Parallels of Roman and Chinese history

[Ursus]

0: Prior to 500 BCE

Antecedent civilizations lay cultural groundwork

Rome: Greek colonization and Hellenization of Mediterranean

China: Western Zhou garrison cities erected across Central Plain

 

1: c500 BCE

Formation of nascent state

Rome: creation of the Republic after expulsion of Etruscan monarchy

China: Rise of the Qin state

 

2: 5th and 4th centuries BCE

Growth, conflict, expansion

Rome: Wars with rival city-states and tribes in Italy

China: Expansion of Qin on central plain.

 

3: 4th and early 3rd centuries BCE

Rise of hegemonic status over immediate area

Rome: Rome becomes leading town of Italy

China: Qin state subjects the Sichuan area

 

4: 3rd through 1st centuries BCE

Establishment of hegemonic status over wider "core" area

Rome: conquest of the Mediterranean

China: domination of much of China

 

5: first two centuries CE

Slow down of expansion as frontiers are reached. Rise of homogenous local elites and central monarchy.

Rome: Romanization of provincial elites, rise of the Principate.

China: development of local elites and central bureaucracy

 

6: 3rd century CE

Fragmentation, Warlordism

Rome: Crisis of the Third Century

China: The Three Kingdoms

 

7: 4th - 5th century CE

Attempted restoration, Barbarian conquest

Rome: Rome temporarily unified, western part occupied by barbarians

China: northern China conquered by barbarians

 

8: 6th century CE

Rump states. Integration of barbarians into native culture. Rise of foreign, non-state religions

Rome: Eastern core survives as Byzantine. Western barbarians adopt Catholicism.

China: South China continues. Northern barbarians adopt Chinese culture. Spread of Buddhism.

 

9: post 6th century

Divergence

Rome: Byzantium eventually contracts under Islamic pressure. Western Europe fragmented into barbarian kingdoms.

China: reunification under successive dynasties.

 

 

As to why China survived intact while Rome fell, there are a variety of factors. The chief of which is probably geography: China is compact compared to the Mediterranean and protected on 3 sides by mountains and sea, where the Roman empire was ungainly long with indefensible borders on most sides. Also, the long standing presence of a Confucian-Legalist bureaucracy in China may have promoted cultural stability in a manner that Rome's less developed bureaucracy did not.

 

 

From Rome and China. Walter Scheidel

[barca]

Also, the long standing presence of a Confucian-Legalist bureaucracy in China may have promoted cultural stability in a manner that Rome's less developed bureaucracy did not.

 

 

From Rome and China. Walter Scheidel

 

Amazon sent me a recommendation for that book. Are you going to write a full review?

 

The Romans didn't have Confucianism, but they did have Stoicism, which in many ways served as the ruling philosophy for at least 200 years (longer if you include the republic). This was the case as long as the emperors were chosen from the Senatorial class (prior to Septimus Severus) and received a "gentleman's education" so to speak. Subsequent emperors generally came from the equestrian class, and I doubt that these individuals were as well versed in the finer points of culture and philosophy.

[Ursus]

I am writing a review, yes.

 

Short version: it is not what I expected at all. It is not without worth, but it's overly academic and specialized. The last couple of chapters in particular are dry as sand. Honestly, the most relevant insight to me is the outline I posted above.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think another reason that China survived for so much longer is that they had no invasions on the scale of the barbarian migrations into the Roman Empire in the late fourth to fifth centuries. Many of the Barbarian tribes that settled within the Roman Empire's borders had no intention to adopt Roman culture, language or way of life.

It's also worth remembering that China is made up of dozens of different ethnic groups each with their own languages and culture, the most dominant being the Han, who make up around 90% of China's population. Any group that conquered Chinese lands tended to adopt Han customs and culture in the end. One famous example from later Chinese history is Kubilai Khan, the Mongol Emperor, who abandoned the steppe way of life of his grandfather Genghis and began to adopt the Chinese way (before his dynasty was eventually overthrown by the Ming).

[Pompieus]

Along with the geographic configuration, might not the fact that 90% of the huge population were Han account for the resilience of Chinese civilization vs Graeco-Roman? In the West there were two dominant cultures (Greek & Latin) plus many subsidiary ones that survived in the countryside and lower classes, while in China 90% of ALL the people were Han. Would not this mass eventually absorb any conquer who who might replace the ruling class?

 

Perhaps in the West the Latin culture did not go deep enough, did not penetrate the masses outside the cities enough to completely absorb the Germanic peoples who migrated into the Empire, replaced the ruling classes and destroyed (directly or indirectly) the urban culture of the Latin West. Maybe in the East the Hellenic culture went deeper, or the more defensible borders allowed Byzantium to survive 1000 years.

[Kosmo]

The Latin language in the West survived better then Greek and Latin in the East.

[Ursus]

I think another reason that China survived for so much longer is that they had no invasions on the scale of the barbarian migrations into the Roman Empire in the late fourth to fifth centuries.

 

 

One of the authors states that most of China's barbarian people seemed more interested in extracting tribute from China than in outright settlement, unlike Rome's later Germanic peoples.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Ursus

[Pompieus]

The Latin language in the West survived better then Greek and Latin in the East.

Latin only survived in the church, Greek was spoken in much of asia minor untill 1920, and is still spoken in Greece and Cyprus.

[Kosmo]

The Latin language in the West survived better then Greek and Latin in the East.

Latin only survived in the church, Greek was spoken in much of asia minor untill 1920, and is still spoken in Greece and Cyprus.

 

Modern greek is very much a different language from the various dialects spoken in Antiquity.

[barca]

The Latin language in the West survived better then Greek and Latin in the East.

Latin only survived in the church, Greek was spoken in much of asia minor untill 1920, and is still spoken in Greece and Cyprus.

 

It depends what one means by survival.

 

In the West the majority of countries that were in the Roman Empire speak the Romance languages: French, Spanish, Italian, etc. which are based on Latin.

 

In the East the only countries that speak a Greek-based language are Greece and Cyprus. The rest are slavic, arabic, hebrew, etc.

Edited January 8, 2011 by barca

[Pompieus]

Y'all are right of course, the Hellenic culture of the Eastern Roman Empire was eventually submerged in the Slavic and Islamic civilizations...it just took a little longer.

 

But was there any real break in the basic Sinic civilization in China between the Han and Tang periods comparable to the European "Classic" and "Middle Ages"? If I remember the real watershed in Chinese history is between Tang and Sung (?)

[Viggen]

...here the link to the review of Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires by Walter Scheidel