66 replies to this topic

[south]

d****, you need to write this into a book BA.

[mohistManiac]

Warhead,

I am not surprised that you did not develop your understanding for Roman history a bit. Since it would be casting pearls before swines trying to give you an understanding of the classical world, just a few remarks concerning your pet theory of bureaucratization.

As already said, bureaucratization as such has little to do with the military ability to raise and sustain an army. Barbarian empires like the Huns or Xiongnu could raise armies every bit as large as their counterparts, without relying on a class of officials. The organisational ability to raise and maintain armies is pretty independent of reading Confucian poetry and classics.

This brings me to the second point which is that Roman officials easily outdid their Han counterparts in that the Romans invented the Cursus honorum, that is the civil career service. This strictly regulated the sequence of offices and functions which a Roman official needed to pass through the ranks. So, unlike the Han bureaucrats who excelled at memorizing practically useless stuff like poems and mythology, Roman officials were men of great bureaucratical and practical experience.

For example, the Romans had appointed commissioners for their extensive public water supply and their unparalled all-weather road network, posts which the Han Chinese did not bother with, since they did not even have these things. The deployment of Roman legions can be traced by modern historians through the centuries because they kept their name and number throughout their existence. The Romans had standardized everything down to the position of the individual tent on the camp perimeter. Their military presence throughout their empire was as permament and organized as their famous military infrastructure. In general, the Roman approach to warfare, was methodical, practical and highly adaptable to changing circumstances.

To that military tradition, how can the under-equipped, under-trained, under-experienced and under-motivated conscripted peasant armies of the Western Han compare? Han armies appear in and disappear from the historical record, they were raised and disbanded, and raised again, just like the armchair courtiers in their warm homes thought worthwhile to do so. Han military organization was ephemeral, volatile and arbitrary by Roman standards. It could not maintain a grand strategy, because the civilian Han courtiers lacked the mindset, as much as the infrastructure to do so.

Now tell me, has there ever been a scholar who could pinpoint the military deployment of the loosely organized Han armies just as precise as for, say, the Roman army under Hadrian in 125? AFAIK no, and the reason is not that the documents have perished, but that Han military organization never came close to the thoroughly organized state of the Roman army.

mohistManiac,

I recently read that arches were practically absent from ancient Chinese homes because they were thought to bring no good luck. Is this true?

I recently read that arches were practically absent from ancient Chinese homes because they were thought to bring no good luck. Is this true?

That's like saying ancient Roman households were without slaves because they thought slaves would corrupt them? Could perhaps be true? But seriously, if Ming style homes were any indication arches were abound in Chinese homes. They even used it plenty often in their furniture.

[sindeee]

For example, the Romans had appointed commissioners for their extensive public water supply and their unparalled all-weather road network, posts which the Han Chinese did not bother with, since they did not even have these things. The deployment of Roman legions can be traced by modern historians through the centuries because they kept their name and number throughout their existence. The Romans had standardized everything down to the position of the individual tent on the camp perimeter. Their military presence throughout their empire was as permament and organized as their famous military infrastructure. In general, the Roman approach to warfare, was methodical, practical and highly adaptable to changing circumstances.

[sindeee]

double post

Edited by sindeee, 21 February 2010 - 01:39 PM.

[sindeee]

For example, the Romans had appointed commissioners for their extensive public water supply and their unparalled all-weather road network, posts which the Han Chinese did not bother with, since they did not even have these things. The deployment of Roman legions can be traced by modern historians through the centuries because they kept their name and number throughout their existence.

umm, aren't you doing selective choices here? one can easily pick out things which any civilization had that are not found in others. This goes for almost every civ. India for example, had sewers and drainage since 4500 years ago, this was not found in any other place in the world at the time, but in other areas, such as building tall structures, Egyptians certainly surpassed them there. Rome might have had mechanical baths, but they did not have mercury streams that existed in china. talking about large construction projects, aren't all of you forgetting the most important thing here? irrigation and canals! these are symbols of labor intensive projects. you might want to take a look at Karl Wittfogel's Oriental Despotism. The Chinese state constructed much more canals and irrigations than anyone else which Wittfogel contributes to well, you get the idea from the title. some of these canals are still used today! their length number some 2500 km, thats over half the length of the entire road system in rome!

The Romans had standardized everything down to the position of the individual tent on the camp perimeter. Their military presence throughout their empire was as permament and organized as their famous military infrastructure. In general, the Roman approach to warfare, was methodical, practical and highly adaptable to changing circumstances.

if i'm not mistaken, the chinese actually did the same thing, perhaps even more. the first emperor unified all standards even axle length on chariots. take a look at studies on terra cota warriors, the difference on the length of weapons in the qin army was only a few millimeters! the crossbow even had parts that could be interchangeable because of standardization.

Edited by sindeee, 21 February 2010 - 01:55 PM.

[kama]

This guy named Tibet Libre just doesn't give up does he? How many times does he needs to get his a** handed to him to realize that his arguments are just horrible and contradictory?

[mohistManiac]

This guy named Tibet Libre just doesn't give up does he? How many times does he needs to get his a** handed to him to realize that his arguments are just horrible and contradictory?

He simply bypasses having discursive thought by presenting his lot of one sided references, which lacking depth in their use seem remarkably close to nationalistic sentiment for the sides he argues for. In this case he is obviously saying that places which have predominantly stone ruins clearly indicate possessing a greater degree of historical architecture and therefore substantiate a greater measure of historical site significance. It's akin to saying that remotely past cavemen having chosen to live in stone cave fortresses are abundantly historical figures so long as their dwelling places are still discerned from more recent residences. In Chinese contexts simply having architecture is a poor measure of a site having achieved historical importance. It is rather achieved by the prominent individuals whose legacies remain for those living in particular places which makes for the acknowledgment of a Chinese historical site. At the same time Tibet Libre has such disregard for Chinese architectural wealth which comes predominantly from wood working and not stone working which although saw frequent usage in royal and high profile Chinese settings as foundation work are never enough for him to substantiate a great measure of architectural establishment in themselves. He goes about discrediting the high achievement of Chinese wooden structures simply because the material is unsuitable for the working knowledge of stone working civilizations that as a result he overlooks the sheer scope of engineering practice in China in having designed wooden structures. Chinese wooden structures have proven to possess advanced structural integrity in dealing with earthquake motion which accounts for their long lasting sturdiness. Therefore their historicity ought to be valued in the context of aging and their associated maintenance because while having been made to last it doesn't necessarily mean they last ungoverned to become a permanent heap of ruins. Stone constructions are understood to withstand aging but can crumble into oblivion nevertheless.

[mariusj]

This brings me to the second point which is that Roman officials easily outdid their Han counterparts in that the Romans invented the Cursus honorum, that is the civil career service. This strictly regulated the sequence of offices and functions which a Roman official needed to pass through the ranks. So, unlike the Han bureaucrats who excelled at memorizing practically useless stuff like poems and mythology, Roman officials were men of great bureaucratical and practical experience.

I haven't been on for ages, but I would like to reply to this specific statement.

I suggest you read the Cursus Honorum VERY VERY CAREFULLY again in Wikipedia.
It is NOT a civil career, nor a service. It is also NOT strictly NOR regulated sequence. I must remind you Romans during the republic were more of the unwritten rule kind of people, while there are certain steps most people do, a series of office that most people take, it neither implies that it is an up-down ladder career like what defines a bureaucracy, nor does it suggest people who were accepted into office have bureaucratic or practical experience.
The idea that these men are better in bureaucracy depends directly that their previous experience would enhance their ability to perform in the following office, thus raise the question on whether or not doing a quaestor's job would improve a praetor's job. If you were to read the duties of praetor[s] and quaestor[s] you would know there are no direct correlation. Also, the idea of yearly election defeats the concept of having a bureaucracy [with a few exceptions in principal], as a man who now excels at presiding over judgment, Praetor Urbanus , will no longer be a Praetor Urbanus as his goal was probably to be elected Consul, who probably will not attempt to run for consul after the first success for another 10 years [again, few exceptions]. Therefor the idea that Roman offices are somehow bureaucratic is quite insane, given the nature of these offices, the time of the holding, and nature of voting [bribery], and the combine military and civilian duties should already suggest that they are not bureaucratic by role or nature. Further suggestion of their efficiency would only be laughable as a yearly election would defeat any suggestion of efficiency given you cannot retain your post whether or not you perform.

I can say that many Roman statesman are great lawmaker, great military leader, great philosopher, but I find it difficult to suggest that somehow they are great bureaucrats.

Returning to the idea of Han bureaucrats and poems. I first must remind you that there are in fact many different way to become Jinshi, and that the Civil Exam System [and the idea of jinshi] occurs much later than Han dynasty. Also, even if the Han bureaucrats DO become officials through poetry [I don't see how you would suggest they memorize mythology and poetry, as they would actually write their own poem] recitals, how does that prevent them from becoming good bureaucrats? The longer you are at doing a job makes you more efficient at it, what you learn in school implies nothing of your ability to learn, though a great mark at school should imply you are good at learning, thus that in fact should imply Han bureaucrats are better as they are the better learner compare to their peers [of which is not the case, though I am merely following your logic and assume this case given your suggestions that they learn useless stuff.]

[William O'Chee]

Mariusj is correct in saying that the cursus honorem is not as it might seem. I think the better way to understand it is to say that it was not a rigid sequence but a generally accepted progression. Remember too that republican Rome did not really have a huge bureaucracy, but was rather run by a largely civilian aristocratic class. Much of the domestic history of Rome during this period was shaped by the struggles between the plebians, equites and senatorial class. Since the aristocracy controlled most of the offices, a man might well retire to his estate for a couple of years before considering running for higher office.

In any event, we are probably getting off the topic of historic sites, are we not?

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

There is really no need to correct the blatant mistake Tibet Libre made here. Its all too clear that his purpose is not learning for fact's sake. He clearly didn't read a thing in regard to either the Roman or the Han bureaucracy, yet he had the unfounded arrogance to denounce scholarly material and press on his views when he has nothing better to say or could say. He should have kept his mouth shut about matters he is not familiar with, instead, he diverted the topic and made his last agenda driven post which reached a new level of ignorance which just made himself even more an object of ridicule.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 04 September 2010 - 12:48 AM.

[moobie]

One thing that is overlooked is that Ancient China's economy simply was not so socially stratified as India's (caste system) or Europe's (widespread slavery). In Europe or India or Egypt or what have you there was always a constant supply of slaves to do the grunt work in construction. A good example of this in the modern age is the construction of a $1 billion dollar private home by India's richest man, who is twice as rich as China's richest person (a young woman), despite India having not even half of China's per capita net worth.

China, on the other hand, seemed to have larger, flatter cities and most of their construction was focused on creating the natural defenses and shipping lanes they were not given for free (like the Alps and the Mediterranean).

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome seems rather bleak. Ignoring things like wealth density, GDP per capita and living standards (Chinese in 6,000 BC were taller than Roman soldiers at the height of the Empire) I'd say Rome probably was the ancient equivalent of this: http://upload.wikime...ski-rocinha.jpg But at least the people living in these Favelas have Cristo Redentor to look over them, right? Nevermind the massive crime and titanic gap between those with high and low net worth.

In terms of economy, Tibet Libre brings up Rome's wheat production and extraction of metals, but it doesn't seem the wheat production contributed to anything except making a minority of Romans extremely fat while slaves and soldiers starved. Paired with high resource extraction, this seems to be a Zimbabwe-like situation. Tibet Libre/Gun Powder Ma also asserts the true Roman population to be 80,000,000- which he seems to have backpedaled on when he was creating the "regions by past GDP per capita" page on wikipedia.

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome is 80 million human beings stacked on top of each other like cockroaches and living in their own feces (it was merely thrown out of windows by the vast majority of Romans), heavily dependent on extraction of natural resources, and with an emphasis on "pretty" buildings instead of infrastructure like China's walls, canals and irrigation projects. In other words the Romans used slavery and brute force to fuel grand projects while China's relatively free population was occasionally conscripted into constructing the Great Wall and Grand Canal, the largest of their respective type in human history.

In short, labor for construction in China seems to have been distributed more towards the survival of the empire, while the tens of millions of slaves in Rome built lavish palaces and public buildings to serve the egos of the ruling oligarchy. The end result of this strategy is immediately obvious when you look at a world map, and see that China is several hundred thousand times the size of Rome.

Edited by moobie, 14 November 2010 - 07:00 PM.

[TheAznValedictorian]

One thing that is overlooked is that Ancient China's economy simply was not so socially stratified as India's (caste system) or Europe's (widespread slavery). In Europe or India or Egypt or what have you there was always a constant supply of slaves to do the grunt work in construction. A good example of this in the modern age is the construction of a $1 billion dollar building by India's richest man, who is twice as rich as China's richest person (a young woman), despite India having not even half of China's per capita net worth.

China, on the other hand, seemed to have larger, flatter cities and most of their construction was focused on creating the natural defenses and shipping lanes they were not given for free (like the Alps and the Mediterranean).

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome seems rather bleak. Ignoring things like wealth density, GDP per capita and living standards (Chinese in 6,000 BC were taller than Roman soldiers at the height of the Empire) I'd say Rome probably was the ancient equivalent of this: http://upload.wikime...ski-rocinha.jpg But at least the people living in these Favelas have Cristo Redentor to look over them, right? Nevermind the massive crime and titanic gap between those with high and low net worth.

In terms of economy, Tibet Libre brings up Rome's wheat production and extraction of metals, but it doesn't seem the wheat production contributed to anything except making a minority of Romans extremely fat while slaves and soldiers starved. Paired with high resource extraction, this seems to be a Zimbabwe-like situation. Tibet Libre/Gun Powder Ma also asserts the true Roman population to be 80,000,000- which he seems to have backpedaled on when he was creating the "regions by past GDP per capita" page on wikipedia.

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome is 80 million human beings stacked on top of each other like cockroaches and living in their own feces (it was merely thrown out of windows by the vast majority of Romans), heavily dependent on extraction of natural resources, and with an emphasis on "pretty" buildings instead of infrastructure like China's walls, canals and irrigation projects. In other words the Romans used slavery and brute force to fuel grand projects while China's relatively free population was occasionally conscripted into constructing the Great Wall and Grand Canal, the largest of their respective type in human history.

In short, labor for construction in China seems to have been distributed more towards the survival of the empire, while the tens of millions of slaves in Rome built lavish palaces and public buildings to serve the egos of the ruling oligarchy. The end result of this strategy is immediately obvious when you look at a world map, and see that China is several hundred thousand times the size of Rome.

Well said and very funny, moobie
+reps for you

[mariusj]

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome seems rather bleak. Ignoring things like wealth density, GDP per capita and living standards (Chinese in 6,000 BC were taller than Roman soldiers at the height of the Empire) I'd say Rome probably was the ancient equivalent of this: http://upload.wikime...ski-rocinha.jpg But at least the people living in these Favelas have Cristo Redentor to look over them, right? Nevermind the massive crime and titanic gap between those with high and low net worth.

I am interested in your data on height on Shang Dynasty from 6,000 B.C, and where did your figure of Roman soldier's height?
I hope you won't bring in any religious snipering in this communication.

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome is 80 million human beings stacked on top of each other like cockroaches and living in their own feces (it was merely thrown out of windows by the vast majority of Romans), heavily dependent on extraction of natural resources, and with an emphasis on "pretty" buildings instead of infrastructure like China's walls, canals and irrigation projects. In other words the Romans used slavery and brute force to fuel grand projects while China's relatively free population was occasionally conscripted into constructing the Great Wall and Grand Canal, the largest of their respective type in human history.

HA!
I think we should all agree and stop commenting on Tibet's picture of Rome, as his understanding of Roman society, culture, and history are lacking. I think we should move on to more constructive ones?

Your comments do remind me of something though. For example, despite the fact that Roman and Chinese societies spent heavily on public projects, both private and public, it would seem at least in my sense of art, the Roman structures are more 'fulfilling' to the eyes. The public bath, for example, have art of all forms decorated on its walls, and its temples and other religious buildings are also decorated with gold chairs and other artifacts of spoils[while in China, these would be stored in the imperial storage of some form]. Do you think this is b/c of the Chinese philosophy of '簡樸' or do you think this is more of a availability of resources?

In short, labor for construction in China seems to have been distributed more towards the survival of the empire, while the tens of millions of slaves in Rome built lavish palaces and public buildings to serve the egos of the ruling oligarchy. The end result of this strategy is immediately obvious when you look at a world map, and see that China is several hundred thousand times the size of Rome.

The Roman Republics distributed much resources in the defense of the republic, and the Empire distributed much of its resources in the defense of the Empire. During the Republic, roads were built to connect Roma with much of Italy and Gaul and Asia Minor, while construction of blacksmith towns and settlements throughout the Roman sphere of influence to protect Roman interest. Slaves were sent to wheat farms to feed Roman bellies.
Even then, I doubt there are millions of slaves in Rome, let alone building palaces and public buildings.
Many of the Roman public buildings built throughout conquered lands are built by engineers and soldiers, as they conquered them they would built great buildings and monoliths in such short period of time that they would literately awe the people they conquered. Hardly a fitting labor for slaves when your job is to frighten the locals about YOUR worth right?

[Mei Houwang]

The Tibet Libre picture of Rome seems rather bleak. Ignoring things like wealth density, GDP per capita and living standards (Chinese in 6,000 BC were taller than Roman soldiers at the height of the Empire) I'd say Rome probably was the ancient equivalent of this: http://upload.wikime...ski-rocinha.jpg But at least the people living in these Favelas have Cristo Redentor to look over them, right? Nevermind the massive crime and titanic gap between those with high and low net worth.

To be fair Chinese in 6000 BC were probably taller than Chinese during the Han dynasty(contemporary of the Roman Empire). As societies became more sedentary(along with more crop specialization), their diets become less diverse, which usually means shorter height.

In short, labor for construction in China seems to have been distributed more towards the survival of the empire, while the tens of millions of slaves in Rome built lavish palaces and public buildings to serve the egos of the ruling oligarchy. The end result of this strategy is immediately obvious when you look at a world map, and see that China is several hundred thousand times the size of Rome.

Actually, lavish Roman construction projects were seen as a way for the government to keep unemployment down (thus, probably not built by slaves) by hiring the unemployed. It's kind of like what America did to recover from the Great Depression.

[moobie]

That was from Longshan, iirc they had been farming millet for 2,500 years by then.

and Marius, I think it probably has something to do with the structure of the economy, culture (including philosophy) as well as what raw materials were present. You need to have enough individuals past a certain threshold of wealth in order to devote so many resources towards creating monuments.

Also, the figures I'm seeing for Roman slaves is 10+ million and 20-25% of the population.

Edited by moobie, 16 November 2010 - 12:42 AM.