Military played a major role in there rise and fall of their political structure. The military was a factor in both of the empires decline along with the choice of letting the wealthy class makes decisions for the lower class. Also both empires were ruled by one leader but citizens still were given some form of control. In comparison to how they are alike they also have differences. Such as not just giving power to citizens but how they distributed power in the empire.
Rome and Han China Rome and Han China were separated by thousands of miles which made them develop independently of each other, but they both managed to flourish at the same time. These Empires have impacted the world around them with their differences in technological developments, other differences they had can be seen through individual economic status and government ideas. A specific example could be the idea of choosing emperors in Rome based on republic ideas versus China which had emperors based on the Mandate of Heaven. While these empires had differences, they also had similarities some examples being agriculture as a main source of income, militaristic views, new religion developments, and patriarchal family structures. Having aggressive neighbors although being so far apart was one similarity in Han and Rome because in order to protect themselves from them they needed a strong military and also needed to build protecting walls.
Classical Rome and Han China had a complex centralized government to control their people. Both civilizations had a well organized bureaucracy; however, Han was based on Confucian beliefs, while Rome was founded on laws and a legal code like the 12 Tables. The government would tax the people 5% of their harvested crops due to the fact that agriculture was the base of the economy. Rome tax its people to maintain land though Han taxed the people for the soldiers. The government would expand as a result of political stability, military strength and advanced urban growth.
Bang divided the empire into administrative districts that were each governed by officials. He could not rule the Han dynasty by himself, due to how large it was. In the Han dynasty, there was a clear distinction to what class you belonged to. People were either really rich or really poor. The middle class was small during the Qin dynasty, but during the Han dynasty it grew.
Pax Mongolia and Pax Romana were similar and different in many of their elements. The origins of Pax Romana and Pax Mongolia differed vastly. Pax Romana was brought along by the exclusion of emperors bent on expansion as well as the policies made by Augustus. During this time Rome was a pretty large empire and expansion wasn’t a major point of interest with the Roman ruling class. Also Augustus made policies that helped established a sense of peace within Rome.
Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state. This caused the Frankfurt Parliament to fail because Prussia did not grasp the opportunity to unite and neither did the King, therefore Germany remained divided. Although he desired power, William IV was not willing to put himself and Prussia under control of the Frankfurt Parliament as he distrusted ‘the gentlemen of Frankfurt’. This meant that the Parliament had no real leader, and so lost support because people distrusted the parliament as an influential figure stated he would not be associated with them. This aided in causing the failure of the Parliament because with no real leader, no one could influence the masses or help to make decisions.
The parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes. However, the Parliament simply couldn’t just create money from taxes as everyone refused to pay the taxes. The payment of taxes could have been enforced, but there was no army to do the enforcement. There were no consequences to the people of the German Empire if they disobeyed the decisions of the Frankfurt Parliament, so decisions were not followed by the people. This was not surprising, as there was no previous history of a democracy in Germany before the Frankfurt Parliament, therefore there was not much support from the ordinary people for the new concept.
In both societies, local governments were practiced rather than a unified, whole state. One reason for India’s decentralization was its caste system, which prevented loyalty to one overall king or ruler because people were loyal to the caste instead. Because of it, people knew their obligations and duties in society. It is important to take note of the caste system because it had and still has a monumental influence on Indian culture. India’s decentralization was also caused by the failure of the regional kingdoms established by the Aryans to conquer one another.
The colonists lacked the amount of supply that the British had, they made up with this by having better weaponry. The British had an upper hand with economics over the colonists during the war The leadership and support of the Americans was greater than the British leadership and support, which was an advantage for the Americans. The American general, George Washington, was an intelligent fighter and politician. The British leaders, Howe and Clinton, made errors during the war that strongly hindered their outcome. The American’s original support was their morale and familiar terrain.
In a Machiavellian society, there was little choice as to what citizens did in their free time. The state was strict but efficient in their laws, in order to maintain order and prevent mutiny. Citizens did not get to choose their skill, but rather they chose what met the needs of the state. Joining the army was the most common need. A Machiavellian state differed from Utopia in its attitude towards war.