Compare and contrast the social classes of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe to the social order in medieval Europe. How were they similar? How are they different?

Similarities between Mapungubwe's social order and European medieval society lie mainly on the fact that both were class-based societies, it means, with a hierarchical order.

The society of Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe was ruled by a leading class that was separated from the rest of the people, and this leadership had a sacred nature. This social order was centered around the figure of a king, and the kingdom's territory was separated in different areas ruled by Paramount Chiefs, who depended on the king himself. The society presented three social classes and the kingdom was spatially divided according to this social order:

1) First, the upper class, the royal family and elites that held a sacred role to rule. This class dominated the Mapungubwe hill as a supreme authority.

2) Second, the district leaders, who were located in small hilltops.

3) Third, the commoners who inhabited the low ground.

This configuration is similar to European medieval society in the fact that European social order, in general terms, was also divided into three parts:

1) Church.

2) Kings and feudal lords with a sacred role to rule, but holding secular power.

3) Commoners, peasants, farmers, and merchants.

The main difference is that medieval Europe was a much larger and complex society and covered a larger area than the Mapungubwe Kingdom. Hence, there was no spatial configuration similar to that of the Mapungubwe, instead feuds and kingdoms were disseminated throughout the continent. Also, what was supposed to be the central authority in Europe, the Church, was in constant conflict with the secular powers, such as the Sacred Roman-Germanic Empire which led to many struggles and wars in this particular period.