Han Dynasty vs Roman Empire

[Optical_Illusion]

Re; bureaucracy, the usual thing is that the extent of the state is almost universally fairly small in pre-modern regimes. This is constrained by the fact that there isn't much of a surplus economy to support a tax base, since most productivity is fairly close to subsistence.

Still, within distinctions - https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/041201.pdf

"While it seems likely that the governments of both empires managed to capture a similar share of GDP, the Han state may have more heavily relied on direct taxation of agrarian output and people. By contrast, the mature Roman empire derived a large share of its income from domains and levies that concentrated on mining and trade. Collection of taxes on production probably fell far short of nominal rates. Han officialdom consistently absorbed more public spending than its Roman counterpart, whereas Roman rulers allocated a larger share of state revenue to agents drawn from the upper ruling class and to the military."

It does seem like it absorbed more people, and it had more of the structure of what we'd think of as a bureaucracy; permanent offices with defined responsibilities.

However, it also seems it's actually difficult to know what the Han state actually spent on. Despite a larger bureaucractic extent than Rome, this is not really going to be attributable to any of the same reasons we have a large state share of spending than Rome today (the actual positive reasons we have our massive bureaucracies!); mass healthcare, mass education, public transportation systems, prisons, a mass constabulary, social security (although to the extent the Han did spend on maintaining law and order, outside the military, this complicates calculation of military spending, where Rome uses military for this function).

 

[Tom Colton]

It seems unfair to draw this comparison without discussing the Sasanids.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

It seems unfair to draw this comparison without discussing the Sasanids.

Parthia may be more appropriate given that the Han had ceased to exist by the time the Sassanids came to power.

 

[Avrorrange]

Elaborate? What is good with a sophisticated beaurocracy? I don't see anything good in that, compared to Rome during the Principate and even the Republic, which could live and prosper without complicated big beaurocracy. It is the biggest advantage of Rome over the Han Dynasty. The roman administrative system was simpler, cheaper and equaly or even more effective. With an exception that during the late Republic in rich eastern provinces republic system was just too focused on plunder and personal wealth of governors, and it needed Augustus to built a system which benefited all citizens, with fair taxation and no coruption on provincial level. Also the Roman Empire was very stable. The Republic after the 2nd Punic War didn't faced any serious external treat to its existence, the most serious problems were internal during the civil wars, which the Han also had had. Later the Principate was just probably one of the most peaceful times in such big area during such long time. Only some civil wars and some external wars, in period 27ANC-235AD.

Corruption was rampant even in the principate.The empire used tax farmers,who were notorious for collecting far more money from the population than the official tax demanded.Governors were expected to get rich via corruption in the provinces. Vespasian,before he became emperor,was widely lauded because unlike other governors of Proconsular Africa,who get rich during their governorship,he got poorer because he was clean.In terms of stability,the Han Dynasty was also extremely stable. It only got into a civil war in the instance where Wang Mang usurped the throne and towards the end.It was also able to resist foreign invaders well even when the empire was effectively dead. There was no foreign challenge to the Han Dynasty existence minus the Xiongnu Confederation,which it demolished.The sophisticated bureaucracy of the Han Dynasty meant that in the first half of the dynasty,it was able to mobilize a far larger percentage of its’ resources than the Romans.For example,it was able to mount large scale campaigns into the Mongolian steppe. The Romans on the other hand had trouble projecting power outside of the Mediterranean.It was also able to weather regime changes far better than the Romans. For example,it would be unthinkable for the Romans to have a child ruler,but it is possible for the Han Dynasty.

For the Republic. In terms of military might and the will of conquer, they could have smashed the Han easily, even during Liu Che (emperor Wu) reign, if some higher entity would have placed them next to each other. Seeing such bigh and rich country, the Senate and People of Rome just could not stay away from that great possibility of plunder. Just like one of reasons why Sulla could lead his troops against Rome, because he conviced them that Marius (who was nominated as a commander of the troops against Mithradates) would have taken other legions to the East, and this war looked for soldiers like the greates occasion of plunder unseen of generations.

I have no doubt that the Roman army was superior to the Han army,but to say that the Romans can smash the Han Dynasty easily would be pure ignorance. The Romans could not conquer Parthia,a far more chaotic state. How in the world could they conquer the Han Dynasty? The Han Dynasty was centralized,highly populated and could mobilize a large percentage of its’ population against the Romans. Depending on the period,the conscription system meant that most of the population had some form of military training. It also had good cavalry and crossbowmen—which could easily pierce through the shield walls of the Romans.

 

[DominusNovus]

Corruption was rampant even in the principate.The empire used tax farmers,who were notorious for collecting far more money from the population than the official tax demanded.

In all fairness to the tax farmer, that was their job. Its no more corrupt to collect more than the tax demanded than a contractor who builds a building for less than they bid on it - if they don’t, they’re out of business. Its a bad system, but it worked as it was designed to work.

 

[Avrorrange]

In all fairness to the tax farmer, that was their job. Its no more corrupt to collect more than the tax demanded than a contractor who builds a building for less than they bid on it - if they don’t, they’re out of business. Its a bad system, but it worked as it was designed to work.

I don’t disagree,but that does not mean it’s not a form of corruption. The fact that the Roman state tolerated this meant that this is legally sanctioned corruption,just as how the emperors tolerated governors becoming rich in the provinces.We are analysing things from a modern perspective,so there’s no need to look at whether that’s corruption or not from a Roman perspective.

 

[machine3589]

It also had good cavalry and crossbowmen—which could easily pierce through the shield walls of the Romans.

That's highly questionable, given that the limbs of Han crossbows were made of wood they probably had about the same draw strength of contemporary bows. To "easily pierce" through a shield wall of Roman scutum you need Medieval-era crossbows, which had metal limbs.