User:Teeninvestor/Deleted sections of interest



The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were the principal powers in their respective regions during their existence. These two powers controlled more than half of the world population, and produced distinct and lasting political and cultural impacts on Chinese and European cultures. Several scholars have made comparative studies of the two empires. As Samuel Adshead puts it, "Other comparisons could be made [...] None, however, offers so close a parallel with Han China as the Roman empire." Scholars had utilized comparative studies for analysising the contemporary philosophical and intellectual developments by both the Greek and Chines schools of thought. However, only recent historiography has approached this period with a comparative interest in China, with a few major exceptions. This lack of research is an oversight scholars, like the major proponent of the approach, Walter Scheidel, find both a "persistent neglect" and a "major oversight" by western scholars. Scheidel defends the pursuit of such an approach, because he feels that the variables of understanding which became apparent in comparative studies often get overlooked by uni-cultural approaches.

Historiography
Roberts notes that "[t]he idea that there might be a connection between the fall of the Roman and the early Chinese empires has been current since at least 1788" when Gibbon broached the issue in his Decline and Fall. Roberts also summarizes more recent views on the decay and collapse of Han China and Roman Europe.

Many historians find doing comparative studies between Rome and China difficult because of the imbalance of scholarship available. This can lead to various problems. One issue, discussed in a master thesis by Margot Custer, is that the "romanization" of Europe is much more thoroughly studied in western scholarship than Chinese culture's growth to hegemony. Thus comparisons between the two polities sometimes lack depth or clarity. Also, Scheidel points out that comparative interests have much less importance to the study of the individual empires than they could have, so the approach receives much less interest.

Another limiting factor to the approach involves the breadth of scholarship which the historian needs to understand and digest. This, along with linguistic and culture divides in material available for scholars, provides problems which make it difficult to ensure a fully comprehensive approach.

Walter Scheidel
Scheidel has written studies comparing Roman and Han systems. He presents many of his positions in Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (2009) along with various other scholarly articles.

Formation and collapse


Both of the empires had a similar formation process. In the East, the Shang (Chinese: 商) and Western Zhou (Chinese: 西周) periods created a shared culture for the kingdoms of the Warring States (Chinese: 戰國), a period in which numerous small polities consolidated into a series of large kingdoms which were finally united by the westernmost marcher state of Qin. In the Mediterranean, classical civilization arose first in central and southern Greece, especially on the shores of the Aegean sea, later expanding  to include settlements such as Syracuse, Italy, and the Hellenistic kingdoms of the near east,  with power eventually shifting to Rome, also the westernmost state; from which the Roman empire grew to dominate the region

The subsequent collapse of both empires also bear striking similarities; each split into two halves, one that contained the original core but became more exposed to the main barbarian periphery (the west in the Roman case, the north in China), and a traditionalist half in the east (Rome) and south (China).

Governance
The diverging course of Chinese and Roman state formation resulted in different state structures. The Han state had its origins in the highly competitive Warring States Era, which saw the numerous states of China war among themselves for domination. No less than 256 wars took place between 651 and 221 BCE. As the fate of a losing state was complete destruction and the absorption of its lands into the victors' domain, the rulers of the various states adopted reforms that resulted in a centralized state apparatus under a strong ruler, the King. Rome, on the other hand, never faced an enemy that posed an existential threat after 275 BCE (save for the Punic wars), and therefore the state apparatus lacked the Han degree of centralization. Only with the reign of Augustus did the centralized Imperial Roman bureaucracy begin to grow. A quote about how outside military threats affected Chinese and Roman state centralization appears below:

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

Monetary system


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

Each empire's monetary system became subject to state interference and debasement of the coinage. Early Han dynasty administrations permitted the private minting of coins, but the coinage came under government control by 110 BCE to fund military efforts against the Xiongnu. The state made frequent but unsuccessful attempts to issue overvalued, fiat coins; this failed in the face of widespread counterfeiting. Not until the laissez-faire Eastern Han period (25-184 CE), were attempts to debase the coinage ended. After the Han collapsed at the end of the second century CE, the monetary economy largely broke down with frequent debasements until the Tang dynasty re-introduced a stable monetary system.

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

Geographic differences
The Han Empire followed tradition and geopolitics in having its heartland in the same river-valleys that nourished previous Chinese hegemons. The Roman Empire coalesced around a new site (Latium) but grew to include the littoral of the Mediterranean, somewhat in the tradition of the Athenian or Punic sea-borne empires.

Legacy
Although both empires fell as barbarian forces conquered parts of the empire that formed the original core (west for Rome, north for China), the traditional order continued in another part of the empire (east for Rome, south for China). Scholars argue that just as the empires converged in their formation at the end of the first millennium BCE, they diverged after the sixth century, which saw the restoration of a China-wide empire and a golden age in Eastern Asia while the Western Roman Europe continued to disintegrate into the fragmented nation-states of the Middle Ages.

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

Plague
A common problem that afflicted both empires and greatly weakened each at times, was disease. Both the Roman and Han Empires were connected by roads and sea routes, which allowed epidemics to spread diseases through them throughout the third, fourth, and fifth centuries C.E.. This resulted in a decrease in their ability to maintain their borders against invasions, as well as causing a decline in trade. It also disrupted their ability to harvest and ship grain, which cities depended on for food.

Ronald Edwards
Ronald Edwards notes common trends in Han and Roman institutional reform towards centralized control of regional officials in "Federalism and the Balance of Power: China's Han and Tang Dynasties and the Roman Empire".

Adshead
Samuel Adrian Miles Adshead argued that though the Roman and Han Empires exhibited superficial similarities, they were in reality quite different.

Similarities
Adshead argued the two empires had essential similarities. Specifically, both empires promoted a similar culture among the elite to foster unity and built roads and walls to enhance communications and defend against their barbarian opponents. When they fell into crisis, elite outsiders later briefly revived each empire (the tetrarchy for Rome, Cao-Cao for China). Later, both empires also collapsed in a similar fashion, with one half being overrun by barbarians and another half retaining civilization.

Economics
Adshead argued one of the most important differences between the two empires was their staple crop. The Han Empire's crop was millet, a more durable crop that could be grown in more regions than Rome. As a result, the area under the cultivation of the Han Empire was twice as much as Rome. A further advantage that China's economy had over Rome was superior iron technology, which allowed it to produce superior iron farm tools.

Military
In military terms, the Han foot soldier was better armed and equipped than his Roman counterpart to deal with cavalry, due to the Chinese crossbow which was deadly to horsemen. Consequently, Adshead noted that Han China, "never suffered from a Carrhae or an Adrianople".

Geographic size
According to Adshead, the Chinese and Roman Empires had similar sizes; the Han Empire was about 1.532 million square miles while the Roman Empire was about 1.763 million miles

State burden
Adshead argues the structure of the state differed in the two empires. Specifically, he argues that Han China was a "more healthy" state than Rome, due to its superior technology and less oppressive administration than Rome, which suffered from military regimes and a burdensome state.