I don't know if this has ever been posted before; if so, I apologise.

I would like to get your opinions on the comparison of the two great civilizations on the planet at the time of about the second century A.D.: Rome and China.

Rome attained its greatest expansion at about 116 A.D. under Trajan, while China, under its Han dynasty, was also prospering. Rome seemed to have greater organizational skill and was superior in utilitarianism, while China seemed to have greater technological inovations in the applied areas.

Rome was under the philosphies of the Stoics and the Epicureans, while China was under that of Confucius.

China seemed to be superior in having a more stable form of imperial succession, while Rome was more vulnerable to civil strife when new rulers aspired to the imperial purple.

I would like your viewpoints on this, especially from the Chinese posters.

Milkman

Well, they are an excellent case study because they were contemporaries and dominated their respective known worlds. They had only glimpses of each other's civilization through the silk road, but were for the most part, ignorant of each other. They were both pillars of two great civilizations, establishing the law, cultural identity, language, architecture, etc for their respective civilizations. It's hard to compare their accomplishments point by point as there were so many, but I'd give a slight edge to the Han dynasty since their legacy is more directly visible. I mean, China still speak and write the exact same language as used during the Han dynasty and practice the same confucian philosphy. Then again, this is biased, and Europeans will claim that Roman's were slightly superior. Make you wish they clashed in a mother of all wars to settle this debate no?

Anyway, I'd guess that an objective historian will have little basis to say that one is superior to the other. Both empires controlled roughly 4 million square km with the Han dynasty edging out Romans in population slightly at 60 million. But I think it's a little misleading to compare the Roman empire with 900 year history with the Han dynasty, which has a 500 year history, rather than the Chinese empire. In the grand scheme, the Roman empire was not always under the rule of a single family, each succession is similar to a dynasty succession in China where a new ruling family comes to power. For instance:

Zhou dynasty - Ji family
Qin dynasty - Ying family
Han dynasty - Liu family
Jin dynasty - Sima family
Tang dynasty - Li family
Song dynasty - Zhao family
etc...

Anyway, at the risk of starting a flame war, I'd say the Han dynasty edges out by a bit.

------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

The roman empire had more glorious art and architecture ( well if you dont count the great wall LOL ) but the Chinese where more crafty and innovative! The roman slave economy didn`t especially reward costsaving innovations !


The romans also had a trade deficit with China just like America today. Eventually they did not have much silver or gold to keep the then primitive monetary economy going and had to pay their armies with food in natura .

The Roman Empire control a vast nation which some time separetd by sea etc. While the Han is controling a Land Empire where only in the Ming Dyn did they go for sea power.

So in expansion wise, the Roman was batter coz they come to UK, Egypt etc. While the Han did not go futher via sea only by land.

Granted, Romans were a more powerful sea power than the Han dynasty. But look at the geography, Mediterranean versus the Pacific Ocean. It's not like Han dynasty didn't try, they reached Taiwan and Japan during this period, but look how long they'd have to go to reach the next land mass. The ocean was unknown and there was no point for them to search east. Whereas the mediterranean and surrounding waters were known to the Romans.

This does not mean the Han dynasty didn't keep expanding like the Romans. After they expelled Huns invaders from the north, Han Wudi sent expeditions west that eventually founded the silk road which connected the two civilizations.

I would disagree that the architecture and art of the Romans were superior. At a minimal, they were comparable. The engineering feats under the Han dynasty included canals and adqueducts like the Romans to supply water to cities and farmland. They also built various beam, arch, cantilever, and iron link suspension bridges (the suspension bridge wasn't adopted by the West until the 19th Century!).

Art was similarily impressive. You can find vast amounts of scuplture, fine china, painting, calligraphy, etc from the Han dynasty. Furtuermore, there are remains of huge city walls and palace grounds at the capital, Luoyang.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

I believe that if Chinese from the Han dynastic period ever visited Rome at the time of Hadrian, they would have been both awed and disgusted. I think that the Chinese would've been greatly awed with the wealth and splendor of Rome, while at the same time they would've been horrified at the low value of human life.

I think that the Chinese would've just been awe struck at the the great public baths of the Romans, the beauty of her architecture, the marvels of Trajan's forum, the wealth and power of it all; while, at the same time, they would've been so horrified at the blood lust of the Roman mob at the spectacles of the arena that they would've wanted to vomit.

People of contemporary times tend to romanticize the Romans. That in itself is not bad; however, they tend to forget that Rome was cruel...it was brutal.

Milkman

LOL,

Kinda like comparing apple and orange, all round and juicy, but taste differently.

I prefer apple juice

True. That highlights the major difference between the two empires. The Roman empire relied on force to keep its subjects loyal. They were certainly brutal to their enemies and Rome itself probably lusted for war more so than the imperial court of the Han dynasty. Certainly, there was state sponsored slavery, which wasn't part of Han.

The Han dynasty on the other hand relied on a frightening efficient bureaucracy with nation wide civil service exams to keeps its empire loyal. Ultimately though, the Han dynasty kicked off a 2000 years period of dynastic successions in China whereas the fall of Rome was not marked by a similar legacy of continuity. I think the main reason for that was not because Rome was more brutal to their subjects, but because Han built a better foundation of reinforcing a unified language, writing, culture, bureaucratic body, and civil exams. They sinicized conquered subjects such that they adopted the same culture and language. This mark of continuity is what I think sets Romans and Hans apart.

The great wall is a great testament to this. On the one side, it marked continuity in a 2000 year construction project that began with Qin, continued with Han, and ended with the last dynasty, the Qing, with each dynasty contributing a small portion. On the other hand, it marks a sense of shared cultural identity, where all subsequent dynasties shared the same xenophobic tendencies, and believed that the people of Zhong Yuan (literally middle steppes) needed to be protected from and separated from outside "barbarians."


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

Wudi, i don't think you know anything about Roman empire,and also, you seem to have little knowledge of Han dynasty.

The nationwide exams to choose elites to rule the empire dated from Sui dynasty,
almost hundreds years later after the collapse of Han dynasty.

Plus, the Great Wall was not started from Qin Dynasty. Havn't you heard about the anecdote of "Light the signal fire to badinage vassales" which directly lead to the perdition of West Zhou dynasty.

Plus Plus, both Yuan dynasty (by mongolian), and Qing dynasty(by manchurian), hate Great Wall, cause this wall was built to guard them. How could you expect these 2 dynasty to renovate the wall.

Wudi, i don't think you know anything about Roman empire

Then please enlighten me. If you disagree with my assessment, perhaps some facts from which I can counter/support my position, no?

The nationwide exams to choose elites to rule the empire dated from Sui dynasty, almost hundreds years later after the collapse of Han dynasty.

Not true. You are thinking of the formalized ke ju exams (aka. kao zhuang yuan) in which testers are ranked by their results and assigned to civil offices. The top three, title zhuang yuan�Care personally received by the emperor. I'm not sure when this was formalized, but it wasn't during the Han dynasty.

However, the concept of scholarship through civil exams was initiated during the Han dynasty, under wudi in fact. Wudi's teacher believed in confucian teachings, but the predominant teachings at the time was meng zi, which was more militaristic in nature, preaching absolute obedience of subjects. Wudi overturned this and established confucian thought as the dominant school. In the process, he promoted the selection of confucian scholars through civil exams, which was first enacted under his reign. So, civil exams originated from the Han dynasty.


Plus, the Great Wall was not started from Qin Dynasty. Havn't you heard about the anecdote of "Light the signal fire to badinage vassales" which directly lead to the perdition of West Zhou dynasty.

No. That is not accurate at all. The Great Wall was not started under Zhou. And telling me the function of the wall doesn't support your point. The Zhou era was fragmented into several states, and each state built their own wall. It is true that the function of the defensive walls to signal attacks was established under that time. But, it was Qin who actually coined the term Great wall. After he unified China, he wanted to build a great wall to connect the walls from separate kingdoms. What he envisioned greatly expanded beyond the function of the walls under Zhou. Namely Qin wanted to transport troops efficiently along those walls, which dictated that they had to be wider to accomodate troop movement. It also had to provide the entire Northen front, not just territories of their respective former states. However, Qin devoted most of his slave workers to tomb construction, so barely any work got done. Han dynasty picked up the project and completed a significant portion of the great wall, putting it into its first test (and efficient use) in its defense against the Huns. Thus, the Han dynasty is usually credited by Chinese historians for starting the great wall.


Plus provide links to support your accusations. It's really not convincing by claiming that I'm making stuff up by pointing to obscure references.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

Plus Plus, both Yuan dynasty (by mongolian), and Qing dynasty(by manchurian), hate Great Wall, cause this wall was built to guard them. How could you expect these 2 dynasty to renovate the wall.

Now you are just making stuff up. Your own western historians claim yuan and qing as chinese dynasties, so I'll leave it at that.

How could you expect these 2 dynasty to renovate the wall.

Is that a question? Yuan was oppressive which is why they were one of the shortest dynasties in Chinese history, a non-event. Qing is more interesting. The dreaded Shang Hai Guan (Shanhai Pass) section of the Great Wall was an icon because it was the crucial point from which invaders must pass to reach China proper. It was heavily fortified by 30,000 of the most elite Ming troops before its fall. However, the commanding general, WusangGui, had no choice after the imperial court was sacked and the emperor hanged. When the Qing entered, they certainly hated the wall, but they didn't burn it.

They didn't expand the wall because it was a financial burden and ineffectual (China's border went beyond the great wall). But the Qing kept up major portions of the wall and continued to man the walls (otherwise none of the wall would stand today!)

But I see that you don't deny that the wall was a continuous project until the Ming dynasty. It doesn't undermine my argument that it is a pillar of continuity, even if expansion stopped at 1600 years.

I may be biased and less knowledgable on the Romans, but I admit that. You simply present misleading fragments and obscure references about China as fact.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

,

I'm a chinese, not a western historian.

The more you said, the more errors and ambiguities in your arguments.

I'm just too lazy and already get punished for being lazy

I'm a chinese, not a western historian.

The more you said, the more errors and ambiguities in your arguments.

Ok, sorry for classifying you as a westerner, but you certainly don't sound Chinese. My Chinese education didn't teach me that Qinshihuang didn't build the Great Wall and that civil exams based on confucian thought wasn't started by Han Wudi.

Anyway, its good to know that you are Chinese. Please see
http://www.bjlyw.com/bj/jingdianhuizong/beijing/badaling/200505/8918.html

It articulates the construction of the great wall in chinese better than I can. Notice the statement that Qin tore down walls from previous states (which were used to separate among states as much as outsiders), and built a connected, continuous wall on the northern front. Also see the construction timeline

http://www.thegreatwall.com.cn/aboutgreatwall/history/

You'll see that it wasn't until Qin dynasty before it was known as the wang li chang cheng (ten thousand mile long wall, aka. the great wall). Before that, it was just known as a series of long walls.

If you see errors, please point them out. Learning is a virtue, so I'm receptive to the opportunity to feel like an idiot.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

If I remember correctly the present Great Wall was built by Ming Dynasty

the one built by the First Emperor was northerner then the present one and was simply a mud wall




Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl

You made a statement to Wudi:

"Wudi, i don't think you know anything about Roman empire,and also, you seem to have little knowledge of Han dynasty."

Well, neither do I. I just enjoy chatting with people like you and Wudi. Happy holidays to both of you.

Milkman

If I remember correctly the present Great Wall was built by Ming Dynasty

Which is why the Ming dynasty went bankrupt and collapsed from internal revolt. The emperors were stupid and believed they could fence off China. They performed the most construction on the wall and extended it by thousands of kilometers, more than doubling its length. They reinforced previous sections with stronger bricks and extended the width for better troop movement. Sad waste of money. The Han dynasty was the runner up in wasting huge amounts on the wall.

the one built by the First Emperor was northerner then the present one and was simply a mud wall

The mud walls are walls from the warring state period. It was the inspiration for Qin, but was certainly not part of the Great wall, they were just known as chang chen, or long wall, in historical text. The Qin wall was a combination of stone, mud, and wood. Not surprising, it was 2000 years ago! Whether it is still part of the present wall, who knows. It's hard to tell considering the amount of upgrades.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

China seemed to be superior in having a more stable form of imperial succession, while Rome was more vulnerable to civil strife when new rulers aspired to the imperial purple.


That was a large flaw in Roman government. The Chinese had a formal line of imperial succession, but that never existed in the Roman Empire. Many Roman emperors didn't even have children, so many times the line was simply passed to a general. Most of the time the emperor never even designated a successor. So to fill up the power vacuum, the generals fought eachother. That naturally led to civil war, and invariably, also led to barbarian invasion.


La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima!
Italia triumphs again!


"Now I'll show you how an Italian dies!" - Fabrizio Quattrocchi

The Chinese had a formal line of imperial succession, but that never existed in the Roman Empire. Many Roman emperors didn't even have children, so many times the line was simply passed to a general.

See, that's what brings down empires, When the line of succession isn't clear, and the empire becomes divided. Roman emperors need to be more horny like Chinese emperors. Have annual selection of the most beautiful women from the land to bear children for the emperor. That'll ensure a healthy load of say 30-50 offsprings.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

See, that's what brings down empires, When the line of succession isn't clear, and the empire becomes divided. Roman emperors need to be more horny like Chinese emperors. Have annual selection of the most beautiful women from the land to bear children for the emperor. That'll ensure a healthy load of say 30-50 offsprings.


It was probably due to the fact that people didn't want to face the reality of an "imperial dynasty" - especially since they always hated monarchies in Rome.


La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima!
Italia triumphs again!


"Now I'll show you how an Italian dies!" - Fabrizio Quattrocchi

I would propose the Bush family as hereditary dynasty ruling the Imperial USA



does everyone here agree ?




Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl

Han had advanced into a fedualism society while Roma was still a slavery society. enough said no?

-------------------

---I would propose the Bush family as hereditary dynasty ruling the Imperial USA


I just can say United States is a hegemony, not an empire

Democratic hegemony, merciful hegemony, whatever the prefix is, it's just the decoration and meaningless. just like the Evil Axis (by Bush) and Evil Empire (by Regan), totally meaningless, which can only fool people that can be fooled.

And i know one thing, US will do anything to gain victory. If you doubted it, take a look of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Han had advanced into a fedualism society while Roma was still a slavery society. enough said no?

??? The Han and Romans were both empires, not feudal societies. In China's case feudalism charaterized the pre-Qin warring state period, but both the Han and Romans had strong central authority and taxation, they were definately full-fledged empires. Slavery is an policy decision that is independent of the system of government.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

The Feudal model is referred to the economic organization of work force

not referred to the political organization, I presume

it is part of economic systems theory that is too the marxist one


the feudal organization is more sdvance than the slavery system

but, at the beginning of the modern age in this theory, Europe had a pre-capitalistic system,Japan was a feudal system, islamic world a slavery system and China an asiatic-system (or model) of production (or better an evoluted form of the neolithic-copper epoch system)

the reformist political leaders of China (and the communist too) used in XIX and XX century speak about the political-economical system ruling China as a "feudal" system, but it is not correct

please you could read the marxist-orthodox scholar Karl Wittfogel and the theory of asiatic despotism

· civiltà idraulica/despotismo asiatico: teoria sulla natura delle società asiatiche, esposta nel XX secolo dal tedesco K. A. Wittfogel (1896-1988 d.C.), secondo cui queste società necessitando di gestire grandi lavori pubblici per l’irrigazione, la prevenzione delle inondazioni e la creazione di una rete di canali per i trasporti interni, portò al rafforzamento di uno stato dispotico amministrato da una burocrazia autoperpetuantesi


Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl

@bysand

according to scholar Luttwak Rome of Augustus was still an hegemonic system not an imperial one

the problem for Rome was the transition from the republic to a monarchy never occurred formally

only from the "dominatus phase" it was ruling in practice

thanks God, as differently Europe would be now simply "another Middle Kingdom" and not a democracies system


Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl

I wouldn't called "feudalism" advanced really from a slave society. It is basically still slavery in another name. The Romans never needed to change their system because it wasn't neessary to them. The Romans already were on the verge of an industrial revolution on many levels, but simply decided not to run with it because slavery was cheap. Much like today we don't use hydrogen and fuel-cell for cars because oil is still much cheaper.


La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima!
Italia triumphs again!



"When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch

I wouldn't called "feudalism" advanced really from a slave society. It is basically still slavery in another name. The Romans never needed to change their system because it wasn't neessary to them

______________________________________________________

feudalism is a more sophisticated system then mass slavery, more efficient as it is more flexible

it is economic theory of organization, it is science

and I'm an economist for formation

and of course a slave is not very different from a medieval serf

the roman empire as the chinese ones were old static system, compared with city states of medieval italy

giant and fascinating but old ones

from 3rd century CE the roman classical society had transforming in a feudal one

the slaves disappeared and serfs appeared

the mixed form suvived in the byzantine world just to his transformation in the othman empire


Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl

Huh, that's a nice explanation of feudalism. But I remember that feudalism is also a form of political organization, one thats bounds the economic as well as military obligations of the tenants to the land lords. Anyway, how powerful were the senate relative to the emperor in Rome, cause I always thought that both the Roman and Han empires were hereditary monarchies.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

Wudi,

actually, the Roman emperors did not have a solid heriditary lineage like that of the Chinese; however, there were certain mini-dynastic successions in Rome's Pax Romana. If you're really interested, one writing I'd like to recommend is "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-index.html

Suetonius wrote of the lives of Romes rulers from Julius Caeser to that of Domitian. These twelve included the lineage of the Caesars and that of the Flavian emperors. If you read this work you can see just how depraived and unstable the Roman emperors were.

Personally, I believe that one of the main reasons for the for the neurotic and psychotic behavior of the Roman emperors was in the marvel of their public works. The Romans had extensive plumbing in their cities that excelled beyond anything in the ancient world; however, the Roman used "lead" in their plumbing, and, used a gravity system. Modern investigations of the remains of Roman dead reveals an extensive accumulaton of lead in their bones. So I believe that "lead poisoning" was one of the reasons for this.

Milkman

Wudi,

I have been trying to learn about the Han dynasty. Since I've started this thread, I've been reading websites on the accomplishments of China in that period.

Wudi, do you know of any websites that go into detail on the Han dynasty?

Milkman

dont no wat to say........ rome and han r 2 greatest civilization in the world at that time......... i thnk rome r very advanced in weapons and killin(military) han r very advanced in tools and trade(tech)


-------------------------------------------
Love is a Big Fat Cuddly King Kong

Personally, I believe that one of the main reasons for the for the neurotic and psychotic behavior of the Roman emperors was in the marvel of their public works. The Romans had extensive plumbing in their cities that excelled beyond anything in the ancient world; however, the Roman used "lead" in their plumbing, and, used a gravity system. Modern investigations of the remains of Roman dead reveals an extensive accumulaton of lead in their bones. So I believe that "lead poisoning" was one of the reasons for this.


I've heard of that theory, it's relatively new. But there's not enough evidence to prove it's credible or not. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.


La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima!
Italia triumphs again!



"When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch

all the roman historians of that time were members of the senatory class

so we know at present their version of history

wasn't that a large and important power ?

More seriously the power of the senate was third after those of the emperor and of the army




Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl

Wudi, do you know of any websites that go into detail on the Han dynasty?

Sorry, the sites I read from are in Chinese. Don't know any special English sources other than what is available through google. Thanks for the link to "Lives of the Twelve Caesars." But it's a little hard to follow without good background knowledge. I got a copy of "The Annals of Imperial Rome" from the library, should be a good starting point.


------------------------------------

#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.