WI: Greater Han-Rome interaction

Two of the floruits of China and Rome, the Eastern Han Dynasty and the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty, overlapped in the late-1st and early-2nd centuries CE, but only ever had indirect contact with each other.

If Gan Ying's 97CE mission to Rome had succeeded, could it have formed the basis of a more concrete relationship between the two empires? What did Rome and Han have to learn from each other and could their peaks have lasted longer than they did in OTL as a result of their communication?
 
Two of the floruits of China and Rome, the Eastern Han Dynasty and the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty, overlapped in the late-1st and early-2nd centuries CE, but only ever had indirect contact with each other.

If Gan Ying's 97CE mission to Rome had succeeded, could it have formed the basis of a more concrete relationship between the two empires? What did Rome and Han have to learn from each other and could their peaks have lasted longer than they did in OTL as a result of their communication?
I do believe there were some contacts between the two states.IIRC, there were Han records of emissaries from 'Da Qin' representing a certain 'Andun'.Nonetheless,it's difficult I think to have any significant relationships with one another given the distance.They will also need to somehow have some kind of common adversary for there to be any cooperation.As it was,any expansion west past the Tarim Basin for the Han Dynasty or any east for Rome is probably unlikely since the two empires were overstretched as they were maintaining their existing territory alone.Chinese control over the Tarim Basin was always weak,they always collapse whenever the army there was forced to withdraw back to China due to internal crisis.
 
Last edited:
The Romans could pick up the brand new art of paper making. Also, get some ideas on making bureaucracy in an Empire work better.

Too early for gunpowder or compasses or printing.

Don't know what the Romans could teach the Chinese.
Christianity? Mithraism? (Oooo... Mithraic China, that would be something.)


But, ja, 'cooperation' would more be 'sharing ideas' than 'joint military action'.
 
Yeah, I meant more of "trade and communication with those funny people on the other side of the Indian Ocean" than any sort of military alliance. I was aware of the delegation from "Anton" (which could be Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius), but that didn't seem to have must lasting impact either.

I was wondering if Rome had anything to teach China about governance and legislation but it seems like Han bureaucracy was about as good as the ancient world got anyway. Maybe siege weaponry?
 
Also, get some ideas on making bureaucracy in an Empire work better.

Once I have read a bit more about education of chinese buerocrats, I was shocked. Roman way of educating buerocrats, even if lousy from a modern point of view, was perhaps more efficient and effective.

Also corruption and usurpation was always an issue in both empires. Perhaps it is unavoidable for an empire of that size, or whenever humans govern humans.
 

scholar

Banned
The only thing you need for greater Chinese Roman interaction would be for a more unified and stable Persia and Central Asia. Have both under the same state, relatively stable, and profiting immensely on the transfer of trade goods, then you have a recipe for real success.
 
Yeah, I meant more of "trade and communication with those funny people on the other side of the Indian Ocean" than any sort of military alliance. I was aware of the delegation from "Anton" (which could be Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius), but that didn't seem to have must lasting impact either.
In the view of those involved,not sure why there would be any need to cooperate.
I was wondering if Rome had anything to teach China about governance and legislation but it seems like Han bureaucracy was about as good as the ancient world got anyway.
I think the Romans might be interested in the philosophy,but not so much for the Chinese I'd imagine.Given how much monopoly the Confucians have over the state,I doubt they'd want another rival.
Maybe siege weaponry?
I thought the Romans were the masters in this regard during the antiquity.There doesn't seem to be much sieges going on in China during the period.
Once I have read a bit more about education of chinese buerocrats, I was shocked. Roman way of educating buerocrats, even if lousy from a modern point of view, was perhaps more efficient and effective.

Also corruption and usurpation was always an issue in both empires. Perhaps it is unavoidable for an empire of that size, or whenever humans govern humans.

At this point anyway,usurpations were definitely few in the Han Dynasty.The most famous one by Wang Mang ended up with the original dynasty being placed back in power.It wasn't until after the Han Dynasty that things get really interesting.For the most part,there were relatively few depositions of emperors during the Han dynasty.So what's so shocking about the bureaucrats?I wanna know,I'm not quite familiar on this part.
 
Last edited:
ach other.
If Gan Ying's 97CE mission to Rome had succeeded, could it have formed the basis of a more concrete relationship between the two empires? What did Rome and Han have to learn from each other and could their peaks have lasted longer than they did in OTL as a result of their communication?

China and Rome were particularily far from each other : a good part of Gan Ying's failure was that he crossed all Asia, and Persians tricked him telling there was as much way to do.
But even without trickery/bribery?, it's a long way to go.

Remember that Rome knew of India, which was half-way, and only but rarely sent embassies to local princes or these princes sending embassies to Rome, even when there were strategic reasons doing so, part of these embassies possibly coming from Kushans.

Not that you didn't have contacts, there's proofs of the contrary, but these essentially outreached the political projection capacities of the empire. So, China, twice as much further...
It counts for China as well : "Da Qin" was at best a really vague idea, as much that "Serica" was for Romans : there's something on the other edge of the world we know, probably, exists.

Which let contacts with traders, Romans in the sense they were part of Romania but generally Hellenes or Egyptians culturally (as hinted by the roman trade goods found in eastern Asia) : giving that Indian technologies didn't were borrowed trough trade, but progressive military usage (Kushans to Persians, Persians to Arabs, Arabs to Latins, etc.) in West, such as steel metallurgy; I'm not confident in the chances of merchants pulling it in China : they would probably consider paper as a curiosity.

Does that means you couldn't have more than this IATL? Well, I wouldn't go that far. Romans emperors were victims of Alexander's Syndroma on a large scale, and even if an outright conquest of Persia is out of question on any plausible TL, a non-antagonized Persia, with more neutral or pro-Roman client kings, could be a better stepstone to Asia.

IOTL not only merchant interests but political principles neutralized Silk Roads for Romans, ITTL maybe terrestrial contacts could exists, meaning more contacts not with China directly but with empires and populations that are.

I doubt you'd have much out of it, tough : Indian cultures didn't borrowed paper from China but from Arabo-Islamic world, for instance.
Apart from really bankable trade goods, I doubt you'd have much more than more geographical precision, and maybe political treaties about "these people are doing it well, and emperors should do the same there" that would be far less about reality, than idealization of the quasi-unknown.

China and Rome are simply too far from each other. It asked, for actual European/Chinese contacts, the existence of a political continuum between China and Russia/Anatolia.
For anything more, you'd probably need to pull an ancient equivalent to Pax Mongolica.
 
So what's so shocking about the bureaucrats?

The chinese buerocrats learned not that much about administration on school. Well, memorizing every scroll of Konfuzius might had helped somewhat. But painting and pronouncing it fully correctly, which was one time consuming core of the education, rather not. The romans actually learned nothing special about administration, too. But at least the romans got some education about discoursing and legislation at the rhetor ("roman high school"). And they usually started their career after being a magistrate of a city, which granted some leadership experience and experience in legislation. We have to consider, that from a roman point of view executive administration was legislation and vice versa and fully undividable. Nevertheless, the real stuff was learned later on the job, starting with praefectus cohortis. Or primipilus and tribune in Rome, if coming from the centurionate. Both careers led to procurator and more.

So while the romans prefered men with social status, habit, and a little bit experience in civil city admiinstration (at least from the ordo decurionum), and from there military experience and more by training on the job, the chinese had a sophisticated and longterm (decades) school-system for buerocrats, I am missing in the roman world. But I can't see, how this chinese education system contributed to efficiency and knowledge (processes, tasks) in administration at all.

Ancient chinese and roman governement is somewhat similar. Knowledge about processes and tasks does not count and is not the focus of education! At least not initially. Social status, eloquence and the right mindset is much more important. And of course patronage. Both systems of education and promotion are different, but both are also weird and inefficient from our modern point of view.

PS: I forgot the third most important criterion beside social status/mindset and patronage: loyality. After these three points, there was not much room for knowledge initially. However, experience and performance became more and more important for promotions to the higher grades in the roman world. I am afraid, the chinese system, even if they had a dedicated school system for buerocrats, was not very different. It perhaps granted more mindset initially, but knowledge came later from training on the job as in the roman world. And anything further was about performance, loyality and of course patronage. While social status, which was important initially, was not essential for the higher grades.
 
Last edited:
Easy, just smash the Parthians; as they were the reason why China and Rome were so distanced. They did this on purpose, as contact would be something terrifying to the Shahanshahs.

I would recommend an early defeat of the Parthians by the Romans preferably during Hadrian/Trajan. It would certainly mean an interesting TL, and I could see the Han going as west or even further than the Tang.
 
Top