Answer:
We can list as similarities between these two empires their location, the way how they built their cities, and the period they build their empires. The differences, however, are more visible. For the differences, we can separate into two points: the government and the war practices.
Explanation:
The Babylonians were harsh with their laws. An example of this point is the Code of Hammurabi. Dated from around the year 1700 BC, this law agreement was based on the lex talionis, or "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". The violence of these laws is one of the main differences between Babylonians and Hittites.
The Hittites Law Code was more complex and consistent. This is because of their nomadism, and especially because they had the precept to capture their enemies. So, their laws must be range. We can name their laws based on the concept of causes, which means, your actions would be punished according to their strength. However, there was no death penalty (capital punishment), and many of the crimes were solved trough tax payments or fines.
When it comes to war, the Babylonians were not used to combat. Even if they had an army and the pretense idea of expansion, they were closer to the research and scholar world. Many astronomical discoveries were proceeded by the Babylonians. On the other hand, Hittites were warriors.
The Sherman Antitrust act was created for that purpose, but it was also supported by the Clayton Antitrust Act which came later on. Roosevelt was known as "Teddy the Trust-Buster" for his strict enforcement of these acts.
<span>This question was not asked clearly. What I do know from what I can understand, the whole point of separation of powers is to clearly divide the responsibilities between the three branches.</span>
Sharecroppers were free people and slaves weren't. Slaves didn't "rent" a piece of someone's land and work on it. They were forced to work on land since they were owned by the land owner.