The fall of the Han dynasty and the fall of the Western Roman Empire do compare in some ways. For instance, they both faced internal oppositions. Notwithstanding, the Romans differentiate because they had been invaded unlike the fall of the Han. Furthermore, the empire of Western Roman did not dilapidate entirely likewise the Han. Both of them declined because of internal problems such as generals taking over when the empire was weak. The Romans had a time period from 235 to 284 C.E. where there were 26 recognized emperors that were in actuality merely generals claiming themselves as emperors. These generals held their domination briefly but lost it by their mutinous soldiers. Only one of them died of natural causes; the others died violently. Needless to say, that didn’t work out. In similarity, the Han dynasty generals effectively ruled the regions controlled by their armies. They allied with the affluent landowners of their regions and maintained rough order based on force of arms. This continued for a while but ended up eradicating the dynasty. To differ from each other, the Romans had external problems. Thus, Germanic peoples posed a serious threat to the Roman Empire. Alaric, the commander of Visigoths, had them storm and sack Rome. By that time Rome was in total pandemonium. Because of this, the Western Roman Empire fell to the ground. Nevertheless, unlike the Han, it did not collapse completely. The Han dynasty extirpated after the generals (who claimed themselves as emperors) lost control and the empire was divided into 3 large kingdoms. With the Romans, imperial authority persevered for other millennia in the eastern half, although, in the western, Roman authority gradually dissolved. Nomadic peoples built succors states in regions formerly subject to Rome. To conclude, The Western Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty differ and are similar in many ways, they are the same because they face internal oppositions and are different because Rome had been…