Classical China vs Classical Greece

Instead of making a comparison on military, how about compare the political structures between the classical Chinese thought and Athenian democracy.

Athens and Roman republic: said to be first direct democracy in history but proved to be inefficient in empire building. Also, govermnt was dominated by social elites, and society was mainly stratified between slaves, commoners, and aristocrats. Social mobility was restrained.

Warring States and Han Dynasty: World first and oldest meritocracy system, commoners and social "gentlemen" (philosophers) were able climb to top of social hierachy, and influenced or manipulate decision making during the Warring States and later Han Dynasty. The social mobility was thus less rigid in comparison with Athenian and Roman republic. Most importantly, such system sustained itself over 2 thoudsand years. Athenian deomcracy was replaced with Macedonian monarchy, and Roman republic was replaced with Empire. But, once Han dynasty was established, the meritocracy was organized into civil service, and it has survived over two thousands years (Taiwan still had a very similar civil service).

A democracy placed in China during the time wouldn't work, since voting would take more than 50 yrs, and the culture probably wouldn't agree with it.

A Chinese bureaucracy in Greece wouldn't work as well, since there culture is all about democracy/individualism, not sacrifice of oneself for society.

Like every other topic of this nature, this debate is not one that can be argued effectively. 

Both cultures made incalcuable contributions, both cultures contributed greatly to who and what we are today.

Whether or not you believe that Classical Athens or Classical China is the better of the two is purely a matter of opinion.

They were all the same... Civilised and thinking they were superior to nomads. I think history should be able to show them they were somehow WRONG...

However, if you look at Chinese experience, after two millienium, after numerious invasions, and destructions, the Chiense state still survived.

In many incidences during the barbarian invasions where Emperors were dead in the battlefield or captured by enemies, the Chinese Prime Ministers and bureaucrats were sometimes exercised emergency power to install a temporary emperor as head of state. A sense of centralization is very essential during a national crisis; the failure to repel the Macedonian imperialims can be interpreted as a lack of strong political centralization in Athens: too many voices.

I meant famous philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, in his famous "Leviathan", criticie the power struggle between ambitious elites in Britain at that time, which often led to civil war. Thus, he advocated a strong almost abosolute monarchy over democracy (such as Athens)

China does still exist but is it the same state that existed two millennium ago?  I doubt that.

If you can make that claim, then the same claim can be made of Rome and Italy both of which are still in existence.

Your Roman history is seriously flawed btw.  The Roman Republic saw no emperors.  And there are instances where Roman emperors (who ruled during the empire) and consuls (who were elected for 1 year terms during the Republic) also died on the battlefield.........................

and yet Rome survived...........

"If you can make that claim, then the same claim can be made of Rome and Italy both of which are still in existence."

by the way, did Italians still believe in all those ancient gods? and did they still speak Latin? Why call Italy?

Go to mainland China, they still have millinuem old Confucian ceremony and they still prey to ancestors. All academic books said China is the longest continued civiization on Earth, even on this forum's frontpage on "China and Far East". Give me an academic book show China is not the longest continued civilization. Show it

Same thing to Egypt, they still exist, but they are Arabs and Muslims, are they still practicing pictographic writing?

Today, out of all anicient civiizatoins, China process the oldest writing that still in use. and the only pictographic form in today's world.




Edited by Kids

Roman empire was not the strongest and most advanced on earth.

There many academic books in my university compared Han and Rome.

If you are not in an academic environment, there is a major coverage in National Geographic on Han Dynasty and claimed Chinese were superior in many fields of technology, economy, and in politics:

"Rome's economy relied on slavery, while Han prosperty rode mainly on the backs of free peasants"

"In many fields, Han workers were far ahead of their Roman coutnerparts"

And Chinese meritocracy was the most advanced at that time, was Roman officials selected based on talent, education, and merit? No.

There were "57,671,400 people in China in A.D. 2" thats over 50 millions Han Chinese people in second century A.D. Now, had Romans ever surpassed their Celtic, Germanic tribes, and all other conquered people in population in their Roman empire, even though the majority were cleary not Romans? No.

--- National Geographic: A Chinese Empire to Rival Rome, Feb. 2004

I dont think an empire can called itself much superior if its economy relied on foreign slaves.

And if you know Romans were ahead of Han chinese, please show sources that has been made in comparison between Rome and Han.




Edited by Kids

"I've seen a few that say that India is, it really depends on the perspective of the author."

But, there was no such concept as Indians in ancient time. India was a modern concept. Throughout history, numerious invaders seted up kingdoms in today's India, but non of of the ancient inhabitants refered themselves as Indians. Most importantly, there was no unified language, writing, and cultures (even now).

Tobodai

I would think it depends on gender, women in classical Greece were treated horribly in almost Talibanesque ways, China is not a good nation when it comes to womens rights but it easily beats Greece on that account.

Your phasing is loaded. I don�t really see any basis for suggesting ancient China treated women any better that ancient Greece or Rome or Carthage or Persia

Kids

Can you give me an example to show that most politicians in Athenian democracy were not from aristocrats, but from peasants or slaves? Cleisthene, Pericles, and even the most famous Themistocles, who had some connection with aristocrats.

Well I would point out that I already did. But first I object to the use of the term Aristocracy/Aristocrat. By using it you are suggesting Athens had patrician clans rather like republican Rome, which is not true. Second you are erroneously confussing political leaders with power. In the Athenian democracy, the popular assembly and courts were the sovereign bodies, and they were dominated by the Demos (the people, the poor and middle classes).  Athens had no equivalent to the Roman senate, were the patricians could dominate the state.

 

Back to leading politons yes they did tend to be wealthy, but not aristocratic (in the sense of tracing their family back to the pre democratic landed aristocrats). If you want examples, Ephiltes, Cleon, Apollodoros, and Aeschines; all men either self made (or sons of men who were self made) whose wealth was derived from trade or manufacturing. In Apollodoros� case as I noted he was the son a slave, turn banker turned perhaps the wealthiest man in Athens in his day. Also in passing Themistocles is hardly connected to the old aristocracy, what makes you say that he was? 

 

But as I noted any leading figure in Athens was in effect constantly subject to review, examination and election. Leaders were retained by the assembly and the courts on the basis of merit. Even the most famous, Pericles, while he may have been a general, had no other power in Athens but the ability of his arguments to day after day carry his polices in the assembly and the courts. As for the rest of the Athenian government, the lesser Magistrates, and official they were chose by random selection from all citizens. In other words the vast majority of the Athenian government was run by a random selection of Athenians, wealthy bluebloods, poor farmers, urban tradesman etc.

 

direct democracy can not surivie without sohpisticated bureaucracy and civil service.

 

The Athenian democracy survived for 250 years, and absorbed disasters that would have made Sparta (or Thebes, or Sidon, or Corinth), fold like a wet taco. The only city state that rivaled and exceed the staying power exhibited by Athens was Rome (ok, Syracuse and Carthage were about equal).  But to reiterate my earlier point what�s so great about empire building. You seem to be suggesting Athens is a failure because it never chose to launch a massive campaign of imperialism to span the known world.

 

However, if you look at Chinese experience, after two millienium, after numerious invasions, and destructions, the Chiense state still survived.

 

Not really China waxed and waned, crumbled into warring factions, etc. There was no single Chinese state. You could It seems to me argue Rome survives as well. Half of Europe uses a language that is a direct descendant of Latin (even English is perhaps 2/3 Latin either directly or via Norman-French) Most of Europe (and the world when it writes English) used the Latin alphabet  The Julian calendar is effectively the world�s calendar.

Both The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are to some extent products of the Roman Empire. The Roman legal code although much changed still influenced legal practice across much of Europe.  For 2000 years after the Empire fell, rulers in Europe looked to Rome and it�s empire to underpin their legitimacy (tsars, Kaisers, Holy Roman emperors, etc).  In fact, it�s only in the last century that Europe lacked a ruler or autocrat that styled himself (or herself) as �Caesar� or Roman emperor.

 

In what way? Did Romans converted everyone into Romans? It was (I dont want to say barbarians since it is insult to modern Europeans) early Europeans inhabitants sacked the Rome, and they didnt set up a new Roman empire.

 

You appear to have forgotten Charlemagne. You know the Frank (descended from barbarians who invaded the old Roman Empire). He was crowned on Christmas day in 800 AD as Emperor, by the pope. Plus, don�t forget the other half of Europe, the one ruled by Irene Empress of Rome, from Constantinople. Don�t be so hasty to kill off �Rome� back in the 5^th century AD.

the failure to repel the Macedonian imperialims can be interpreted as a lack of strong political centralization in Athens: too many voices.

When Athens chose to go to war with Philip, to decide the issue of hegemony in Greece, Athens spoke with one voice, that of Demosthenes. Athens acted effectively and decisively. Athens countered Philip�s attempts to subvert Euboea, Megara and the colonies of Corinth. Athens intervened to stymie the Macedonian attacks against Byzantium and Perinthus. Athenian diplomacy managed to at least secure the neutrality of pro-Macedonian states such as Argos, Megalopolis and Messene. And in the final show down Athens detached Thebes from Philip and fielded and army as strong as the Macedonians at Chaeronea. Really, rather than fault the government, you would more right to fault bad luck.  Athens and Thebes, states that had a generation earlier produced a crop of skilled military commanders (Iphicrates, Chabias, Epaminondas, and Pelopidas) unfortunately sent their B teams of generals to battle against the Macedonian A team (Philip, Alexander, etc.).  

The ideal that Athens failed to deal with the rise of Macedonia, also strikes me as arguing from perfect hindsight. The history of Macedonia (and Thrace and Thessaly) hardly suggested the actual course of events. Assassinations, revolts and incursions by �barbarians� from Europe had always broken Macedonian power in the past, why should Athens not expect Philip to at worst be a one hit wonder. If the democracy at Athens underestimated Philip (and perhaps more importantly the loyalty of his key generals) It was a mistake shared by both Greek oligarchies and the Persian monarchy as well

Edited by conon394