Mauryan/Gupta India and Han China had similarities as well as differences in the methods of political control. In the Mauryan/Gupta India was highly decentralized while Han China was centralized. However, Mauryan/Gupta India and Han China had similar bureaucracies. There was a bureaucracy present on both Mauryan/Gupta and Han. A bureaucracy is when non-elected officials are in charge instead of elected representatives.
Rome vs. the Han Han China and Imperial Rome, what did these two super nations have in common and how did they differ? As the Han dynasty was the great super power of China and the Roman Empire was the unstoppable conquering European force. Both of these powerful nation existed around the same time period yet there systems of government and political control distinctly differentiated from one another. So what were the differences and likenesses between the two? The Han dynasty was an imperial dynasty in which was ruled by an emperor or a king.
The Senate of Rome had most control over the citizens. Han China did not allow lower class citizens to have a say on how the empire was ruled; while, Imperial Rome had a senate to represent their plebeian’s or ordinary people. Another difference between the Han China and Imperial Rome was that the emperor of Han China had been chosen through the family and the citizens of Imperial Rome chose their ruler. Han China and Imperial Rome emphasized territorial expansion in both of their societies. They perceived threats to security; this led to war and then increased the length of border.
Compare/Contrast Rome and India Rome and India both rose from a land that had simple farms into great empires, though they may not be alike in every quality. Rome might have fallen before India ever truly began, but time both revealed the potential of these prominent societies. Rome and India both have similarities and differences in government, religion, and social standings. Firstly, Rome and India's government varied quite vastly from each other yet shared some commonalities. Undoubtedly, Rome came to greatness by rigid laws that tied the kingdom together as well as a Republic.
Both eras were regarded as the Golden Ages of their respective civilizations but the glories the Golden Ages brought could have never been achieved if a system of political structure was not present to ensure advancement went smoothly until the point Imperial Rome and Han China became the political hegemony of the Mediterranean and East Asia respectively. Imperial Rome and Han China were both led by Emperors who had almost god-like statuses and power in their empire with monarchial sets of succession. However, the Empires also had bureaucratic, economic, and militaristic systems that functioned with the empire’s political control very differently. To begin with, the powers of an emperor (his imperium) existed, in theory at least, by virtue of his "tribunician powers" (potestas tribunicia) and his "proconsular powers" (imperium proconsulare). In theory, the tribunician powers (which were similar to those of the Plebeian Tribunes under the old republic) made the Emperor's person and office sacrosanct, and gave the Emperor authority over Rome's civil government, including the power to preside over and to control the Senate.
Both the Middle East, including the Byzantine Empire, and East Asia underwent many political transformations. Additionally, both areas gained new religious developments. Both regions had religions that were based on the teachings of prophets, but the West had emperors who were religious leaders. While the Middle East and East Asia both had rulers with absolute power, the ultimate goals of their religions differed vastly. These regions had many political aspects in common.
Both dynasties made many great advancements, ecological and technological. The governments, however, had their own ways of maintain the political control over their regions. The Han Dynasty and Imperial Rome methods for maintaining political control were similar in many ways, such as their uses of the military and their centralized governments. They do this because it makes the most logical sense and is one of the more simplistic, yet efficient ways to keep society in check. The two dynasties are also quite different in many ways, including the roles of the citizens and the governments ways
On the other hand, Rome did not have the safety of rolling hills and was more of a united society, yet open to invasion. As a result of being open to invasion, there was interaction with Rome and their attempted invaders including Greece. Greece and Rome both had patriarchal societies. This means that men were supreme and in charge rather than women. Although this is the basics, Roman women had much more rights than those of Greece, who were not even considered citizens.
Rome`s government was organized into executive and legislative branches, both of these branches were under patrician control. The executive branch was headed by two patrician officials, called consuls, elected for one-year terms. The legislative branch consisted of the Assembly of Centuries and the Senate. However, the Senate had much more power because they advised the consuls. In my opinion, this government wasn’t very fair because not everyone had the chance to voice their opinion.
The Rulers of ancient China and its governments were greatly influenced by the belief systems they were based upon. Confucianism was used in the rule of Han Wudi in the Han dynasty and Legalism was shown in the Qin Dynasty by the ruler Shi Huangdi.The way that a government uses their belief system could help or hinder the way it functions and it could influence the way a ruler acts upon its subjects. Legalism was one of the ways Chinese rulers were able to unite and restore order in China. The Qin Dynasty and its leaders used the teachings of Shang Yang to strengthen their country and unify the people. The legalists believed that having an efficient and strong government would bring social order.