The Roman Empire and the Han Chinese Dynasty are two of the most influential historical spheres of influence. Both the Romans and the Chinese had established a government under the emperor which strongly emphasized the social, economic, military, and technological prowess. The Roman Empire primarily had its influence on the Western Mediterranean. The Han Dynasty, on the other hand, was a power in parts of East Asia after the demise of the Qin Dynasty. Important to note is that the success experienced in the two empires was as a result of the stewardship by able emperors. Both empires, however, had slight differences in their perceptions towards the emperors. Whereas the two leaders had divine attributes, specific differences remained noticeable. The Romans primarily chose their best general to lead them while the Chinese relied on an individual who could assert control over the imperial family and court.
Background
The Roman emperor was the official ruler of Rome during the establishment of the imperial rule. Adkins and Adkins7nv (2014) noted that Rome was initial a republic before it fully transformed into an empire in 27BC. One of the leaders that played an essential role in the transformation was Julius Caesar with the help of his son Augustus. The Imperial Rome exhibited many differences from its days as a kingdom. However, the emperor could only exercise their full powers if they had control of both the army and the Senate. Some of the titles that emperors received include Caesar, Augustus, Imperator, and Pontifex Maximus. In Ancient China, the emperors ruled for more than 2000 years (Findlay, & Lundahl, 2017). The first emperor to take office was Qin Shi Huang in 221BC after his efforts of unifying China under a unitary rule. The person who served as the last emperor was Puyi of the Qing Dynasty, who was, in 1912, overthrown leading to the formation of the Republic of China.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Differences in Ideals
Understanding the difference in the ideals that the two dynasties had on the emperors requires an appreciation of how the two got into office. In Rome, a majority of the emperors became leaders on the virtue of the victories they received during the civil wars. Only a handful ascended to power through inheritance. Although inheritance occurred especially in the Byzantine times, it crumbled in the later dynasties. In China, however, inheritance was the most used way of assuming the powers of an emperor. When the emperor died, the oldest son took his position as the leader of the empire henceforth. Although inheritance was on both sides, the Roman system primarily emphasized merit. Out of the 90 emperors, a majority of them had either won battles or had received approval from the Senate (Adkins, & Adkins, 2014). In China, leadership was a matter of family ties, and in many instances, unworthy leaders ascended to power thereby sparking resistance that would ultimately result in war.
Secondly, the ideals of the two emperors primarily differed due to their roles. In Rome, the emperor mainly carried out executive functions such as overseeing the operations of the Senate, convening sessions, setting out the agenda, and other regulatory functions. Furthermore, he conducted religious functions due to his authority as a Pontifex Maximus. Additionally, he had legal powers and could punish any citizen who had acted in a manner deemed inappropriate. He could also pardon the wrongdoers, and veto decisions and decrees that the Senate made. In China, the emperor was only fixed to performing rituals and acting as the chief commander (Findlay, & Lundahl, 2017). Therefore, the in Rome, the people viewed the emperor through a more holistic lens as he was a leader with more power and thus could influence people in several ways. An emperor in China was more of a religious person who on occasions would lead the empire to war. However, he had the least influence on the day to day activities of the people.
Although the Roman emperor was viewed through the lenses of earthly authority, the case was not the same in China. In China, the leader of the empire has the status of God. Some of the titles that were used included "son of Heaven" "Holy Highness" and "Lord of Ten Thousand Years" amongst others. The words of the emperor were regarded as sacred, and people had to obey them immediately. It was clearly indicated that he ruled under "mandate of Heaven." The mandate could easily be taken away if the emperor failed to do a good job. He was also allowed to have many ways, but only one would assume the title "Empress" (Hsieh, 2013). The emperor in Rome did not enjoy a similar status. Although his authority was mostly unquestionable, he was more of an earthly leader who drew his power and authority from the instruments of power at his disposal. Some of the factors that built his power included the military, the Senate, and all the privileges that came with his status as a leader who had previously led the empire to war.
The two emperors used different philosophies to advance the rule on the people. The philosophies or ideologies created a unique identity out of them which further built on their perceptions. In the Chinese empire, for instance, an emperor by the name Wudi created an academy to prepare officials to adopt the principles of bureaucracy with a curriculum that relied on Confucianism. Ruling became increasingly possible due to the action of the good people. The emperors in Rome relied upon aristocratic elites and the army to enforce law and order in the empire. Therefore, unlike China, Roma was inclined to the use of force. Hsieh (2013) asserted that the Chinese therefore had formed a rapport and a sense of connection with their leaders and viewed him as an individual aimed to bring good with little harm. The reason for this is that the Chinese had previously used the war in the quest for expansion and saw the devastating results that it had on the people. On the contrary, the Romans viewed their leader as a warlord who believed in ruthless aggression against any faction that failed to adhere to the rules or tenets of the empire. It was for this reason that they mainly went for military generals who know the art of using war to gain success.
In conclusion, both the Roman Empire and the Han China become successful in their own rights. They employed different philosophies and traits that enabled them to achieve prosperity across the board. However, in discussing the success of these empires, people tend to forget the importance of the emperors. The two territories experienced a prolonged rule by one man who steered the people to various prosperities. However, the ideals of their leader differed across the two empires. Leaders in Rome were largely elected by merit, and his functions cut across diverse sectors including administration, religious responsibilities, and a custodian of the law. Therefore, he was viewed to possess authoritarian ideals which he applied using the military force. On the other hand, the in China, the emperor was more of a father-figure, a religious head, an arbiter, and a commander. He focused on instilling the Chinese culture of Confucianism among his people and attaining the overall good.
References
Adkins, L., & Adkins, R. A. (2014). Handbook to life in ancient Rome . InfoBase publishing.
Findlay, R., & Lundahl, M. (2017). Towards a model of territorial expansion and the limits of empire. In The Economics of the Frontier (pp. 105-124). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Hsieh, P. C. (2013). Government of China (1644-1911) . Routledge.
