the size of Carthage
along the coast of North Africa; it already had bases on Sic-
ily and Sardinia. Th e other kings recorded are Hannibal
(d. 406 b.c.e.), Himilco (r. 406–396 b.c.e.), and Mago (r.
396–375 b.c.e.).
Th e role of the government in Carthage included taxa-
tion and the coining of money, with the revenue expended on
the defense of the city of Carthage, its hinterland, and also the
lands of its allies; maintaining law and order within the city
of Carthage; gaining and sustaining access to reliable sup-
plies of food; and public works projects. All of this required
a relatively complicated government structure, and it seems
that Carthage had a signifi cant aristocratic and administra-
tive class. Because important decisions were made in the city
of Carthage itself, there seems to have developed a central-
ized form of government whereby edicts from Carthage were
transmitted to the hinterland and to the Carthaginian bases
in Sicily, Malta, and other locations.
By the sixth century b.c.e. Carthage had come to be
dominated by a city-based aristocratic oligarchy (government
controlled by a small group). Although Roman authors such
as Livy (59 b.c.e.–17 c.e.) wrote extensively about the Punic
Wars between Carthage and Rome, it is clear that he knew
little about how Carthage was governed. As a result, many of
the descriptions come from the Greek philosopher Aristotle
(384–322 b.c.e.), and hence the comparisons are largely with
Greek models. It is uncertain exactly when Carthage changed
from a monarchy to a republic, though the date is tradition-508 government organization: Africa