The purpose of the AP World History blog is to assist students in meeting the requirements determined by the CollegeBoard Advance Placement program and by the State of Texas. This blog will assist students by providing information that will facilitate their completion of the course and provide a forum for discussion.
The first early humans began to migrate out of Africa into new territories after “the first 5 to 6 million years after our origins 7 million years ago.”(GGS pp 36) Depending on where they migrated, some early humans began to make technological advancements that were virtually impossible elsewhere because of different environmental factors. In Polynesia for example, the Maori conquered the Moriori because they made political and technological advances while the Moriori did not because they were isolated and had little resources. “The outcome clearly illustrates how environments can affect economy, technology, political organization, and fighting skill...” (GGS p.57) Another example of how this hold true is that the Spanish were able to conquer the Incas due to the fact that they had guns, steel, and domesticated horses. “The novelty of horses, steel weapons, and guns undoubtedly paralyzed the Incas at Cajamarca...” (GGS p. 75) because they didn’t have access to steel or horses since they weren't native to their continent.
Comparing China and Rome can be really easy.Both empires were really great in power and population.Even though the roman empire had more square miles in territory than the chinese, the chinese were more superior in metal technology. For example, in farming the chinese produced cast iron hoes,picks,axes etc. Therefore that is what set the differences between the roman and the chinese empire.
Textual Evidence: ''Chinese agriculture was further differentiated from Roman by Chinas superiority in metallurgy in antiquity...''
Even though China and Rome had similar ways of expanding and governing their large empires, I believe that that Chinese empire was superior compared to the Roman empire. The Chinese produced more food thanks to the amount of arable land available and choice of crops planted(millet), which had higher yields than Roman crops such as wheat and barley. Higher surpluses of food could feed larger populations and encouraged specialization further. This specialization was the one that helped Chinese develop better technology and metallurgy such as the method casting which helped produced tools and weapons at a higher rates.
Between Han China and the Classical, Pre-Constantian Roman Empire there are a score of similarities and some varied differences. These two empires began in the 3rd Century BCE and expanded with the same basis for expansion. Although, expansion didn’t come easy, these two rising empires were directed towards mercantile rivals and then both cases of conquest led to civil war. This then led to an elimination of aristocracies and the establishment of bureaucracies. The Roman and Han Empire were relatively the same size, although with such large expansion they both struggled with administering their people (p. 113). Therefore, both pursued a solution of educational systems: the classical, paedeia and the Confucian, wen-yen. Both empires had a dominant infantry who struggled with opposing barbarians, religious sects, soldiers, and peasant. The combination of these rivals collapsed both the Roman and Han Empires in their northeastern region. Their southeastern regions did survive with a new capitol and foreign policies. (p.114) Now, let’s take a look at the contrasts of foundation, architectonics and decay of the two empires. The Han were orientated towards pure arablism, while the Romans were pastoralist. In Han, their primary crop was the millet, which has a very high production rate as opposed to the Roman’s principal crop, wheat. We must take into consideration the natural milieu, a significant difference that impacts the production of the two’s primary crop. In the Roman West, the wheat was grown on light down land soil which obtains very low nitrogen levels which force the Romans to take additional procedures. In China, the millet was sown on self-renewing porous loess, which did not require fallowing or the use of manure (P. 115). With this said, this takes us to the contrast in the role of animal husbandry. Since fallowing and the use of manure were not required, China did not need any ploughing animals. Another significant agriculture contrast between China and Rome was that the Chinese had metallurgical superiority which not only affected agriculture but war as well (p.116). The intellectual foundation was relatively different. Both empires had the primary tool of articulate speech. But as we go in depth, in terms of the substance of speech between China and Rome, China has a drastically noticeable difference in their sound/meaning ratio. (p. 118). Since the two articulate, they both possess a liking towards literature and traditions of thought. The Chinese tradition was paradigmatic, western syntagmatic. The two did go through a transition of frames of reference, from a mythological point of view to a more philosophical frame. The Chinese instead, rationalized and retained abstractions while the Romans looked for more specific, concrete origins of these abstractions (p.119) Furthermore, now that we have glanced at the physical and intellectual foundation between China and Rome, there is also a contrast in architectonics: décor, ground plans, and spatial relation. The Roman Empire’s floor plan was more of amphitheater built of concentric circles; while China set up a wheel with radiating lines (p.120). In terms of décor the homes in the west were principle winter palaces, seen as a capital investment. While in the east, edifices were seen as principle summer houses. Lastly, the two empires were the work of urban, educated, civilian elites, but like everything in life, they had to come to an end. It is said that he Han Empire died gradually by financial and military asphyxiation.
China and Rome had many differences as well as similarties. For instance,in both empires, the domiant element of the army was their infantry. They both had a collapse of their empires too,and the outcome was the rise of barbarism and religion. Some differences were that both Rome and China has significant differences in speech, writing, and literary tradition. This major difference in the intellectual techniques played a major role in their lifestyles such as communication. Another difference would be the principle crop. China's principle crop was millet and Romes was wheat. There are many things to list of similarties and differences. These are just a couple to be named.
China and Rome are similar in many ways, which could explain why they both fourished and then collapsed. They both covered large area of land and fought in wars. But china had the upper hand in some areas. their agriculture system was better and they were more advanced in metallurgy.Their political systems, languges and the way their empires were steup were differnt and could explain why the han empire died slowly and the roman empire faced a social revolution.
Both the roman and han dynasty focus on family the han on family ancestors and the roman on pater familias han enginered roads,canals,the great wall rome enginered roads,aqueducts,domes,sewege systems.
China and Rome each had a share of their differences and similarities. Even though they both lasted many years, the fall in their society had to come eventually. Several causes being war (civil or against other societies) , political issues, famine, and other issues. The fall of their empires, were similar in reasons, but mainly had their differences. "Although there were superficial similarities between the fall of the Roman empire and the fall of the Han empire, there were more profound differences which in the end made the two more unlike than like.."
China and Rome Compared Pg.112-123 Quote taken from pg.122
Compared to Rome, the Han Empire was more superior in many ways including agriculture and war. Since the Han had "superior physical technology in arable farming and metallurgy"(China and Rome compared pp.122) they could produce tools to help them till their already arable land. As a result the Chinese produced eight times more grain than the Romans. (China and Rome compared pp.115, 116) Also since the Han were superior in metallurgy, they were able to produce large quantities of good steel while the Romans only produced limited amounts of poor steel. Consequently “the Chinese foot soldier was better armed and was better able to cope with his equestrian opponent than that of the Roman Legionary" (China and Rome compared pp.122)
Even though China and Rome had it's differences they both were successful in their own ways and they both collapsed in their own ways. At least they were recognized by their own form of life.
China and Rome were different and the same in many different ways. For example both had similar empires ruled by one king, military was very important, and both conquest were followed by civil war (worlds of history chap 4, pages 113-114) These similarities show how life was influenced by empires and how early civilizations had same ways of ruling and centralizing power. However China and Rome were also different. For example, both had different principal crops, ways of agriculture, and technology (worlds of history chap 4, pages 115-123) These differences show how ways of making money would maybe lead to superiority of one over the other. Also difference in technology would lead to many different forms of new inventions, which could bring these two closer or separate them and also allow them to communicate in various ways.
I would say that China and Rome are very much alike than different, both Rome and China have equal problems and solutions to their problems, they have poor technology, domestic animals, empires, grow crops, build walls for protection, and they both lived in cultural glamour and conspicuous consumption. But even though they had many similarities, their empires both died with different reasons, which made me think that they weren’t strong.
These two major civilizations of the B.C.E time period had much in common as they had differences whitin them. The Romans and the Chinese were compared and contrast in many ways in terms of politics and economic activity as well as lifestyle and culture
This article was interesting because it talked alot about the similarites and differences between China Rome. There were more differences then there were similarites. It talked about when both these empires were started and when both fell in the northern empire. It also talked about the diiferent crops that china and the roamans had. It also talked about where they planted and about how china had twice as much arrable land as Rome.
This article was interesting because it talked alot about the similarites and differences between China Rome. There were more differences then there were similarites. It talked about when both these empires were started and when both fell in the northern empire. It also talked about the diiferent crops that china and the roamans had. It also talked about where they planted and about how china had twice as much arrable land as Rome.
When China and Rome are compared, many differences and similarities brought to the surface. The differences, of course, are much denser than the similarities. In the Worlds of History reading the similarities given are the Origin, Organization, and Outcome. The Differences are the Foundations, Architectonics, and Decay. Within these similarities and differences it is very easy to see that both of these empires’ ways lead to their glory and to their downfall. One of the things that stood out to me was how the similarities were very superficial and basic and how the differences went more in depth into the subject and how they had a lot of the basic starts but became very different over the growth period of their empires. The similarities were more of the small topic for the differences which were the detailed points in between both of these empires. In the end both of these empires have one thing was what shaped these empires, their location.
My thought on Rome and China is that if both of these empires would have allied with eachother their empires would have been a lot more powerful. Eventough, they had alot more smiliraties their differences iverpowered them not to unite. For example, on the World HIstory Chapter 4 says that their governments are very diffeent so that would be a major thing to come in conflict for. Also their technologies and life is very different because their enviornments differ. Its hard to believe that their enviornments have so much impact on their technology and culture.
This reading compared both the cities of Rome and China according to their aspects. It was pretty obvious that their agriculture shaped their empires. Like, for example whatever amount of arable land they had, was thei crops. I also found it interesting that the conquest of both these empires were followed by civil wars, which infers that their was conflict within each empire.
"...expansions were based in a combination of political stability, abundant rural manpower nourished by advanced agriculture..."
This reading explained the similarities and differences between China and Rome, for an example they were both created in the third century BC and that they had different principle crops. There are many more similarties and differences between these two, but most importantly they both where very powerful civilizations that lasted for a long time until they collapsed. For me reading is difficult but while reading this selection it caught my eye to see these civilizations progress as far as they did and kept me wanting to read more.
I think China and Rome are equally simalar and different, a similarity would be the size in their land. A diference would be their foundation of crops. Rome had wheat, and the Han had millet.
yes,both empires were the same size but the were many diffrences between the two china was advance in technology and there cities were in the form of cirles and the romans cities were square shaped if these two were to contact i think that the chinese would have had the upper hand (chapter 18, china and rome compared,World of history)
I believe that Chineese were more superior than Rome because of their agriculture. They had the advantage of better land and better irrigation so they are able to produce more and sustain a larger population and civiization.
24 comments:
The first early humans began to migrate out of Africa into new territories after “the first 5 to 6 million years after our origins 7 million years ago.”(GGS pp 36) Depending on where they migrated, some early humans began to make technological advancements that were virtually impossible elsewhere because of different environmental factors. In Polynesia for example, the Maori conquered the Moriori because they made political and technological advances while the Moriori did not because they were isolated and had little resources. “The outcome clearly illustrates how environments can affect economy, technology, political organization, and fighting skill...” (GGS p.57) Another example of how this hold true is that the Spanish were able to conquer the Incas due to the fact that they had guns, steel, and domesticated horses. “The novelty of horses, steel weapons, and guns undoubtedly paralyzed the Incas at Cajamarca...” (GGS p. 75) because they didn’t have access to steel or horses since they weren't native to their continent.
Comparing China and Rome can be really easy.Both empires were really great in power and population.Even though the roman empire had more square miles in territory than the chinese, the chinese were more superior in metal technology. For example, in farming the chinese produced cast iron hoes,picks,axes etc. Therefore that is what set the differences between the roman and the chinese empire.
Textual Evidence: ''Chinese agriculture was further differentiated from Roman by Chinas superiority in metallurgy in antiquity...''
Even though China and Rome had similar ways of expanding and governing their large empires, I believe that that Chinese empire was superior compared to the Roman empire. The Chinese produced more food thanks to the amount of arable land available and choice of crops planted(millet), which had higher yields than Roman crops such as wheat and barley. Higher surpluses of food could feed larger populations and encouraged specialization further. This specialization was the one that helped Chinese develop better technology and metallurgy such as the method casting which helped produced tools and weapons at a higher rates.
Between Han China and the Classical, Pre-Constantian Roman Empire there are a score of similarities and some varied differences. These two empires began in the 3rd Century BCE and expanded with the same basis for expansion. Although, expansion didn’t come easy, these two rising empires were directed towards mercantile rivals and then both cases of conquest led to civil war. This then led to an elimination of aristocracies and the establishment of bureaucracies. The Roman and Han Empire were relatively the same size, although with such large expansion they both struggled with administering their people (p. 113). Therefore, both pursued a solution of educational systems: the classical, paedeia and the Confucian, wen-yen. Both empires had a dominant infantry who struggled with opposing barbarians, religious sects, soldiers, and peasant. The combination of these rivals collapsed both the Roman and Han Empires in their northeastern region. Their southeastern regions did survive with a new capitol and foreign policies. (p.114)
Now, let’s take a look at the contrasts of foundation, architectonics and decay of the two empires. The Han were orientated towards pure arablism, while the Romans were pastoralist. In Han, their primary crop was the millet, which has a very high production rate as opposed to the Roman’s principal crop, wheat. We must take into consideration the natural milieu, a significant difference that impacts the production of the two’s primary crop. In the Roman West, the wheat was grown on light down land soil which obtains very low nitrogen levels which force the Romans to take additional procedures. In China, the millet was sown on self-renewing porous loess, which did not require fallowing or the use of manure (P. 115). With this said, this takes us to the contrast in the role of animal husbandry. Since fallowing and the use of manure were not required, China did not need any ploughing animals. Another significant agriculture contrast between China and Rome was that the Chinese had metallurgical superiority which not only affected agriculture but war as well (p.116).
The intellectual foundation was relatively different. Both empires had the primary tool of articulate speech. But as we go in depth, in terms of the substance of speech between China and Rome, China has a drastically noticeable difference in their sound/meaning ratio. (p. 118). Since the two articulate, they both possess a liking towards literature and traditions of thought. The Chinese tradition was paradigmatic, western syntagmatic. The two did go through a transition of frames of reference, from a mythological point of view to a more philosophical frame. The Chinese instead, rationalized and retained abstractions while the Romans looked for more specific, concrete origins of these abstractions (p.119)
Furthermore, now that we have glanced at the physical and intellectual foundation between China and Rome, there is also a contrast in architectonics: décor, ground plans, and spatial relation. The Roman Empire’s floor plan was more of amphitheater built of concentric circles; while China set up a wheel with radiating lines (p.120). In terms of décor the homes in the west were principle winter palaces, seen as a capital investment. While in the east, edifices were seen as principle summer houses.
Lastly, the two empires were the work of urban, educated, civilian elites, but like everything in life, they had to come to an end. It is said that he Han Empire died gradually by financial and military asphyxiation.
China was really better then Rome since they had a better agriculutre system and betteer metal (CRC page 116-117, paragrapjs 1 and 3)
China and Rome had many differences as well as similarties. For instance,in both empires, the domiant element of the army was their infantry. They both had a collapse of their empires too,and the outcome was the rise of barbarism and religion. Some differences were that both Rome and China has significant differences in speech, writing, and literary tradition. This major difference in the intellectual techniques played a major role in their lifestyles such as communication. Another difference would be the principle crop. China's principle crop was millet and Romes was wheat. There are many things to list of similarties and differences. These are just a couple to be named.
China and Rome are similar in many ways, which could explain why they both fourished and then collapsed. They both covered large area of land and fought in wars. But china
had the upper hand in some areas. their agriculture system was better and they were more advanced in metallurgy.Their political systems, languges and the way their empires were steup were differnt and could explain why the han empire died slowly and the roman empire faced a social revolution.
Both the roman and han dynasty focus on family the han on family ancestors and the roman on pater familias han enginered roads,canals,the great wall rome enginered roads,aqueducts,domes,sewege systems.
China and Rome each had a share of their differences and similarities. Even though they both lasted many years, the fall in their society had to come eventually. Several causes being war (civil or against other societies) , political issues, famine, and other issues. The fall of their empires, were similar in reasons, but mainly had their differences. "Although there were superficial similarities between the fall of the Roman empire and the fall of the Han empire, there were more profound differences which in the end made the two more unlike than like.."
China and Rome Compared
Pg.112-123 Quote taken from pg.122
Compared to Rome, the Han Empire was more superior in many ways including agriculture and war. Since the Han had "superior physical technology in arable farming and metallurgy"(China and Rome compared pp.122) they could produce tools to help them till their already arable land. As a result the Chinese produced eight times more grain than the Romans. (China and Rome compared pp.115, 116) Also since the Han were superior in metallurgy, they were able to produce large quantities of good steel while the Romans only produced limited amounts of poor steel. Consequently “the Chinese foot soldier was better armed and was better able to cope with his equestrian opponent than that of the Roman Legionary" (China and Rome compared pp.122)
Even though China and Rome had it's differences they both were successful in their own ways and they both collapsed in their own ways. At least they were recognized by their own form of life.
China and Rome were different and the same in many different ways. For example both had similar empires ruled by one king, military was very important, and both conquest were followed by civil war (worlds of history chap 4, pages 113-114) These similarities show how life was influenced by empires and how early civilizations had same ways of ruling and centralizing power. However China and Rome were also different. For example, both had different principal crops, ways of agriculture, and technology (worlds of history chap 4, pages 115-123) These differences show how ways of making money would maybe lead to superiority of one over the other. Also difference in technology would lead to many different forms of new inventions, which could bring these two closer or separate them and also allow them to communicate in various ways.
I would say that China and Rome are very much alike than different, both Rome and China have equal problems and solutions to their problems, they have poor technology, domestic animals, empires, grow crops, build walls for protection, and they both lived in cultural glamour and conspicuous consumption. But even though they had many similarities, their empires both died with different reasons, which made me think that they weren’t strong.
These two major civilizations of the B.C.E time period had much in common as they had differences whitin them. The Romans and the Chinese were compared and contrast in many ways in terms of politics and economic activity as well as lifestyle and culture
-Juan Chavarria 5th
This article was interesting because it talked alot about the similarites and differences between China Rome. There were more differences then there were similarites. It talked about when both these empires were started and when both fell in the northern empire. It also talked about the diiferent crops that china and the roamans had. It also talked about where they planted and about how china had twice as much arrable land as Rome.
This article was interesting because it talked alot about the similarites and differences between China Rome. There were more differences then there were similarites. It talked about when both these empires were started and when both fell in the northern empire. It also talked about the diiferent crops that china and the roamans had. It also talked about where they planted and about how china had twice as much arrable land as Rome.
When China and Rome are compared, many differences and similarities brought to the surface. The differences, of course, are much denser than the similarities. In the Worlds of History reading the similarities given are the Origin, Organization, and Outcome. The Differences are the Foundations, Architectonics, and Decay. Within these similarities and differences it is very easy to see that both of these empires’ ways lead to their glory and to their downfall. One of the things that stood out to me was how the similarities were very superficial and basic and how the differences went more in depth into the subject and how they had a lot of the basic starts but became very different over the growth period of their empires. The similarities were more of the small topic for the differences which were the detailed points in between both of these empires. In the end both of these empires have one thing was what shaped these empires, their location.
China and Rome had more differences than similarities. "The amount of arable land under grain at any one time in China was thus double that in Rome."
My thought on Rome and China is that if both of these empires would have allied with eachother their empires would have been a lot more powerful. Eventough, they had alot more smiliraties their differences iverpowered them not to unite. For example, on the World HIstory Chapter 4 says that their governments are very diffeent so that would be a major thing to come in conflict for. Also their technologies and life is very different because their enviornments differ. Its hard to believe that their enviornments have so much impact on their technology and culture.
This reading compared both the cities of Rome and China according to their aspects.
It was pretty obvious that their agriculture shaped their empires. Like, for example whatever amount of arable land they had, was thei crops. I also found it interesting that the conquest of both these empires were followed by civil wars, which infers that their was conflict within each empire.
"...expansions were based in a combination of political stability, abundant rural manpower nourished by advanced agriculture..."
This reading explained the similarities and differences between China and Rome, for an example they were both created in the third century BC and that they had different principle crops. There are many more similarties and differences between these two, but most importantly they both where very powerful civilizations that lasted for a long time until they collapsed. For me reading is difficult but while reading this selection it caught my eye to see these civilizations progress as far as they did and kept me wanting to read more.
I think China and Rome are equally simalar and different, a similarity would be the size in their land. A diference would be their foundation of crops. Rome had wheat, and the Han had millet.
yes,both empires were the same size but the were many diffrences between the two china was advance in technology and there cities were in the form of cirles and the romans cities were square shaped if these two were to contact i think that the chinese would have had the upper hand (chapter 18, china and rome compared,World of history)
I believe that Chineese were more superior than Rome because of their agriculture. They had the advantage of better land and better irrigation so they are able to produce more and sustain a larger population and civiization.
Post a Comment