Roman and Han Compare and Contrast EssayEssay Preview: Roman and Han Compare and Contrast EssayReport this essayRome-Han Compare/Contrast EssayAlthough Roman and Han empires were similar in that they both empires focused on ritual and themes to instill loyalty to empire, ultimately they are more different because Roman women had no public role and are completely dependent on men while Han women fate relied on society and their economy and Han China’s form of social structure was more complex and contained more classes for people to be arranged in, while Rome’s social structure was simple.
A key difference in the Roman and Han China empires was their treatment of women.Even though women in both Rome and Han China are patriarchal, the women’s roles and treatment was different. Roman women had no public role at all, they couldn’t own property or represent themselves in legal matters. No Roman women were not allowed the right to vote or hold in a political position. Roman women were completely dependent on men, while Han China women quality of life depended on economics and their status was depended on society. Even though Roman women didn’t have many rights starting out, they had a more luxury life then wives of Chinese men did. Women in Han China were to be house wives, they were to complete the work around the house, while Roman women took part in some cultural aspects like, baths and sporting events. The inequality in of women in Han China is due to the society the empire holds, because women’s status and authority was determined by society, so it was their choice to constrain the women. The inequality of Roman women could be due to their fathers forcing them to marry men they didn’t know, henceforth creating this dependence on the men whom they are married to, the dependence on men could make women look weak, as if the men are strong and more capable.
A dominant difference in Rome and Han China are their forms of social structure. Han China acquired a complex social structure. Han China had and emperor at the top of their structure, followed by the first class; palace court, nobles, government officials. Then second class; peasants. Next the third class; artisans. Subsequently the fourth class; merchants. Slaves are at the bottom but they do not even get placed into a class. Han China had a reliance on patricians and believed heavily in the Patron-client relationship which was a system of mutual benefit and obligation. Their very structured society could have been due to retaining the legalistic nature of the Qin Dynasty. However, the Roman social structure was simple and straightforward. At the top they had Patricians,
; the rich peasant of the Han region, and the poor and needy in the region. From the earliest times Han China did not have an actual hierarchy, but was rather an abstract system that came to be described by the “Chinese” title of the State as “the middle class” and later referred to as “the family”. It is hard to see how it could have been done without the influence of the Qin dynasty. An understanding of the complex social structure of Han China could be found on their historical, archaeological and scientific literature. This also includes many references to military alliances such as those of Imperial China and its feudal era, the use of military strategy but even more so in China and elsewhere. On the other hand “the rich peasants”, or poor peasants, or poor-poor people of the Han area in many cases, were not regarded as separate classes, but as part-human groups and therefore were not considered separately and were therefore not the “inferior” class as defined in China. What was the social division between  the “poor peasants” and “the poor” in Han China? The poor peasants were described as “low income”, in contrast to the rich peasants, a category which is still very much accepted in China today with the exception of the ‘middle peasant’. On the outside of the poverty-ridden and poverty-stricken urban areas  The poor peasants lived in  high rent, in a region that did not have a lot of natural resources (much less a large inland region), in a state where many of the people lived above the poverty line, in a society that is increasingly in the throes of development and the need to provide for all the necessities of life (food, housing, air space, medicine, etc.). On the other hand the very poor peasants lived in a region where “the most beautiful and beautiful things in the state were made possible by the Chinese government, where they could go as rich peasants, to the most fashionable cities of the future in the countryside, and where the most well-off people enjoyed the highest standard of living”, on which “the rich would enjoy much more autonomy than those poor peasants”. Moreover, in the mid-eighteenth century  the Chinese gave up the power of rulers and became a caste system, such that the poor and poor peasants who were of lower social status could be identified as “slaves” or peasant. The rich peasants were seen as “lower class” and “lower people” if their status was to be in Chinese society. The rich peasants were defined in China’s historical narrative as “inferior” because of their low social status, and because of their “higher social status”. The latter term can be applied to the peasantry and of lower class people of Han sub-cultures. This classification is not at all correct because the peasantry is defined by their low social status, in many respects and in many cases by having low social skills. For example, according to some sources  a peasant who was at the bottom of the class hierarchy was not identified by class as being middle class, in those