Meanwhile, the city-sized states gradually coalesced into large territorial states. It caught up during the Warring-states period, when Legalist reformers prepared the institutional foundations of the imperial China.
Private land ownership began to spread. The rise and fall of the Roman and Chinese empires juxtaposed. They also voted to pass or reject bills that aristocrats presented to them, but they had no right to propose or amend bills, or to speak singly in assembly.
Many proud proprietary farmers who marched out with the legions returned to find themselves dispossessed. The development of an effective civilian bureaucracy before the scale of wars escalated in the late-warring states period partly explained why, unlike the Roman world, prolonged and intense warfare did not breed an army that went beyond government control to the benefit of military dynasts.
Large plantations worked by slaves exerted crushing pressure on small independent farms. People lived their lives in communal farms and collectively worked the seigniorial fields without compensation.
The state was undifferentiated from the ruling family. The more than a thousand fully independent tiny states were descendants of fiefdoms erected in the eleventh century BCE by the king of Zhou. Independent family forms emerged. The rule by laws earned them the hatred of aristocrats, who condemned it for cruelty and immorality.
Aristocrats found it increasingly difficult to have their seigniorial domains tended. To encourage small independent farms, the state systematically distributed land to individual families in return for tax and service in the infantry, which replaced chariots on the battlefield.
Each lord in turn parceled out his realm into fiefs for vassals, who also served as his ministers. The Mediterranean world was well into the Iron Age.
Periodic census divided the citizen bodies according to their wealth. Roman wars were mainly financed by indemnities exacted from losers plus systematic looting and enslavement.
Legalist reformers led land-reclamation and waterworks projects. China in the Spring and Autumn period was still in the late bronze age. Conscription faltering, the army turned to recruit volunteers from the poorest strata of society.
His reforms in Qin, beginning in BCE, not only brought Qin from an underdog to the major league of warring states, but also set the institutional foundation for imperial China. In terms of technology, economic development, and political organization, China in the Spring and Autumn period lagged far behind that of the early Roman Republic.
Repeated agrarian reforms aimed at mitigating the situation failed because of staunch aristocratic opposition. Both societies valued the family, the nursery of authoritarianism, but the Roman made a clear legal separation between the state and the family, the Chinese did not.
Private landed property right was unknown; land ownership was undifferentiated from fiefdom and political sovereignty. All these curbed the aristocracy and centralized power on the king.
Its main weapon was the chariot, which was monopolized by aristocrats. They experimented with different ways to cope with local difficulties, but were generally called Legalists for their shared novel idea: The Roman and Chinese had much similarities but also many differences.
The big achievement of the Spring and Autumn was high culture. Their rulers, mostly distant relatives, still retained the title of lords and paid lip service to the now powerless king. Powerful ministers grew seditions ideas.
In annual elections, the assemblies selected magistrates from aristocratic candidates. The rule of man and family values would continue to be the center of political principles. Growing population and prosperity increased social complexity.
During the first two centuries of the Republic, the commons organized an assembly of their own, resisted arbitrary coercive power of the aristocrats, and won for themselves significant liberty.
Affordable effective tools and weapons empowered the common producers and warriors. Not surprisingly private property rights were sacrosanct and a central concern of Roman laws. Their societies were both patriarchic, conservative and stratified.- Han dynasty: 60 million people, - also about 60 million people but - Although Confucian China spoke of a - Imperial Rome knew of its actual, mythological golden age of equality historical republican past and always among people in harmony with each looked back to it as a golden age.
other and with nature, realistically - Roman imperial. Similarities and Differences of Rome and Han China Although Han China and Rome shared similarities in their techniques of imperial administration though military conquest and engineering’s aid toward the economy, they differed in. Similarities And Differences Of Han China And Imperial Rome.
Although both Han China and Imperial Rome had large, long lasting empires with similar economies and some similar policies centralized governments and similar administrative policies regarding land reform, their techniques of imperial administration differed in terms of how it came to.
A Comparison of the Similarities and Differences Between the Political Structures of the Imperial Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty of China.
Compare and Contrast Han China and Imperial Rome - Download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. Comparing and contrasting the social structure and political system of Han China and Imperial Rome3/5(3).
Downfall Differences- Similarities- Rome and Han Dynasty They both had highly centralized political systems, which allowed them both to be able to control a large area of land for a long period of time.
P Downfall Han and Gupta Differences The Han Dynasty was an Absolute Monarchy, with one male.Download