This document discusses the convergence and subsequent divergence of state formation between the Roman Empire and Han China in the first millennium CE. It notes that by around 500 CE, the Roman Empire had split into eastern and western halves ruled by different regimes, while China experienced a period of fragmentation into multiple states before reunifying by the 6th century. However, by 900 CE, the area of the former Roman Empire was occupied by 11 major states and smaller entities, indicating a significant divergence after an earlier period of convergence between the two empires in terms of their political development.
This document discusses the convergence and subsequent divergence of state formation between the Roman Empire and Han China in the first millennium CE. It notes that by around 500 CE, the Roman Empire had split into eastern and western halves ruled by different regimes, while China experienced a period of fragmentation into multiple states before reunifying by the 6th century. However, by 900 CE, the area of the former Roman Empire was occupied by 11 major states and smaller entities, indicating a significant divergence after an earlier period of convergence between the two empires in terms of their political development.
This document discusses the convergence and subsequent divergence of state formation between the Roman Empire and Han China in the first millennium CE. It notes that by around 500 CE, the Roman Empire had split into eastern and western halves ruled by different regimes, while China experienced a period of fragmentation into multiple states before reunifying by the 6th century. However, by 900 CE, the area of the former Roman Empire was occupied by 11 major states and smaller entities, indicating a significant divergence after an earlier period of convergence between the two empires in terms of their political development.
Yet this contrast, while noteworthy, must not be overrated. Roman
city officials and Han provincial agents hailed from comparable socio- economic backgrounds, and the formally bureaucratic features of Han administration barely masked rampant patronage and simony, which were similarly common in the Roman empire. Roman self-governing plutocrats and Han salaried state agents w ere equally a dept at siphoning off resources claimed by the center, and landlords shielded their own assets and t hose of their clients, slowly but surely eroding the founda- tions of the imperial edifice. Whatever differences remained in terms of the relative weight of the military and civilian spheres, of center and periphery, and of bureaucracy and local self-rule, they w ere very much a matter of degree. Driven by the internal logic of traditional empire, the two systems had become about as similar as their discrepant starting conditions permitted them to be.10
MI D-F I RST-M ILLENNIUM EUR OPE:
TH E F I RST G REAT DIVERGENCE
This gradual if imperfect convergence makes the following divergence
in state formation seem even more striking. That process spanned roughly the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era. By about 500 CE, the Roman empire had split into an eastern half, ruled from Constantinople, and five major kingdoms under Germanic suc- cessor regimes in the west, a number that fell to only two within the next few decades. In China, the collapse of the Jin empire ushered in the period of the “Sixteen Kingdoms,” a series of often ephemeral polities. Yet by the early fifth century, just two states controlled the northern and southern halves of China. This number fluctuated between two and three u ntil the late sixth c entury when the north conquered the south. With only a brief interruption, China was then at least formally unified until around 900. The Song restoration ended another period of frag- mentation in the first half of the tenth century. By then, eleven major states, alongside a number of smaller entities, occupied the area once held by the Roman empire. Moreover, the larger