'The Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire\r'

'The Han dynasty stressed effectiveness in their tools, as well as victimisation applied science to retain natural disasters and elaborate in their society. The papistics, however, marveled at their civilization’s innovations, scarce rejected idolizing those who flirted with tools and crafts. The control of pissing was significant in both the Han dynasty and the papist Empire (Docs 1 and 8). Han decreeds reckond water system saving officers and hydraulic engineers should work together to prevent flooding (Doc 1). The writer requested the governing body of water conservation officers in severally district, and inspections of waterways, walls, etc.Along with necessary repairs (Doc 1). Document 1 is a letter from a Han disposal functionary concerning flood prevention. Considering the status of the writer of account 1 and the fact that the letter is instructional, it seems presumable to assume he knows what he’s talking nearly. The Romans also usaged wate r engineering, aqueducts, to supply the cities with water (Doc 8). Frontinus boasted about the abundance of water for â€Å"public and private uses (Doc 8). ” As a water commissioner, the writer of schedule 8 only talks about the positives of the water system, possibly to make himself demeanor respectable in the eyes of his superiors.An additive schedule from a common citizen of capital of Italy describing how aqueducts positively affect their life would endorse Frontinus, who only provides an ordained government target of view. twain the Roman and the Han officials wanted to use technology to control water for the reach of the citizens, except for the Han dynasty, it was more necessary to thrive. Huan tangent, an tweedy Han philosopher, speaks of Fuxi, the wise emperor moth butterfly and inventor of the revenue stamp and mortar (Doc 3). After Fuxi’s invention, on that point was an improvement in technology with the domain of water power (Doc 3).The attitude toward technology in this enrolment is as technology as a â€Å"gift” from novice emperors. Huan Tan, because a philosopher, would praise technology from the emperor as Confucian philosophy views the emperor as a kind father-figure. Huan Tan may have written this document praising the emperor as a way of flattering the current government in hopes of achieving a high schooler official position. Like Fuxi, Tu Shih, governor of Nanyang, was also a wise and enlightened leader (Doc 4).Tu Shih actual a water-powered blowing-engine that was a labor-saving device, to facilitate cast iron agricultural implements. â€Å"Tu Shih loved the common the great unwashed and wished to save their labor” (Doc 4). engineering in this document is also seen as a â€Å"gift” from enlightened leadership. The writer of this document could have been trying to please the emperor in order to reach a higher position in office. two of these documents memorialise that the Han dy nasty saw technology as a way to improve in their society and for the wide-cutness of their people.Cicero, an property-owning Roman political leader describes those who work with their hand as vulgar or common, accept that gentlemen do not work with their custody (Doc 5). Cicero speaks of hired-workers and craftsmen as having unfit occupations (Doc 5). Technology is comprehend as necessary in this document, but not fit for enlightened minds. Cicero cannot accurately judge technology’s contact because he is a member of the elect(ip) and does not work with technology. According to Seneca, an upper-class Roman philosopher, technology takes macrocosm smart, but not enlightenment (Doc 7).Seneca does not believe in the importance of individual scientific creations and believes there is a difference among those who work with their hands and those who work with their minds (Doc 7). Both documents show negative Roman attitudes and ar degrading towards technology. Huan Guan , a Han government official, suggests that good government should correct the situation of sub-standard tools (Doc 2). instead than him being negative towards technology, he is being negative towards the government’s role. He believes that technology is brisk to peasant employment and is the government’s responsibility to declare it (Doc 2).Plutarch, a Roman high official describes Roman leader, Gauis Gracchus’ improved road edifice in a glorifying report (Doc 6). Technology according to this document has a pragmatical side, but also one of esthetics (Doc 6). As a high-ranking official, Plutarch praises other political leader possibly anxious to obtain a promotion. Both documents show technology as necessary, but the Han dynasty shows a need for technology and the Roman conglomerate makes improvements that are not necessarily vital to their society.Additional documents by women would have been helpful in exploring whether there are similarities or diffe rences in Han and Roman attitudes according to gender. Also, documents by workers or the lower class would have effrontery different perspectives toward attitudes and views on technology, instead of high officials who do not personally work with technology. The Han dynasty, because of natural disasters and the good of their civilization, were pushed to improve on technology while the Roman imperium admired their great, unneeded innovations.\r\n'