Although Han China and Imperial Rome both ruled over large and diverse territories, both had different ways of political control within their empires. The control varies in ways such as their views on society; China having a philosophy of Confucianism and Rome believing in a patron-client relationship. Rome and China differed in who had the right to govern the empires varying from having a single leader to numerous government officials. Both empires used their loyal citizens to their advantage creating the state of free labor. However, even with all the differences, both empires managed to keep their territories protected, organized, and civilized.
Comparative Essay Both Classical India and Classical China were organized societies with strong centralized governments and complex institutions. Although there were some similarities in their political structure, there were also many differences because of the belief systems which shaped the social and political order of each society. Those belief systems differed in both India and China, they also changed over time due to the creation of new religions or laws. While all of the beliefs affected the political and social structure, some like Legalism and Confucianism were providing big impact on it, while others like Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism were purely the religions of salvation and harmony with nature. Classical China (1029
Comparative Essay As time progressed, many civilizations began to improve and evolve into more sophisticated societies. The Achaemenid Empire of Persia and the Han Dynasty of China are two of the most successful societies during this time period. The methods used by these two societies to control their territories contribute to their accomplishment. While the Achaemenid Empire used a different method to handle their foreign issues compared to the Han Dynasty, both empires used similar systems to control their territories such as dividing their empires into districts and developing a road system. A major difference between the methods used by the Achaemenid Empire and the Han Dynasty would be the way they handled foreign issues.
Han China and Imperial Rome Han China (206 B.C.E – 220 C.E) and Imperial Rome (31 B.C.E – 476 C.E) were the two premier and powerful civilizations of their time. As the two great civilizations of their time, Imperial Rome and Han China shared many similarities such as their powerful military machines and the advanced architecture they utilized to support their society. They had just as many differences however in how the government was structured and how they each viewed religion. One aspect of Han China and Imperial Rome were we can see a stark contrast between the two civilizations in in the government. Although Han China and Imperial Rome's method of political control was alike in their use of a centralized government, they were different in the sense of the roles of citizens in the government and the techniques for keeping the lower classes happy.
In the ancient Roman Republic, a complex political system was in place. Much like America, it was an indirect representative democracy. It also had a system of checks and balances, a way to accommodate two social classes, and set terms for every office. Romans system of government pushed politicians like Sulla and Marius to the extremes. Maintaining ones office was hard enough in Rome, but Roman culture
In Rome and China their administrative techniques used, you can see when looking at the emperors and legislative bodies they had, that in China, the emperors where given the right to rule by the “Mandate of Heaven”(study guide)(pg.130) which made all populous of the empire obey the ruler with out much question, giving him the same obedience that children gave their fathers. (pg.131) In contrast, Roman Consuls were placed into power by either their family right or by appointment of the previous Consul. (pg.149) Conflict grew between those who were appointed by the previous Consul and with those who had the family right making choosing the next emperor very tricky and often caused chaos in the government until things could be resolved. (pg.154) The regions of China and Imperial Rome are similar in the way of the use of bureaucracy,(ch.4) but different through the use of belief systems and in the role of the emperor. Both the empire of Han China and Imperial Rome used a bureaucracy as the form of political control.
Qin Huang Di was a brutal emperor that dictated all of china and outlawed other religions. He highly disapproved all teachings of Confucianism and discarded most history before him. However he was a good emperor overall because he did things mostly for his country to live on. Qin Huang Di improved china’s infrastructure by making vast networks of roads, canals and bridges throughout China. This helped with trading and traveling.
This ‘Right of Conquest’ gave rulers a legitimate claim to a throne because of their military might. As well as being a means of establishing rule, the use of force was also necessary for maintaining political control of any given territory. Many rulers spent much of their reigns travelling around their lands, giving a visible presence, enforcing royal rights and discouraging any rebellion by a show of force. This was the case for the rule of Louis VI of France, who was infamous for spending much of his life on horseback ‘enforcing royal rights ruthlessly’ and having to ‘defeat numerous petty vassals’ . Force was also
China had to incorporate Manchu’s and Han Chinese, while the Ottoman Empire had to incorporate Turks and Muslims, among others. In doing so, both Empires needed a way to unify their people under one rule; this was done so by ruling with an iron fist. In China, the emperor was said to be appointed by the Mandate of Heaven, and the ruler had the responsibility to care and look after all aspects of life and if his job wasn’t antiquate enough, he was simply replaced through murder or rebellion. The Ottoman Sultan was looked at in much the same way; he was also referred to as Emperor or the religious leader and had absolute power. Granted in both dynasties neither ruler could make a decision on his own because the views and ideas of their highly appointed officials had to be considered in most cases.
There was a great deal of unrest and the White Lotus Society was at the forefront of many uprisings, using them as a means of communication to the government. The qualities of the White Lotus Society are evident, as are the effects of its rebellious activities. Literature Review One of the sources used for reference in this paper, Prophets and Pretenders: Inter-Sect Competition in Qianlong China by Blaine C. Gaustad, has taken the view that the White Lotus Society did not exist as an association so much as loose grouping of religious sects. Gaustad bases this on the fact that there were many disconnected sects under various names in the mountainous area shared by the provinces of Sichuan, Hubei, and