Skip to main content

Analyze similarities and differences in the collapses of Rome (200-600 CE) and Han (50 BCE-220 CE).

The fall of Rome and the collapse of the Han Dynasty in China had many similar causes. Both empires were vast, and the leaders of each empire had a hard time administering control over the entire territory. In addition, both Rome and the Han were subject to outside invasions. The Romans were attacked by the Goths, Vandals, and other Germanic tribes. Part of the reason the Germanic tribes were menacing Rome was that the fearful Huns had dislodged them from their traditional lands. The rise of powerful Byzantine Empire in the East (after Diocletian had divided the Roman Empire into eastern and western parts in the third century) also diverted the attacking barbarians to Rome. Like the Romans, the Han were invaded by invaders. These invaders were called the Xiongu, who later coalesced with other groups to become the Huns.


Additional problems that plagued both Rome and the Han were high taxation rates that people tried to avoid. In Rome, the rich tried to hide from taxation, meaning the burden fell to the poor. Rome had stopped importing slaves when its expansion slowed, so the bulk of the tax burden crushed the poor. In the Han Dynasty, the cost of administering the empire also resulted in high taxes that the hard-pressed peasants could not pay. They often fled when the tax collector showed up. Both Rome and the Han were administered by weak leaders who were often corrupt. In Rome, the emperors were killed so often that there were constant changes of leadership.


The major difference between the collapse of Rome and the Han is that Christianity played a role in the fall of Rome and not the collapse of the Han. Christianity had been legalized with the Edict of Milan in 313, and the new faith challenged the beliefs and traditions of the Roman Empire, including the belief that the emperor was divine. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more