Roman Empire and Han Dynasty: Comparison and Contrasts
What can be similar between absolute different empires? “Roman empire and Han dynasty” essay makes a comparison of these two ancient empires, even they have different origins there are some similarities between them. The Han sprung more directly from earlier dynastic activity in classical China, replacing a period of disorder under the Zhou with a spotlight on the importance of political order. Rome’s origins in politics had more to try and do and do and do with the control of the aristocratic landlords then the importance of a selected “democratic” or oligarchic element during the years of the Republic, both of which were overridden by the institution of empire. The increase of the republic can in some ways be compared to the increase of the Han. Both were within the western margin of the civilized ecumene and were viewed as semi-barbaric.
Their geographical position favored a spotlight on capability. Both Roman Empire and Han were militaristic states. Both were ready to develop because of being shielded by their geographical position from the nice powers within the east. Both the Roman and Han economies were in large part supported agriculture. The Roman organization of the economy was unprecedented for the Mediterranean world because it made rather more extensive use of slave labor than past imperial regimes.
Roman agriculture was centered on large plantations called ‘’latifundia’’ that were worked by many slaves. Their products were then sold in urban markets. The crops were different in each region: oil in nation-state and Spain, wheat in Egypt and vineyards in Gaul .The Romans made extensive investments into build up good infrastructure, constructing an intensive road network. They also facilitated the monetization of the economy by producing massive amounts of coinage. Trade was also influential within the Roman economy. The road network facilitated it then did the Mediterranean, which made it easy to shuttle goods throughout the Empire through sea. Sea trade was more cost effective than land trade and also the incontrovertible fact that Rome was more of a naval empire than the dynasty meant that commerce played a greater role within the Roman economy.
The Han, unlike the Romans, relied on free labor instead of slaves for agriculture. rather than using slave labor, Chinese landowners would use contracts and money to strike bargains with laborers. The free farmers were in large part self-sufficient and would produce goods that were in demand. very reasonably a small amount just like the Romans, the Han also issued large quantities of coinage but since China lacked silver, bronze coins were the premise of the monetary economy. The Chinese also built large scale road networks to facilitate commerce and after defeating the Xiongnu within the West, they were able to begin trade with Persia and, indirectly, with Rome.
Within the text we discuss I can say that in both Empire and Han were a limited technological development, expenses associated with military were to high, there are political corruption and also there are decline in morals and values, public health etc .
