Misplaced Pages

Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:34, 1 January 2010 editHiberniantears (talk | contribs)9,044 editsm Reverted edits by Hiberniantears (talk) to last version by Sadads← Previous edit Revision as of 17:35, 1 January 2010 edit undoHiberniantears (talk | contribs)9,044 edits Reverted to revision 335191103 by Hiberniantears; reverted too far. (TW)Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
] (red) and the ] ] (yellow), c. AD 1.]] ] (red) and the ] ] (yellow), c. AD 1.]]


'''Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires''' have been suggested since ] in the late 18th century, based on the similar scale of the empires, both in size and population, as well as parallels in their rise and decline. These two powers controlled a large portion of the world population, and produced distinct and lasting political and cultural impacts on Far Eastern and Western 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."<ref name="Adshead 2000 4">{{harvnb|Adshead|2000|p=4.}}</ref> '''Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires''' is the ] study of the ] and the ]. Studies investigate the similar scale of the empires at their respective pinnacles, both in size and population, as well as parallels in the rise and decline of each. At their peaks, both states controlled a large portion of the world population, and produced political and cultural legacies that endure to the modern era. While many studies focus specifically on ] or ], few studies directly compare the two. However, the subject has enjoyed increased interest in the 21st century, with several studies examining the concepts of ethnicity, identity, and views of foreigners.

Relative to individual studies of ] and the ], there are few studies that directly compare the two; however, the subject has enjoyed increased interest in the 21st century, with several studies examining the aspects of each area such as their concept of ethnicity and identity and their view of foreigners. There are still gaps in the subject and uneven coverage, but research is ongoing in institutions such as ]'s Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME).


==Historiography== ==Historiography==
] was the first to suggest that the Roman and Han empires were comparable.]] ] was the first to suggest that the Roman and Han empires were comparable.]]
The suggestion that the Roman and Han empires were comparable entities was proposed by historian ] in his book '']'' in 1788.<ref>{{harvnb|Roberts|2003|pp=63–64.}}</ref> When he explained the purpose of ]'s Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project and the framework of its study in the early 21st century, historian Walter Scheidel reviewed the previous scholarship. ] and ] have both written works comparing the ancient Mediterranean and China, however they have had little influence on later ancient historians in the fields of ancient China and the ancient Mediterranean. Scheidel gives this as a contributing cause to the relative paucity of comparative studies between the two. The majority of the research in the subject area has concentrated on looking at the intellectual and philosophical history of each society. He also noted a change in the direction of research in the 2000s, with a refocusing on the "nature of moral, historical, and scientific thought" in ancient Greece and China.<ref name="ACME">{{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm |title=The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME) |publisher=] |accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref> At least from the time of ] in the late 18th century, scholars have made comparative studies of the two empires. Gibbon posited that the Roman and Han empires were comparable entities in his book '']'' in 1788.<ref>{{harvnb|Roberts|2003|pp=63–64.}}</ref> Likewise, historian Walter Scheidel reviewed the previous scholarship when he explained the purpose of ]'s Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project and the framework of its study in the early 21st century. ] and ] have both written works comparing the ancient Mediterranean and China, however their studies have had little influence on later ancient historians. Scheidel gives this as a contributing cause to the relative paucity of comparative studies between the two. The majority of the research in the subject area has concentrated on looking at the intellectual and philosophical history of each society. He also noted a change in the direction of research in the 2000s, with a refocusing on the "nature of moral, historical, and scientific thought" in ancient Greece and China.<ref name="ACME">{{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm |title=The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME) |publisher=] |accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref>


Despite modern interest, there are still gaps in the subject area. Specifically on the subject of comparing Rome and the Han Empire, Scheidel notes that there are no comparative studies of ]; there is a also a virtual absence of work on "political, social, economic or legal history" of the Greco-Roman world and ancient China. However, he does note that historian Samuel Adhead does briefly address the issue. Wittfogel's work has come in for criticism by later historians, but his studies have not fully been supplanted by up to date theses. In modern studies of imperialism, ancient China has generally been overlooked. In Scheidel's words, " the comparative history of the largest agrarian empires of antiquity has attracted no attention at all. This deficit is only explicable with reference to academic specialization and language barriers".<ref name="ACME"/> Despite modern interest, gaps remain in the scholarship comparing Rome and the Han Empire. Scheidel notes that there are no comparative studies of ]; there is a also a virtual absence of work on "political, social, economic or legal history" of the Greco-Roman world and ancient China. However, he does note that historian Samuel Adhead does briefly address the issue. Wittfogel's work has come in for criticism by later historians, but his studies have not fully been supplanted by up to date theses. In modern studies of imperialism, ancient China has generally been overlooked. In Scheidel's words, " the comparative history of the largest agrarian empires of antiquity has attracted no attention at all. This deficit is only explicable with reference to academic specialization and language barriers".<ref name="ACME"/>


According to historian Samuel Adshead, in his book ''China in World History'', comparing Han China and the Roman Empire gives context and assists understanding of China's interactions and relations with other civilisations of ]. In his opinion, the Roman Empire bears the closest similarity to the Han Empire of the ancient civilisations. He also compares the two to assess their "relative standing" in the ancient world. Despite the similarities between the two empires emphasised by Scheidel, Adshead concludes that when examining Han China and the Roman Empire before ], their "differences outweighed the similarities".<ref name="Adshead 2000 4"/> According to historian Samuel Adshead, in his book ''China in World History'', comparing Han China and the Roman Empire gives context and assists understanding of China's interactions and relations with other civilisations of ]. In his opinion, the Roman Empire bears the closest similarity to the Han Empire of the ancient civilisations. He also compares the two to assess their "relative standing" in the ancient world. Despite the similarities between the two empires emphasised by Scheidel, Adshead concludes that when examining Han China and the Roman Empire before ], their "differences outweighed the similarities".<ref name="Adshead 2000 4"/>

⚫ ===Society===
⚫ Principles of ] have been identified that can be applied to the study of China and Rome. They draw on analytical and illustrative comparisons.<ref>{{harvnb|Bonnell|1980}} in {{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm |title=The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME) |publisher=] |accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref> Adshead emphasises the differences between the two empires.

⚫ ===Political structure===
⚫ One of the most appealing reasons for historians to begin comparing China and Rome, is their assent to political hegemony over the Mediterranean and ]. However, political comparisons by Adshead have received negative response from Chinese history experts; citing his lack of primary source information, poor support of his arguments and an eagerness to take poorly supported points as facts.<ref name = jenner> {{cite journal | first = WJF| last = Jenner| title = Review: China in World History| journal = The China Quarterly | number = 121| year = 1990 | month = March | page = 151| url = http://www.jstor.org/pss/654084}}</ref> <ref name = Farmer> {{cite journal| first = Edward | last = Farmer| journal = The Journal of Asian Studies| url = http://www.jstor.org/pss/2058649| number = 3| volume = 48 | year = 1989| month = August| pages = 583-584| title = Review: China in World History}}</ref>


==Contact between the empires== ==Contact between the empires==
{{main|Sino-Roman relations}} {{main|Sino-Roman relations}}
] in the 1st century&nbsp;AD.]]
⚫ As the Han and Roman empires were thousands of miles apart, with other states and empires and inhospitable land in between, contact was limited. The Romans were first introduced to silk by the ], which shared a border with the Roman Empire and stretched as far east as India. The Parthians and other intermediaries facilitated trade between Rome and China from the late 1st century&nbsp;BC onwards, however the two empires had little knowledge of each other. The main trade from China to Rome was in silk; ancient sources indicate that Romans were unaware of the scale of the empire of the ], meaning the "silk people". However Raoul McLaughlin, who wrote an article on the silk trade between the Roman and Han empires and their interactions, has questioned whether the Seres were really the Chinese, or whether it referred to a people closer to Rome but still near China.<ref name="McLaughlin">{{harvnb|McLaughlin|2008}}</ref>

According to ], writing in the first half of the 2nd century&nbsp;AD, delegates from the Seres were received by the Emperor ], however Chinese historians make no mention of diplomatic relations between Rome and China in the time of Augustus. Trade between Rome and the East increased in the 1st century&nbsp;AD, and in Roman cities silk from China became a common sight. Roman historian complained about the scale of the trade and the vast sums of money leaving the empire, claiming that India, Arabia, and the Seres had taken 100&nbsp;million ] (more than the annual income of the provinces of ] and ]) a year from Rome. <ref name="McLaughlin"/> Through trade contacts, Rome learned more about Han China, although in the 1st century, the two cultures rarely came in direct contact, preferring to trade through India. As well as via the sea and India, silk was also traded over land through the Parthian Empire. Han histories indicate that the Parthian's did not allow Roman traded passage so that they could influence the silk trade, but McLaughlin also suggests that Parthia was wary of contact between the Roman and Han empires and its possible consequences. In McLaughlin's opinion, "successful communication between the two&nbsp;… would have dramatically changed the direction of world history".<ref name="McLaughlin"/> Although the Han and ] empires interacted in Late Antiquity, the last record of contact between the Roman Empire and China was in the 3rd century. <ref name="McLaughlin"/>


⚫ As the Han and Roman empires were thousands of miles apart, separated by equally developed and powerful states such as the ], contact was limited and overwhelmingly indirect. The Parthians and other intermediaries facilitated trade between Rome and China from the late 1st century&nbsp;BC onwards. The main trade from China to Rome was in silk; ancient sources indicate that Romans were unaware of the scale of the empire of the ], meaning the "silk people". However Raoul McLaughlin, who wrote an article on the silk trade between the Roman and Han empires and their interactions, has questioned whether the Seres were really the Chinese, or whether it referred to a people closer to Rome but still near China.<ref name="McLaughlin">{{harvnb|McLaughlin|2008}}</ref>
⚫ ==Society==
⚫ Principles of ] have been identified that can be applied to the study of China and Rome. They draw on analytical and illustrative comparisons.<ref>{{harvnb|Bonnell|1980}} in {{citation |last=Scheidel |first=Walter |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm |title=The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME) |publisher=] |accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref> Adshead, who emphasises the differences between the two empires, <ref name="Adshead 2000 4"/> has described Rome and Han China as respectively "maritime, mercantile, urban and militaristic" and "territorial, agricultural, rural and civilian". He also asserts that that the Roman Empire was less stable than the Han Empire, which, in his words, "was socially harmonious, had no irreconcilable class conflicts and was highly stable".<ref>{{harvnb|Adshead|1961|p=11.}}</ref>


According to ], writing in the first half of the 2nd century&nbsp;AD, delegates from the Seres were received by the Emperor ], however Chinese historians make no mention of diplomatic relations between Rome and China in the time of Augustus. Through trade contacts, Rome learned more about Han China, although in the 1st century, the two cultures rarely came in direct contact, preferring to trade through India. As well as via the sea and India, silk was also traded over land through the Parthian Empire. Han dynastic history (specifically the ''Hou Hanshu'', '']'', abbreviated <nowiki>'</nowiki>''HS''<nowiki>'</nowiki>) also preserves fragments of historic-political import:<ref name="Posch_1998_363" /> In ''HS'' 2.1.1, but already mentioned in the '']'' (the ''Shiji'' text, completed in the early 1st century BC), the Arsacids are said to have gained control over Tiaozhi (] and ]), and to have treated it as a satellite state. In ''HS'' 2.1.4 and 2.2.3, the first Chinese emissaries are stated to have been received with great pomp, and that the Parthians had sent their own emissaries in exchange. In ''HS'' 2.2.4, the Parthians are described to have maintained diplomatic relations with the Central Asian country of ] in 68 BC, and in 35 BC the ] had plans to overthrow the Parthian Empire. In ''HS'' 2.3.5, the Parthians are described to have sought to control the Silk trade by inhibiting ] (the ] in the Near East) contact with China. In ''HS'' 2.3.7-2.3.8, the king Qizjiujue (]) of ] of the Guishuang (]) clan captured Gaofu (]) from the Parthian Empire.<!-- everything per Posch 1998, p. 363 -->
⚫ ==Political structure==
⚫ One of the most appealing reasons for historians to begin comparing China and Rome, is their assent to political hegemony over the Mediterranean and the Far east. However, political comparisons by S.A.M Adshead, one of the most vocal proponents of the comparative approach, have received considerable negative response from Chinese history experts. These reviews often cite his lack of primary source information, poor support of his arguments and an eagerness to take poorly supported points as facts.<ref name = jenner> {{cite journal | first = WJF| last = Jenner| title = Review: China in World History| journal = The China Quarterly | number = 121| year = 1990 | month = March | page = 151| url = http://www.jstor.org/pss/654084}}</ref> <ref name = Farmer> {{cite journal| first = Edward | last = Farmer| journal = The Journal of Asian Studies| url = http://www.jstor.org/pss/2058649| number = 3| volume = 48 | year = 1989| month = August| pages = 583-584| title = Review: China in World History}}</ref>


==References== ==References==
Line 55: Line 53:
] ]
] ]
]

Revision as of 17:35, 1 January 2010

The Roman Empire (red) and the Chinese Han dynasty (yellow), c. AD 1.

Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires is the comparative study of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty of Early Imperial China. Studies investigate the similar scale of the empires at their respective pinnacles, both in size and population, as well as parallels in the rise and decline of each. At their peaks, both states controlled a large portion of the world population, and produced political and cultural legacies that endure to the modern era. While many studies focus specifically on Early Imperial China or Ancient Rome, few studies directly compare the two. However, the subject has enjoyed increased interest in the 21st century, with several studies examining the concepts of ethnicity, identity, and views of foreigners.

Historiography

In 1788, historian Edward Gibbon was the first to suggest that the Roman and Han empires were comparable.

At least from the time of Edward Gibbon in the late 18th century, scholars have made comparative studies of the two empires. Gibbon posited that the Roman and Han empires were comparable entities in his book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1788. Likewise, historian Walter Scheidel reviewed the previous scholarship when he explained the purpose of Stanford University's Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project and the framework of its study in the early 21st century. Max Weber and Karl August Wittfogel have both written works comparing the ancient Mediterranean and China, however their studies have had little influence on later ancient historians. Scheidel gives this as a contributing cause to the relative paucity of comparative studies between the two. The majority of the research in the subject area has concentrated on looking at the intellectual and philosophical history of each society. He also noted a change in the direction of research in the 2000s, with a refocusing on the "nature of moral, historical, and scientific thought" in ancient Greece and China.

Despite modern interest, gaps remain in the scholarship comparing Rome and the Han Empire. Scheidel notes that there are no comparative studies of high culture; there is a also a virtual absence of work on "political, social, economic or legal history" of the Greco-Roman world and ancient China. However, he does note that historian Samuel Adhead does briefly address the issue. Wittfogel's work has come in for criticism by later historians, but his studies have not fully been supplanted by up to date theses. In modern studies of imperialism, ancient China has generally been overlooked. In Scheidel's words, " the comparative history of the largest agrarian empires of antiquity has attracted no attention at all. This deficit is only explicable with reference to academic specialization and language barriers".

According to historian Samuel Adshead, in his book China in World History, comparing Han China and the Roman Empire gives context and assists understanding of China's interactions and relations with other civilisations of Antiquity. In his opinion, the Roman Empire bears the closest similarity to the Han Empire of the ancient civilisations. He also compares the two to assess their "relative standing" in the ancient world. Despite the similarities between the two empires emphasised by Scheidel, Adshead concludes that when examining Han China and the Roman Empire before Constantine, their "differences outweighed the similarities".

Society

Principles of sociological examination have been identified that can be applied to the study of China and Rome. They draw on analytical and illustrative comparisons. Adshead emphasises the differences between the two empires.

Political structure

One of the most appealing reasons for historians to begin comparing China and Rome, is their assent to political hegemony over the Mediterranean and East Asia. However, political comparisons by Adshead have received negative response from Chinese history experts; citing his lack of primary source information, poor support of his arguments and an eagerness to take poorly supported points as facts.

Contact between the empires

Main article: Sino-Roman relations

As the Han and Roman empires were thousands of miles apart, separated by equally developed and powerful states such as the Parthian Empire, contact was limited and overwhelmingly indirect. The Parthians and other intermediaries facilitated trade between Rome and China from the late 1st century BC onwards. The main trade from China to Rome was in silk; ancient sources indicate that Romans were unaware of the scale of the empire of the Seres, meaning the "silk people". However Raoul McLaughlin, who wrote an article on the silk trade between the Roman and Han empires and their interactions, has questioned whether the Seres were really the Chinese, or whether it referred to a people closer to Rome but still near China.

According to Florus, writing in the first half of the 2nd century AD, delegates from the Seres were received by the Emperor Augustus, however Chinese historians make no mention of diplomatic relations between Rome and China in the time of Augustus. Through trade contacts, Rome learned more about Han China, although in the 1st century, the two cultures rarely came in direct contact, preferring to trade through India. As well as via the sea and India, silk was also traded over land through the Parthian Empire. Han dynastic history (specifically the Hou Hanshu, Book of the Later Han, abbreviated 'HS') also preserves fragments of historic-political import: In HS 2.1.1, but already mentioned in the Records of the Grand Historian (the Shiji text, completed in the early 1st century BC), the Arsacids are said to have gained control over Tiaozhi (Characene and Susiana), and to have treated it as a satellite state. In HS 2.1.4 and 2.2.3, the first Chinese emissaries are stated to have been received with great pomp, and that the Parthians had sent their own emissaries in exchange. In HS 2.2.4, the Parthians are described to have maintained diplomatic relations with the Central Asian country of Loulan in 68 BC, and in 35 BC the Xiongnu had plans to overthrow the Parthian Empire. In HS 2.3.5, the Parthians are described to have sought to control the Silk trade by inhibiting Da Qin (the Roman presence in the Near East) contact with China. In HS 2.3.7-2.3.8, the king Qizjiujue (Kujula Kadphises) of Da Yuezhi of the Guishuang (Kushan) clan captured Gaofu (Kabul) from the Parthian Empire.

References

Notes
  1. Roberts 2003, pp. 63–64.
  2. ^ Scheidel, Walter, The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME), Stanford University, retrieved 2009-12-27
  3. Cite error: The named reference Adshead 2000 4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Bonnell 1980 in Scheidel, Walter, The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME), Stanford University, retrieved 2009-12-27
  5. Jenner, WJF (1990). "Review: China in World History". The China Quarterly (121): 151. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. Farmer, Edward (1989). "Review: China in World History". The Journal of Asian Studies. 48 (3): 583–584. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. McLaughlin 2008
  8. Cite error: The named reference Posch_1998_363 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Bibliography

Further reading

External links

Categories: