Strategies Used By Han Dynasty And Roman Empire For Establishment

Roman and Han Dynasty

The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire – two powerful forces

Question:

Describe about the Strategies of the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire?

The Han Dynasty and Roman Empire had both the most powerful forces of influences in the duration of their heyday. The emergence of the Han Dynasty had been seen as a power of principle in the Eastern part of Asia in the duration of 221 BCE after the Qin Dynasty in the duration of 206 BCE. A system of politics and a structure of society had been pioneered in China that existed for the duration of 2000 years (Anthony, 2007). On the other hand, the Roman Empire imposed control over the Western Mediterranean. Unpredicted advancement had been made by the people of Rome in the field of Science and Technology, and an economy had been organized in a significant manner.

This paper will be discussing three strategies used by both the dynasties for its establishment in a significant manner.

The Han Dynasty had been successful in becoming the formative empire of China by extending the rule of Han in each and every single direction across the nation. Certain strategies had been followed by the Han Dynasty for making this expansion (Bielenstein, 1980). These strategies will be discussed further ahead.

(Fig: The Han Dynasty of China)

(Source: Bielenstein, 1980)

The empire of Han had been differentiated by a strong alliance amongst the new elite and imperial family, who united within their effort for imposing order on the society of China. Social and economic supports, along with a strong bureaucratic administration and strong military, resulted in being added to the longevity, expanse and strength of the Han Empire (Block, 2003).

For securing the support in a significant manner, administration and power had been used as a significant strategy. Under this strategy, land grants had been provided by Liu Bang to the supporters of military and the close relatives who assisted in overthrowing the Qin (Bulling, 1962). This strategy can be considered as being highly significant because this helped in bringing the administration of commanders within the central control. This also helped in drawing the attention of educated males who had the ability to represent the powerful communities in the local context.

The genius personalities of the Han dynasty held the ability of winning the support of diversified social groups by the formation of alliances with the main leaders. A massive base of agrarianism contributed in providing the revenues of tax to the Han Dynasty, along with a number of different special sources of revenue, like tribute from the domains that were outlying (Chun-shu, 2007). There had been promotion in the state for growing silk and producing iron. This resulted in the establishment of state monopolies in wine, iron and salt for funding the campaigns of military.

(Fig: Hierarchy of Han Dynasty)

(Source: Cotterell, 2004)

The monopolies of government ended up undercutting the freedom of merchants as it forced for coming in partnership with the rulers. Hence, this resulted in increasing the support base of the rulers making them extremely strong (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006).

Strategies Used by the Han Dynasty for Expansion

A powerful army had been created by Han that helped in expanding the boundaries of the empire and contributed in the creation of conditions with stability for transitioning the goods on the road of silk. The services of military had been made compulsory. The services of conscripts were being provided in the local region. The population of the standing army had exceeded one million males (Potter, 2004).

The borders of the army were being expanded in a number of different direction that include the northern region of Korea and Vietnam but had been struggling more within the southwestern and southern region because of the outbreak of Malaria and the mountainous terrain.

The Han dynasty is known to dominate an enormous landmass on the entire continent. However, the Roman Empire are known to dominate the land areas along the largest inland sea area across the globe that is the Mediterranean Sea. By unrelenting the occurrence of each war, the Roman empire contributed in forging a number of groups of ethnicity and states that were minor within a single large state of politics (Stevenson, 1939).

(Fig: Area covered by the Roman Empire)

(Source: Thorley, 1979)

The Roman Empire focused on the creation of unassailable power of military by the organization of communities, they had been successful in conquering Italy within the system that focused on providing large reservoirs having power of man for the expansion of army. By the start of the 340 BCE, Rome had been successful in defeating the neighboring states of Latin city and continuously had been defeating a number of other communities within Italy (Thorley, 1979). This strategy had been appropriate as the victory of the Military not only contributed in bringing territory and glory for the state, but also contributes in providing large individual rewards.

After the brutal occurrence of civil war, the leaders sought to be establishing the stability in politics. However, this stability had been maintained by paying a significant cost. This cost was the authoritarian rule of one man (Vegetius, 1985). Peace was highly depended upon the power held by a single man, who had the possession of adequate authority for the enforcement of orderly competition amongst the aristocracy of Rome. The ruling of emperors was done under the assistance of a number of institution, and mainly the power of the army. This resulted in dividing the empire into a number of 40 provinces (Weingast, 1995). Each and every province was headed by the appointment of governor through the emperor. This strategy had been appropriate as the governors started to depend on the officials at lower rank for helping them in a significant manner. In comparison with the bureaucracy of China, the empire of Rome had been comparatively under- administered.

There had been achievement of staggering transformation by Rome due to the strategy implemented for the scale of production. This had been related to the mined, manufactured and agricultural goods within the basin of Mediterranean sea.

A number of unprecedented roads had been built by the Romans and complicated land maps had been drawn over which a number of roads and area to be covered was specified between the towns (Wilfred, 1917). This strategy can be considered as being highly significant as this resulted in the coordination of networks of road with the routes of sea for supporting the flow taking place between commerce. There had been production of coinage in large quantities for the facilitation of exchanging the services and commodities. This contributed in the commercialization of planting agriculture that took place over the estates known as Latifundia (Wilfred, 1915). This also helped in the specialization of cash crops for the markets in urban area. For the establishment of these estates, there was an increased need for a number of different slave laborers at a larger context.

Conclusion

The Han dynasty is known to dominate an enormous landmass on the entire continent. However, the Roman Empire are known to dominate the land areas along the largest inland sea area across the globe that is the Mediterranean Sea. As a significant difference in the strategies of both the dynasties, the population of the standing army had exceeded one million males. However, the population of army in Rome was only 30,000 (Zhou, 2007).

The Han Dynasty and Roman Empire had both the most powerful forces of influences in the duration of their heyday. In addition to this, it has been found that in comparison with the bureaucracy of China, the empire of Rome had been comparatively under- administered. For securing the support in a significant manner, administration and power had been used as a significant strategy. Hence, both the strategies are successful in its own ways with certain common elements.

References

Anthony J. (2007). “Artisans in Early Imperial China,” Seattle & London: University of Washington Press.

Bielenstein, H. (1980). “The Bureaucracy of Han Times,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Block, L. (2003). “To Harness the Wind: A Short History of the Development of Sails,” Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.

Bulling, A. (1962). A Landscape Representation of the Western Han Period. Artibus Asiae, 25(4), pp. 293–317.

Chun-shu, C. (2007). “The Rise of the Chinese Empire: Volume II; Frontier, Immigration, & Empire in Han China, 130 B.C. – A.D. 157,” Ashford University Library.

Cotterell, M. (2004). “The Terracotta Warriors: The Secret Codes of the Emperor’s Army,” Ashford University Library.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). “Readings in Han Chinese Thought,” Ashford University Library.

Potter, D. S. (2004). “The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180–395,” London: Routledge.

Stevenson, G. H. (1939). “Roman Provincial Administration: Till the Age of the Antonines,” Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Thorley, P. (1979). The Roman Empire and the Kushans. Greece & Rome, 26(2), pp. 181-190.

Vegetius, J. (1985). “The Military Institutions of the Romans,” Greenwood, 1985, pp. 87.

Weingast, B. R. (1995). The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market – Preserving Federalism and Economic Development. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 11, 1–31.

Wilfred, H. (1917). Navigation to the Far East under the Roman Empire. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 37, pp. 240–249.

Wilfred, H. (1915). The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 35, pp. 224–239.

Zhou, R. (2007). Testing the Hypothesis of an Ancient Roman Soldier Origin of the Liqian People in Northwest China: a Y-Chromosome Perspective. Journal of Human Genetics, 52(7), pp. 584–91.