Differences Between Han China And Gupta India

Millenniums ago, independent states began to grow, conquering each other to form empires. These empires rise and fall; while they do not physically remain on a map, their influences remain, as conquerors assimilate these influences into their own culture. This meant that distant empires could have similar culture because they shared a common predecessor; however, it also meant that rulers had to secure their legitimacy. Thus, when the three major empires encountered each other and cultures are diffused, rulers implemented different politics to control and unify their people. To secure their power during the Classical period, rulers of Han China and Mauryan and Gupta India used laws and tributary systems similarly; yet, they established different …show more content…
The Han have created a system of flexible laws based on morality. In the eyes of the Han, people are good when they follow the rituals and be good citizens of the state; thus, they create institutions that teach people the rituals, knowledge, and values they need to become good humans. Similarly, the Mauryan and Gupta believe that as long as people fulfill their dharma, they will receive good karma, and move up on the caste system. Therefore, the Indians have laws, both orally and codified (the Laws of Manu) to guide people into the right direction so they can fulfill their dharma. However, the Chinese focus on morality while the Indians focus on spirituality. The Han established relationships between leaders and followers so that the leader can set a moral example and the followers may have a successful life. On the other hand, the Mauryan and Gupta established dharma for each class so they may have a successful next life. The Chinese and Indians were similar in their laws because they are both culturally united. The Han rule over Chinese people while the Mauryan and Gupta rule over Indian people; unlike the Romans who conquered myriad ethnicities, neither group conquered foreigners. Therefore, the people of both groups are ethnically …show more content…
Like the Persians, the Chinese implemented a form of satrapies, commanderies. Within these commanderies, there is one local official, one military general, and one Emperor’s advisor, who reports to the Emperor. By using the commanderies, the Chinese made sure that there was local representation, military stability, and the Emperor’s orders are carried out. In addition, the commanderies allow the Chinese to be flexible with their law codes. They do not require a universal law code like Hammurabi; rather, they can adjust the law so that it fits the needs of the local people. Similarly, the Mauryan and Gupta have flexible laws through the Jarapadas. However, these Jarapadas function more like a micronation than a regional government. The Jarapadas are also different in that only one person, a Rajah, rules them. Therefore, as long as the Rajah is obedient to the state, he can do whatever he wanted to do. Since both the Han and Mauryan and Gupta controlled vast areas of land, they needed government that could satisfy the ideology of different groups; however, the Han were able to contact the Persians while the Mauryan and Gupta could not because of natural barriers. Therefore, the Han were able to borrow the satraps from the Persians, while the Mauryan and Gupta could only work with what were available, Rajahs and