Compare And Contrast Han China And Imperial Rome
Rome and Hans China Comparison Essay
The ancient empires Rome and Hans China played a vital role in the economic health of Europe and Asia. They were also two of the biggest and most powerful empires of Ancient Europe and Asia. Yet Han China only lasted about 200 years, and Rome for about 900. In the end they were not beaten by any superior force or empire, but by plagues, low birth rates, internal strife and corruption, lower tax income, and barbarians. The continuous attacks by barbarians led them to develop advanced technology to help defend themselves, but led to the downfall of both empires during their final years.
The political structures of both Rome and Han China were based on bureaucratic systems with a strong monarchy set of succession. They strengthened their control by reducing the land holdings of old aristocratic families. However, the reversal of this process led to breakdown of authority in the central government. During its reign of power, the central bureaucracy promoted trading with neighboring …show more content…
societies. However, Rome was more aggressive with its role in trading in the Mediterranean verses Han China’s river trade. Rome’s trade led to a much greater technology, culture, and general transfer of knowledge in areas surrounding the Mediterranean which in turn led to a much longer lasting influence on the world.
Although the Roman Empire was large and its resources seemed unlimited, it had trouble keeping barbarians out of its borders.
The Roman tactic for managing the barbarians on the western frontier across the Rhine River was to engage in periodic raids/ethnic cleansing so as to devastate barbarian communities so their power and population was held in check. When Constantine became the first Christian emperor, he changed the Roman policy towards barbarians radically. He declared that regular ethnic cleansing/genocide was seen as unchristian and banned this policy. Instead, he paid money/gold to the barbarians in exchange for not attacking Rome. As the barbarian’s population became greater, they required more money to keep them at bay and eventually, it drained the Roman treasury of money needed to fund the army and hold the empire together. The barbarians took advantage of this and disbanded the Roman Senate, ending the Roman Empire in the
west.
Han China had a similar yet not as dramatic decline and fall. There was a brief faltering after the reign of Emperor Wudi, but Han china managed to survive for about two centuries. In 88 A.D though the Emperors were getting more corrupt, there was a lot of political infighting and backstabbing. Living conditions and life for the peasantry was getting worse, and the rich land owners grew more powerful by buying their own private armies and avoiding taxes. The peasants finally revolted, led by a Daoist group in 184 A.D. Han’s generals put down the rebellion, and then set themselves up as regional rulers, signaling the end of Han china. They got rid of the final Han Emperor in 220 A.D. and divided the country into three separate kingdoms for a few years, finally these collapsed too and the landowners took over parts of the country.
In the end, both empires gave way to a combination of external pressures and internal division, both empires defeated themselves, through bad planning, corrupt thinking, poor strategy, and inability to continue tax collections. The one thing that seems to have saved both the eastern Roman Empire and what was left of China was religion. In China, the tradition and class structure and value system that maintained it were eventually revived. But the lands of the Roman Empire never again achieved the same level of unification.
The ancient empires Rome and Hans China played a vital role in the economic health of Europe and Asia. They were also two of the biggest and most powerful empires of Ancient Europe and Asia. Yet Han China only lasted about 200 years, and Rome for about 900. In the end they were not beaten by any superior force or empire, but by plagues, low birth rates, internal strife and corruption, lower tax income, and barbarians. The continuous attacks by barbarians led them to develop advanced technology to help defend themselves, but led to the downfall of both empires during their final years.
The political structures of both Rome and Han China were based on bureaucratic systems with a strong monarchy set of succession. They strengthened their control by reducing the land holdings of old aristocratic families. However, the reversal of this process led to breakdown of authority in the central government. During its reign of power, the central bureaucracy promoted trading with neighboring …show more content…
societies. However, Rome was more aggressive with its role in trading in the Mediterranean verses Han China’s river trade. Rome’s trade led to a much greater technology, culture, and general transfer of knowledge in areas surrounding the Mediterranean which in turn led to a much longer lasting influence on the world.
Although the Roman Empire was large and its resources seemed unlimited, it had trouble keeping barbarians out of its borders.
The Roman tactic for managing the barbarians on the western frontier across the Rhine River was to engage in periodic raids/ethnic cleansing so as to devastate barbarian communities so their power and population was held in check. When Constantine became the first Christian emperor, he changed the Roman policy towards barbarians radically. He declared that regular ethnic cleansing/genocide was seen as unchristian and banned this policy. Instead, he paid money/gold to the barbarians in exchange for not attacking Rome. As the barbarian’s population became greater, they required more money to keep them at bay and eventually, it drained the Roman treasury of money needed to fund the army and hold the empire together. The barbarians took advantage of this and disbanded the Roman Senate, ending the Roman Empire in the
west.
Han China had a similar yet not as dramatic decline and fall. There was a brief faltering after the reign of Emperor Wudi, but Han china managed to survive for about two centuries. In 88 A.D though the Emperors were getting more corrupt, there was a lot of political infighting and backstabbing. Living conditions and life for the peasantry was getting worse, and the rich land owners grew more powerful by buying their own private armies and avoiding taxes. The peasants finally revolted, led by a Daoist group in 184 A.D. Han’s generals put down the rebellion, and then set themselves up as regional rulers, signaling the end of Han china. They got rid of the final Han Emperor in 220 A.D. and divided the country into three separate kingdoms for a few years, finally these collapsed too and the landowners took over parts of the country.
In the end, both empires gave way to a combination of external pressures and internal division, both empires defeated themselves, through bad planning, corrupt thinking, poor strategy, and inability to continue tax collections. The one thing that seems to have saved both the eastern Roman Empire and what was left of China was religion. In China, the tradition and class structure and value system that maintained it were eventually revived. But the lands of the Roman Empire never again achieved the same level of unification.