Religion was everywhere in both countries and they were both monotheistic with the belief in only one god, simular also was that they both built places of worship for them in this case Europe build churches while the Japanese built temples. Although around the same time these two great nations had their differences of a vast amount. Soldiers were the backbone of both of the countries but the Japanese soldiers were a lot more disciplined and respectful the malevolent European knights. Women were both a part of the different medieval periods but had their Fair share of differences too, for instance in Japan women could hold positions of power a feat not done with European women, and women could become Samurai were as European women
These rigorous warriors had to firmly conform to their masters to directly demonstrated respect to those above them in the social class, and they had to follow the bushido code, which was a unique Japanese code of conduct that was created in the 1600s. The bushido code worked impeccably well during war periods, but since the Tokugawa shogunate brought over two hundred years of peace and unity among Japan, the role of the bushido code drastically changed the samurai’s violent existence into one of civility, wisdom, and tranquility. With the warrior class suffering the most during an era of peace, Musui’s story contradicts the relationship between samurai ideals and actual samurai life with the personal account of Katsu Kokichi, who lived a life unworthy of the samurai ways during the Edo period. Kokichi, who officially took the name of Musui after his retirement, lived an adventurous life that can very well highlight the differences between a samurai of the Tokugawa period with one of earlier existence. Through a time of peace, samurai could hardly benefit in terms of finances and security since they were not needed as direly as during times of war.
This contrasted to the political structure of Western Europe which was where the feudal system was prominent, without any centralized government until the Late Middle Ages. The Byzantines form of government, beginning through Justinian’s vision, was very similar to that of Chinas’ bureaucracy. Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire had vastly different economies. The West practiced manorialism which lead to an agricultural based economy with little trading outside of Europe. The west remained local while not looking much into expanding economically while the Byzantine Empire became the wealthier empire in Europe because of its trade.
They had different values that set them apart. Han and Rome both put restrictions on who could participate culturally. Most people in both civilizations were from the upper-class male. The aristocrats and bureaucrats made up Han China and ruled in participation in education and politics and such. In Rome the upper-class formal educators while the lower class were just literature, if they were literate.
In the political development of New England, the Puritans influenced the region by basing the political structure on a theocratic model that enforced firm moral obedience. When the Puritan settlers founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, their leader, John Winthrop, made it his mission to create a colony that would serve as an example of the ideal society that the Puritans hoped to create (Doc A). As a result, New England produced laws that enforced the Puritans’ strict moral code. This mixture of morality into Puritan politics led to a bold response; For example, when Roger Williams called for more religious tolerance in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, challenging authority of the Puritan hierarchy (Doc F), the Puritan colonial leaders banished him in 1636. This action led to the founding the colony of Rhode Island as a safe place for religious dissidents.
One similarity they did have was that they both knew that their central government or emperor could not rule the amount of land conquered in their empire. So they sent officials or subordinates to maintain different districts and lands. The social structure of Rome and Han were almost different from each other. In the Han social structure, the vast majority of the population was cultivators. In my opinion, cultivators are like the middle class of the social structure.
The Charter was a feudal document and meant to protect the rights and property of the few powerful families that topped the rigidly structured feudal system. In fact, the majority of the population, the thousands of unfree laborers, are only mentioned once, in a clause concerning the use of court-set fines to punish minor offenses. Magna Carta's primary purpose was restorative: to force King John to recognize the supremacy of ancient liberties, to limit his ability to raise funds, and to reassert the principle of "due process." Only a final clause, which created an enforcement council of tenants-in-chief and clergymen, would have severely limited the king's power and introduced something new to English law: the principle of "majority rule." But majority rule was an idea whose time had not yet come; in September, at John's urging, Pope Innocent II annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear."
The Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty Compare and Contrast The Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty have many areas in which they are very similar but here are a few that I thought were important. They each had emperors that ruled around the same time and they both had centralized political systems. Both the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire were affected by internal problems like disease and corrupt politicians; while they were also affected by external problems like Nomadic Invasions. They both had the most advanced, highly civilized societies in their region of the globe. The fall of these two societies was strangely similar; they endured hardships through significant factors such as the Germanic Invasions that made them decline in power.
The nature of this heroic code was portrayed through the act of giving gifts to symbolize personal relationships and worth, avenging loved ones instead of grieving over them, and showing generosity to demonstrate appreciation (Shuger, Lecture). The text also illustrates this ideal of dying young and gloriously rather than wasting away due to old age. The mission of a hero during this day and age was quite simple. Defend the kingdom by any means necessary, stay loyal to one’s kinsmen, and protect one’s individual reputation by being a brave warrior no matter what that entails. Cowardice was unacceptable.