Talk:Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires/Archive 3

Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp, 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7
I was concerned about using this as it isn't clear that it is a reliable source for the claims, eg the claim that the Han economy was the largest in the world. Now I discover that I can't even find it to verify it. Teeninvestor, where can we find this book? And what makes it a reliable source for these claims? dougweller (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a book about Chinese history published in China. I don't think you can find it here. I happened to have a copy of it, so i used it as a source. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New source: http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html#sec11. It is an account of the Roman Empire by a chinese official from the han dynasty>Teeninvestor (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can't use a book we can't verify, so could you please remove any material you sourced from it? dougweller (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.book.sh.cn/booklist/booklist-final.asp?MCODE=&SCODE=M04&TOTAL_BOOK=6919&gopage=415&serial_no=1000129728? Isn't its ISBN right here???Teeninvestor (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:Verify - it doesn't even seem to be in the Library of Congress, let alone a decent public library (I clicked on the ISBN number in the article and followed that up). In any case, I'd be dubious about any claims in it about the Han Dynasty being the largest anything, so we'd have to show it is both verifiable and by our standards reliable. dougweller (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

K. I doubt a book published in china would be in a public library would be here(unless it were in the chinese-language section, but unless I'm wrong, you don't seem to have an understanding of Chinese.). Still, the ISBN proves it was published. Use google translate and you will see that the title is correct is also, as is the publisher. Therefore, the book does exist. It's not like I'm making it up.16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging its existence. I'm challenging its reliability (is it clearly a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? And its verifiability. Our readers need to be able to verify this somehow. If it isn't in the Library of Congress, for instance, I doubt it will be in any large libraries, and thus isn't verifiable by the standards the community expects. Can't you see the problem here? dougweller (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem, but I assure you the publisher is reliable. It is a state-owned publishing firm in China, that has published many books on Chinese history, mostly published for reading by youth. Nevertheless, despite what I think, I will offer a compromise. In a few days, I will borrow a suitable, english-language book on the han dyansty from a local library, and use it in place of this source. Before that happens, I suggest we keep the source in order to prevent a chaos in the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * State-owned publishing firm? The Chinese government having such an influence over the publishing firm probably means that it fails WP:RS. And if it's for reading by youth, the verification process would be less stringent than those published for adult use. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

See user talk: Dougweller for more information on this debate. And if we applied ur standards, patar knight, then every government domain resource will failWP:RS. It is very difficult on the web to find a source that is Completely objective; for example, if we use a western source on china, it might contain bias/inaccuracies; yet if we use a chinese source, some may say its nationalist/chauvinist and stuff. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what our RS policy says -- for instance, it doesn't use the word objective. It does stress the need for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." We might not use a US government published history book (not that I know of such) for the same reason. Certainly we know that Chinese nationalism is likely to influence a state published book. We would use government documents as reliable sources for government policies, laws, etc. Those aren't Patar knight's standards, they are Wikipedia policy (not just guidelines). And for this article, most of the sources are not likely to be on the web. dougweller (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not all, as Dougweller as explained. And everything has some bias, and most will have at least minor inaccuracies. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For the 5000 years book, I have found A description of the books the publisher (A big publishing firm in China) has published(It's in Chinese unfortunately). As you can see, the publisher is quite a big and relatively reputable publisher in China. http://www.haotushu.com/press/61/, http://www.bookschina.com/publish/204/, These websites are lists of books they have published. search:内蒙古人民出版社 in any chinese book site, and im sure you will get results. Here is the website of the publisher: http://www.ilucking.com/press/neimenggurenminchubanshe/. I know it is preferable to have english sources, and i am in process of getting these sources. search neimenggu renmin chubanshe (pinyin rendition of the publisher's name)in google, and you will see it is cited in even english books. This publisher has been around since the communist revolution, and I believe it is relatively reliable. As to state-owned firms, I believe there is a bit of ignorance to this system as in China; The state has effectively privatized many enterprises through a system of "Chengbao", in which private individuals put up a small amount of money to run state enterprises; The state retains ownership, but it does not manage and only asks for expenses to run a stable balance sheet; any profits/losses are swallowed by the chengbao. In this way, many things in China that are supposedly public are actually run by private individuals; bus lines, schools, hospitals, etc... This system was used to get past restrictions by past laws. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya, see my compromise above. As soon as school resumes for me I will get a book out of the library. Also, do any of you have objections to the rewritten paragraphs above? I realize that state-published books have bias, but wikipedia did not say do not use biased sources. THis book is by no means trivial; it is 1200 pages long and has sections on economics, pottery, even clothes of every dynasty in chinese history. Like, I would not use a chinese state-published book for recent history, but for ancient history I don't think they would have reason to lie. Like, why would they lie about the performance of a windmill 2000 years ago or how people made silk clothes. Anyways, see my compromise above.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Biased sources is in general not a bar on reliability, and they are occationaly required to comform with NPOV. The important thing is to make sure that the reader is aware that the bias exists.  Taemyr (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'd worry more about their knowledge of other ancient cultures. But my main concern is the inaccessibility of a book in Chinese evidently not found in Western libraries. dougweller (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I see your objections above, so I have come up with a compromise. We will use this book to cite details that we would all agree are probably not going to be biased(e.g. Zhai Lun invented true paper; Zheng heng liked astronomy; han fielded 300,000 troops; han farmers used iron tools, plows, cow-driven plows, wheelbarrows, e.t.c.) but as to controversial statements(Han economy was bigger than Roman, for example(that seems to be the questionable statement here.), we will find another source. Hopefully a raid to the local library will provide me with some good sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems this is a standard publication, published every few years or so with information. Shouldn't be an unreliable source. http://books.google.com/books?id=M0EwAAAACAAJ&dq=isbn:7204044207Teeninvestor (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We must prefer English-language sources, and there is no shortage of good histories of China in English. For technology we should mainly use Joseph Needham Science and Civilization in China, the standard work on the subject. I would be surprised if Li and Zheng did not draw extensively on Needham's scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read Needham's source and it is a very good source.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We here are primarily waiting for dougweller to receive the book. By the way, do you believe it to be a B-class article now?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed technology section.
I have sources on Han technology, but I do not have adequate sources on Roman technology.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a technology section based on information I have found, discuss any concerns you have here. What do you think of the additions(As to the material from Norton, I have inserted it ONLY after presenting it here for a few days on the talk page; it seems to have no opposition so I reinserted the rewritten sections.)Teeninvestor (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Several subsections of the technology section does not have equivalents for Romans. Please help!Teeninvestor (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
The article does not meet some of the B-class criteria at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, so I have reverted the recent change to B-class. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically, it is lacking in critera 2, 3, and 4 (Coverage, Formatting, Grammar and flow). --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New source in Chinese.
Published by professor, Mei Zhang Run(Chinese:梅朝荣), a book in chinese available online about the various chinese dynasties. He has exclusively dedicated a ten-page section to comparing the Han and Roman Empires. Link to the excerpt.  Another link: Link to the book itself on sina.com, a popular site in china. I'm starting to think we should find sources in chinese, as the chinese have a better interest in this topic and books in china are regularly available online(Legitimately).Teeninvestor (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable at times to use non-English sources. Our policy on verifiablity discusses this as follows:


 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages,assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.


 * In other words, unless there are no other English language sources of equal quality, it's best not to use a non-English source. In this case we have, for instance, Conceiving the Empire - this morning I asked a local library to get it for me. I can't find anything on Google about Mei Zhang Run, let alone who has published the book. So unless you can show why it is better than the English sources, we really shouldn't use it here. dougweller (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Once the conceiving source arrives I will remove it. I was just concerned as we did not have a direct comparison in the military sphere, which seems to be quite important.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Humble suggestions
(1)Have you watch CCTV drama Han Wu Da Di ? I have watch it 3 times, it is full of historical facts.

(2)Add a subsection:Famous military leaders:zh:霍去病,zh:衛青

(3)zh:虎符, it's military and historical role. (3)What about doing another article:Comparison between Ming and Qing, focus more on the Soft Power, less on everything else? Arilang   talk  02:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have, Arilang. I am currently working on a draft of the article "Economy of the Ming dynasty".Teeninvestor (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant article?
Is this article relevant? Unless the creater of this article can find reputable sources that does in deed compare the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire, I don't think why is there a reason for an article like this to exist? The Han Dynasty and Roman Empire are very different, the only thing I can think of that might constitute an actual comparison between the two is that according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Timeline of History, both the capital of the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire, Chang'an (Xi'an) and Rome are the biggest cities in the world during its time period. However beyond the obvious economic and military size of these two empire, any comparison between these two are might seem like historical roleplaying. I'll try to clean up the article a bit, but the article might be tagged as being original research if the editors don't use relevant and schoarly sources.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

see sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)\\

in case you didnt know, comparisons are supposed to point out differences.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.239 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, comparisons are supposed to point out similarities. On the other hand, contrasts point out differences. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Language and writing sections
I'm not sure they should be in here, but if they should, what we have now is wandering too far from what should be the thrust of the article. Latin and Chinese today really aren't relevant, there are too many reasons not directly related to the Han and western Roman empires that have affected them. And I don't see the China Institute as a reliable source on Latin or the Roman Empire, we need a more neutral source. dougweller (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the section after a substantial cut-down of the text. It seems to have a source from Oxford University, so I haven't put an unreferenced tag on the section, but feel free to do so if you wish to. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OR
Hi I was very interested in this article and I was just wondering, are we allowed to make these kinds of articles in Wikipedia? Anyways nice job on it :) --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes But you have to abide by strict standards. If you can't find a source comparing both, you have to list the info sideways. This article has 5 sources comparing Rome and Han.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese quote?
Is there any encyclopedic value in have a long, Chinese-language quote on the English Wikipedia? It is incomprehensible to the majority of the article's readers. Blockquote reproduced below for discussion:

In an essay comparing the two empires, the chinese professor Bo lin made this comparison of the two empires: "通过二者的综合比较，如果交战，汉军应该是占据优势的. 史实的例子也似乎证实了这一点. 被汉武帝逐出故土的匈奴人后来进入欧洲征服了日耳曼人，罗马则一直为日耳曼人所扰，并最终被其灭亡. 这样一种间接的比较，也就可以顺理成章的断定汉朝的战斗力强于罗马. 但是本文认为汉军具有的战斗力优势并不一定转化为胜势，特别是在长期战争中尤其如此. 第一，战争中是否具有优势，不仅取决于实际力量还取决于战场环境. 在《剑桥战争史》中总结了能将罗马军团置于死地的两种地形，其一是平坦狭窄的地形，其二是广阔的平原. 除此之外，罗马军团具有高度的适应性和可变性. 汉朝军队主要是在和游牧民族的战争中发展起来的，因此对开阔草原环境已经适应，如遇到复杂的环境，适应性就显不够. 第二，技术上的优势很难具有持久性，特别是冷兵器时代尤其如此. 长期的战争会导致互相的学习. 罗马的冶炼业制造业都达到了很高的水平，因此制造出与汉军弓弩抗衡的兵器并非不可能. 第三，长期的战争，必然是全方位的较量. 兵源的充足度，政治的稳定度，财政的支撑度等都会影响战争的进程." --Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a better translation of the following than I was able to using the ham-fisted tool of GoogleTranslator:


 * Through the comparison of the two, if the war should be the dominant Han's. Examples of historical facts may also seems to prove this point. Expelled from their homeland by the Han Emperor Wu of the Huns into Europe later conquered the Germanic people, Rome has been scrambling for the Germanic people, and finally by his demise. Such an indirect comparison, it is not logical to conclude that the combat effectiveness of the Han Dynasty better than Rome. But think of this article with the Han Combat effectiveness advantage does not necessarily translate into victory, especially in the long-term, especially in war. First, the war whether or not the battle to have an advantage, not only on the strength also depends on the actual battlefield environment. In the "war of Cambridge History "can be summed up under the Roman Legion of the two types of death terrain, one of which is narrow and flat terrain, The second is a broad plain. In addition, the Roman Legion with a high degree of adaptability and variability. Han The army is at war and the nomads developed, there has been an open grassland environment suitable Should be, such as encountered in a complex environment, not enough adaptability on the marked. Second, technically very difficult to have the advantage of holding A long time, especially time, especially in cold-steel weapons. The war will cause long-term study of each other. Rome smelting industry, the manufacturing sector have reached a very high level, and therefore produce the weapons to counter Han弓弩not Impossible. Third, the long-term war, must be all-round game. Adequate manpower resources, the political stability, the degree of financial support will affect the process of war.


 * - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"In comparing the two armies on a comprehensive scale, if the two armies were to clash, the Han army would most likely be initially successful. History seems to confirm this. Han Wu Ti drove out the Xiongnu, who then conquered the Germans, who eventually conquered the Roman Empire. However, this direct combat advantage by the Han army may not translate into a strategic advantage. In the 'Cambridge history of war', the Roman army was shown to be weak in only two areas, valleys and flat plains. In other conditions it was very adaptive and resourceful. The Han army is based mainly on warfare with the Northern nomads, so it is fit for fighting in plains but will perhaps not be effective in other areas. In addition, in the era of cold weapons, the advanatage of technology rarely lasts. As the war goes on, the technological advanatage of the Han army may be negated. A long conflict will involve much more factors than simply military technology, such as the amount of reserves, as well as political and financial stability."

Quality of this article
In the end I found so many instances in which the information provided by the original sources has been twisted that I saw no other solution but to report this article. No original research/noticeboard. Flamarande (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I like to be honest so here it goes: the quality of this article is appalling. Several statements and paragraphs are extremely dubious at the very least and many have been simply twisted into the author's POV. Flamarande (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC) So I looked at the paragraph in question "EMPERORS, AUTHORITARIAN RULE, AND ADMINISTRATION" and it states:
 * Quoting: "Roman emperors were less powerful than their Chinese counterparts; out of 22 emperors between Augustus and the third century, 15 died by murder or suicide. Roman emperors were frequently assassinated and ruled for short periods compared to the Han. The emperors were careful to present themselves as just rulers who governed from the consent of the citizenry, though tyrants such as Caracalla and Nero inflicted misery throughout the empire. The empire was divided into 40 provinces, each governed by a governor appointed by the emperor. Compared to the Han bureaucracy, the Roman empire was relatively under-administered." This paragraph has a single source: Chapter 7 summary of W.W. Norton & Company, Worlds apart, Worlds together, A History of the world, second edition. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds2/contents/summary/ch7.asp


 * "After a half century of brutal civil war, Roman leaders sought to establish political stability, but such stability came at a price: one-man authoritarian rule. Peace depended on the power of one man who possessed sufficient authority to enforce orderly competition among the Roman aristocracy. Julius Caesar’s adopted son Octavian reunited the fractured empire and emerged as its undisputed master by 30 BCE. He assumed the name Augustus (the Revered One) and concentrated authority in his hands. The emperors were frequently cultivated as semidivine, yet they were careful to present themselves as civil rulers whose power depended on the consent of Roman citizens and the power of the army. Some emperors, such as Caligula, acted in the arbitrary ways that Romans associated with tyrannical kings. The position of emperor was fraught with difficulty, as fifteen of the twenty-two emperors between Augustus and the beginning of the third century died by murder or suicide. Emperors ruled with the help of several institutions, most importantly the army. Augustus transformed the army into a professional force. One joined for life and swore allegiance to the emperor and his family. The empire was divided into forty provinces, each headed by a governor appointed by the emperor. Governors depended on lower-ranking officials to aid them. Compared to the Chinese bureaucracy, the Roman Empire was relatively underadministered. Governors were expected to maintain peace and collect taxes."
 * It is stated nowhere that the Roman Emperors were less powerful that their Chinese counterparts. This particular sentence is OR at the very least and at worst shows the personal opinion of the author.
 * the sentence: "40 provinces, each governed by a governor appointed by the emperor" is dubious and indeed can be argued to be false. Read the articles Senatorial provinces (if you don't have any book about the Roman Empire). During the Roman Empire several provinces were administrated by officials appointed by the Senate. I have very little doubt that a wise/paranoid emperor had a huge influence over the senate and very likely influenced "behind the scenes" which official was sent to which province. However he didn't simply appoint them. - This statement/sentence does not speak well for the quality of the site/source. Flamarande (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found four instances in which a source was given in the following fashion: "Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, op. cit". May I enquire about the meaning of "op. cit"? 'Optional citation' perhaps? I strongly suggest that the author provides the proper page numbers and preferably together with the chapter name asap. That's no way to cite something. Flamarande (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume that op. cit would be short for opus citatum, or Latin for the work [having been] sighted, and is an optional way of citing sources. It is in no one an "optional citation" --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If one reads the talkpage you will notice that another user already raised this point "Needs full bibliographic information, or we need to remove it. Last name and title is nowhere near sufficient. Cmadler (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)". Either way the pagenumbers have to be provided asap or the respective "Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, op. cit" entries may be removed. Flamarande (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we have a very strange chapter about economy:

So I went to the first source (the second source is about coinage and currency) at the paragraph in question "Trade" and it states:
 * Quoting: "The presence of the Mediterranean made it easy for sea travel to shuttle goods throughout the Empire. Romans shipped large amounts of goods, and the Roman economy was able to do a "division of labor"; certain regions would produce certain goods, and trade was conducted with the Empire." That's an extremely unclear statement. At the end of the paragraph are two sources: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502785/Roman_Empire.html>(accessed December 24, 2008) and Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf. Flamarande (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Land was the safest investment for the wealthy, but trade was the only legal way to acquire a fortune quickly. Transport by sea was far cheaper than by land, but every voyage faced both financial risks and opportunities. Shipwrecks occurred frequently during this period, and now provide archaeologists with abundant information about Roman shipping routes and cargoes. The Romans shipped food and rare raw materials like colored marble throughout the Mediterranean, along with Egyptian papyrus reeds for paper, purple dye from Syria, glass from Palestine, and Spanish ironwork.

The frontiers of the empire did not hinder trade. German peddlers crossed the borders in both directions, bringing amber from the Baltic and exchanging it for Roman artifacts. However, few Romans actually took part in foreign commerce. They did not trade directly with Arabia, Africa, India, and China, but received incense, ivory, pepper, and silk from these countries through intermediaries. Asian caravans crossed the steppe to China, and Parthians controlled the caravan route to India. From the 1st century ad, Egyptian sailors from Alexandria learned how to use the monsoon, a wind that changed direction with the seasons, to enable them to make frequent trips to India. A guidebook from ancient times for captains sailing through the Red Sea still survives."


 * Not a single statement whatsoever about any division of labour. That sentence doesn't make any sense at all. Flamarande (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we have the 'Fall' section. It begins (emphasis mine):


 * Quoting: "Economic decline and political instability had impoverished the Empire, which was now dependent on barbarian mercenaries and in a state of constant revolt. The Roman peasantry and slaves, taxed heavily by the aristocrats, also grew disgruntled. Combined with new religious movements such as Christianity, led to many Roman citizens becoming apathetic to the state of the empire. Many Christians refused to serve in the military (although this would change when Constantine legalized the religion during the Edict of Milan). The deteriorating Roman economy forced the emperors to issue less valuable coins, creating massive inflation; by the end of the Roman empire, the silver coin had only 1/100th the silver content of the silver coin issued under Augustus, leading to economic chaos. Microsoft Encyclopedia, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502785/Roman_Empire.html."

I checked the given source and among all its material I found the following bits:


 * "While the central government provided few services and little protection, it demanded more taxes and goods. Panic and alienation drove both peasants and city dwellers from their homes. They sought protection from powerful landlords, who controlled their own self-sufficient villas. In these heavily fortified villas, the lower classes hoped for relief from the twin predators of late antiquity: barbarians and tax collectors.


 * "The Eastern Empire was stable and prospered. The eastern emperors were able to defend the Dardanelles, a strategic strait in northwestern Turkey (known in antiquity as the Hellespont) and to push migrating barbarian peoples to the Western Empire. The emperors of the west were often pampered and isolated, and they allowed generals and ministers to rule in their name. Declining manpower also led western emperors to recruit Germanic people for the army or even to engage entire tribes to fight on Rome’s behalf. In 410 the Goths sacked Rome. It was the first time Rome had suffered such an invasion since the Gauls had sacked the city in 390 bc—eight centuries earlier."


 * "In ad 476 Germanic troops in Italy mutinied and elected a Gothic commander, Odoacer, as king. Odoacer, who was the first Germanic ruler of the empire, deposed the young emperor, Romulus Augustulus, gave him a generous pension, and sent his imperial regalia to Constantinople. But if the Western Empire had “fallen,” the commentators of the time barely took notice. It was not until four decades later that a Byzantine historian wrote that the imperial order initially established by Augustus had come to an end in 476. The date marked the demise of a political structure—the Western Roman Empire—but coinage, taxes, and administrators all remained in place. The exile of Romulus barely affected ordinary people."


 * "Several factors explain why the Roman state collapsed in the west and survived in Constantinople for another 1,000 years. The most obvious is geography, since the Western Empire had to defend a long border along the Rhine and Danube rivers. The east was far more populous—Egypt had 8 million inhabitants while Gaul had 2.5 million—and thus could provide men and supplies for a larger army. The east also had a longer tradition of urbanization, and wealthy cities in the Eastern Empire provided continuing support while cities in the Western Empire were newer and weaker. When these cities came under pressure, much of the population fled to the countryside."


 * "The east also had a stronger economic base. The rich lands of Egypt provided wealth, and much of the east’s other territory was in the hands of productive peasant proprietors. The Eastern Empire also received a financial boost from the tradition of manufacture in eastern cities and the control of the lucrative trade with Arabia, China, and India. Ancient agricultural economies produced very little surplus, and Rome itself had long depended on the profit of conquest, which included tribute, taxes from the wealthy east, and shipments of grain from North Africa and Egypt. When the east was lost and barbarians took Africa, the desperate Western Empire raised taxes and imposed restrictive regulations. As Germanic tribes seized more taxable land and revenues fell, the west could barely support its own unproductive soldiers, civil servants, and clergy. It certainly did not have sufficient revenue for the bribes and subsidies needed to pacify the Germanic invaders."


 * "There is no simple explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but several interconnected elements provide some answers. The demands of the military and the growing bureaucracy forced the government to seek more income. When the elite avoided taxes, the burden fell on the peasantry, who had barely enough to feed themselves and no surplus to pay taxes. When farmers fled the land, incomes declined still further and manpower shortages forced the military to hire German mercenaries. This cycle led to a weak, impoverished central government that quietly collapsed in 476."

How can the author claim that a combination of Economic decline and political instability with new religious movements such as Christianity, led to many Roman citizens becoming apathetic to the state of the empire? I found absolutely nothing in the source about any "combination" or "apathy". Flamarande (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. User:Teeninvestor will have to answer that. Perhaps he planned on tacking an extra citation there, but forgot to? In any case, I can't speak for the author, but it looks as if he did not faithfully represent his sources.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not speculate about the honesty of the author. Flamarande (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, assume good faith.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And how about the military? "Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death." That's utter nonsense and only shows that the author knows precious little about the Roman military (but nevertheless somehow wants to make a comparison between the Roman military and the Chinese military). Roman discipline was certainly brutal by modern standards but it didn't punish minor infractions with death. Read Roman military decorations and punishments if you don't have a book about the Roman army. What's makes this even bewildering and frankly frightening is that among the sources of this article is a "Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army". Well, I have that book in particular and it doesn't claim anywhere that 'the Romans punished minor infractions by death'. Flamarande (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Chinese Records of the Grand Historian and Book of Han written during the Han Dynasty used the previous Qin Dynasty's prescribed punishment of execution for minor infractions as an example of its excessive brutality and Han's legitimate usurpation. However, there are scholars who doubt that the Qin Dynasty ever executed people for minor infractions since archaeological evidence of written Qin law has come to light, dismissing these statements by later Han historians as propaganda meant to show how benevolent and magnanimous Han was compared to Qin (even though Han borrowed much from the Qin law code).-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Notice that this article claims that the Roman army applied the death penalty for minor infraction and not the Han army. Flamarande (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is known that during Han the punishment for minor infractions entailed beatings with the bastinado; the death penalty was reserved for heinous crimes or treason.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm indeed, so the author isn't a victim of an excusable mix-up. He simply doesn't seem to know anything about Roman military discipline. Flamarande (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we have the language section:
 * quoting: "However, the Chinese language was spoken much more widely in China than Latin in the Roman Empire, who had to compete with the language of the conquered provinces, such as Celtic and Greek." Comparing two classical civilizations, China institute in AmericaHan China & Ancient Rome - Comparing Two Classical Civilizations, The China Institute in America.

I looked around and found this (emphasize mine):
 * "Perhaps because of the Chinese script, it is much easier to talk about a common culture among the elite in Han China than in the Roman Empire. As the influence of Chinese culture increased in frontier areas with the presence of Chinese garrisons and magistrates, members of the local population learned to read Chinese... Even if Latin became a lingua franca in the Roman Empire, other written languages continued to be used..."

The author "here" of this article seems to have picked up two languages at random and combined it with a source which doesn't mention them at all (in fact the original source speaks of written languages and AFAIK ancient Celtic was not a written language at all). Flamarande (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There were many regional dialects in China during the Han, much like there are many regional dialects in China today. It was the standardized written script that allowed Chinese people of the Han era to communicate if their regional dialects were unintelligible to one another. And yes, you're absolutely right, the source does not specifically mention spoken language in this context.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Change that into a "the source doesn't mention either Celtic or Greek at all". Flamarande (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The we have the economy section (emphasis mine)


 * quoting: Rome's expansion sparked an economic boom. Roman craftsmen improved in both scale and quality compared to the Greek Artisans. Roman economic production was based around small workshops, with industries such as pottery, metal-working, and brick making. A primary customer of Roman industry was the army, which demanded large quantities of materiel for its frequent campaigns. Manufacturing was centered around the area where the goods were needed to simplify transportation, or near the sea to take advantage of Roman sea routes. Similar to the Han, the Romans also built many irrigation projects, the most famous of which is the aqueduct. Roman authors made mentions of water-powered devices such as the waterwheel. Roman cities were equipped with conveniences such as water supply, sewage, paved streets and lighting. sources: Microsoft encyclopedia, "Roman Empire" http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502785/Roman_Empire.html>(accessed December 24, 2008) "Technology." Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier Online http://ea.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=0265660-03.

So I went to the first source and I found:
 * quoting "Economy - The Augustan Age sparked a major economic revival. The emperor directly controlled coinage, taxation, and his own enormous estates, but otherwise allowed the economy to operate freely, with demand dictating prices and profits. Above all it was the end of civil war that encouraged economic growth. Roman armies could control piracy and allow maritime trade across the Mediterranean as never before."


 * "Agriculture - Farming was the basis of the Roman economy. Republican senators traditionally invested their wealth in Italian land, but the imperial peace also encouraged them to invest abroad. The Romans began to cultivate more land when they brought Mediterranean plants and more sophisticated farming methods farther north into Gaul, the Rhine River valley, and the Balkan Peninsula. Vineyards spread throughout Gaul, and olive groves were planted in North Africa. The Romans learned new techniques for farming in wet climates that allowed them to open new lands for agriculture in northern Gaul and Britain, where increasing demands for timber transformed native forests into agricultural estates."


 * "Landowners lived in the cities or, in the case of the truly wealthy, in Rome itself. A foreman managed each estate separately. Some individual estates, called villas, were huge operations. One villa, the Boscatrecase, which was located near the Italian city of Pompeii, had 100,000 jugs of wine in storage. Large estates in the provinces had lower labor costs, which gradually undermined traditional Italian agriculture. As a result, Rome imported wheat from Egypt and Africa, wine from Gaul, and oil from Spain and Africa."


 * "Industry - Roman industry did not include mass production, and small workshops manufactured pottery, metalwork, and glass. A successful brickmaker might have owned dozens of workshops rather than one large factory. Manufacturers dispersed or decentralized their production because it was expensive to transport goods. Bricks for construction were made at the building site, or terra-cotta figurines were fashioned at the temple where they were sold. Unlike independent artisans who had their own shops, wage laborers were treated with contempt in the ancient world and worked alongside slaves."


 * "The eastern Mediterranean was initially the manufacturing center of the Roman world, but under the empire, Gaul also experienced great industrial growth. A number of factors combined to encourage manufacturing in Gaul, including the availability of ample raw materials, the Celtic tradition of exquisite metalworking, good river transportation, and the enormous market created by the military along the northern borders of the empire. The Roman soldiers needed weapons, pottery, boots, clothing, and building materials, and they bought them from local craftspeople."
 * "Trade - Land was the safest investment for the wealthy, but trade was the only legal way to acquire a fortune quickly. Transport by sea was far cheaper than by land, but every voyage faced both financial risks and opportunities. Shipwrecks occurred frequently during this period, and now provide archaeologists with abundant information about Roman shipping routes and cargoes. The Romans shipped food and rare raw materials like colored marble throughout the Mediterranean, along with Egyptian papyrus reeds for paper, purple dye from Syria, glass from Palestine, and Spanish ironwork."


 * "The frontiers of the empire did not hinder trade. German peddlers crossed the borders in both directions, bringing amber from the Baltic and exchanging it for Roman artifacts. However, few Romans actually took part in foreign commerce. They did not trade directly with Arabia, Africa, India, and China, but received incense, ivory, pepper, and silk from these countries through intermediaries. Asian caravans crossed the steppe to China, and Parthians controlled the caravan route to India. From the 1st century ad, Egyptian sailors from Alexandria learned how to use the monsoon, a wind that changed direction with the seasons, to enable them to make frequent trips to India. A guidebook from ancient times for captains sailing through the Red Sea still survives."

Can someone please show us where the source says that: "Rome's expansion sparked an economic boom" ? or where does it say that "Roman craftsmen improved in both scale and quality compared to the Greek Artisans"? Unless we all agree that the second source will provide such information (it requires both a name and password).

The first can be excused as a mix-up by the author who managed to turn the "The Augustan Age sparked a major economic revival" into a "Rome's expansion sparked an economic boom" and that would be a major mistake among academics.

The second however: "Roman craftsmen improved in both scale and quality compared to the Greek Artisans" is simply inexcusable. Flamarande (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
Note: Most of this material is actually from the sources contary to what User:Flamarande thinks. In his haste to produce his own POV, he has neglected the source completely. If you check the W.W. Norton source, it does say this: "Most dramatically, the Roman defeat of Hannibal during the Second Punic War demonstrated that the resources in terms of manpower and material that the Roman army could draw upon were of a qualitatively different character than those of a city-state such as Carthage. Such resources provided the Romans a decisive advantage. The Romans also created a war ethos in which honor precluded Roman soldiers from ever accepting defeat, pushing themselves into battle again and again. Roman soldiers also faced fierce discipline in which minor infractions were punishable by death."

And as to governing the provinces:

"One joined for life and swore allegiance to the emperor and his family. The empire was divided into forty provinces, each headed by a governor appointed by the emperor. Governors depended on lower-ranking officials to aid them. Compared to the Chinese bureaucracy, the Roman Empire was relatively underadministered. Governors were expected to maintain peace and collect taxes."

Sheesh. WP:AGF, anyone? Other concerns were dealt with.

Flamarande's accusations are strange, not checking my other sources and being very difficult with this article(which he has a prejudice against), making ad hominem attacks on numerous users(don't know anything, etc...). If the user was to check all my sources, perhaps he would think twice before inserting 10-20 fact/dubious tags. If said user is interested in protecting this article and not using ad hominem attacks, he would be advised to add cited paragraphs of text, rather than destroying others' work.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its going to be in everyone's best interest if you stop assuming evil intent on the part of editors who take issue with your edits. In point of fact, Flamarande specifically suggested to another editor that you be extended AGF. That basic courtesy is not just an acronym to be disposed of when things aren't going well, it is how we effectively work together. As you are probably not a telepath or a fortune teller, maybe you should avoid assigning intent to your fellow editor's posts. Thanks - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I Apologize for the above indiscretion, but I do take issue with this statement "And how about the military? "Discipline and training were strict; the Romans punished minor infractions by death." That's utter nonsense and only shows that the author knows precious little about the Roman military (but nevertheless somehow wants to make a comparison between the Roman military and the Chinese military)." Teeninvestor (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So it isn't your fault but the fault of the given sources. The first is nonsense (read Roman military decorations and punishments) and the second is highly dubious (read Senatorial provinces). Teeninvestor could you please tell us which books about the Roman Empire (and more specifically about the Roman military) you possess? Flamarande (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I poessess this source(WW Norton), as well as Edward Gibbon's decline of the Roman Empire, (which seems to agree with the above statement). In addition, I have the encarta article on Roman Empire.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the above two articles and I have a suggestion. Flamarande, if you think these statements are false, perhaps you could replace it with material that you have(sourced, cited?)Teeninvestor (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have the 'WW Norton site', 'Edward Gibbon's decline of the Roman Empire' (the book or the site?), and the 'Encarta article on Roman Empire'. Nothing else? Let me see if I understood you correctly: You don't have a single book detailing the military of ancient Rome? Flamarande (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Teeninvestor the basic problem is that the majority of modern or serious historians simply avoid making such comparisons. Comparing two different empires (which never fought each other at all) which had a different climate, geography, culture, economy, enemies, etc are best not compared at all because the given parameters are simply way too different. Furthermore our historical sources and evidences are way too few. A simple example: Goldsworthy tells us candidly that there are many issues of the Roman army which are simply unknown to modern scholars. And that's the Roman army we're talking about; one of the most studied fields by western historians in general, and by military historians in particular.


 * Some few historians may indeed attempt to make such comparisons. I wish them the best of luck but will regard them with suspicion. To make a fair comparison one would have to be a respected specialist on both empires. I would imagine that there are precious few in the entire world. I can't help you as none of my books compare the two empires witch each other. That's why I'm always pointing out the mistakes of the Roman material; that's the stuff I know. Flamarande (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Teen please help us with this statement: "Roman emperors were less powerful than their Chinese counterparts." given reference: Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, . In which chapter does Edward Gibbons make such a statement? I couldn't find anything along these lines. Flamarande (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs a new citation. I believe there were several citations there. Maybe removing the whole statement is better. I believe I put Gibbons there because his histories is full of referenece to "oriental despotism". He contrasts this "despotism" with the "honest" government of Rome, in the first volume. [I have Gibbons' book(PDF) form.[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You managed to turn some statements about 'oriental despotism' by Edward Gibbon, a prestigious English scholar of the 18th century into a "Roman emperors were less powerful than their Chinese counterparts"? Flamarande (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have many sources dealing with the Romans, but they're mostly online. However, I think the amount of artifacts that is left over from each dynasty/area, is actually most likely higher in the Han Case due to a less devastating barbarian invasion Teeninvestor (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, says who? Which scholar says that the aggregate amount of artifacts left over from the Han is significantly larger than what the Romans produced? And which scholar says that this is a reliable indicator of which empire had more "power"? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Are we talking about political capital, or the ability to produce goods?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

More than that. There was a passage about how "Mandarins" "Servily obeyed" their masters while The magistrates of Rome "asserted themselves" as equals. Or something. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Teeninvestor I'm going to try to explain this: Edward Gibbon is wrong on many issues and on the whole his work is honestly out-dated. He is greatly admired today because he was one of the first historians of the western world who studied ancient sources and then wrote several books for the educated and wealthy public. Formerly the trend was to largely copy the work of ancient writers (thereby inheriting their mistakes and prejudices).


 * A similar case would be Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. We admire greatly him because he was the first which supported by his own findings (which he gathered during his voyage) had the courage to present a wholly new idea (evolution). Current scholars admire him greatly, however many of his teachings have been discredited. Our knowledge of evolution (and of the Roman Empire) has 'evolved' (i.e.: grown and improved with new archaeological discoveries and with comparisons of more ancient sources of other nations). Modern historians know way more and better than Edward Gibbon. As an example: I bet that Edward Gibbon never knew or even imagined that some limited contact (mostly trading expeditions) between ancient China and ancient Rome existed.


 * Several of Gibbon's views about ancient Rome have since been largely discredited (i.e.: proven to be false). He, like the majority of his contemporaries, believed in the natural superiority of ancient Rome versus the decadent east. This POV was quite present on those days and the whole was accepted as evidence of 'a natural superiority of the western world over the east (including China)'. Today we know better. We know that our predecessors were guilty and victims of many cultural prejudices. No objective historian today is going to write that "Mandarins" servily obeyed" their masters while the magistrates of Rome "asserted themselves" as equals" because the veracity of this statement is highly dubious. Modern historians realize and acknowledge the dangers of such an approach and exactly that's why they attempt their utmost to be objective. Flamarande (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Flamarande. The statement was removed without speed. Gibbons' statement would undoubtedly be biased because he lived during a period in which China had been in decline(e.g. another barbarian takeover). Teeninvestor (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, any more issues????Teeninvestor (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Teenivestor you truly amaze me. Nearly every issues I raised were corrected accordingly (confirming again and again that I was right all along). Many sloppy mistakes and unclear claims were corrected. You as main author of this article (and of many of these mistakes) should gladly welcome all the help you can get.


 * the sentence: "40 provinces, each governed by a governor appointed by the emperor" is highly dubious and arguably false. Read the articles Senatorial provinces (as you don't have any book about the Roman Empire (?)). During the Roman Empire several provinces were administrated by officials appointed by the Senate. I have very little doubt that a wise/paranoid emperor had a huge influence over the senate and very likely influenced "behind the scenes" which official was sent to which province. However he didn't simply appoint them. - This statement/sentence does not speak well for the quality of the site/source.


 * I have found at least four instances in which a source was given in the following fashion: "Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, op. cit". I strongly suggest that someone provides the proper page numbers and preferably together with the chapter name asap. That's no way to cite something. Furthermore if one reads the archive of this talkpage you will discover that another user already raised this point "Needs full bibliographic information, or we need to remove it. Last name and title is nowhere near sufficient. User:Cmadler 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)". Someone has to provide the pagenumbers asap or the respective "Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, op. cit" entries may and should be removed.


 * I explained to you already that Edward Gibbon is wrong on many issues, that several of his views have since been largely discredited (i.e.: proven to be false), and that his work is on the whole honestly out-dated. It doesn't speak well for this article that many of his personal conclusions are presented as fact without the support (read: citations) of modern historians. The "combination of Christianisation created apathy among the Romans" part is extremely dubious. 18th century scholarship isn't taught as a fact today is it? Flamarande (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe putting your own information if you have a source on this is a better idea????Teeninvestor (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm truly sorry Teen, but none of my sources offer a comparison between the Roman Empire and Han China. None of my sources even compare the Roman military with the ancient Chinese military. Furthermore someone has accused me of harbouring a bias against this particular article and of trying to impose my own POV . All of this to an extent that has supposedly poisoned my judgement  (what a nice phrase that was). The same person also accused me of misrepresenting several sources  and of misunderstanding the sources in question . The same person admitted that he doesn't have a single book about the Roman military whatsoever   but was somehow scandalized as I pointed this out previously . You have to forgive me but under such circumstances I must be very careful in even considering in changing and improving any material of this article whatsoever. Challenging its accuracy by placing the proper tags in matters I'm knowledgeable however is my right and duty as editor. I certainly believe that the talkpage (and the article's history) shows the truth of all these matters. Flamarande (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New source
I was browsing, and I suddenly found this handy source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096433 download it and take a look.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Added millitary numbers for the Romans during the Cimbrian Wars and the Roman civil wars...

Found the name of the relief, it is the Sarcophagus Portonaccio Massimo and is from the 2nd century CE, not BCE

During the time of the Roman Republic and Western Han Dynasty, both civilizations relied on a non-professional army, through volunteers and conscription. A large militia force was also raised up during times of war - when the threat subsided, the soldiers returned to their civilian life. The Marian Reforms and the reforms of the Eastern Han Dynasty eventually allowed both empires to maintain a formidable professional, standing army. Intranetusa (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the Cimbrian wars had 200,000 troops? Cause the article for Cimbrian wars had only about 80,000 as Romans' strength. And I think Roman strength in most battles never exceeded 50,000. Can you provide a source(considering the Persian wars were just as important to the Romans as the Cimbrian war, ye their strength never exceeded 50,000 in those matters).Teeninvestor (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

splitting article
This article should be split apart and the pieces merged into articles on the Roman Empire and the Han dynasty. The citations show only two scholarly sources that make this comparison, which means that the subject is only marginally notable. giving it a page of its own is excessive, when the comparative sources could be dealt with easily in sections on the respective articles about the two empires. -- Ludwigs 2 21:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are many sources discussing the subject:

Bo lin, "Han and Roman Empires",  Comparing two classical civilizations, China and Rome, China Institute in America,  Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires,  (Accessed December 27, 2008) Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900 Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (eds.), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0199214646 (Google books preview) Chapter 7 summary of W.W. Norton & Company, Worlds apart, Worlds together, A History of the world, second edition. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds2/contents/summary/ch7.asp Scheidel, Walter, From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath(10/2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1096433


 * I think I read that as 'four', rather than 'two' or 'many' (ignoring the one that's in Chinese and has the word 'fiction' in the URI). however, I still think this topic would be better covered in the already extant articles.  either that, or it should go under a broader discussion of empire formation in general.  the problem with this article as it stands is that it chooses these two empires and ignores a number of others - what about the Assyrian empire, or the Egyptian, or the later Mongolian empire?  I could make fruitful comparisons between all of them, and I know that other scholars have done so (I have at least three books on my shelves that deal with generic political, social, and cultural similarities and differences). why just Rome and Han?  restrictive selection of sources is a form of synthesis, because it creates an association fallacy.


 * more to the point, the comparison between Roman and Han empires is a purely academic exercise, that academics would use to cast light on some aspect of one or the other empire (or as in the case of the China Institute link you give, as an exercise in thinking cross-culturally). it should be left in its comparative context, and not presented as though it were an argument in its own right.  none of the references you cited above treat this as anything more than a way of gathering insights into state formation, and the implication that this comparison has meaning in the real world is horribly misleading.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you went into several of the sources, the main topic is the comparison, rather than it being used as an exercise. Also, most of these arguments were already covered in the AFD. See, for example, many of the books comparing the two.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * you're not responding to my arguments, and that's a bad beginning. I've read the links you posted, I haven't read the AfD (and have no real interest in it).  if there's something pertinent in there you want to bring over, make a link.


 * If you remove the 'split' tag again I will assume you have no intention of being reasonable about this, and I will go ahead and split the article without waiting for further discussion. I can be quite unreasonable on my own, if I think it's called for, so please don't test me.  however, if you want to discuss this reasonably, I'd prefer that.  your choice.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Response
"'none of the references you cited above treat this as anything more than a way of gathering insights into state formation, and the implication that this comparison has meaning in the real world is horribly misleading. '" I do not believe this argument to be true. For example, check the paper that Schidel published on comparing the state formation of both empires- the entire subject is the comparison. The books cited as a source' main subject is the comparison- not any of the individual empires.

"'the problem with this article as it stands is that it chooses these two empires and ignores a number of others - what about the Assyrian empire, or the Egyptian, or the later Mongolian empire? '". Well, the comparison between these two empires are the most notable, as they are the most well-known of their era, and they existed roughly in the same era(Mongol and Assyrian Empires are thousands of years apart). In addition, several papers and books have been published comparing them. you're not responding to my arguments, and that's a bad beginning. I've read the links you posted, I haven't read the AfD (and have no real interest in it). if there's something pertinent in there you want to bring over, make a link.

If you remove the 'split' tag again I will assume you have no intention of being reasonable about this, and I will go ahead and split the article without waiting for further discussion. I can be quite unreasonable on my own, if I think it's called for, so please don't test me. however, if you want to discuss this reasonably, I'd prefer that. your choice. I find this comment highly disheartening, as if I wasn't interested in responding, why would I be writing here??

Also, the number of sources dealing directly with the subject is 7:
 * Bo lin, "Han and Roman Empires", 
 * Comparing two classical civilizations, China and Rome, China Institute in America,


 * Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires,  (Accessed December 27, 2008)
 * Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900
 * Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (eds.), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0199214646 (Google books preview)
 * Chapter 7 summary of W.W. Norton & Company, Worlds apart, Worlds together, A History of the world, second edition. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds2/contents/summary/ch7.asp
 * Scheidel, Walter, From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath(10/2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1096433

All of these sources dealing directly with the subject, not as an "exercise to shine on other empires". This list includes two papers, one textbook chapter, and two books. Not too bad.

Previous(and similar doubts) were raised before(see talk page, AFD), but the community has deemed it relatively notable to include on wikipedia. Therefore, I believe this article should be kept instead of split, as most of the information is likely to be lost as it goes to the individual articles(some of which are already too large) Teeninvestor (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * my argument isn't that the topic is not notable, but rather that it would be better and more neutrally dealt with as sections in other articles than as an article on its own. but give me a day to go over your new links, and we can have a more informed discussion about it tomorrow.  is that acceptable?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is acceptable. But my feeling is that any attempt to add a comparative section in any of the articles would be deleted outright as synthesis(and or OR).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * not with sources, it wouldn't. I can easily image a section in the Roman Empire article, for instance, to the effect that 'so-and-so compared the Roman empire with the Han dynasty and concluded that...'.  that would be completely acceptable, since it's merely describing something that a scholar said about the Roman empire.  the problem I'm seeing here (which is still an open question, of course) is that without that context, it looks as though comparing the R&H empires is an important area of research in its own right, which doesn't strike me as correct.  at best, it's a specific case of comparative politics or comparative anthropology, and at worst it implicitly suggests that the R&H empires had some sort of co-evolution, something for which there's little to no academic support.


 * but let me review... -- Ludwigs 2  02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That Chinese fiction url is a 404 page not found, not very helpful. I've said all along there are problems with this article. Conceiving the Empire ducked the issue, having experts write about aspects of each empire separately. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was already once close to being deleted (8 to 12 votes), and it is obvious that there are as much qualms now as then. And there is still only the creator, Teeinvestor, heavily defending it. Surfing through the cited references above two things spring to the mind: 1) Most of the current content of the article does not refer to any of these sources. 2) Once we discount the less reliable online sources which hardly stand up to scholarly standards, practically only Scheidel is left (and possibly Mutschler), who however concentrates on economic issues. So, the article should be, if at all, rather limited on Comparison between Roman and Han Empires economies, otherwise it still remains synthesis and an alarming precedence for future similarly fanciful comparison. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you even gone through the sources? There are comparisons between state formation as well as economies(the princeton paper) as well as other sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? Because I have read Scheidel's articles whose findings are very much misrepresented in this WP 'article', and I have Mutschler lying right in front of me. And that the two online sources are close to uninformed bogus is evident to anyone with some knowledge in the field. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bogus? hardly. It's a little unbecoming, taking into account WP:AGF, when you accuse sources of "lying" and describing sources as unreliable without any concrete examples. Remember, wikipedia's chief policy is verifiability, not what you think is the truth. If you think the information is wrong, find a source and add a reference, which is what you  didn't do last time you inserted some OR into the article. And also, no where in wikipedia NOR policy does it say that putting two paragraphs of cited information next to each other in a comparison context is OR; else the entire WP:COMPARISONS Section would be deleted. Also, I'm currently working on economic history of China in my userpage, a gigantic project, so I won't be able to spend too much time on this article.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point?
This article seems to not really have a purpose except to amuse readers. It offers nothing that can't be gathered from the other articles.

And simply discrediting Chinese sources, published by whomever, even the government, eliminates essentially all Chinese sources, as it can be claimed that even private publishing houses are biased simply on the grounds that "the government allowed them to publish, therefore they must agree with the government". This only leaves the authors of this article English sources to work with, which can be just as biased, if not more so. They should, at the very least, considered. After all, completely unbiased secondary sources do not, and will never exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to serve our readers, after all.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
While I have to say some portions of this violate Neutral_point_of_view (It seems very Han-centric) and other portions of it seem to violate SYNTHESIS... All in all, I like this article and the points which I had never considered. I'm sure this can be bought up to snuff in time. Kudos to the article writer(s). It's seems sparse on the Roman POV... almost like it is directed at an audience which is familiar with Rome. This seems odd considering we have so many great FA articles about various facets of Rome, like structural history of the Roman military. Azoreg (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh...I lifted Augustus to FA status a while back. Quite frankly, though, I think we need a lot more FA articles on ancient Rome.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Azoreg. We need a lot more editors working on this article, as there is far more editors working to delete this then acutally work on this. Lack of Roman material is a problem for this article as most of the sources available were on Han. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PericlesofAthens. Its actually an interesting thread, I've actually wanted to create something like this myself but have been finding it hard to do so. Problem is getting the sources in English and finding time to rewrite things. However, that said, there is a few goods one out there. Try the China Institute. http://www.chinainstitute.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=712&nodeID=1

Would easily be considered an acceptable and reliable source and it even gives a reason to why two Empires should be compared, which I think is a good idea to also mentioned. I'll try find more sources for you people to use and if I have time, I'll do some writing myself because frankly this stuff is REALLY appalling at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.12.231 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Balancing
I think it would serve this article well if it was less hyperbolic in its attempts to emphasize whatever "advantages" the Han dynasty had over the Roman Empire whilst glossing over many Roman achievements. There are many instances throughout this article where Chinese inventions are repeatedly mentioned to have been made "long before them Europeans did it", starting with this quote in the introduction: "…spurred by revolutionary agricultural technology that would not be adapted in the West until the agricultural revolution in the 18th Century." The same is of course not done with regards to the Roman perspective; there are no examples that go: "Romans invented concrete, which the Chinese apparently never did"

Also, Reading the Technology section, it seems to suggest that the Agricultural revolution and therefore the Industrial revolution and therefore "the West's superior power over the rest of the world" is thanks due to China. Reading their respective articles however, who draw from more than a single source, this appears to be a gross exaggeration, simplification and distortion of the many underlying factors that contributed to the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions.

"..it is ironic that the basis of all of this came from China, and was not in any means indigenous to Europe." - If this isn't POV I seriously don't know what is.

I believe the omitting of such excessive comparisons and a more matter-of-factly approach is more fitting for an encyclopaedic article.

213.114.138.231 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's called a quote????????Teeninvestor (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

______________

It has been noted on many forums that the Chinese crossbow could not penetrate the Roman shield, not noting that the Roman shield is rectangular and only 4 feet high. In the Testudo formation unless the Squad is crouching the Romans feet would still be exposed. A crossbow unlike a bow can remain drawn for an unlimited period of time. Aming a crossbow is very accurate compared to a bow. The flight of a bolt is straight compared to an arch of a arrow from a bow. If the shield proved to be impenetrable what would stop the Chinese crossbowman from shooting a the Romans foot pinning it to the ground? The Ge (戈 battle ax halberd) has a blade which is perpendicular to the saft of the pole. The hook part of the weapon was used to pin pole weapons to the ground, while the soldier behind the farward man can peirce him with the spear point of his ge 戈(halberd). I just noted this because the normal Chinsese army a Jun (軍) is made up of 12500 men a Roman Legion 5280 men of that era, vurtially almost double in size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.62.145 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

______________

I agree that this article indeed needs a lot of work and changing but I disagree with the concept of it being "balanced". Perhaps what you mean is that this article is not written very elaborately as there are part that are easily misunderstood as something "insulting". However, you must remember that some things ARE facts. It might seem Han-centric or whatever, but you must remember that many historians do agree that China was the most advanced nation at the time and that a lot of these inventions when arriving to the West did make a HUGE impact. While the other way round cannot be as easily said.

It is no different from if one were to compare China now to say America and claim that the article was American-centric simply because it mentions more about the inventions and strengths of America then it does of China today. However, that is NOT at all true. As the country that leads the world in innovation, America are still the top inventors, have the biggest economy and have made numerous scientific leaps and inventions that other countries have probably not even heard of. So America probably has a LOT of inventions, technologies and strengths that China would not have. Of course, at the same time, China would of course also have things that America doesn't have but in comparison they most probably occur a lot less and most of them can probably be neglected.

The same can be said for things like human rights violations and that 90% of Chinese today are uneducated. Yes, Americans had a slave trade in the past and that should probably be mentioned also but -- from most people's eyes and opinions -- it really doesn't compare to running over your own people in tanks. It doesn't mean I'm being American-centric. Facts are facts. Quotes are quotes.

So why is it so hard to accept that the same can happen in ancient times?

In your example, did concrete really make that much of an impact to anything in particular? So it built better roads, that's probably about it. On the other hand, those tools DID play a major role in the revolutionising of agriculture in the West. If the author was mentioning how China invented some random toy a thousand years before the West, then I'll probably agree that it needs to be removed unless it is bringing some sort of point with it. IE. Maybe that toy needs high tech engineering and so by mentioning it, it is an example of how "advanced" their engineering were.

So you can't balance an article because people can't 'accept' the truth. That no different from propaganda or lying. As I said before, the main problem in the article thus is not "balancing", it is the WAY the author (who is clearly not that good at English and thus can probably be forgiven) had phrased his words that it can be taken wrongly. Thus it is up to others to edit the article and make it sound better. Its Wikipedia for a reason.

If someone was writing: China hoping to catch up to the Americans have developed a space program after copying leftover Russian junk from many years ago while Americans, in that time, have made great leaps forward in space travel and discovery.

Then yeah, that's wrong. But it wasn't like he did something like that. Most the time, it is badly written English with some random quote from somewhere. And if he did, then go CHANGE it to something more like this: ABC says that "China has developed a space program after studying old Russian technology. They have plans to develop their own innovative space craft and launch the first xxxx km/h ship into space." In the meantime, ABC also claims that the "Americans however, have also made some great leaps in space travel such as ZZZ but there is still much to achieve." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.12.231 (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)