Misplaced Pages

Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hiberniantears (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 1 January 2010 (Reverted edits by Hiberniantears (talk) to last version by Sadads). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:34, 1 January 2010 by Hiberniantears (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Hiberniantears (talk) to last version by Sadads)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The Roman Empire (red) and the Chinese Han dynasty (yellow), c. AD 1.

Comparisons between the Roman and Han empires have been suggested since Edward Gibbon 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."

Relative to individual studies of Han Dynasty and the Greco-Roman world, 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 Stanford University's Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME).

Historiography

In 1788, historian Edward Gibbon 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 Edward Gibbon in his book The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1788. 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, historian Walter Scheidel reviewed the previous scholarship. Max Weber and Karl August Wittfogel 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.

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 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".

Contact between the empires

Main article: Sino-Roman relations
The Silk Road in the 1st century 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 Parthian Empire, 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 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 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. Trade between Rome and the East increased in the 1st century 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 million sesterces (more than the annual income of the provinces of Gaul and Palestine) a year from Rome. 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 … would have dramatically changed the direction of world history". Although the Han and Byzantine empires interacted in Late Antiquity, the last record of contact between the Roman Empire and China was in the 3rd century.

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, who emphasises the differences between the two empires, 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".

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.

References

Notes
  1. ^ Adshead 2000, p. 4.
  2. Roberts 2003, pp. 63–64.
  3. ^ Scheidel, Walter, The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME), Stanford University, retrieved 2009-12-27
  4. ^ McLaughlin 2008
  5. Bonnell 1980 in Scheidel, Walter, The Stanford Ancient Chinese and Mediterranean Empires Comparative History Project (ACME), Stanford University, retrieved 2009-12-27
  6. Adshead 1961, p. 11.
  7. Jenner, WJF (1990). "Review: China in World History". The China Quarterly (121): 151. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. Farmer, Edward (1989). "Review: China in World History". The Journal of Asian Studies. 48 (3): 583–584. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Bibliography

Further reading

External links

Categories: