In the Dynastic cycle, the dynasties Song and Qin were not strong in the Period of Decline. Through the period of decline these 2 dynasty have done the same things and different things. This was a big impact on how they fell. Similarities and Differences Some similarities are that they both ignored the needs of the poor. They didn’t care for the poor at all during this period of time.
The era of the Han dynasty in China, simply referred to as ‘Han China,’ was an extremely prominent one, with power that almost rivaled the Romans themselves. During this period of China, achievements and accomplishments reached new heights as the Silk Road opened, which allowed connection with the western world. However, even with all this, Han China still fell, thanks to opposing forces in the form of nomadic tribes, several natural disasters that were interpreted as angry messages from the gods, and internal/political unrest. During the Han dynasty and the opening of the Silk Road, there were several aggressive, nomadic tribes that centered around the Asian area.
Rome (750 BC – AD 500) and China (350 BC – AD 600) experienced conflicts not only in the physical sense, such as in wars, but also in political struggles, religion, and power. Although each civilization had similarities, like structured governments in the form of emperors and dynasties, they also had differences, like in the way they wrote laws and dealt with handing out those rules. Religion was still going through changes of rules, while certain countries starting grasping ideas of new ones. War kept on brewing up between common enemies, causing battles against who should take over certain land parts. Finally, politics, with ever popular emperors and empresses coming about while other major ones dying off, causing civil confusion and conflictions.
In the eleventh century B.C., the Zhou overthrew the Shang dynasty to end their rule. The Zhou had claimed that Heaven provided authority and legitimacy to a ruler only if he took care of the people and in that case the Shang did not. The Shang had become unfit and corrupt and the Mandate of Heaven could not be with them any longer. At the time, there was no strong leader from the Zhou. As a result, China pounded into the Warring States Period.
The Sui and Tang dynasties took over as some of the most glorious periods in Chinese history. Rome was supplementary more disruptive than the collapse of Hna China. Due to Rome being incredibly drastic, the civilization left only the memory of the greatest in Western tradition. Another difference arises from the base of the civilizations collapsing. Rome was “human symptom” based; on the tombstones of Roman citizens were phrases suggesting the spread of downfall and defeat that provided a despondency of the afterlife (contributing to the decay of religion mentioned in the previous paragraph).
As China grew with population and technologies, so did their government. Their military was weak but they had the idea to make iron and steel weaponry. The increase of weapons allowed the Chinese military to have more power over the people. Yet, the downfall of their era was their tactics in controlling their army and the rebellious citizens. As China’s economy and population grows, so does the growth of politics and Urban life styles.
The Han Dynasty in China and the Roman Empire shared many similarities and differences when it came to political rule and the nature of their political authority. The most significant difference between the two is how the Han dynasty enacted policies that were shaped to counter the wrongdoings of the previous Qin dynasty, whereas the Roman Empire enacted policies shaped to create and promote peace and stability. The difference in the two empire’s coming to power was to account for their variance in political rule. After the Qin dynasty, the Han ruled China for four centuries, enacting numerous political changes and governing one of the most efficacious dynasties in Chinese history.
The Roman and the Chinese empires, I would say, had different forms of governing during the classical period as they practiced the republic representative and the monarchy system respectively due to differences in their societal structure. On the contrary, they both had some similarities such as using dictatorship to fortify political control on their subjects. In Rome, the use of the republic style of governing helped to control power among few people, and also regulate political power which then stabilized the government, making the citizens participate in governance and also count on their representatives to deliver without exception. Whereas, in the Chinese empire the use of monarchy was established to govern the citizens in a firm manner to control the people so they couldn’t rebel against the political authority.
We just looked at how the US is turning it more socialist, and now we are going to look at how Russia turned communist, and how the same thing could happen to the US. To oversimplify Russia’s revolution, it was caused by a people who were rightly angered by the mistreatment of minorities, and wanted to make people equal. To draw a parallel, this anger of mistreatment of minorities is something that is becoming more common in the US, especially in the Democratic Party; if you look on their party platform page, you will see an entire section dedicated to their policies on protecting the rights of women, LGBTQ, etc, and trying to make everyone equal. The parallels between the Russian political landscape right before the revolution and the current US political situation are obviously imperfect, but they are present. Russian Marxists
The Shang/Zhou dynasties and the Maya civilizations were both powerful entities built around political control. The two governments power came from religion, as their leaders were viewed to be Gods by the people they ruled over. However, the contrasts between them, such as Shang/Zhou China’s monarchy and the Maya’s warring city-states, defined each cultures varied political advancements.
The times of the Han Empire and Roman Empire were those of two prosperous civilizations. Progression and innovation were a way of life, the exchange of goods maintained the abundance of success. Overtime, the decline of growth became seemingly noticeable. In spite of their vast wealth and capacity the two empires found themselves plummeting to destruction, the recessions of the two empires were the result of numerous factors. Although there are many indistinguishable reasons for the fall of these empires, there are several contrasting reasons for their progressive collapse.
China, up until the Qin Dynasty, consisted of independent states controlled by kings fighting each other for land and power. This time period was called The Era of Warring States, which lasted two hundred years. After this time, the Qin Dynasty rose to power. They conquered all other dynasties, and established a centralized government, unifying China for the first time. The dynasty that succeeded the Qin, the Han, continued the centralized government and they started a westward expansion that would encourage trade and cultural diffusion.
Around 1200 B.C.E, Dynasties chose their rulers or emperors by a system called the Mandate of Heaven. Mandate of heaven was a belief that a higher power like the Gods, would select their ruler. The first Chinese ruler to claim his throne came directly from heaven. This is a belief that was built off of chinese traditions of worshiping their ancestors. If the chosen Emperor fails to be kind and rule by the moral standards of the Gods, natural disasters and rebellions would happen and he would eventually be overthrown.
The population went down due to diseases. The country could not hold its own against other world powers such as the huns and the germans. The Germans overran the city of Rome this lead to downfall because it was the end of the country ir got destroyed by foreian invaders. The Roman Empire was on its last breath.
1. There isn’t one single definition which best describes what management is since through time management has developed ; In his book "Industrial and General Administration" Henry Fayol defines management as ‘to forecast and to plan, to organise, to command, to coordinate and to control’ (as cited in Murugan, 2004) which are also known as the five functions of management. This classical management theory focus very little on the relationships between managers and the employees, and is more focused on the organizational resources rather than the organizations members, employees are seen as elements rather than resources. Fayol used the term “command” rather than to lead and direct which could be considered as a more autocratic way of leadership.
