Would Rome and Han China have benefited from greater trade and contact?

The two empires tended to do trade through intermediaries, however what if there was a closer alignment in trade and communication than otl? What are technologies or sciences they could have shared to mutual benefit?
 
Probably better that they dont, else i imagine roman currency would be even more unstable as gold and silver flowed east
 
Probably better that they dont, else i imagine roman currency would be even more unstable as gold and silver flowed east

Unless they could figure out something to counterbalance trade flows. More direct contact might well mean that trade includes things other than top tier luxury goods.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
But this closer trade relation is feasible probably only if we see Agricultural and hence settled empires across the Central Asia and North East Asia as I mentioned in the other thread. Otherwise,it is not so easy. Even then,Rome needs to be very careful in keeping the Tocharian,Iranian,Mongol,Turkic,Mongol kingdoms that would exist then on their side and happy to give a safe passage for Roman merchants.
 
I've heard a few suggestions that China might've become a major consumer of Roman glass. How plausible is that?
I imagine they would have eventually gotten methods to make glass on their own (glass, porcelain, silk, etc were closely guarded secrets for many countries due to the economic value) though Roman (and their successors) glass would still have been extra prestigious due to how far off it came from. Things being foreign adds a certain level of mystique to things. Apparently int he Soviet Union Russians adored getting things from the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Though it sometimes came down to quality. For instance, both the Soviets and some Eastern Europeans used the same recipes for jam. The Eastern Europeans simply used the amount of sugar the recipe called for.
 
Ideas and methods of production seem like the more fruitful thing than trade. Even if not directly sharing methods, exchanging ideas about what is possible will cause each culture to redevelop the same methods again.

Biggest differences that spring to mind at this time are China has improved cast iron metallurgy, better kiln designs and paper.

Production in paper probably less advantage over other technologies than we might think, but still huge effects if the civilization is able to sustain any kind of industrial production of paper and reproduction of texts. Increasing the size of libraries means much more robusticity against the loss of classical literate culture - the circum-Mediterranean civilization would be less likely to lose works like "On the Ocean", the poetry of Pindar, lost mathematics, etc. Would also be a boost to development of religions "of the book" which were an instrument of mass literacy. Woodblock printing could meet the olive press early and lead to Gutenberg type presses, and that would further add a lot of robusticity to maintaining literate culture. Mass cast iron tools would a nice addition to Rome's industrial strength.

Too early for anything to happen with other "Great Inventions of Ancient China"; black powder, navigational compass (roughly these tend to be invented in a later timeframe and then spread or parallel invented very quickly after with 200-300 years).

Exposure to Chinese methods in government and governmental philosophy might also spur Rome towards a more bureaucratized model of government, less reliant on army to run functions of state, and that may lead to more stability in the long run. (My point of view actually being that China unity and European multi-state is probably more about geography of peninsulas vs passes and hills, and about multi directional vs uni-directional threats, and about a more diverse linguistic, cultural and religious situation, but it could have an effect).

Not sure about the other way from Rome - lead metallurgy, concrete, Greek axiomatic methods in mathematics, a tradition where a phonetic script is associated with civilized peer state rather than lesser barbarian cultures?
 
Probably better that they dont, else i imagine roman currency would be even more unstable as gold and silver flowed east

Is it not the other way around? I'm in the belief that Rome would have been richer had it cut middlemen out of the trade with the farther east. I'm looking at Persia in particular.
 
A culinary effect of China-Rome contact could be the spread of condiments and alcoholic beverages using cultured Aspergillus Oryzae into the Roman sphere (sake, soy sauce, miso). That would probably mean something like the Murri of the later post-Roman Arabic sphere (https://www.cooksinfo.com/murri) developing earlier to complement Roman brined fish sauces (like Garum, developing into Colatura di Alici), maybe using local lupin beans (minority use as an alternative to soy bean today, a popular food in Rome). That might lead downstream to less emphasis on meat and dairy to add flavour to food, and less intensive stockraising (though still probably more than most of East Asia today).
 
Is it not the other way around? I'm in the belief that Rome would have been richer had it cut middlemen out of the trade with the farther east. I'm looking at Persia in particular.
Going off great Britain's experiences that lead to the opium wars, id say no
 
Top