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 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 5 January 2010 (→Contact between the empires: add huns). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:45, 5 January 2010 by Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (→Contact between the empires: add huns)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Political Map of the Eastern Hemisphere in 200 CE
Political Map of the Eastern Hemisphere in 200 CE

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

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

Further reading

External links

Categories: