Do not copy-paste anything from google. kindly write in your own language.

In the answer, Must Give 5/6 bullets points. Each bullet point should have a paragraph within (40 to 50 words)

The answer should be based on the paragraph below. I will upvote after getting the answer :) thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

Comment_on_why_did_the_author_wrote_Power_and_administration_were_not_impersonal_(objective)_and_had_to_be_applied_by_individuals_onto_individuals._What_does_the_word_individual_mean_here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give comments by reading the paragraphs below:

Through a dazzling maze of marble corridors, through chambers with rich mosaic and cloth of gold, through long lines of palace guards in white uniforms, amidst patricians, bishops, generals and senators, to the music of organs and church choirs he passes, supported by eunuchs, until at last oppressed with interminable splendour he falls prostrate in the presence of the silent, motionless, hieratic figure of the Lord of New Rome, the heir of

Constantine, seated on the throne of the Caesars: before he can rise, Emperor and throne have been caught aloft, and with vestments changed since he last gazed the sovereign looks down upon him, surely as God regarding mortal men. Who is he, as he hears the roar of the golden lions that surround the throne or the song of the birds on the trees, who is he that he should decline the Emperors behests? He stays not to think of the mechanism, which causes the lion to roar or the birds to sing: he can scarce answer the questions of the logothete speaking for his imperial master: his allegiance is won: he will fight for the Roman Christ and his Empire. In Assyria extensive royal annals were composed each year and presumably read out to the dignitaries and divinities present at the annual spectacles. Supported by the wide-ranging pictorial record, they offer a vivid impression of the imperial discourse surrounding life at court and present an example of how subjects to the empire were urged to perceive themselves and their equals. The extensive programme of architecture and decoration at Persepolis, with its towering columned reception halls built on elevated platforms, makes a similarly awe-inspiring statement about unity in plurality under a universal ruler. On the seemingly endlessly running reliefs of the palace were depicted guards, imperial magnates and the ceremonial gathering of representatives from the numerous communities of the Persian empire marching in procession bearing gifts and tribute to the omnipotent Great King. But neither set of imperial representation, Persian or Assyrian, lends itself easily to the study of imperial policy as it was put into practice. Empires maintain the fiction of invincibility at their peril, both in letter, in image and in action. The state-induced image of imperial invincibility can manipulate audiences even across the millennia, and so when we have them, letters, judicial documents and administrative texts add crucial information on everyday policy-making as a contrast to the formalised narratives of the imperial annals and pictorial representations. The self-styled image of an empire held together for centuries by divine will, the preeminence of the royal lineage, and an omnipotent military force gives way to a more pragmatic understanding of the way in which policy was deliberated and administered. Power and ideology were not impersonal and had to be applied by individuals onto individuals. A supposed ambiguity about what was internal and what was external represents our inadequate grasp of

how the ancient empires were structured rather than their shortcomings. Even if imperial conduct was submitted to an ideological agenda, it continued to be disseminated and implemented by and towards individuals whose relations were embedded in social and political reality. Physical force and ideological brands are rarely as efficient in keeping a state together as the proverbial social contract.