Rise and Fall of Empires

When are empires considered to have collapsed?

• Where there is no more money in the central treasury

• When the central state is no longer able to wield power

• When their most prominent emperor dies

Which of the following empires rose due in large part to factors related to political and military leadership?

Choose all answers that apply:

• Rome

• Maurya

• Achaemenid Persia

What is true about the processes by which empires rose?

• The rise of empires generally involved mass religious conversion of a population

• Processes were rarely the same across different empires

• Empires always rose as a result of military conquest

What is an empire?

• A territory united by a common language and set of beliefs

• A centralized state that has many alliances with other states

• A centralized state that has political control over many territories

Before answering the question, read the following excerpt.

The Han dynasty was contemporaneous [existed at the same time] with the Roman Empire and has often been compared to it. Han and Rome both had strong governments that expanded geographically, promoted assimilation, and brought centuries of stability to the central regions. Both managed to deal with enormous problems of scale, ruling roughly similar numbers of people over roughly similar expanses of land. Both developed bureaucratic institutions, staffing them with educated landowners. Both invested in the construction of roads, defensive walls, and waterworks. Both were threatened by barbarians at their frontiers and often used barbarian tribal units as military auxiliaries.

The contrasts between the Han and Roman empires are equally instructive. China was a civilization based much more profoundly on crop agriculture. Not only did animal husbandry play less of a role in agriculture, but cities and commerce played a lesser role in the overall economy. Cultural cohesion was also of a different order in Han China than in Rome. Perhaps because of the Chinese script, it is much easier to talk about a common culture among the elite in Han China than in the Roman Empire.

From Patricia Buckley Ebrey, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 2010), 85.

What similarities have been demonstrated by comparing Han China and Rome?

• Both had relatively stable and unthreatened frontiers

• Both had bureaucratic institutions and built infrastructure, such as roads

• Both achieved similarly high levels of cultural cohesion

• Both depended more on animal husbandry and commerce than crop agriculture for their economies

Before answering the question, read the following excerpt.

The Han dynasty was contemporaneous [existed at the same time] with the Roman Empire and has often been compared to it. Han and Rome both had strong governments that expanded geographically, promoted assimilation, and brought centuries of stability to the central regions. Both managed to deal with enormous problems of scale, ruling roughly similar numbers of people over roughly similar expanses of land. Both developed bureaucratic institutions, staffing them with educated landowners. Both invested in the construction of roads, defensive walls, and waterworks. Both were threatened by barbarians at their frontiers and often used barbarian tribal units as military auxiliaries.

The contrasts between the Han and Roman empires are equally instructive. China was a civilization based much more profoundly on crop agriculture. Not only did animal husbandry play less of a role in agriculture, but cities and commerce played a lesser role in the overall economy. Cultural cohesion was also of a different order in Han China than in Rome. Perhaps because of the Chinese script, it is much easier to talk about a common culture among the elite in Han China than in the Roman Empire.

From Patricia Buckley Ebrey, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 2010), 85.

Why might historians see value in comparing Han China and Rome?

• They had many interactions with each other

• They existed at the same time and had similar political structures.

• All comparisons have historical value.

• They existed at the same time and had nothing else in common.

Before answering the question, read the following excerpt.

[Rome] was a highly aggressive society, but one that understood a vital political truth: military victory can be secured only by reconciliation with the defeated. Although most empire-builders in the ancient world were cruel and unforgiving, this was not altogether an original insight. Thus, after his conquest of the Persian Empire in the fourth century...Alexander the Great promoted leading [locals] to positions of power in his new administration and insisted on harmony between victor and vanquished...he even forced his soldiers to marry local women. What was remarkable about the Romans was the consistency, over many centuries, with which they pursued their policy. They could see that it enabled them not only to foster consent [grow agreement] to their rule among their former enemies but also to constantly enlarge their population and, by the same token, the manpower available to their armies.

From Anthony Everitt, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World’s Greatest Empire (New York: Random House Publishing, 2012), 62.

What is Everitt’s claim about why the Romans were able to build a successful empire?

• Roman soldiers were forced to marry women in the colonies, which ensured that Roman children would be born there and continue empire expansion

• They followed a consistent policy of forming good relationships with the people they conquered, which allowed them to expand the population of their empire

• They took money from the territories they conquered and put it into infrastructure and trade, which expanded their empire

• They followed examples from other empires in the ancient world by being cruel and unforgiving

Before answering the question, read the following excerpt.

[Rome] was a highly aggressive society, but one that understood a vital political truth: military victory can be secured only by reconciliation with the defeated. Although most empire-builders in the ancient world were cruel and unforgiving, this was not altogether an original insight. Thus, after his conquest of the Persian Empire in the fourth century...Alexander the Great promoted leading [locals] to positions of power in his new administration and insisted on harmony between victor and vanquished...he even forced his soldiers to marry local women. What was remarkable about the Romans was the consistency, over many centuries, with which they pursued their policy. They could see that it enabled them not only to foster consent [grow agreement] to their rule among their former enemies but also to constantly enlarge their population and, by the same token, the manpower available to their armies.

From Anthony Everitt, The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World’s Greatest Empire (New York: Random House Publishing, 2012), 62.

Which of the following best explains why Everitt uses the comparison between Roman policy and that of Alexander the Great?

• Everitt wanted to show how both Alexander the Great and Rome conquered Persia

• Everitt wanted to show that many rulers in the ancient world befriended the people they conquered

• Everitt wanted to show how Alexander the Great and Roman emperors differed in their attitudes towards marrying local women

• Everitt wanted to show there was a historical model for empires pursuing good relationships with the people they conquered