Comparison of Han and Roman Empires?

[Queequeg]

One point Keay made in his book, which I found interesting and which would probably be somewhat controversial to most present Chinese senses of history is that the idea of China as a unitary state was not nearly as fixed and inevitable as the various official histories (usually written under the purview of a centralizing unifier who'd want to emphasize those qualities) imply.

He argues that China historically, has spent just as long as various independent states as a unified realm: Warring States, Jin Dynasty, 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms era and so on.  The practice of dynastic reckoning also extends the semblance of apparent unity as in many cases both the beginning and ends of the various dynastic periods consisted of many de-facto independent realms either being absorbed or breaking off again.

In a sense it's comparable to a Europe where more vigorous hypothetical Roman successors managed to unify Europe in the name of Rome before breaking apart again.

I guess another major difference between the Chinese and Euro experience is that, as a civilization, China was never until the modern era in striking distance of a civilization which compared to it as a civilization, while Rome/Christendom always was - first Persia, then Islam.

China was surrounded either by violent barbarians, or by civilizations which more or less adopted Chinese cultural patterns. The major Chinese cultural import prior to modernity was Buddhism, which was imported from a very long way away - and in fact mostly died out in its Indian homeland.

I would love to find a book on the Buddhism of the Greco-Bactrians/Indians and the influence they had the Hindu Kush and beyond; a lot of Steppe weapons are adaptations of Greco-Bactrian ones, and to this day the Buddha is generally depicted wearing a toga...

[grumbler]

Not sure I agree, Malthus.  The Indian subcontinent was civilized when they and the Chinese encountered one another c. 300 BCE, and retained that status throughout the Han period.  Nonetheless, the Romans were also in India during the Han period, and there were even Romans (supposedly, but believed by both sides) in China, while there were no Chinese that made it to the Roman Empire.  Even the Silk Road trade was carried out by local intermediaries, not Chinese.  The Han simply seemed to have no interest in long-range exploration nor direct trade.  In part, this was due to the Han practice of heavily controlling and taxing merchants, but in part it may also have been that they simply didn't see that much in foreign trade that they could not get in internal trade.  It might also have been due to a preference to have the Indian merchants bring the goods to China, so as to be in the superior bargaining position (as the transport of goods had already then been paid for).

[Queequeg]

Not sure I agree, Malthus.  The Indian subcontinent was civilized when they and the Chinese encountered one another c. 300 BCE, and retained that status throughout the Han period.  Nonetheless, the Romans were also in India during the Han period, and there were even Romans (supposedly, but believed by both sides) in China, while there were no Chinese that made it to the Roman Empire.  Even the Silk Road trade was carried out by local intermediaries, not Chinese.  The Han simply seemed to have no interest in long-range exploration nor direct trade.  In part, this was due to the Han practice of heavily controlling and taxing merchants, but in part it may also have been that they simply didn't see that much in foreign trade that they could not get in internal trade.  It might also have been due to a preference to have the Indian merchants bring the goods to China, so as to be in the superior bargaining position (as the transport of goods had already then been paid for).

Most of what I have read agrees with Malthus, throughout this period the Chinese would send missions into India mostly for religious purposes.  Most of our best sources on this period of Northern Indian history are Chinese; they kept marvelous accounts of Hindu-Buddhist, Greco-Saka-Yuezhi-Native relations, etc..

[Monoriu]

The heartland's northern part is dominated by the Yellow River and speaks Mandarin, the southern part by the Yangtze River and by Cantonese.

This is blatently untrue.  Cantonese is spoken in Guangdong province, and that's pretty much it. Actually, a lot of people in the province don't really speak it.  There are like thousands of dialects in Southern China, and none of them is dominant.

[Monoriu]

One comment on the cultural side - merchants, explorers, traders and soldiers are generally looked down upon in traditional Chinese culture.  In China, scholars are very highly regarded.  Even peasants enjoy higher social status than merchants, because they are seen to be producing something tangible.  Merchants were simply scum that took advantage of others without adding any value. 

The traditional and proper way to fame and fortune was to take part in imperial examinations and become an official, not to go on foreign adventures. 

[citizen k]

Nonetheless, the Romans were also in India during the Han period, and there were even Romans (supposedly, but believed by both sides) in China, while there were no Chinese that made it to the Roman Empire.  Even the Silk Road trade was carried out by local intermediaries, not Chinese.  The Han simply seemed to have no interest in long-range exploration nor direct trade. 

This is an excerpt from a wiki article on Zhang Qian that I found interesting:

Following Zhang Qian's embassy and report, commercial relations between China and Central as well as Western Asia flourished, as many Chinese missions were sent throughout the end of the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE, initiating the development of the Silk Road:  "The largest of these embassies to foreign states numbered several hundred persons, while even the smaller parties included over 100 members... In the course of one year anywhere from five to six to over ten parties would be sent out." (Shiji, trans. Burton Watson).  Many objects were soon exchanged, and travelled as far as Guangzhou in the East, as suggested by the discovery of a Persian box and various artifacts from Central Asia in the 122 BCE tomb of the Chinese King Wen of Nanyue.
Murals in Mogao Caves in Dunhuang describe the Emperor Han Wudi (156-87 BCE) worshipping Buddhist statues, explaining them as "golden men brought in 120 BCE by a great Han general in his campaigns against the nomads", although there is no other mention of Han Wudi worshipping the Buddha in Chinese historical literature.
China also sent a mission to Parthia, which were followed up by reciprocal missions from Parthian envoys around 100 BCE:  "When the Han envoy first visited the kingdom of Anxi (Parthia), the king of Anxi dispatched a party of 20,000 horsemen to meet them on the eastern border of the kingdom... When the Han envoys set out again to return to China, the king of Anxi dispatched envoys of his own to accompany them... The emperor was delighted at this." (Shiji, 123, trans. Burton Watson).  The Roman historian Florus describes the visit of numerous envoys, including Seres (Chinese), to the first Roman Emperor Augustus, who reigned between 27 BCE and 14:  "Even the rest of the nations of the world which were not subject to the imperial sway were sensible of its grandeur, and looked with reverence to the Roman people, the great conqueror of nations. Thus even Scythians and Sarmatians sent envoys to seek the friendship of Rome. Nay, the Seres came likewise, and the Indians who dwelt beneath the vertical sun, bringing presents of precious stones and pearls and elephants, but thinking all of less moment than the vastness of the journey which they had undertaken, and which they said had occupied four years. In truth it needed but to look at their complexion to see that they were people of another world than ours." ("Cathay and the way thither", Henry Yule).  In 97 the Chinese general Ban Chao dispatched an envoy to Rome in the person of Gan Ying.
Several Roman embassies to China followed from 166, and are officially recorded in Chinese historical chronicles.

[citizen k]

I would love to find a book on the Buddhism of the Greco-Bactrians/Indians and the influence they had the Hindu Kush and beyond; a lot of Steppe weapons are adaptations of Greco-Bactrian ones, and to this day the Buddha is generally depicted wearing a toga...

Gandhara Buddha 1st-2nd century CE




Amida Buddha, Japan; Kamakura period


I found these books on Amazon:

[grumbler]

This is an excerpt from a wiki article on Zhang Qian that I found interesting:

Following Zhang Qian's embassy and report, commercial relations between China and Central as well as Western Asia flourished, as many Chinese missions were sent throughout the end of the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE, initiating the development of the Silk Road:  "The largest of these embassies to foreign states numbered several hundred persons, while even the smaller parties included over 100 members... In the course of one year anywhere from five to six to over ten parties would be sent out." (Shiji, trans. Burton Watson).  Many objects were soon exchanged, and travelled as far as Guangzhou in the East, as suggested by the discovery of a Persian box and various artifacts from Central Asia in the 122 BCE tomb of the Chinese King Wen of Nanyue.
Murals in Mogao Caves in Dunhuang describe the Emperor Han Wudi (156-87 BCE) worshipping Buddhist statues, explaining them as "golden men brought in 120 BCE by a great Han general in his campaigns against the nomads", although there is no other mention of Han Wudi worshipping the Buddha in Chinese historical literature.
China also sent a mission to Parthia, which were followed up by reciprocal missions from Parthian envoys around 100 BCE:  "When the Han envoy first visited the kingdom of Anxi (Parthia), the king of Anxi dispatched a party of 20,000 horsemen to meet them on the eastern border of the kingdom... When the Han envoys set out again to return to China, the king of Anxi dispatched envoys of his own to accompany them... The emperor was delighted at this." (Shiji, 123, trans. Burton Watson).  The Roman historian Florus describes the visit of numerous envoys, including Seres (Chinese), to the first Roman Emperor Augustus, who reigned between 27 BCE and 14:  "Even the rest of the nations of the world which were not subject to the imperial sway were sensible of its grandeur, and looked with reverence to the Roman people, the great conqueror of nations. Thus even Scythians and Sarmatians sent envoys to seek the friendship of Rome. Nay, the Seres came likewise, and the Indians who dwelt beneath the vertical sun, bringing presents of precious stones and pearls and elephants, but thinking all of less moment than the vastness of the journey which they had undertaken, and which they said had occupied four years. In truth it needed but to look at their complexion to see that they were people of another world than ours." ("Cathay and the way thither", Henry Yule).  In 97 the Chinese general Ban Chao dispatched an envoy to Rome in the person of Gan Ying.
Several Roman embassies to China followed from 166, and are officially recorded in Chinese historical chronicles.

Other than the attempt to show that the "Seres" were Chinese (which is not supported by other sources, who insist that the single han embassy to Rome never made it), this is consistent with what I said:  the han sent out embassies, but didn't send out traders to buy things; rather, they allowed foreign traders to come to China.

I see no evidence that the Han leadership, unlike that of Rome, felt any impulse to conquer the world.

[Alatriste]

If I remember correctly even during the I century AC Roman writers were already worried that too much silver was leaving the Empire to pay for spices, silk and other Asiatic products, mainly Chinese. This strongly suggests the Mediterranean basin didn't produce anything than the Chinese really wanted, other than precious metals.

Actually some modern economic historians seem to have concluded that the Roman empire did run a serious trade deficit in its relations with China - which is IMHO ridiculous; silver is just another ware, the Empire wasn't becoming indebted, Chinese firms weren't buying Roman ones, and the denarius wasn't diving in the currency markets. The Empire 'silver drain' could become a problem if it caused scarcity of coined money, but the economy wasn't developed enough for trade deficits to happen.

[Malthus]

I see no evidence that the Han leadership, unlike that of Rome, felt any impulse to conquer the world.

I dunno if the differences are that striking. How did the Han and Roman empires at their respective heights compare?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_empire

In China's first known nationwide census taken in 2 CE, the population was registered as having 57,671,400 individuals in 12,366,470 households.

In contrast, the population of Rome in 25 BC is estimated at 56,800,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire

Which is a remarkable coincidence to say the least!

We tend to think of "China" as a single country and "Rome" as an empire, but in reality "China" was historically many countries - I think quite comparable to the Europe-Middle East of Rome. Of course China has more often been unified than Europe-Middle East, where replicating the Roman acheivement was often the goal but never, after the fall of Rome, the reality.

I'm not sure that the Han were really less militant than the (Imperial) Romans - certainly Repulican Rome was extremely militant, but that better compares to China during the so-called "warring states" period, which as the name suggests was pretty warlike - and no one ever accused Shih Huang Ti of being a pacifist, exactly.

At their imperial peaks, both systems sought stability with some extentions or conquests to be sure (Claudius in Britain, etc.) but nothing like the Alexanderian or Caesarian attempt at serious world conquest.

[Valmy]

One comment on the cultural side - merchants, explorers, traders and soldiers are generally looked down upon in traditional Chinese culture.  In China, scholars are very highly regarded.  Even peasants enjoy higher social status than merchants, because they are seen to be producing something tangible.  Merchants were simply scum that took advantage of others without adding any value. 

The traditional and proper way to fame and fortune was to take part in imperial examinations and become an official, not to go on foreign adventures. 

This is pretty much how merchants were viewed in traditional western society also.  With churchmen and soldiers replacing scholars and bureaucrats as favored along with the farmers and peasants.

In fact in the West as soon as a merchant became successful his chief goal was to find a way to stop being a merchant so his family could gain respectability.  Since the Dutch were already scum hated by the powers that be they somewhat relished turning that traditional view on its head.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

This strongly suggests the Mediterranean basin didn't produce anything than the Chinese really wanted, other than precious metals.

Alternatively (or coincidingly) this could suggest that potential wares outside of silk and spices were sufficiently hard to transport in big quantities that it just didn't make any sense in trading them. Regardless of wether they were chinese or Roman.

[Malthus]

This strongly suggests the Mediterranean basin didn't produce anything than the Chinese really wanted, other than precious metals.

Alternatively (or coincidingly) this could suggest that potential wares outside of silk and spices were sufficiently hard to transport in big quantities that it just didn't make any sense in trading them. Regardless of wether they were chinese or Roman.

Precious metals are a produce ...  But yes you are correct: only very high value low bulk things could possibly be sold at a profit over such vast distances. That pretty well means things like spices, silks, gems, and precious metals.