Jump to content

Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nev1 (talk | contribs)
56,354 edits
→‎Sources: those two are precursors to the chapters in Scheidel's 2008 book
Nev1 (talk | contribs)
56,354 edits
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png|thumb|350px|The [[Roman Empire]] (red) and the [[China|Chinese]] [[Han dynasty]] (yellow), c. AD 1.]]
[[File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png|thumb|350px|The [[Roman Empire]] (red) and the [[China|Chinese]] [[Han dynasty]] (yellow), c. AD 1.]]


'''Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires''' have been suggested since Edward Gibbon in the late 18th century. This is based on the similar scale of the empires, both in size and population, as well as parallels in their rise and decline. These two powers controlled a large portion of the world population, and produced distinct and lasting political and cultural impacts on Far Eastern and Western cultures. Several scholars have made comparative studies of the two empires. As Samuel Adshead puts it, "Other comparisons could be made [...] None, however, offers so close a parallel with Han China as the Roman empire."<ref>Adshead 2000, p 4</ref>
'''Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires''' have been suggested since Edward Gibbon in the late 18th century. This is based on the similar scale of the empires, both in size and population, as well as parallels in their rise and decline. These two powers controlled a large portion of the world population, and produced distinct and lasting political and cultural impacts on Far Eastern and Western cultures. Several scholars have made comparative studies of the two empires. As Samuel Adshead puts it, "Other comparisons could be made [...] None, however, offers so close a parallel with Han China as the Roman empire."<ref name="Adshead 2000 4">{{harvnb|Adshead|2000|p=4.}}</ref>


Relative to individual studies of Han China and the Greco-Roman world, there are few studies that directly compare the two. However, the subject has enjoyed increased interest in the 21st century, with several studies examining the aspects of each area such as their concept of ethnicity and identity and their view of foreigners. There are still gaps in the subject and uneven coverage, but research is ongoing in institutions such as [[Stanford University]]'s Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME).
However, only recent historiography has approached this period with a comparative interest in China, with a few major exceptions. This lack of research is an oversight scholars, like the major proponent of the approach, Walter Scheidel, find both a "persistent neglect" and a "major oversight" by western scholars.<ref name = ScheidelCompProj>{{cite web| title = THE STANFORD ANCIENT CHINESE AND MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRES COMPARATIVE HISTORY PROJECT | url = http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm| first = Walter | last =Scheidel| publisher = Stanford University}}</ref> Scheidel defends the pursuit of such an approach, because he feels that the variables of understanding which became apparent in comparative studies often get overlooked by uni-cultural approaches. This comparative history compares not the only the two empires during their prime, but also the process they were formed from their predecessor states, the Warring States/Qin for the Han, and the Roman republic for the Roman Empire<ref name= "Great Divergence 3"/>.


==Historiography==
==Historiographical issues==
[[File:Edward Emily Gibbon.jpg|thumb|right|In 1788, historian [[Edward Gibbon]] was the first to suggest that the Roman and Han empires were comparable.]]
Roberts notes that "[t]he idea that there might be a connection between the fall of the Roman and the early Chinese empires has been current since at least 1788"<ref>
The suggestion that the Roman and Han empires were comparable entities was proposed by historian [[Edward Gibbon]] in his book ''[[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'' in 1788.<ref>{{harvnb|Roberts|2003|pp=63–64.}}</ref> When he explained the purpose of [[Stanford University]]'s Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project and the framework of its study in the early 21st century, historian Walter Scheidel reviewed the previous scholarship. [[Max Weber]] and [[Karl August Wittfogel]] have both written works comparing the ancient Mediterranean and China, however they have had little influence on later ancient historians in the fields of ancient China and the ancient Mediterranean. Scheidel gives this as a contributing cause to the relative paucity of comparative studies between the two. The majority of the research in the subject area has concentrated on looking at the intellectual and philosophical history of each society. He also noted a change in the direction of research in the 2000s, with a refocusing on the "nature of moral, historical, and scientific thought" in ancient Greece and China.<ref name="ACME">{{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm |title=The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME) |publisher=[[Stanford University]] |accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref>
{{cite book
|last= Roberts
|first= J. A. G.
|authorlink= JAG Roberts
|title= The complete history of China
|origyear= 1996
|year= 2003
|publisher= Sutton Publishing
|location= Stroud
|isbn= 0 7509 3192 2
|page= 63
|chapter= The Fall of the Roman and Chinese Empires Compared
|quote=
}}
p 63
</ref>
when [[Edward Gibbon | Gibbon]] broached the issue in his ''[[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire|Decline and Fall]]''.
Roberts also summarizes more recent views on the decay and collapse of Han China and Roman Europe.<ref>
{{cite book
|last= Roberts
|first= J. A. G.
|authorlink= JAG Roberts
|title= The complete history of China
|origyear= 1996
|year= 2003
|publisher= Sutton Publishing
|location= Stroud
|isbn= 0 7509 3192 2
|page= 64
|chapter= The Fall of the Roman and Chinese Empires Compared
|quote= More recently the collapse has been explained as the consequence of system weaknesses in the two empires [...]
}}
</ref>


Despite modern interest, there are still gaps in the subject area. Specifically on the subject of comparing Rome and the Han Empire, Scheidel notes that there are no comparative studies of [[high culture]]; there is a also a virtual absence of work on "political, social, economic or legal history" of the Greco-Roman world and ancient China. However, he does note that historian Samuel Adhead does briefly address the issue. Wittfogel's work has come in for criticism by later historians, but his studies have not fully been supplanted by up to date theses. In modern studies of imperialism, ancient China has generally been overlooked. In Scheidel's words, "[compared to the study of Europe and China in the early modern period] the comparative history of the largest agrarian empires of antiquity has attracted no attention at all. This deficit is only explicable with reference to academic specialization and language barriers".<ref name="ACME"/>
Many historians find doing comparative studies between Rome and China difficult because of the imbalance of scholarship available. This can lead to various problems. Scheidel points out that comparative interests have much less importance to the study of the individual empires than they could have, so the approach receives much less interest.<ref name = Scheidel7> Scheidel 7 ''Rome and China''</ref> <br/>


According to historian Samuel Adshead, in his book ''China in World History'', comparing Han China and the Roman Empire gives context and assists understanding of China's interactions and relations with other civilisations of [[Ancient history|Antiquity]]. In his opinion, the Roman Empire bears the closest similarity to the Han Empire of the ancient civilisations. He also compares the two to assess their "relative standing" in the ancient world. Despite the similarities between the two empires emphasised by Scheidel, Adshead concludes that when examining Han China and the Roman Empire before [[Constantine]], their "differences outweighed the similarities".<ref name="Adshead 2000 4"/>
Another limiting factor to the approach involves the breadth of scholarship which the historian needs to understand and digest. This, along with linguistic and culture divides in material available for scholars, provides problems which make it difficult to ensure a fully comprehensive approach.<ref name = Scheidel5> Scheidel 5 ''Rome and China''</ref>
==Political==


==Contact between the empires==
The most obvious comparison and the one which has the largest accessible documentation for scholars on both Empires is that of each empire's political climate. Both empires are unique in pre-modern history for their size and absolute bureaucratic control. The political comparison has been largely made within four major sub-topics, the formation of the states, the effects of geography, political control systems and the control and structure of respective bureaucracies.
[[File:Transasia trade routes 1stC CE gr2.png|left|thumb|400px|The [[Silk Road]] in the 1st century&nbsp;AD.]]
As the Han and Roman empires were thousands of miles apart, with other states and empires and inhospitable land in between, contact was limited. The Romans were first introduced to silk by the [[Parthian Empire]], which shared a border with the Roman Empire and stretched as far east as India. The Parthians and other intermediaries facilitated trade between Rome and China from the late 1st century&nbsp;BC onwards, however the two empires had little knowledge of each other. The main trade from China to Rome was in silk; ancient sources indicate that Romans were unaware of the scale of the empire of the [[Seres]], meaning the "silk people". However Raoul McLaughlin, who wrote an article on the silk trade between the Roman and Han empires and their interactions, has questioned whether the Seres were really the Chinese, or whether it referred to a people closer to Rome but still near China.<ref name="McLaughlin">{{harvnb|McLaughlin|2008}}</ref>


According to [[Florus]], writing in the first half of the 2nd century&nbsp;AD, delegates from the Seres were received by the Emperor [[Augustus]], however Chinese historians make no mention of diplomatic relations between Rome and China in the time of Augustus. Trade between Rome and the East increased in the 1st century&nbsp;AD, and in Roman cities silk from China became a common sight. Roman historian complained about the scale of the trade and the vast sums of money leaving the empire, claiming that India, Arabia, and the Seres had taken 100&nbsp;million [[sesterces]] (more than the annual income of the provinces of [[Gaul]] and [[Palestine]]) a year from Rome. <ref name="McLaughlin"/> Through trade contacts, Rome learned more about Han China, although in the 1st century, the two cultures rarely came in direct contact, preferring to trade through India. As well as via the sea and India, silk was also traded over land through the Parthian Empire. Han histories indicate that the Parthian's did not allow Roman traded passage so that they could influence the silk trade, but McLaughlin also suggests that Parthia was wary of contact between the Roman and Han empires and its possible consequences. In McLaughlin's opinion, "successful communication between the two&nbsp;… would have dramatically changed the direction of world history".<ref name="McLaughlin"/> Although the Han and [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] empires interacted in Late Antiquity, the last record of contact between the Roman Empire and China was in the 3rd century. <ref name="McLaughlin"/>
===Formation===
[[File:RomanEmpire 117.svg|thumb|right|250px|The Roman Empire at its greatest extent, at the death of Trajan (117 AD)]]
[[File:China Eastern Han.jpg|250px|thumb|left|The Later Han Dynasty <small>(a Japanese map)</small>]]


==Society==
Both of the empires had a similar formation process.<ref name= "Great Divergence 3"/> In the East, the [[Shang]] (Chinese: 商) and [[Western Zhou]] (Chinese: 西周) periods created a shared culture for the kingdoms of the [[Warring States]] (Chinese: 戰國), a period in which numerous small polities consolidated into a series of large kingdoms which were finally united by the westernmost marcher state of Qin<ref name= "Great Divergence 3"> Scheidel, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096433 From the great convergence to the first great divergence], 3</ref>. In the Mediterranean, [[Classical antiquity|classical civilization]] arose first in central and southern Greece, especially on the shores of the [[Aegean]] sea, later expanding to include settlements such as [[Syracuse, Sicily|Syracuse]], Italy, and the Hellenistic kingdoms of the near east, with power eventually shifting to Rome, also the westernmost state; from which the Roman empire grew to dominate the region<ref name= "Great Divergence 3"/>
Principles of [[sociology|sociological examination]] have been identified that can be applied to the study of China and Rome. They draw on analytical and illustrative comparisons.<ref>{{harvnb|Bonnell|1980}} in {{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm |title=The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME) |publisher=[[Stanford University]] |accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref> Adshead, who emphasises the differences between the two empires, <ref name="Adshead 2000 4"/> has described Rome and Han China as respectively "maritime, mercantile, urban and militaristic" and "territorial, agricultural, rural and civilian". He also asserts that that the Roman Empire was less stable than the Han Empire, which, in his words, "was socially harmonious, had no irreconcilable class conflicts and was highly stable".<ref>{{harvnb|Adshead|1961|p=11.}}</ref>

In his essay, "Imagining the Empire? Concepts of Primeval Unity in pre-imperial historiographical tradition", Yuri Pines compared the creation of the two empires. He states<ref name="Achim Mittag 2008">Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (2008), 68</ref> that while the Roman empire resulted from a long process of expansion and that one can debate its date of origin, the Chinese empire was a new creation, in which the emperor "consciously distanced himself from his predecessors". While the unification of the western Mediterranean area under Rome had no precedent, the idea that "All-under-Heaven" should be unified under a single ruler was established in China from the beginning of [[Zhou dynasty]] rule, if not earlier. Pines finds<ref name="Achim Mittag 2008"/> it puzzling that the First Emperor presented himself as "a founder of a new entity rather than a restorer".<ref name="Achim Mittag 2008"/>

===Geopolitical===

The Han Empire followed tradition and geopolitics in having its heartland in the same river-valleys that nourished previous Chinese hegemons. The Roman Empire coalesced around a new site ([[Latium]]) but grew to include the littoral of the Mediterranean, somewhat in the tradition of the Athenian or Punic sea-borne empires.<ref>
Compare: {{cite book
|last= Scheidel
|first= Walter
|title= Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires
|url= http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Fz8I3INERwsC
|accessdate= 2009-12-21
|year= 2009
|series= Oxford studies in early empires
|publisher= Oxford University Press US
|isbn= 9780195336900
|page= 12
|pages= 240
|quote= [...] the Roman Empire centered on a temperate sea core that was highly conducive to communication, the transfer of goods and people, and the projection of power, whereas China consists of river valleys that are separated by mountain ranges and [...] posed far greater physical obstacles to integration. Moreover, whereas the Rhône, Danube and Nile converge on the inner sea core, Chinese rivers all flow eastward, thereby reinforcing regional separation.
}}
</ref>

===Structure===

The diverging course of Chinese and Roman state formation resulted in different state structures. The Han state had its origins in the highly competitive Warring States Era, which saw the numerous states of China war among themselves for domination. No less than 256 wars took place between 651 and 221 BCE<ref name= "Rome and China 29"> Scheidel, Walther, Rome and China: Comparative perspective on world Empires, 29</ref>. As the fate of a losing state was complete destruction and the absorption of its lands into the victors' domain, the rulers of the various states adopted reforms that resulted in a centralized state apparatus under a strong ruler, the King. Rome, on the other hand, never faced an enemy that posed an existential threat after 275 BCE (save for the Punic wars), and therefore the state apparatus lacked the Han degree of centralization<ref name= "Rome and China 29"/>. Only with the reign of Augustus did the centralized Imperial Roman bureaucracy begin to grow<ref>Scheidel, Walther, (Rome and China), 36</ref><ref>Scheidel, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096433 From the great convergence to the first great divergence], 5</ref>. A quote from Scheidel about how outside military threats affected Chinese and Roman state centralization appears below:

<blockquote>The pattern of Roman warfare was quite different. Rome began as the dominant city-state in Latium, and its path to dominion in Italy was largely uninterrupted despite major military challenges and occasional setbacks. Beginning in the late fifth century, it overcame one rival after another in the Italian peninsula, and even when it faced war on more than one front, it was generally able to keep its opponents from combining against it. After c.275 BCE, its existence as a state was threatened just once, by Hannibal, and from a brief period from 218 to 207 BCE..... It did not face the sort of long-term challenges that threatened states in China, and this fact may to some extent account for the failure of the Republic's leaders to make the alterations in the institutional structure of the republic that Chinese rulers resorted to survive. <ref name= "Rome and China 29"/></blockquote>

Ronald Edwards notes common trends in Han and Roman institutional reform towards centralized control of regional officials.<ref>
{{cite journal
| last = Edwards
| first = Ronald A.
| year = 2009
| month = February
| title = Federalism and the Balance of Power: China's Han and Tang Dynasties and the Roman Empire
| journal = Pacific Economic Review
| volume = 14
| issue = 1
| pages = 1-21
| url = http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395142
| accessdate = 2009-12-20
}}
</ref>

==Economy==
Economic systems have also recieved considerable focus, especially by the historian Richard Scheidel. These studies consider the develop of each empire's trade systems, monetary systems and state control with private enterprise.

===Monetary system===
[[File:7antoninianii.jpg||thumbnail|Roman coinage<br>Row 1: [[Elagabalus]] ([[silver]] 218-222), [[Trajan Decius]] (silver 249-251), [[Gallienus]] ([[Billon (alloy)|billon]] 253-268 [[Asia Minor|Asian]] mint) <br>Row 2: [[Gallienus]] ([[copper]] 253-268), [[Aurelian]] (silvered 270-275), [[barbarous radiate]] (copper), [[barbarous radiate]] (copper)]]
[[File:Hancoin1large.jpg|thumb|200px|A bronze coin of the Han Dynasty—circa 1st century BC]]

Roman and Han monetary systems differed markedly. The Han monetary system was largely based on low-value bronze coins due to a lack of precious metals such as gold and silver, which were not cast into coin but floated as bullion.
Roman money, on the other hand, was mainly based on the precious silver denarri, although bronze coinage was used also. Rome's abundance of precious metals such as gold and silver allowed it to achieve a higher degree of monetization than the Han Empire<ref>Scheidel (Princeton), 52</ref>.

Each empire's monetary system became subject to state interference and debasement of the coinage. Early Han dynasty administrations permitted the private minting of coins, but the coinage came under government control by 110 BCE to fund military efforts against the Xiongnu. The state made frequent but unsuccessful attempts to issue overvalued, fiat coins; this failed in the face of widespread counterfeiting<ref> Scheidel (Princeton), 10</ref>. Not until the ''laissez-faire'' Later Han period (25-220 CE), were attempts to debase the coinage ended<ref> Scheidel (Princeton), 14</ref>. After the Han collapsed at the end of the second century CE, the monetary economy largely broke down with frequent debasements until the Tang dynasty re-introduced a stable monetary system<ref> Scheidel (Princeton), 15</ref>.

Roman currency became heavily debased in the later Empire, especially the silver coins used for daily life. The fineness of the silver coins fell from 50 percent to 1.7 percent from 238 to 269 <ref> Scheidel (Princeton), 52</ref>.This led to a two-tier monetary system in which the Roman elite had access to good-quality gold coins while commoners had to use debased silver coins (''de facto'' bronze due to the high degree of debasement)<ref name="Princeton 33"> Scheidel (Princeton), 33</ref>. Eventually the Roman monetary economy collapsed in the west, and a ''de facto'' gold-bronze monetary system remained in the eastern Mediterranean<ref name="Princeton 33"/>.

==Military==

The military became more powerful during the two empires' decline, and both suffered from military-backed pretenders and usurpers. Scheidel commented on the army's growing power in this quote:
<blockquote>It is true that in Rome, military power had long been more autonomous than in China; yet by the late second century CE China was rapidly catching up with and soon surpassing corrosive Roman habits, and likewise began to suffer at the hands of military pretenders and usurpers<ref name= "Great Divergence 8"/>. </blockquote>

==Plague==

A common problem that afflicted both empires and greatly weakened each at times, was disease. Both the Roman and Han Empires were connected by roads and sea routes, which allowed epidemics to spread diseases through them throughout the third, fourth, and fifth centuries C.E.. This resulted in a decrease in their ability to maintain their borders against invasions, as well as causing a decline in trade.<ref>National Geographic concise history of the world: an illustrated timeline By Neil Kagan page 106</ref> It also disrupted their ability to harvest and ship grain, which cities depended on for food. <ref>National Geographic concise history of the world: an illustrated timeline By Neil Kagan page 70</ref>

==Collapse==
The subsequent collapse of both empires also bear striking similarities;<ref name= "Great Divergence 4"/> each split into two halves, one that contained the original core but became more exposed to nomadic invasions (the west in the Roman case, the north in China), and a traditionalist half in the east (Rome) and south (China)<ref name= "Great Divergence 4">Scheidel, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096433 From the great convergence to the first great divergence], 4</ref>. However,the restoration of an unified empire in China during 6th century is strikingly different than the Europe disintegration into the fragmented states of the Middle Ages.<ref name= "Great Divergence 8"> Scheidel, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096433 From the great convergence to the first great divergence], 8 </ref>.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 127: Line 26:


==References==
==References==
;Notes
{{reflist|1}}
{{reflist}}


;Bibliography
==Sources==
{{refbegin}}
{{refbegin}}
*{{citation |last=Adshead |first=S. A. M. |year=1961 |month=October |title=Dragon and Eagle: a comparison of the Roman and Chinese empires |journal=Journal of Southeast Asian History |volume=2 |number=3|pages=11–22 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |url=http://www.jstor.org/pss/20067345}}
* {{cite book
*{{citation |last=Adshead |first=Samuel Adrian Miles |title=China in World History |isbn=9780312225650 |year=2000 |origyear=1988 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=E8mpbItQVc8C}}
|last= Adshead
*{{citation |last=Bonnell |first=Victoria E |title=The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology |journal=Comparative Studies in Society and History |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |volume=22 |number=2 |month=April |year=1980 |pages=156–173}}
|first= Samuel Adrian Miles
*{{citation |last=McLaughlin |first=Raoul |title=Silk ties: the links between Ancient Rome & China |journal=[[History Today]] |year=2008 |month=January |day=1}}
|title= China in world history
*{{citation |last=Roberts |first=J |authorlink=JAG Roberts |title=The complete history of China |chapter=The Fall of the Roman and Chinese Empires Compared |location=Stroud |publisher=Sutton Publishing |isbn=0-7509-3192-2 |year=2003 |origyear=1996}}
|url= http://books.google.com/books?id=E8mpbItQVc8C
*{{citation |editor=Scheidel, Walter |year=2009 |title=Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780195336900 |url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=aTdN3PWIvs0C&dq=ISBN+9780195336900&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OjQEC3hwh9&sig=Ztkngh777I9pkVHK0Nft0dzxC2o&hl=en&ei=EuQqS7rUGYrQ8Qb9nJCgBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAA}}
|accessdate= 2009-12-22
|edition= 3
|year= 2000
|publisher= Palgrave Macmillan
|location=
|isbn= 9780312225650
}}
*Adshead, S. A. M. (1961). "Dragon and Eagle: a comparison of the Roman and Chinese empires". http://www.jstor.org/pss/20067345. Retrieved 2009-12-22.
* Edwards, Ronald A. (February 2009). "Federalism and the Balance of Power: China's Han and Tang Dynasties and the Roman Empire". Pacific Economic Review 14 (1): 1-21. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395142. Retrieved 2009-12-20.
* Mittag, Achim and Mutschler, Fritz-Heiner(eds.), ''Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2008. ISBN 0199214646 [http://books.google.ca/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=COnceiving+the+empire+rome+and+china&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Google book preview]
* Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900 [http://books.google.ca/books?id=aTdN3PWIvs0C&dq=ISBN+9780195336900&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OjQEC3hwh9&sig=Ztkngh777I9pkVHK0Nft0dzxC2o&hl=en&ei=EuQqS7rUGYrQ8Qb9nJCgBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAA Google book preview]
{{refend}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
*{{citation |last=Edwards |first=Ronald A. |month=February |year=2009 |title=Federalism and the Balance of Power: China's Han and Tang Dynasties and the Roman Empire |journal=Pacific Economic Review |volume=14 |number=1 |pages=1–21 |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395142}}
*{{citation |editor1=Mittag, Achim |editor2=Mutschler, Fritz-Heiner |title=Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2008. |isbn=0199214646 |url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=COnceiving+the+empire+rome+and+china&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false}}


==External links==
==External links==
{{Wikiversity|Comparison between Roman and Han Empires}}
{{Wikiversity|Comparison between Roman and Han Empires}}
* {{citation |url= http://ssrn.com/abstract=1442585 |title=Coin Quality, Coin Quantity, and Coin Value in Early China and the Roman World |first=Walter |last= Scheidel |date= 2009-08-01 |quote=[...] comparative study of two superficially quite different currency systems, in Warring States and Han China and in the Roman Empire}}
* {{cite web
*{{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |publisher=Princeton University |title=Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires |url=http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf |format=[[PDF]] |quote=A chapter from Scheidel's '' Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires'' (2008)}}
| url = http://ssrn.com/abstract=1442585
* [http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm Stanford University's Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME)]
| title = Coin Quality, Coin Quantity, and Coin Value in Early China and the Roman World
| first = Walter
| last = Scheidel
| date = 2009-08-01
| quote = [...] comparative study of two superficially quite different currency systems, in Warring States and Han China and in the Roman Empire.
}}
* [http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm THE STANFORD ANCIENT CHINESE AND MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRES COMPARATIVE HISTORY PROJECT] (ACME)



{{DEFAULTSORT:Comparison Between Roman And Han Empires}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Comparison Between Roman And Han Empires}}

Revision as of 02:19, 28 December 2009

The Roman Empire (red) and the Chinese Han dynasty (yellow), c. AD 1.

Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires have been suggested since Edward Gibbon in the late 18th century. This is based on the similar scale of the empires, both in size and population, as well as parallels in their rise and decline. These two powers controlled a large portion of the world population, and produced distinct and lasting political and cultural impacts on Far Eastern and Western cultures. Several scholars have made comparative studies of the two empires. As Samuel Adshead puts it, "Other comparisons could be made [...] None, however, offers so close a parallel with Han China as the Roman empire."[1]

Relative to individual studies of Han China and the Greco-Roman world, there are few studies that directly compare the two. However, the subject has enjoyed increased interest in the 21st century, with several studies examining the aspects of each area such as their concept of ethnicity and identity and their view of foreigners. There are still gaps in the subject and uneven coverage, but research is ongoing in institutions such as Stanford University's Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME).

Historiography

In 1788, historian Edward Gibbon was the first to suggest that the Roman and Han empires were comparable.

The suggestion that the Roman and Han empires were comparable entities was proposed by historian Edward Gibbon in his book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1788.[2] When he explained the purpose of Stanford University's Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project and the framework of its study in the early 21st century, historian Walter Scheidel reviewed the previous scholarship. Max Weber and Karl August Wittfogel have both written works comparing the ancient Mediterranean and China, however they have had little influence on later ancient historians in the fields of ancient China and the ancient Mediterranean. Scheidel gives this as a contributing cause to the relative paucity of comparative studies between the two. The majority of the research in the subject area has concentrated on looking at the intellectual and philosophical history of each society. He also noted a change in the direction of research in the 2000s, with a refocusing on the "nature of moral, historical, and scientific thought" in ancient Greece and China.[3]

Despite modern interest, there are still gaps in the subject area. Specifically on the subject of comparing Rome and the Han Empire, Scheidel notes that there are no comparative studies of high culture; there is a also a virtual absence of work on "political, social, economic or legal history" of the Greco-Roman world and ancient China. However, he does note that historian Samuel Adhead does briefly address the issue. Wittfogel's work has come in for criticism by later historians, but his studies have not fully been supplanted by up to date theses. In modern studies of imperialism, ancient China has generally been overlooked. In Scheidel's words, "[compared to the study of Europe and China in the early modern period] the comparative history of the largest agrarian empires of antiquity has attracted no attention at all. This deficit is only explicable with reference to academic specialization and language barriers".[3]

According to historian Samuel Adshead, in his book China in World History, comparing Han China and the Roman Empire gives context and assists understanding of China's interactions and relations with other civilisations of Antiquity. In his opinion, the Roman Empire bears the closest similarity to the Han Empire of the ancient civilisations. He also compares the two to assess their "relative standing" in the ancient world. Despite the similarities between the two empires emphasised by Scheidel, Adshead concludes that when examining Han China and the Roman Empire before Constantine, their "differences outweighed the similarities".[1]

Contact between the empires

The Silk Road in the 1st century AD.

As the Han and Roman empires were thousands of miles apart, with other states and empires and inhospitable land in between, contact was limited. The Romans were first introduced to silk by the Parthian Empire, which shared a border with the Roman Empire and stretched as far east as India. The Parthians and other intermediaries facilitated trade between Rome and China from the late 1st century BC onwards, however the two empires had little knowledge of each other. The main trade from China to Rome was in silk; ancient sources indicate that Romans were unaware of the scale of the empire of the Seres, meaning the "silk people". However Raoul McLaughlin, who wrote an article on the silk trade between the Roman and Han empires and their interactions, has questioned whether the Seres were really the Chinese, or whether it referred to a people closer to Rome but still near China.[4]

According to Florus, writing in the first half of the 2nd century AD, delegates from the Seres were received by the Emperor Augustus, however Chinese historians make no mention of diplomatic relations between Rome and China in the time of Augustus. Trade between Rome and the East increased in the 1st century AD, and in Roman cities silk from China became a common sight. Roman historian complained about the scale of the trade and the vast sums of money leaving the empire, claiming that India, Arabia, and the Seres had taken 100 million sesterces (more than the annual income of the provinces of Gaul and Palestine) a year from Rome. [4] Through trade contacts, Rome learned more about Han China, although in the 1st century, the two cultures rarely came in direct contact, preferring to trade through India. As well as via the sea and India, silk was also traded over land through the Parthian Empire. Han histories indicate that the Parthian's did not allow Roman traded passage so that they could influence the silk trade, but McLaughlin also suggests that Parthia was wary of contact between the Roman and Han empires and its possible consequences. In McLaughlin's opinion, "successful communication between the two … would have dramatically changed the direction of world history".[4] Although the Han and Byzantine empires interacted in Late Antiquity, the last record of contact between the Roman Empire and China was in the 3rd century. [4]

Society

Principles of sociological examination have been identified that can be applied to the study of China and Rome. They draw on analytical and illustrative comparisons.[5] Adshead, who emphasises the differences between the two empires, [1] has described Rome and Han China as respectively "maritime, mercantile, urban and militaristic" and "territorial, agricultural, rural and civilian". He also asserts that that the Roman Empire was less stable than the Han Empire, which, in his words, "was socially harmonious, had no irreconcilable class conflicts and was highly stable".[6]

See also

References

Notes
  1. ^ a b c Adshead 2000, p. 4.
  2. ^ Roberts 2003, pp. 63–64.
  3. ^ a b Scheidel, Walter, The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME), Stanford University, retrieved 2009-12-27
  4. ^ a b c d McLaughlin 2008
  5. ^ Bonnell 1980 in Scheidel, Walter, The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME), Stanford University, retrieved 2009-12-27
  6. ^ Adshead 1961, p. 11.
Bibliography

Further reading

External links

Wikiversity has learning resources about Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparative_studies_of_the_Roman_and_Han_empires&oldid=334430326"