Attitudes towards technology in the Han and Roman empires differed greatly in terms of importance to life. The Roman Empire thought that technology was beneficial, but not necessary. The Romans were divided by social classes and concentrated more on mathematics and sciences, looking down on people who performed labor and used technologies for laboring. The Han Empire had a more positive attitude towards manufacturing and labor. The Han relied heavily on agriculture and thought that tools and water systems were necessary to reduce labor.
China’s Han dynasty and the Romans valued technology in their civilizations, but they used technology for different reasons to accommodate their empire. The Hans relied heavily on agriculture and developed technology to make labor easier and more efficient, which is depicted by some of their technology like iron metallurgy and water systems. In contrast, the Romans focused primarily on science and mathematics, so the intellectuals looked down on technology as it was used by slaves and for their labor. Han China’s attitude towards technology was more appreciative and focused on its benefits toward labor than the Romans who viewed technology as inferior and for the laborers in their class-divided society.
b) Doc 6: The Greek-born Roman citizen and official Plutarch wrote about Gaius Gracchus and how he constructed roads and bridges throughout the vast empire. Plutarch praises Gracchus for making the roads functional and visually pleasing. 4) Group 3: While some Romans, like Fontinus and Plutarch, advocated and praised technology, others found technology useless and revolting. a) Doc 5: In Cicero’s On Duty, he criticizes technology and craftsmen for their “vulgar” occupation and their lack of skill.
During the era of classical societies, the Han and Roman empires were two vast cosmopolitan societies which dominated regions all throughout Eurasia. In regards to the fall of the Han and Roman empires, both were similar in that they fell victim to internal government decay, but different in that Rome fell to foreign invasions, while Han suffered from rebellions of their own people. The Han and Roman empires were similar in their fall in that they both suffered from internal decay, specifically of their governments. In the Han empire, land distribution problems that were originally sought to be fixed by the “Socialist emperor” Wang Mang allowed large landowners to become even more influential than they previously were.
The Qin and Han employed different philosophies on how to run their dynasties. The Qin used controlling Legalistic ideas while the Han used the relationship building Confucianism. The Qin and Han had a different relationship with outsiders because the Qin preferred to keep foreigners out while the Han wanted to build a relationship with them. The Qin and the Han each contributed to the growth of China’s culture and expansion. The developments in trade, foreign relations, and building expansive building projects in the Qin and Han Dynasties effected the design of every dynasty
Han China and the Gupta Empire were similar in their economic development. Silk contributed heavily to the success of Han China as well as the opening of the Silk Road. Silk was the most profitable product and valued even in Rome. The government at this time also
One of the difference between the Qin and the Han dynasty is that Qin dynasty practiced Legalism and the Han dynasty practiced Confucianism. For the Han dynasty, in Document 3, states that they had a exam system of giving opportunities for everyone across the dynasty who has outstanding moral and learning to have a chance to have a role in the government, which shows that the Han dynasty emperor gave more opportunities to the commoners. For the Qin in Document 2, says that the people follow the rules, and there are no trouble because the people understand what happens when they do not follow the rules, which leads to punishments. Which shows that the Qin dynasty had strict rules for people to just obey for the government and have no say. Taking
Water and Rice While both the Romans and the Hans appreciated the technology used to power their cities’ water systems, the Romans were more intent on more “elite” advancements such as science and law, while looking down upon the more practical farming inventions that were appreciated by the Hans. As the Romans increased their slave labor via the conquering of territories, society’s elite cared little about making the work easier for their slaves. This led them to focus more on abstract advancements such as science and law. The Hans, however, relied heavily on agriculture and had a higher respect for its farmers, which promoted technological advancement in tools that would increase production. Documents 2 and 4 can be coupled because they both show the appreciation the Hans had towards the technology used in the agricultural sector.
Rome from 71 BCE to 476 BCE and Han China from 206 BCE to 220 BCE are two very well-known classical empires. These two empires have similarities and differences in their political systems, religion, and social structure. The romans had a democratic government whereas China had a singular ruler. Imperial Rome was monotheistic and Han China was polytheistic. While they both had similar class structures, China had a three tiered social system and the Romans only had two divisions in their class structure.
One of the biggest similarities that exists between the Han and Roman administrations was the composition
In conclusion, the two civilizations believed in entirely different ways to govern themselves and they both had completely different values of individuals. Athens had a strong confidence in each male citizen, believing that men were higher over all. They believed each man should engage in government and contribute their thoughts. On the other hand, Han China did not cherish the individual, instead, they believed men were a part of nature. They also believed that people should behave, be kind to others, and let the higher classes govern
The Roman Empire and the empire of the Han Dynasty in China were two empires of the second wave of civilization that, at their peak held half of the world’s population. These empires were similar in size however, they did not interact. Politically, both empires had a centralized government. The strategies did differ somewhat.
While Athens and the Greek regime as a whole fell from one state seizing too much power over other states, Han China fell, twice, from corrupt officials seizing power and wealth for themselves while allowing too many citizens to suffer. While the specifics of both civilization 's declines were different, they both had regimes that focused mainly on the benefits of a few at the expense of the majority. Perhaps, had both regimes considered the need to balance
Technology can be defined as “the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment”. (n.d.) Therefore, when we speak of technological evolution we can say that it is an “innovation and technology related hypothesis that describes the fundamental change of society through technical development”. Different theorists have their own perspective on the evolution of technology but, although each of their views differs from another, they shared certain common features, mechanism, and incidence in technology. Some theorists have developed distinct approaches to understanding the nature of the technological process and the relationship between technological development and the social world. This article will compare the point of view of Gerhard Lenski, Leslie White and Alvin Toffler with respect to the evolution of technology.
Both had social unrest and internal decay. China and Rome both had their bureaucrats assassinated. They received no taxes from their landowners and eventually their landowners formed private armies. To some extent religion also broken up the Han dynasty and Rome. Christianity began to spread in Rome drastically and eventually fracturing the empire.