Answer:
DIFFERENCES
<u>Geopolitical</u>
China's heartland was far larger and more cohesive, geographically and culturally, than Rome's. Rome had as
its heartland only central Italy, and even after conquering Italy, it held just that single peninsula bounded by
the Alps Mountains and the Mediterranean Sea. In the time of Augustus in Rome and the Han dynasty in
China, the Roman and Chinese empires each held about 60 million people, but in Rome only a few of these
millions were in Italy. In China virtually all were in "inner China," 90 percent of them in the North China Plain.
<u>Longevity and Persistence</u>
Rome's empire rose, fell, and was gone, although it lived on as a concept. China's empire has lasted for the
last two thousand years. Dynasties have come and gone, and sometimes the empire has broken into
fragments, but finally the empire endured as a single political entity. Today, although without an emperor,
China's geopolitical unity continues.
Policy and Powers of Assimilation
As China moved both north and south, it assimilated a great number of the peoples it invaded and
conquered. Non-ethnic Chinese were absorbed culturally and biologically. Many of the 95 percent of today's
Chinese population who are called "Han" are descended from ancestors who were not. The empire was held
together by Confucian and Buddhist ideology, supported by the power of the emperor and his armies. Rome's
empire was held together by law and backed by military power. Selected non-Romans could gain citizenship
under law, but ethnically and culturally the conquered peoples remained "other." Intermarriage with noncitizens was usually forbidden. Rome maintained the cultural distinctions far more than did China. .
SIMILARITIES
<u>Relations with Barbarians</u>
Both empires faced nomadic groups from central Asia who threatened and penetrated their boundaries.
Indeed, the Huns, who invaded Europe, and the Xiongnu, who invaded China, may have belonged to the same
ethnic group. Both empires settled the "Barbarians" near their borders and enlisted them in the imperial
armies. In both cases, the Barbarians came to hold great power. Ultimately, however, they dismembered the
Roman Empire while they were absorbed by the Chinese.
<u>Religious Policies</u>
Both empires incubated foreign religions, especially in times of imperial disorder, but in Rome, Christianity
did not save the empire, and by challenging the significance of earthly power it may even have contributed to
the empire's weakness. In China, Buddhism was absorbed into Confucianism and Daoism and helped to
sustain the national culture in times of political trouble.
<u>The Role of the Emperor</u>
Both empires ascribed divine attributes to the emperor, and both frequently had difficulty in establishing
rules for imperial succession. The Romans often attempted to choose their best general, while the Chinese
selected a man who could control the imperial family and court. Neither empire believed that a single
imperial family should rule forever.
<u>Gender Relationships</u>
Both empires subordinated women to men at all stages of life, and both drew analogies between hierarchies
and loyalties in a well-run family and those in a well-run empire. Both empires used marriages as means of
confirming political alliances with foreign powers. Both periodically felt that excessive concern with sexual
relationships was distracting energy away from the demands of sustaining the empire and instituted strict
codes of sexual morality. In China, far more than in Rome, women of the imperial family played an important
role in politics behind the scenes, particularly in terms of determining succession. One woman, the Empress
Wu (r. 690-705), took the throne herself.
<u>The Significance of Imperial Armies</u>
In both empires, the army was crucial in creating and sustaining the political structure in the face of domestic
and foreign enemies. The Roman Empire as established and ruled by generals, as were the Qin, Han, Sui, and
Tang dynasties in China the empires were periodically threatened and usurped by rebel generals asserting
their own authority. The cost of the armies, especially on distant, unprofitable expeditions, often bankrupted
the government and encouraged its subjects to evade taxes and military service and even to rise in revolt.
The Deployment of Armies of Colonization
Both empires used colonies of soldier-colonizers to garrison and develop remote areas while simultaneously
providing compensation and retirement benefits for the troops.
please mark as brainliest