Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
Note: this page was imported from wikipedia. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires for more information. --mikeu talk 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: in order to avoid confusion from between old (Wikipedia) and new (Wikiversity) discussion a significant proportion of discussions were archived here.--Gbaor 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Inaccurate data and misleading switch on Roman and Han metallurgical production[edit source]
It cites inaccurate data about Roman metal production that contradicts wikipedia's own page. For example it claims the Romans only product 4,500 tons of iron, and negligible amounts of copper and lead and small amounts of gold and silver. This directly contradicts Wikipedia, which states The Romans produced 82,500 tons of iron, 15,000t of copper, 80,000 t of lead, 200t of silver, and 9+ t of gold. See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#Mining_and_metallurgy
Furthermore, it seems someone decided to switch the Roman statistics with the Han Dynasty statistics. The numbers for the Han Dynasty are actually the numbers for the Romans. For example, the page here states "[gold production] entire order of magnitude lower than output in any one of the most profitable Han provinces" but the link it cites actually says the Han gold production is lower than the Roman gold production. The actual link states "entire order of magnitude lower than output in any one of the most profitable Roman provinces."
Inaccurate data & wrong info/incorrect cite attributions[edit source]
Furthermore, this section cites "Wagner, Donald B.: "The State and the Iron Industry in Han China", NIAS Publishing, Copenhagen 2001, ISBN 87-87062-77-1, p. 73" in saying Han Dynasty iron production was 95,000 tons per year.
However, in the actual source book on p. 73, it states the Han Empire had 5,000 tons of annual iron production, but this figure was not very accurate. Nowhere in the book does it give a figure of 95,000 tons of iron.
Source link: https://books.google.com/books?id=hgpCx2c9JQEC&q=about+5%2C000#v=snippet&q=about%205%2C000&f=false
Delete?[edit source]
So... it seems confusing to have this on Wikipedia and Wikiversity... I think this should be deleted, and created if and when it is deleted from Wikipedia. Azoreg 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- See the archives. Never delete, when it is not necessary :) --Gbaor 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The evidence of the groups that the han fought and the Huns which the romans fought are the same group is unlikely. The Huns also ceased to exist as a main threat before the Roman (Western Empire) fell. More focus should be on the actual Germans.
Delete[edit source]
This jingoistic version was deleted on Wikipedia, so why should it be kept here? Please don't tell me that standards of research and truthfulness are really that much lower here. 80.135.218.206 11:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikiversity means you can have far more information, people thinking for themselves, not needing to find a published book or news source to quote every single thing from. Dream Focus 04:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Finally[edit source]
YES! This is what we need here! Original + quality research! Congrat to the authors, keep it going! --Gbaor 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is this the Wiki-'University' equivalent of an orgasm? Seems to me this is rather what you need... Gun Powder Ma 17:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Orgasm equivalent :) ha-ha! I would not call it this way, but to say the truth, I am really happy to have this material here. It is the perfect example what is discouraged at Wikipedia, but very welcomed at Wikiversity! And WV is not just for tertiary education stuff... --Gbaor 08:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Why so much removed?[edit source]
[1] A lot of stuff was removed. Showing how each empire did its military, I think is important, since that was an important aspect of their empires. Any reason that isn't there? Dream Focus 04:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yunnan Not Conquered by Han[edit source]
The Han Dynasty did not wrest control of Yunnan, as far as I am aware. The Needham reference should be backed up by more modern research if this is asserted. Yunnan did not come under the yoke of Chinese governance until the Yuan Dynasty after Mongol invasion and negotiation with the powerful Yi peoples who controlled the Sichuan/Yunnan mountainous hinterland. Pratyeka 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you must not know about Emperor Wudi of Han's conquest of the Dian Kingdom. In 109 BC, Emperor Wudi of Han conquered the Dian kingdom and set up Yizhou County here, located in present-day Jinning District, Kunming. There was also a Yongchang Commandery with an address in present-day Dali, Yunnan Province.
- 永昌郡_百度百科 (baidu.com)
- 益州郡_百度百科 (baidu.com)
- 滇国_百度百科 (baidu.com) 李双能 (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Edit request from Intranetusa, 22 July 2017[edit source]
This page contains a lot of inaccurate data, cites that don't support the statement, and data that has been flipped (the information for the Romans are actually for the Han, and the information for the Han are actually for Romans).
It cites inaccurate data about Roman metal production that contradicts wikipedia's own page. For example it claims the Romans only produced 4,500 tons of iron, and negligible amounts of copper and lead and small amounts of gold and silver. This directly contradicts Wikipedia, which states The Romans produced 82,500 tons of iron, 15,000t of copper, 80,000 t of lead, 200t of silver, and 9+ t of gold. See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy#Mining_and_metallurgy
It claims that the Han Dynasty had 10,000 tons of silver, but the actual source and wikipedia says it was the Romans who had 10,000 tons of silver.
Furthermore, it seems someone decided to switch the Roman statistics with the Han Dynasty statistics. The numbers for the Han Dynasty are actually the numbers for the Romans. For example, the page here states "[gold production] entire order of magnitude lower than output in any one of the most profitable Han provinces" but the link it cites actually says the Han gold production is lower than the Roman gold production. The actual link states "entire order of magnitude lower than output in any one of the most profitable Roman provinces."
There are other examples of misquoting. For example, this section cites "Wagner, Donald B.: "The State and the Iron Industry in Han China", NIAS Publishing, Copenhagen 2001, ISBN 87-87062-77-1, p. 73" in saying Han Dynasty iron production was 95,000 tons per year.
However, in the actual source book on p. 73, it states the Han Empire had 5,000 tons of annual iron production, but this figure was not very accurate. Nowhere in the book does it give a figure of 95,000 tons of iron.
Source link: https://books.google.com/books?id=hgpCx2c9JQEC&q=about+5%2C000#v=snippet&q=about%205%2C000&f=false
Are the authors here just ignorant about Chinese literature？[edit source]
For example, why can't we use Chinese archeology and literature for Han metal production? 24.13.250.220 (discuss) 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I question the amount of steel produced in the Roman Empire.[edit source]
As far as I know, there were about 50 steel factories in the Han Dynasty, with more than 100,000 workers at their peak and 70,000 at their lowest. But it is also impossible to produce such a high steel output. And the Roman Empire does not seem to have built any large steel plants, can there really be such a high steel production? 李双能 (discuss • contribs) 03:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)