Ramses II and Shihuangdi were ancient male rules who reigned over the Egyptian kingdom and the Ancient China Kingdom respectively. The two rulers had similarities in their administration, while there were evident differences in their individual systems of administration ( Cotterell et al., 2016) . On his part, Qin Shihuang was the first ever emperor of the ancient Chinese Kingdom, where his fame is acknowledged in bringing laws and rules in his system of governance, which is also largely attributed to the fact that he was a coward ( Talbott, 2010) . On the other hand, Ramses II was considered as the great as he was strict in his administration with a consequent follow-up of the set rules and regulations. The major difference between the two leaders is that in as much as Qin Shihuang was a coward, Ramesses the II was braver as he used his warriors to fight and expand the territory of the Egyptian Kingdom. The issue of contention lies in the analysis of whether the strength of an ancient kingdom lied in the system of administration of the rulers or in the loyalty of the subjects to the rulers. This paper proves the fact that the strength of an ancient kingdom lied solely on the system of administration and nature of the ruler.
The major similarity between Ramses II and Shihuangdi lies in the fact that both rulers were heir to the throne as a result of their fathers having been rulers. It is evident that on his part, Ramses II was heir to his father, Seti, who was a pharaoh, while Shihuangdi was heir to his, who was the king of the state of Qin ( Cotterell et al., 2016) . This implied that their rise to the throne was attributed to the influence from their individual father. Another common attribute between Ramses II and Shihuangdi is that they were both born in the BCE despite the fact that Ramses was around before the existence of Qin. The two leaders had a common system of governance in the sense that they imposed rules on their subjects, where the subjects had the requirement of following up those rules on a strict basis. In fact, Ramses II was stricter on his rules than Shihuangdi, who was considered as a coward.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The other common system of rule depicted by the rulers is that they sought to expand their individual territory, which implied that they worked by gaining more subjects. The major difference in this search for expansion of the kingdom was the approach, where Ramses II was forceful in conquering over the adjacent kingdoms, while Shihuangdi used peaceful negotiations to conquer over his adjacent kingdoms ( Talbott, 2010) . It is also evident that both leaders were superstitious, where they ruled their dynasties with an iron fist. This means that the rulers consulted their charm providers before venturing into any provocative actions like recapture of their lost territories. The rulers also gave a requirement that their subjects were supposed to be loyal to the rules, which in turn led to the evident breakup of their dynasties.
On the contrary, Ramses II and Shihuangdi had differences in their systems of administration ( Talbott, 2010) . For Ramses II, peace was not definitive until there was an incident of shed of blood, where he believed that peace could only be achieved through war. This feature contrasted heavily with the system of administration in the Kingdom of Ancient China, where Shihuangdi as the ruler believed that peace could be achieved through negotiations. Infact, the essence of negotiating for peace was an attribute that made the subjects of Shihuangdi to consider him as a coward. One incident, which marked the significance of negotiation for peace in the Shihuangdi administration, is when he ordered the removal of weapons from his country so that the weapons could not be used to assassinate him and his loyal subjects.
The other major contrast between the two rulers lies in the fact that Ramses II ruled over as a pharaoh, while Shihuangdi ruled over as an emperor. The requirements of the two posts and the administrative practices were different for both leaders, where the pharaoh duties were godly as opposed to the duties of the emperor ( Cotterell et al., 2016) . This implied that Ramses II as a pharaoh was supposed to rule on grounds of his divine nature, where he was worshiped by his subjects. In the ancient Egyptian Kingdom, a Pharaoh had the power to perform miracles, which included healing, and provision of divine power to his soldiers at war. On the contrary, the emperor in the Ancient Chinese Kingdom was not treated as much divine as the case of the emperor, where he was a participant in legislations apart from being the commander in chief of his soldiers.
Conclusively, the divine power subjected to Ramses II enabled the Egyptian Kingdom to grow amid the constraint of war, while the legislative roles of Shihuangdi, coupled with the forceful implication of peace to his subjects led to a system of rule under peace. This implies that the ruler of a dynasty determines the success of the Kingdom, where the Ancient Chinese Kingdom has had a lasting peace, from the negotiations and imposition of peace to subjects, courtesy of the system of administration that was led by Shihuangdi ( Talbott, 2010) . It is also evident that however the disparity in the system of administration, ancient rulers worked towards expansion of their kingdoms through reclaiming the lost territories.
References
Cotterell, A., Lowe, R., & Shaw, I. (2016). Leadership lessons from the ancient world: how learning from the past can win you the future (Vol. 20). John Wiley & Sons.
Talbott, S. (2010). The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation . Simon and Schuster.
Finer, S. E. (2013). The History of Government from the Earliest Times: Ancient monarchies and empires (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press, USA.
