Between 600 B.C.E. and 600 C.E., old foundational civilizations faced extreme advancement in many areas. Once small civilizations began to conquest and take over other societies, enlarging their territory enough to form what is called an "empire". With expansion causing sizable territories, these empires began constructing newer forms of imperial governments, law codes, religion and philosophy, and most importantly, better and more advanced technology. All of these factors were accountable for maintaining an empire, but technology is the prime necessity that aided in all of these factors (I.e agriculture, military, trade, and infrastructure). Technology was a major necessity for the classical empires, as their conquest depended heavily
…show more content…
Rome, however, focused on their infrastructures' aesthetics and entertainment, yet disregarded laboring efforts. This was due to the fact that religion nor philosophy was integrated within Rome's societal configuration, unlike China.
The Han and Roman Empire each implemented their own unique hierarchies, with the Han having filial piety, a virtue of Confucianism, forming the social classes, whilst Rome's was based on economical distinction of plebeians and patricians. These social classes imposed different technological attitudes in both China and Rome. The Confucianist view of China aimed their attitudes towards practical usage and positive laborer treatments while the logical, unaffiliated view of Rome could care less about their slaves, and aesthetics were held above efficiency (for pride and gloating). From China's filial piety integration, as well as its moralistic standpoint, craftsmen and peasants were placed higher up in the social pyramid, as opposed to most other empires at the time. Efficient labor and respect for workers was highly valued in the Han, whereas the Roman Empire, who had based their empire not necessarily attuned to a religion or philosophy, had placed laborers at the bottom of the social pyramid. Since …show more content…
As both the Han and the Roman Empire formed societal conjectures towards the working class and technological usage based upon religious or philosophical influence, the Maurya/Gupta Indians did as well, in this case, influenced by Buddhism (for Maurya, at the least). Maurya India reigned in the same era as both Han and Rome, but despite this, India's technological attitudes far differed from Rome, namely. As mentioned before, the Han built watchtowers, tools, weapons, and complex roofs, particularly due to the Confucian encouragement of effectiveness. Maurya India directed more towards places of worship, such as monasteries and temples. Both the Han and Maurya India crafted stupas, since both Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions, but philosophies, and the Han Dynasty had actually integrated Buddhism in their society as well. Buddhism, like Confucianism, encouraged positive treatment of laborers, of course in each philosophy's own way. Buddhism disregarded classes, particularly during King Ashoka's reign, and because of this, the craftsmen and peasants were hardly treated any differently. Confucianism valued filial piety and adequate labor, so respect for the working class was necessary. Hence, having these philosophical standpoints instead of religious or unaffiliated views creates a distinct technological
Rome, however, focused on their infrastructures' aesthetics and entertainment, yet disregarded laboring efforts. This was due to the fact that religion nor philosophy was integrated within Rome's societal configuration, unlike China.
The Han and Roman Empire each implemented their own unique hierarchies, with the Han having filial piety, a virtue of Confucianism, forming the social classes, whilst Rome's was based on economical distinction of plebeians and patricians. These social classes imposed different technological attitudes in both China and Rome. The Confucianist view of China aimed their attitudes towards practical usage and positive laborer treatments while the logical, unaffiliated view of Rome could care less about their slaves, and aesthetics were held above efficiency (for pride and gloating). From China's filial piety integration, as well as its moralistic standpoint, craftsmen and peasants were placed higher up in the social pyramid, as opposed to most other empires at the time. Efficient labor and respect for workers was highly valued in the Han, whereas the Roman Empire, who had based their empire not necessarily attuned to a religion or philosophy, had placed laborers at the bottom of the social pyramid. Since …show more content…
As both the Han and the Roman Empire formed societal conjectures towards the working class and technological usage based upon religious or philosophical influence, the Maurya/Gupta Indians did as well, in this case, influenced by Buddhism (for Maurya, at the least). Maurya India reigned in the same era as both Han and Rome, but despite this, India's technological attitudes far differed from Rome, namely. As mentioned before, the Han built watchtowers, tools, weapons, and complex roofs, particularly due to the Confucian encouragement of effectiveness. Maurya India directed more towards places of worship, such as monasteries and temples. Both the Han and Maurya India crafted stupas, since both Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions, but philosophies, and the Han Dynasty had actually integrated Buddhism in their society as well. Buddhism, like Confucianism, encouraged positive treatment of laborers, of course in each philosophy's own way. Buddhism disregarded classes, particularly during King Ashoka's reign, and because of this, the craftsmen and peasants were hardly treated any differently. Confucianism valued filial piety and adequate labor, so respect for the working class was necessary. Hence, having these philosophical standpoints instead of religious or unaffiliated views creates a distinct technological