70 replies to this topic

[moobie]

Often in historical narrative we will hear it claimed that the "Roman Empire was the greatest in the world", or "the Roman Army was the most powerful fighting force of x time".

However upon further inspection, these claims are shown to be ambitious. For example, though the per capita output of Romans vs. their contemporaries has been discussed many times, there are several facts that simply cannot be ignored:

To begin with, it has been claimed that Roman per capita production of various foodstuffs (wheat predominantly) was very high- however the average Roman male was 5'5" in height. Data collected by Koepke and Baten even suggests the average European was 5'6.5" in height, male and female, in the fourth century [http://www.uni-tuebi...millennia.pdf]; noticeably shorter than the Chinese at Dawenkou and Longshan in 4000-3000 BC [http://sciencelinks....3A0503785.php].

What is the underlying cause of this? However many times the GDP per capita of Rome may be edited or otherwise revised or guessed upwards, even the highest and most optimistic estimates cannot overshadow the evidence of malnutrition which is found in Roman records and remains from the relevant period. The theory that lead from pipes affected the Romans negatively has been debunked; however findings indicate that a significant amount of lead acetate was added to food and drink as a flavoring especially among the upper classes.

While GDP per capita remains a critical statistic, GDP is neither representative of per capita wealth nor living standards. The average Roman, (including slaves) was probably far more malnourished, say, the average subject of the Han Dynasty. For one, poundage is not everything (caloric density and quality being of prime importance). As for slavery in Rome: "It is estimated that over 25% of the Roman population was enslaved.[52][53] Professor Gerhard Rempel from the Western New England College claims that in the city of Rome alone, during the Empire, there were about 400,000 slaves.[54]"

Meanwhile, the following passage describes slavery in Han China: "If recorded figures, estimates, and guesses are
combined the grand total of government slaves and those of noble
and non-noble owners would have been roughly 580,000 in 44 B.C.
and 741,000 in 7 B.C. The Chinese population figure of roughly
60,000,000 in a.d. 2 is not exact; the population was probably not
less than 50,000,000 and not more than 70,000,000. In the same
sense, estimates of the slave population are not accurate; they
indicate only that the number was probably less than a million and
probably more than 300,000."

This is contrary to many historical narratives that insist China progressed through various stages e.g feudal, slave, serf into proto-Communism. Even more interestingly, it contradicts the notion that China had no need for slavery because of a massive labor pool- especially as many European historians have guessed and revised Roman population up into the hundreds of millions. So the development and causes of a relatively slave-free society (odd during that time) in China has to be re-examined in that context.

Concordantly, the notion that individual merit mattered little in China is challenged; especially when compared to Rome, where the "latest" data implies a Roman population of 100,000,000, 20-25 million of which were essentially bound to slavery, doing heavy labor on latifundia. While this is only very rough guesswork, it makes sense to believe that having so many people collected in the "lower" stratum in one of two societies with equivalent GDP/capita figures implies that the distribution of wealth, or income, of one is much wider.

This should be considered when discussing the social instability of Western Rome in later eras. In summation, despite ever larger and larger revised claims of Roman GDP and lead, tin, or berry production per capita per annum- it seems that the overall picture of Ancient Rome is of a colonial, imperial slave system with a generally wide distribution of resources and possible widespread malnutrition.

Generally speaking Rome may theoretically have had 100,000,000 million living in the empire- but at most 80 million were non-slaves; lead production was possibly very high, but much of it was used as a food additive, which is now known to be teratogenic. The Roman army may have been well-furnished, and embellished by historians, but they were malnourished and ultimately could not prevent external threats from contributing to the collapse of Western Rome; that is, the Migration Period sparked by Hunnic invasions- as you know, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Huns have ties to the Xiongnu; who were worn down by constant warfare with China (to whom they ultimately lost). It appears the remnants of a Hunnic confederation pushed a second defeated group into the territory of the Romans, causing the rapid collapse of Roman society. Thus, the Romans in this comparison would be the fourth power in terms of military cohesion and effectiveness; even if the Roman Empire produced 85k, 100k, 300k tons of steel per year it seems to have meant little toward this end.

Han China, on the other hand, was relatively egalitarian (keyword being relatively) while plagued with a dearth of natural resources and conflicts with several significant military powers. A key point of history thus remains unexplained.

[Zhao Yun '87]

No offense but most of what you said are theories based on guesswork.

[moobie]

25% vs. 1% population enslaved isn't guesswork... that is it isn't nearly as much guesswork as the specious claim of 85,000 tons of Roman steel production per annum.

[BtD]

Often in historical narrative we will hear it claimed that the "Roman Empire was the greatest in the world",

Like all nations in the world, Rome had its high times and low times. It is pretty obvious that its vitality and efficiency was built upon the republican times. There was quite lot of turmoil before the degeneration of the government into dictatorship (transformation from republic to empire), which was greatly caused by the slavery and flood of slaves into local markets, but I would say that one of the main reasons for Roman fall was the absolute & hereditary monarchy. As an addition to this, there seems to be degenerative forces on each of the old great societies, which tended to increase dysfunction and simply rot the very foundation of the state. I guess similar forces were also at work during the various Chinese dynasties.

or "the Roman Army was the most powerful fighting force of x time".

It has been said that Greeks and Romans developed warfare to science. Still, I guess that also some Chinese nations at the warring period had similar kind of disciplined and certain kind of serious/technical attitude to warfare; so they are likely not too unique in that perspective. Also it is worth noting, that Roman military had its high & low times. Military strength was build upon certain techniques, but even more upon iron discipline and civil virtue, which was required to maintain continuous training and preparation for war. At later time, as mercenaries replaced the citizen-army and the empire started to get more corrupted and dysfunctional overall, the discipline started to evaporated and the army efficiency & loyalty disappeared. This gave raise to warlordism and situation, where the army itself started to be a bigger problem than any of the external threats. As an addition to under-performing in military battles, the army started to 'bully' the government and the actual citizenship of the state.

However upon further inspection, these claims are shown to be ambitious. For example, though the per capita output of Romans vs. their contemporaries has been discussed many times, there are several facts that simply cannot be ignored:

To begin with, it has been claimed that Roman per capita production of various foodstuffs (wheat predominantly) was very high- however the average Roman male was 5'5" in height. Data collected by Koepke and Baten even suggests the average European was 5'6.5" in height, male and female, in the fourth century [http://www.uni-tuebi...millennia.pdf]; noticeably shorter than the Chinese at Dawenkou and Longshan in 4000-3000 BC [http://sciencelinks....3A0503785.php].

The height of depends lot of the genetics, how the foodstuff is actually rationed and what the food contains. I guess there is correlation with meet and protein heavy diet and physical size, but beyond that the actual quantity of food may be less relevant. The quality of food is more relevant. IMO your references are rather pointless. You are referring to some maximum heights of some very specific (and likely tiny) populations that with high likely hood were not living in agricultural society. You can likely find higher heights among all herders or hunter-gatherers around the globe. E.g. according to Tacitus ancient Germans lived mainly on milk & meat and they were very tall even on today's European metrics (e.g. 2 meters height was not that rare).

Still, when it comes to Roman per capita production you have recognise that Egypt & Syria & African provinces produced quite ridiculous amounts of wheat at the time (this was the true great richness of the Empire after all). This allowed quite lot of (European side) population to specialise on other activity like mining, construction and manufacturing. There were rich mines exist at the time, and high GDP numbers do not sound so implausible for the better times of Roman Empire. On the other hand, I'm not surprised, if part of Roman population was malnourished, as quite wide segment of population were slaves, there were lot of conflicts & wars & civil wars over the entire existence of the civilisation and at end of the Roman empire diseases took their toll and the economy was overstretched, because huge army and all sorts of other problems.

...

I do not think that just comparing some guesstimated GDPs or other factors between Chinese & Roman societies make so much sense. Romans had their high time & low time and similarly all other societies existing on this world. While Romans might had been 'great' in the sense, that their society and army were very well organised and effective at a time, their 'greatness' lasted only so long and it all ended with quite pathetic and miserable way. Roman history is great example to learn from, but its failure was greatly build into the very fundamentals how the society was constructed. For example the mentioned slavery was a root to many problems. Similarly the effective Republican society was abandoned at some point, and the successive fights for imperial throne and malicious & incompetent emperors had great role in bringing the mighty giant into the dust. This certainly shadows 'greatness' of Rome, while I have heard similar kind of stories of raising dysfunction & corruption in the many Chinese states.

I'm rather convinced that all of these societies have been both great & miserable in their very own unique ways. For me they offer mainly great stories & teachings from the past. I feel, that there are very nasty forces making their work in every big society. Most of old great societies have nowadays feet of clay (e.g. Egypt, Iraqian, Persian, Italian, Greek). Even Chinese & Indian (& Russian) societies are quite dysfunctional & corrupted when compared to places like South Korea & Japan or Western Europe. This may sounds controversial, but I would see that the many sad events that happened in historical times would have relevance to the modern day decadence & dysfunction in these successors of the old mighty states. Edward Gibbon as well as older Roman historians explained the decline of Rome with loss of civil virtue, and it seems something that once lost is quite impossible to get back.

- BtD

Edited by BtD, 08 July 2010 - 07:27 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

25% vs. 1% population enslaved isn't guesswork... that is it isn't nearly as much guesswork as the specious claim of 85,000 tons of Roman steel production per annum.

Determininging precise GDP per capita prior to the past few hundred years, and especially over a thousand year ago are also largely speculations. Although we might be able to attain some information on the weight of per capita food production, the exact market value of these grain is totally unknown. For China at least, we don't have any real information until the Ming, and even then there are still many unknown factors such as what percent each type of grain makes up in the total food volume of the country. However, quantitative attempts on GDP per capita in this early date is far more reliable than things such as output of iron because GDP percapita did not vary that widely in pre-industrialist societies, therefore qualitative analysis could somewhat approximate quantitative estimates.
Also as I stated in other posts, having higher living standards in the past did not necessarily indicate an advanced civilization because the pace of technology must outgrow population growth. GDP per capita in the past rises and declines in cycles since its the general pattern that a society would have a higher per capita if its population was small and its untilled fields were large, but after a few decades when population outgrew the empty fields, GDP per capita generally starts declining. So ancient GDP is a paradox, those empires with a large population will obviously have a large total GDP, but a relatively smaller per capita. Therefore if the Roman Empire had 100 million people(a figure which is less likely) its per capita would be significantly lower than if one estimates the population to be only 60 million.

[moobie]

BtD:

The height of depends lot of the genetics, how the foodstuff is actually rationed and what the food contains. I guess there is correlation with meet and protein heavy diet and physical size, but beyond that the actual quantity of food may be less relevant.

Yes, what I wanted to understand was the basic profile of the average Roman living standards. It seems, to me at least, that the average Roman was shorter at the height of the Roman Empire than the average North Chinese in 4,000 BC. This is peculiar because now Italians are around 5'10", while North Chinese are around 5'9ish- about the same height as they were 6,000 years ago.

Which is why I suspect that income and wealth were not distributed equitably- the massive amount of slaves in the population as well as a lack of social cohesion heavily suggest this.

Borjigin:

So ancient GDP is a paradox, those empires with a large population will obviously have a large total GDP, but a relatively smaller per capita. Therefore if the Roman Empire had 100 million people(a figure which is less likely) its per capita would be significantly lower than if one estimates the population to be only 60 million.

Yes, I suspect this as well. It is in many ways similar to the structure of American society today- wide wealth distribution, overspending, fiscal instability, mass/unchecked immigration, etc.

[Jaak]

As for slavery in Rome: "It is estimated that over 25% of the Roman population was enslaved.[52][53] Professor Gerhard Rempel from the Western New England College claims that in the city of Rome alone, during the Empire, there were about 400,000 slaves.[54]"

Meanwhile, the following passage describes slavery in Han China: "If recorded figures, estimates, and guesses are
combined the grand total of government slaves and those of noble
and non-noble owners would have been roughly 580,000 in 44 B.C.
and 741,000 in 7 B.C. The Chinese population figure of roughly
60,000,000 in a.d. 2 is not exact; the population was probably not
less than 50,000,000 and not more than 70,000,000. In the same
sense, estimates of the slave population are not accurate; they
indicate only that the number was probably less than a million and
probably more than 300,000."

This is contrary to many historical narratives that insist China progressed through various stages e.g feudal, slave, serf into proto-Communism. Even more interestingly, it contradicts the notion that China had no need for slavery because of a massive labor pool- especially as many European historians have guessed and revised Roman population up into the hundreds of millions. So the development and causes of a relatively slave-free society (odd during that time) in China has to be re-examined in that context.

No. It was abundant slavery which was odd in Mediterranean. The talk of "slave society" is illusion of people who concentrate on the Classical Mediterranean history and do not realize how exceptional it was.

And Greek liberty and democracy were founded on slavery from beginning.

Basically, most hierarchic and unequal societies - "oriental despotism", ancient China, India, Persia, Egypt, but also parts of Greece, and much of Greece e. g. Athens before Solon - consisted overwhelmingly of peasants who belonged to their communities and had certain customary rights to their land plots and family life - but were exploited by a relatively very small upper and middle class.

Chattel slaves who were deprived of property were a small part of society and were exploited by the small upper class in specialized functions.

From 6th century BC, in Greece, the rise of slavery and the rise of democracy came hand in hand. The first places where democracy appeared, like Chios, were the first places where large numbers of slaves were acquired.

Because exploiting large numbers of outsider slaves allowed Greeks to protect large middle class of citizens from being exploited, and allow large number of citizens to exploit slaves themselves.

Most societies never made that change. China among them.

But it was precisely mass exploitation of slaves that enabled Greeks and Romans to create big, free and literate middle class of citizens. In Han China, I suspect that the literacy would have been less common.

[mohistManiac]

Like all nations in the world, Rome had its high times and low times. It is pretty obvious that its vitality and efficiency was built upon the republican times.
- BtD

I'm having to figure this all out again. Wouldn't the increasingly wide usage of slave labor in the Roman empire imply that there was an absolute increase of the wealth of gdp per capita because they were forced to work much harder in the fields and other public works than regular civilians just trying to make a buck a day? They may not have had the incentive to but were forced to work anyway. How would the Republican times for the Romans be the height of their civilization? Of course this is keeping in mind with the fact that this increase in wealth doesn't mean that everyone gets to share in the enjoyment of new living standards that were definitely adding to the luxury life of the elite slave masters but this is due to the discrepancy between societies that had differing societal norms/customs. Just because a slave had to stove the furnaces heating Roman bath waters doesn't mean they couldn't be inspired to take healthy baths of their own with much cleaner water that wasn't shared with everyone else. And look at today, all the skyscrapers being built for the white collar industry as their homes and offices are built by others who can't afford them but the total wealth increases nonetheless which in turn fuels more population growth and prosperity down the road. Fall of Roman society came about because foreign invasions devastated the empire and their slave population once having dwindled due to disbandment leeched away a core facet of Roman society.

Also as I stated in other posts, having higher living standards in the past did not necessarily indicate an advanced civilization because the pace of technology must outgrow population growth.

I may have a misunderstanding with the concept that says that technology must outpace population growth to be of any benefit because it doesn't seem to fit for the past ages. I can see how it works for present day because when you have something like a very crowded city and total water supply becomes an absolute shortage in the end water just gets pumped wastefully for city life and therefore prices for goods as simple as food will increase. The concept fits here because technology would have to discover a way to produce more water than can possibly be produced naturally. But people in the past that were forced to work on beneficial projects such as canals and diverting rivers to irrigate crop fields as in ancient China must have took plenty of slave or conscripted labor and in the end the benefit was being able to produce more food output. But a technology such as building canals and diverting rivers took massive amounts of human labor and it wasn't as though an exponentially growing Chinese population couldn't have just implemented more of the same human effort involved in traditional construction of their large scale projects. So unless readily available water was scarce and had to be pumped from location to location using high powered pumps I have a hard time accepting that technological limitations was a factor prohibiting ancient populations' prosperity and growth.



So I'm thinking basically the end difference is what different kinds of wealth people in the past were able to produce that seems to make a difference in our minds. The Romans were busy making aqueducts and public baths and other useful things that would have been made useful in China had the ancient Chinese discovered upon them while the ancient Han China were busy making things like canals and irrigating waterways that would have been useful in the Roman empire if they had used their aqueducts for this purpose.

Edited by mohistManiac, 09 July 2010 - 03:22 AM.

[BtD]

I'm having to figure this all out again. Wouldn't the increasingly wide usage of slave labor in the Roman empire imply that there was an absolute increase of the wealth of gdp per capita because they were forced to work much harder in the fields and other public works than regular civilians just trying to make a buck a day? They may not have had the incentive to but were forced to work anyway. How would the Republican times for the Romans be the height of their civilization? Of course this is keeping in mind with the fact that this increase in wealth doesn't mean that everyone gets to share in the enjoyment of new living standards that were definitely adding to the luxury life of the elite slave masters but this is due to the discrepancy between societies that had differing societal norms/customs. Just because a slave had to stove the furnaces heating Roman bath waters doesn't mean they couldn't be inspired to take healthy baths of their own with much cleaner water that wasn't shared with everyone else. And look at today, all the skyscrapers being built for the white collar industry as their homes and offices are built by others who can't afford them but the total wealth increases nonetheless which in turn fuels more population growth and prosperity down the road. Fall of Roman society came about because foreign invasions devastated the empire and their slave population once having dwindled due to disbandment leeched away a core facet of Roman society.

Well, I have understood that slaves were generally less productive than free men, e.g. when it came to farming. Free people were able to product more per person and per acre than slaves. Also slaves had heavy destabilizing effect on society as unemployment sky-rocketed and free citizen's salaries dropped. Slavery drove a conflict between the upper classes and lower classes and this conflict was greatly the reason why the republic failed. I referred with efficiency & vitality not to economy, but to the government & how the state functioned. For quite long period of time, the Roman policy was wise and the administration was filled with very able man. Also, because the taxation & legislation was more reasonable and moderate and the conditions otherwise better, the society was doing better.

The high GDP is likely more related to the stability and relatively long peace time during the high days of Rome, the high productivity to North African & ME agriculture, which allowed the people in Italy to specialise on mining, services and manufacturing. I believe there was also technological (although very little scientific) progress, which was enhanced by trade, specialisation, peace and high level of organisation of society.

Of course later on (~ after the five good emperors) things changed to far worse.

So I'm thinking basically the end difference is what different kinds of wealth people in the past were able to produce that seems to make a difference in our minds. The Romans were busy making aqueducts and public baths and other useful things that would have been made useful in China had the ancient Chinese discovered upon them while the ancient Han China were busy making things like canals and irrigating waterways that would have been useful in the Roman empire if they had used their aqueducts for this purpose.

I guess, it makes the thing a comparison of apples and oranges, so to say. I guess also the nature of societies were different. Han was more like a traditional nation state, while the Rome had really submitted lot of foreign nations and weren't generally benevolent rulers really. While the living conditions over most of empire may have been tolerable or even good, the taxes put on foreign nations were heavy, the governors abused their provinces for gaining personal wealth and the dominance was maintained with most ruthless methods. I could mention the example of Israel, which great temple was first looted by local Roman installed ruler, and when they rebelled Romans arranged a massive blood path as a revenge.

- BtD

[mohistManiac]

Well, I have understood that slaves were generally less productive than free men, e.g. when it came to farming. Free people were able to product more per person and per acre than slaves. Also slaves had heavy destabilizing effect on society as unemployment sky-rocketed and free citizen's salaries dropped.

There must have been some kind of payoff for the Romans to adopt slavery on such a large magnitude. The slaves that were put into service must have been a significant output for jobs that many free men certainly didn't want to do such as back breaking labor and jobs that would distance themselves from their families. So what seems to need mentioning along with the fact that they were generally less productive is that possibly a lot of new grand scale undertakings and services could have been the result of an abundance of slaves (and vice versa) and more fresh slaves/projects were required to sustain that economical or infrastructural growth.

I guess, it makes the thing a comparison of apples and oranges, so to say. I guess also the nature of societies were different. Han was more like a traditional nation state, while the Rome had really submitted lot of foreign nations and weren't generally benevolent rulers really. While the living conditions over most of empire may have been tolerable or even good, the taxes put on foreign nations were heavy, the governors abused their provinces for gaining personal wealth and the dominance was maintained with most ruthless methods. I could mention the example of Israel, which great temple was first looted by local Roman installed ruler, and when they rebelled Romans arranged a massive blood path as a revenge.

- BtD

I see the differences but not as being a total divide. When we perceive the Roman empire and the Han China on being comparative equals we tend to speak of their enlarged political structure and standing in the international community but also on the level of their vast economies as well as similar grand unification schemes like having state capitals or cities/regions of power or prosperity, resource gathering, lengthy roads, walls, national army, systems of currency, taxation, and weights and measures, institutions facilitating cultural cohesion etc. Like the Roman empire China certainly had used massive amounts of slave or conscripted labor for work on things like the great wall and canal, it also witnessed plenty of uprisings but without the labor which was supplied to fulfilling those tasks we would never have been able to reference these massive projects either as beneficial or foolish in the long run. In the end the differences are not so much national efficiency but rather superficial cultural differences manifesting in varying technological ways and material means.

Edited by mohistManiac, 09 July 2010 - 06:15 AM.

[moobie]

But it was precisely mass exploitation of slaves that enabled Greeks and Romans to create big, free and literate middle class of citizens. In Han China, I suspect that the literacy would have been less common.

I'm curious as to what the literacy rate in Ancient China was. Then again mass exploitation of slavery to accrue benefits to a smaller, powerful class is exactly what created the disunity that ultimately resulted in Rome's annihilation.

[mohistManiac]

Han was more like a traditional nation state, while the Rome had really submitted lot of foreign nations and weren't generally benevolent rulers really. While the living conditions over most of empire may have been tolerable or even good, the taxes put on foreign nations were heavy, the governors abused their provinces for gaining personal wealth and the dominance was maintained with most ruthless methods. I could mention the example of Israel, which great temple was first looted by local Roman installed ruler, and when they rebelled Romans arranged a massive blood path as a revenge.
- BtD

To me, Roman empire was a learning/conquering entity that received input knowledge from other states to fuel its supremacy over others in terms of military, socioeconomic advances, and technological know how. The atmosphere of the Roman culture was very pronounced in acceptance for the multicultural and it seems that way because it had a policy of freeing slaves as well as capturing them. In the Roman empire many of its slaves also ranged into the upper society, were teachers themselves or having skills that surpassed the average man, and some eventually freeing themselves to become highly dignified contributors with the exception of entering government. So maybe the Han China seems much more of a nation state because it didn't have as much multicultural experience/acceptance unless during times of turmoil where regional conflicts begin to manifest. I think this would be another difference to China but only of the level of cultural differentiation. For example the Han China could well have enslaved and freed captured slaves by even greater frequency than Romans did. They could have enslaved those living in what they deemed to be barbarian territories but the choice was usually to either eliminate or chase them away, prevent them from encroaching by building walls, or adopt policies of trade or sinification. In a sense securing slaves for the Roman empire meant security both physically and psychologically as these slavery personnel could be shackled and their population kept in check and the same was done by the Han China where there existed checks on nomadic tribes before the total threat of getting overrun.

[moobie]

I think it's hard to apply the multiculturalism concept in Ancient times. China was multicultural by the Han in the sense that several culturally, linguistically and otherwise disparate states were included in the state so to speak. It's just that in China the process of Sinicization began even before incorporation (such as Chu and Wuyue, if I'm not mistaken). In Rome, vast areas were directly conquered and entered into the polity on an unequal footing.

Edited by moobie, 10 July 2010 - 10:26 AM.

[mohistManiac]

I think it's hard to apply the multiculturalism concept in Ancient times. China was multicultural by the Han in the sense that several culturally, linguistically and otherwise disparate states were included in the state so to speak. It's just that in China the process of Sinicization began even before incorporation (such as Chu and Wuyue, if I'm not mistaken). In Rome, vast areas were directly conquered and entered into the polity on an unequal footing.

I don't have a firm understanding on what actually happened but I suspect there was quite much flexibility in the past. Multiculturalism had to exist at some point or another, just in different ways but often accelerated for the same purposes. Of course in going with my definition, multiculturalism isn't just a form of acceptance of different peoples in a single arena but that they acculturate to one another and allow simultaneous prosperity like Greco Bactrian architecture. I think similarly for sinicization as well because for it to make any sense as a force there has to be other cultures other areas that haven't been totally renegotiating with the construction of the predominant Chinese culture of the accordant time period and will therefore be alienated until they jump on the bandwagon. Sinicization can therefore be said to have occurred during the Longshan cultural period where everything in the neolithic record essentially transformed to become Longshan within a short period of time. It may be likely that there was a complete cultural makeover by a new unique proto-Longshan type culture that mediated its own development in cross conjunction with earlier neolithic cultures and they all quickly formed into the true Longshan culture, who knows. Sinicization occurred again when the Zhou took over and gave rise to great thinkers of the time. Sinicization occurred when Qin forcefully unified systems of writing, weights and measures. Sinicization happened precisely because during those times someone was actively promoting his/her own culture and perhaps on unequal footing. Even so, there were those that voluntarily sinicized by forcing themselves to intermarry and adopting and adding to the Chinese cultural mix. I think it is largely through a matter of scale that multiculturalism continues and you can imagine that the earliest times can be signified by the capillary roots of plants where they continue to grow and branch out further into the ground. The further we burrow to discover the archaeological past the more disparate cultures we will find. Although China is not a carbon copy of what happened in the west where Hellenist and Latin culture combined with many others to form the Romanization process the major force of spread of a rapidly rising predominant culture due to a premeditation on future security must have resulted in major effect on both western and eastern civilizations.

[Jaak]

I'm curious as to what the literacy rate in Ancient China was. Then again mass exploitation of slavery to accrue benefits to a smaller, powerful class is exactly what created the disunity that ultimately resulted in Rome's annihilation.

Disunity between whom, precisely?