The Han dynasty (206 B.C.E-220 C.E.) and the Roman empire (31 B.C.E.- 476 C.E.) were two of the world major powerhouses at the time of their existences. They left such a large mark on the world that many components of their culture still exist today. These large empires required immense organization and good leadership to function, and in both cases, they had it. There were many similarities in the imperial administration of these empires, such as a head emperor, an elaborate trade network, and military might. However, upon closer inspection of these similarities, there are also several key differences such as where the empires arose from and religion within government.
The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire managed to conquer and rule vast areas of land and both needed a functioning government to do so. In Rome, the leader of the empire was a single emperor who made decisions regarding the control and operation of the Roman Empire in southern Europe and northern Africa. The same can be said for Han China, which commanded a vast area of land in central to east Asia. In order to rule in both of these empires, the country’s leaders were selected from a class of people with wealth and power. This in a way ensured that leaders were educated and powerful enough to lead their respective empires. For the Romans, this would have been the Equites which consisted of aristocrats. While for the Han, their scholar-gentry would have been the equivalent. In both cases, there was an emphasis on military power. The need to defend their empire was very influential in the ways the leaders spent their money. This would eventually lead to the downfall of both empires along with disease, corruption, and poor leadership. For both of these empires, there is a need to be able to trade and communicate between head officials and those directly under their command, …show more content…
For example, the Roman empire arose from the Roman Republic, which was led by a senate which continued to exist even into the empire that took it over. The senate operated during the empire but had too little power to do very much of anything unless the emperor agreed with them. While in Han China, the empire arose from a period of legalistic rule by the Qins that made it easier for Han to gain support with his Confucianism and Legalism mixture. This contributed to them being able to rule for a long period of time due to the lack of opposition to his philosophical policies. Furthermore, Rome took up a defensive foreign policy which means that they would not try to expand their territory but rather defend what they already had. In Han China, the Himalayas to the west provided a stopping point in terms of the expansion of their empire. In terms of religion, the Romans had their Greek-based gods for a while before adopting christianity as the main religion of their empire. In Han China, there was not so much a religious presence as there were philosophies. The most popular of these was Confucianism, which believed that humans are good and simply need to be taught right from wrong in order to prevent crime. This was blended with legalism, which believes that humans are greedy creatures and puts an emphasis on strict rule and harsh punishment. This blend created a well-balanced system
The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire managed to conquer and rule vast areas of land and both needed a functioning government to do so. In Rome, the leader of the empire was a single emperor who made decisions regarding the control and operation of the Roman Empire in southern Europe and northern Africa. The same can be said for Han China, which commanded a vast area of land in central to east Asia. In order to rule in both of these empires, the country’s leaders were selected from a class of people with wealth and power. This in a way ensured that leaders were educated and powerful enough to lead their respective empires. For the Romans, this would have been the Equites which consisted of aristocrats. While for the Han, their scholar-gentry would have been the equivalent. In both cases, there was an emphasis on military power. The need to defend their empire was very influential in the ways the leaders spent their money. This would eventually lead to the downfall of both empires along with disease, corruption, and poor leadership. For both of these empires, there is a need to be able to trade and communicate between head officials and those directly under their command, …show more content…
For example, the Roman empire arose from the Roman Republic, which was led by a senate which continued to exist even into the empire that took it over. The senate operated during the empire but had too little power to do very much of anything unless the emperor agreed with them. While in Han China, the empire arose from a period of legalistic rule by the Qins that made it easier for Han to gain support with his Confucianism and Legalism mixture. This contributed to them being able to rule for a long period of time due to the lack of opposition to his philosophical policies. Furthermore, Rome took up a defensive foreign policy which means that they would not try to expand their territory but rather defend what they already had. In Han China, the Himalayas to the west provided a stopping point in terms of the expansion of their empire. In terms of religion, the Romans had their Greek-based gods for a while before adopting christianity as the main religion of their empire. In Han China, there was not so much a religious presence as there were philosophies. The most popular of these was Confucianism, which believed that humans are good and simply need to be taught right from wrong in order to prevent crime. This was blended with legalism, which believes that humans are greedy creatures and puts an emphasis on strict rule and harsh punishment. This blend created a well-balanced system