When comparing The Han Dynasty(China) with The Mauryan Empire(India), you can see similarities very clearly, but under those, distinct differences can be found. Politics in each culture resemble each other in many ways. The two empires have a sort of checks and balance system. No one ruler controls solely over the empire, but the two kingdoms are divided into provinces ruled by governors. This is a very clear point in comparing the two, but in another way, it can be a point of contrast. Even though the two political systems resemble, the Hans made notable advancements with their selecting public officials on merit and not by birth. The Mauryan offices were hereditary. Even when the Hans and the Mauryans have a sign of resemblance, each culture has their spin on the subject.
In both empires, there are definite classes formed in the social systems. The Mauryans had a strict social scale, in which you were born on, while the Han dynasty seemed to be a little more relaxed in their social scale. In India, the Caste System set the status of the people. This system kept people in their place, and movement up and down the scale was extremely uncommon. In China, the top of their social scale ruled the bottom, much like in India. The top bullied the bottom around, although, in India, people wanted nothing to do with the “untouchables”(bottom of the caste system). Both empires drew lines between social statuses, but they differed in how strong the lines were.
Farming and taxes on land seemed to serve as the base for both the Han Dynasty’s and the Mauryan Empire’s economy. The peasantry who did not own land was forced to become landless farmers. They paid rent for a living, and they worked someone else’s land. In the Han dynasty, powerful clans raised armies and bullied small farmers into becoming tenant farmers (landless farmers). Trade affected both empires, but the Han government moved more cautiously into the trade system, while India be…