Attitudes of War in Ancient Civilizations

When comparing Han China and Classical Rome, many political, geographical, and religious similarities can be found, though many differences are also prevalent. Though Roman and Han political structures both emphasized bureaucracies, they came to them quite differently. Through copious amounts of expansion, both societies spread culture and earned money, though expansion was eventually their downfalls. Their religions differed immensely, with Rome emphasizing polytheism and Han China focusing on Confucianism. The differences and similarities between these two civilizations are to be discussed in this essay.

In China during 406-221 BCE, the battling states between the Zhou and the Han Dynasties? were in a state of governmental disorder. Although the era was in a disruptive state, it ushered in a cultural opening that left a long lasting imprint on the Chinese history. As a result, three major belief systems surfaced Confucianism, Daoism, and Legalism in an attempt to achieve a sense of political order in a disorder period. There are distinctions in the way each of the belief systems approached the many problems that plagued the Chinese society. First, all of the founders were contemporaries in China. As well as considered philosophies, who studied the future, and sat out to focus on the present rather than the past. In contrast, Confucianism, Daoism and Legalism established various paths in search of an optimistic future for the success of China. Second, both Legalism and Confucianism developed a social belief system, but are considered a religion. However, both Legalism and Confucianism purpose was to create an orderly society in the hopes of prosperity. In contrast, Daoism does

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

Pericles continues even further, explaining that this sacrifice was an example of Athenian greatness. His speech discusses further that Athenians would rather die resisting than to live submitting. They fled only from dishonour but never from their enemies intent on destroying them. Pericles words further praise there brave soldiers who perished in battle. Pericles goes on to say that Athenians vengeance upon their enemies was to be desired more than any personal blessings. He says that war with Athens’ enemies was to be the most glorious of hazards. They had accepted the honorable risk again and died a glorious death. He conveys again to the Athenians citizens that destroying their enemies was the highest honor an Athenians could hope to obtain. Pericles encourages the audience to live up to the standards set by their fallen Athenians. Pericles offered his comfort but didn’t express condolences to the families of the fallen who were present in the crowds.

Discussion of militaries in public school is often relegated to battle and military strategy. However, there are several more layers that go into handling and continuing any force of consequence. Societies throughout history have tackled these extra layers in their own ways. Examination of the primary documents “Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror” by ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini, “Conscription and Professional Soldiers in Song China” by Ouyang Xiu and Fan Zhen, and “The Challenges of Raising an Army” by Zia’ al-Din Barani details the contrasting ways in which thirteenth century Mongolia, Song China, and Delhi handled the upkeep, recruitment, and organization of their respective militaries. Examination also reveals

The Han Dynasty of Ancient China was one of the most prominent and long lasting societies of the time. However, they were not untouched by the ravages of the world, and despite their Confucius roots, there was a war to be fought. The Salt and Iron debate is an example of how the Confucianism of the time affected the strategy of the war. Should the government stick to their principles, or protect their empire? When is the time to say “enough is enough”?

The Han Dynasty and Imperial Rome were two greatly advanced civilizations for their time period and their success was no fluke. Both dynasties gained their success through a handful of varying ideas and strategies involving the economy, military, and social structures. However, one of the greatest factors that determined the respective dynasty’s futures was their methods of political control. The Han Dynasty and Roman Empire agreed on some major aspects and ideas of politics, but also had diverging views on a few subjects. For example, one major topic both groups disagreed on is the form of government. Some examples of subjects they both agreed on was the focus on infrastructure and trade.

The two great civilizations of Imperial Rome (31 B.C.E. - 476 C.E.) and Han China (206 B.C.E.- 220 C.E.) were both two of the greatest civilizations ever built.In addition to the great advancements these two dynasties made, the governments of these civilizations each had ways of maintaining political control over their subjects. Although the two dynasties ways of political control were very similar, there were also major differences. The use of centralized government and military were both political power similarities among both civilizations. A major difference was that Han China was based on Confucianism, which emphasized the family unit and order while Rome was based on law and order. Another major difference between the two nations was their citizenship policies. These differences and similarities are what made these nations what they were.

When comparing Han China and Roman Empire, many political, geographical, and religious similarities can be found, though many differences are also prevalent. Though Roman and Han political structures both emphasized bureaucracies, they came to them quite differently. Through many amounts of expansion, both societies spread culture and earned money, though expansion was eventually their downfalls. Their religions differed immensely, with Rome emphasizing polytheism and Han China focusing on Confucianism. The differences and similarities between these two civilizations are to be discussed in this essay. One might ask, Which civilization yielded the best economy during this era?

Complied during the Warring States Period, the Daodejing is widely known as one of China’s famous philosophy literature. This text reflects the general lament of a civilization that has been worn down from war and seeks to find peace by teaching people how to live by “the Way”. From a war-torn perspective, the Daodejing deems war and government corruption as evil and traces them back to greedy and power-hungry motives. As a successor to Confucius, it still carries some of his ethics. Because of its mystical overtones, it has acquired a large variety of interpretations. Its main teaching is if a person does nothing, then peace will be restored; it is the concept of non-action or 无为。When a person does not try to interfere and allows things to

The soldier’s lives should be remembered but not their deaths. The speech reminds Athenians what their ancestors have died for and mournful citizens should be proud they died defending the freedom of their country Athens. The oration also reminds Athenians of their greatness because of the fact that Athenian warriors have more to fight for. Athenian warriors are fighting not only for their country but also for their family, friends and other communities in the city. These warriors have more to lose because they are fighting for everyone in the city. During this time possessions were incredibly significant. Wars were usually about gaining land and having as much land as possible. Soldiers were not afraid of dying during combat and chose the most “honorable” course of action by fighting boldly and courageously. In this way, Athens was able to accomplish an enormous army and standard of living, without the harsh everyday training found in city-states.

Pericles was known for being a powerful speaker and in the end, the Athenians took his advice and war soon followed. A year after war broke out, Pericles was once again invited to speak, this time at the customary public funeral for those who had fallen in combat. What follows is arguably the best eulogy in history. For the families of the fallen soldiers he states that they did not truly die, for “famous men have the whole earth as their memorial…not in any visible form but in people’s hearts, [where] their memory abides and grows.” Of Athens he says, “Future ages will wonder at us, as the present age wonders at us now.” Pericles is able to remain optimistic of Athens’ victory and

Pericles spoke to the public about the soldiers who had just died. He wanted the citizens to remember the soldiers but to forget about the tragedy that had occurred. He wanted the soldier's lives to be remembered, not their deaths. The speech helped the Athenians remember and appreciate what their ancestors have died for and how mournful citizens should be proud that their friends and family died defending the freedom of their country. The oration also had Athenians realise their greatness; this greatness derives from the fact that Athenian warriors had more to fight for. Athenian warriors fought not only for their country but also for their family, friends and other communities in the city. These warriors have more to lose because they are fighting for everyone in the city. It was during this time that possessions were incredibly significant. Wars were usually fought over the gaining of land and each country wanting as much land as possible. Soldiers were not afraid of dying during combat in fact they believed it to be the most "honourable" way to die. It was due to this that Athens was able to produce an enormous army and have a very prosperous standard of living, without the harsh everyday training found in other city-states.

We have covered the general accounts of human nature found in Confucianism and Taoism in light of the historical backdrop of the Period of Warring States. Use your responses to the following general questions below as an opportunity to refer either to the Smith text and accompanying assigned scriptures(s), Smith video(s) on China, Confucianism, and Taoism, or any additional material covered in class. Look ahead to the next question on the chun tzu in order to plan on avoiding repetition of answers verbatim within each essay if there are areas of potential overlap.

War is strongly ingrained into our world today whether we like it or not and while it may seem more prevalent and worse lately considering the advances in technology and the increase in hysteria over security, war is not a recent adjunct to society. That poses the question, where does war come from? As human beings, are we hard-wired biologically to fight each other or is it a behaviour influenced by peers and morals?