Mesopotamia was without a doubt compelling to Ancient Greece. With them two starting around the Mediterranean, it's nothing unexpected that both of them collaborated through exchange, prompting social similitudes. One point that you made that I truly can't contend with, is the way that Mesopotamia had the option to exploit both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to flourish as a civilization. Contrasted with ancient Greece, where autonomous city states flourished freely of each other, Mesopotamian city states covered with one another in reality, so they had the option to gain from every others' missteps and figure out how to viably utilize the rivers furthering their potential benefit at a stunning pace. Greek city states were isolated by a sloping landscape that kept them from having the option to speak with one another viably. Another intriguing contrast that you called attention to was that the Greeks never had an individual ruler. Mesopotamia, characterized as the Akadian Empire, had an individual ruler in Sargon. When it came to composing, the two civilizations had comparable, yet additionally various styles. The two types of composing appear to be lingual, which means they are perused as though you are talking them. Mesopotamian composing notwithstanding, was intriguing on the grounds that cuneiform couldn't be completely converted into a genuine language. It was essentially a blend of images and composed words or sounds. All things considered, these two civilizations were fundamentally the same as one another basically in light of the fact that they were geologically near one another. This took into account familiar exchange that brought about comparative societies.
