Although both Han China and Imperial Rome had a centralized imperial government with an administrative bureaucracy, Han China implemented Confucian ideas and teachings into their administration, while Imperial Rome administered mainly with force. Han China and Imperial Rome were both large empires, so to maintain efficient rule over its people, they had a centralized imperial government. To further maintain efficient rule, they imposed an administrative bureaucracy. While both the Roman and the Han Empire had a bureaucracy, the Han’s bureaucracy was far more influential and active in society than that of the Romans. Emperors of both Imperial Rome and Han China gave local leaders the power to rule their distant lands.
Around the dawn of the first millennium, the Han and Roman attitudes toward technology were both self-glorifying, however the Han Empire in China placed more value upon technology and technological enhancements than did the Roman Empire, as evidenced by the constant concern on the part of the Han dynasty over the occasional indifference on the part of the Romans. Before beginning, it must be stated that every single document provided is written by somebody in the upper class, giving no insight into how the lower classes or peasants felt about technology. This provides a very limited viewpoint into the different attitudes, as the upper class was not the majority. Plus, there are no documents from women, leaving the reader to guess what women felt about the technology they used, how it helped them, or was all technology geared toward helping men in those patriarchal societies? A document from either of these sources would provide great insight into the attitudes toward technology in each nation.
In the Roman Empire, some believed that technology was necessary, but not necessarily enlightened, while others saw it as a way to show how great their civilization really was. Han government officials felt that technology was indeed an important part of a civilization and required government intervention. The Han government official in Document 1 said, “I request that establish water conservation offices in each district and staff then with people who are experienced in the ways of water. There should be one high official and one deputy with just enough workers to meet the need”. This shows that he felt it was important for the government to have some control, and to have people who knew what they were doing in charge.
Carlos Turcios Turcios1 Professor Lenerville Political Science 2 7 December 2012 Compare and Contrast: China & United States Government The Governments of China and the U.S share some similarities, although they have many differences as well. Both governments reflect their way of life for each country, they both include higher expectations,and both governments feel that their current system is the best government for their respective country. Both societies originated in different times, that adds to the difference in their in their lifestyle and culture. Distinctness between both cultures governments are also obvious, the main one being China having a single political party as opposed to the United States having two main political
Government structure is also a big political continuity in China during 100 C.E. to 600 C.E. China’s political structure remained unchanged for the most part. A cultural constant near the end of China’s classical period is the building of the Great Wall. Though construction started during the Qin dynasty (221-206 B.C.E.
The source is a primary source, but it also says it is a collection of myths and recollected texts, and that being said when it says ‘myths’ I have doubts about this text. 4) How did catastrophic events affect a ruler’s authenticity? How often were rulers replaced because of signs from Heaven? What does this text suggest about Chinese society then? Is the Mandate of Heaven still used or referenced currently in China?
Comparison Essay Han China and Gupta/Maryann Although the Han China from 206 B.C.E.-220 C.E lasted longer than the Mauryan/Gupta India from 320 B.C.E-550 C.E., they both used hierarchy and bureaucracy as their political control. However, The Han China had a more stable government than the Gupta, but religion had a minimal political impact. Meanwhile, Gupta’s religion had a greatly impact on political control. While Han China and Gupta relied on bureaucracy to demonstrate imperial power over the people, Han China was more organized and successful in keeping the empire under control than Gupta since China was centralized by the Quin dynasty in 221 B.C.E. Han Chinese bureaucracy has an emperor on top and has absolute power over empire.
It assisted to the culture creating a more intense culture. Feng shui was also brought creating a peaceful lifestyle to be balanced in life. Daoism was a part of this also. Though it seems that there is a lot of changes in the society of China, there are a few that remained the same in the culture and their political ways. The dynasties continued
In the Han and Roman empires, the two cultures felt extremely different about their attitudes towards technology, but even within the cultures themselves, these attitudes were not necessarily the same. Hans believed that while technology was primarily for the lower class people, upper class people should invent these, and sometimes use them. However, the Roman empire seems to be thoroughly divided on their attitudes towards technology. Some of the documents seem to think that technology is not for the upperclass, and is in fact vulgar, but others seem to think that it is beautiful and useful, created by the lower class but used by both. The first four documents are from the Han dynasty, and two of them are from government officials, which would probably mean a weak bias on their part towards the government.
When comparing Matteo Ricci’s characterization of the Chinese people to Sepúlveda’s and Las Casas’ earlier characterizations of the Native Americans, there are many differences. However, there are some similarities between Ricci and Las Casas' views. Ricci characterizes the Chinese as being a highly intelligent people just as Las Casas' describes the Native Americans. However, Sepúlveda describes the Natives as being quite the opposite and refers to them as wild barbarians. Both Matteo Ricci and Las Casas characterize their groups of people in a positive way.