answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

If this did happen, it probably went the other way around.

This supposed marriage of a Roman prince and a Chinese princess was popularized by the Malaysian 2011 film, The Malay Chronicles: Bloodlines (Clash of Empires), directed by Yusry Abdul Halim, and distributed by KRU Studios. This film itself was somewhat based on the Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa--an ancient Malaysian historical document of which does have some historical accuracies as well as other recordings that do not have similar recordings in other documents from outside Malaysia.

Though there was neither a direct mentioning of the wedding of a Roman prince and a Chinese princess in Roman nor Chinese records, it is not to say that it did not happen. In fact, it could very well have happened.

In the 1st century CE and certainly the 2nd century CE, both the Roman Empire and the Han Chinese Empire have been exploring, traveling and trading with lands beyond their own imperial borders. Some say that the mutual knowledge between the two empires were dim, but actually Rome and China, despite the rather vast distance between them, were very well aware of each other's existence for in the 1st century CE, there were already attempts for each side to reach each other with some historical documentation--few but definiteley some. Attempts to reach one another could not have happened unless there was a modest level of mutual knowledge of the empires and of the mutual benefits that could have ensued. The Silk Road certainly helped contacts between Rome and China, no matter how slight or major, occur as well in which there was Roman glassware for Chinese silk. Emperor Hadrian of Rome (alive and ruling at 120CE) also was an emperor, who did not care to conquer more territory, but instead cared to build better Roman infrastructure, establish peace with neighboring kingdoms, and establish more flourishing trade. So, it is likely that Hadrian may well have approved of a high-ranking Roman nobleman to marry a high-ranking Chinese noblewoman too.

Yet to answer your question, if this marriage had happened, it would have likely been a Chinese princess marrying into the Roman nobility. In Rome, it was very well known that many different people from throughout the Roman Empire and many other different people from further lands in contact with Rome, lived in and visited the great European city. So, the other way around would have more likely resulted. In fact, at the beginning of the Clash of Empires film, the Chinese princess was shown in Rome, wearing a Roman dress.

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Did a roman prince around 120AD ever marry into the Chinese Han Dynasty?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

When did Plutarch become a Roman citizen?

There is no information on the web about what year Plutarch become a Roman citizen. It is known that he was born in the year 46AD and died in 120AD and studied in Athens from 66AD - 67AD and at some point became a Roman Citizen, the exact year or date remains unknown.


What is Tacitus known for?

Publius Cornelius Tacitus [56-117 AD/ CE], Senator and Historia, most famous works were the Annals [Tiberius, Nero] and the Histories [Year of 4 emperors, Vespasian, Flavian Dynasty]. In this work it is examined the reign of the Roman Emperors from the death of Augustus [14 AD/ CE] up to the death of Domitian [96 AD/ CE].Tacitus (Publius cornelius) was a historian in the Roman Empire (ca.56-120AD). He wrote about the roman Empire and was rather pessimistic considering the period of the roman history after the end of the Republic. Not all of his works had been preserved (The Annals, Histories).


What is the pantheon used for?

There are several buildings called Pantheon. The word translates as All Gods. If you are talking about the existing massive one in Rome, it has niches for seven statues (long disappeared). This plus the cupola representing the sky indicates it was for the seven 'planets' that the Romans knew of at the time (including the sun and the moon). So the All Gods were the planetary ones. One niche has a more prominent pedistal, so it was likely for Juppiter Optimus Maximus (Jupiter Best and Greatest).


Who wrote the first science fiction?

Jules Verne (French) l9th and ealry 20Th centuries) is generally considered the Father of Science Fiction. He wrote other genres, though such as Michael Strogoff which was straight out adventure about an IKGB Operative under the Czar. Aroudn the World in 80 Days (l872) is not strictly speaking science fiction. on the other hand 20,000 Leagues, Master of the World, Journey to the cneter of the Earth etc. are.


What difference is there between the early Church and the Church today?

there was no early catholic church. the catholic was developed in the the years after Christ's death****************************************************************Apart from the Catholic church the early church was one and had no divisions concerning orthodox, protestant, or catholic.Answer:There are many differences between the early church and what passes for the church today. Perhaps too many to list here.First, there was only the Old Testament in the beginning... what some modern Christians call the "Jewish Bible." The early church PREACHED JESUS CHRIST out of it. There aren't many modern preachers who will or can do that.Throughout the New Testament are "Old Testament" quotes and teachings. Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God from the Old Testament. He brought "illumination" to the Old Testament... an enlightened "spiritual application" to the scriptures that provides understanding to those who believe, not only in Him, but in what He says.And before He ascended into heaven, he opened and illuminated the minds of His disciples so that they too would understand and be able to preach spiritual enlightenment from those "old scriptures" that some modern Christians consider to be dead:"...He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in THE LAW OF MOSES, and in the PROPHETS, and in the PSALMS, CONCERNING ME. Then opened He their understanding, THAT THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES..." (Luke 24:44-45).Modern professing Christianity's New Testament isn't a Bible unto itself, as some denominations regard it while rejecting the Old Testament. The New Testament is end time enlightenment for God's elect in the last days to understand the prophecies of old.Until Christ... the scriptures were "closed to understanding" by men:"...thou, O Daniel, SHUT UP THE WORDS, and SEAL THE BOOK, EVEN UNTO THE TIME OF THE END: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased... and I heard, but I UNDERSTOOD NOT: then said I... what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for THE WORDS ARE CLOSED UP AND SEALED TILL THE TIME OF THE END... none of the wicked shall understand; but THE WISE SHALL UNDERSTAND..." (Dan.12:4-10).The New Testament, which the Apostles didn't even know they were writing... are letters of spiritual instruction and revelation to God's latter day church, that provides the understanding God promised Daniel would come to the "wise" at the time of the end."Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. SERVE THE LORD WITH FEAR, and rejoice with trembling." (Ps.2:10-11)"The FEAR OF THE LORD is the beginning of WISDOM: and knowledge of the Holy is UNDERSTANDING." (Prov.9:10)The difference between the early church and the churches calling themselves Christian today are too many. The Bible was smaller in the beginning and enlightenment was in its infancy, preparing to blossom into a whole new testament that only the "wise" of God's end time church would understand.Do the divided churches of today truly "fear" God? Do they "tremble" at God's Word? Do they "understand" what Daniel did not? Or do they doubt the early church's small Bible?Do they keep the Holy Day feasts of God commanded in the small Bible the early church kept? Do they keep the Commanded Sabbath day the early church kept, according to their smaller Bible? Are they able to see Jesus Christ in the books of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, to which the disciples' minds and hearts were opened?


Is there Actual evidence that Jesus Christ lived?

Yes, there is good evidence that he was what is known as a "Hebrew Mystic". Although he was a rabbi, his teachings put him in the fringe of Jewish teachings. But recognize that above all, he was Jewish and that he would have never done or said anything to deny his heritage or beliefs.The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly translated to mean "universal".There is no question that the man Jesus did in fact exist and that his followers were loyal and that he was killed in much the way described, but there is much myth and exaggeration associated with Christian dogma. Let's make it simplerIf there are no empirical proof on Jesus' existence, how about providing evidence on any of the 12 original Apostles. Prove any one is real and you prove that the Bible is Historical, in a sense. If you really want proof of his current existence, do what it takes to get yourself to the Wesak Festival. It is a yearly conference, for lack of a better word, about the guidance of humanity.He is one of the key participants. You will need to rise above the physical to go.The Bible and how people walk on this earth is proof. Jesus is God in human form. Jesus said blessed are those who have not seen yet believe. Consider Other SourcesIt is a mistake to base an answer on just source of information. People usually answer that the evidence is in the Bible. Others, as happened above simply quote from Josephus. But when looking beyond the spiritual for 'real proof' we need to consider various sources to get an overall picture.First, let's say that the autheniticty of Josephus is usually challenged simply because the surviving scraps of his text have down to us from church hands - thus in our times of conspiracy theories everyone immediately assumes it is a fake. Yes, many copies were made from 1100 onwards and the wording is similar to that given above. But the validity of his work seems to be only questioned in relation to his reference to Jesus.A further problem with Josephus is that early Christians make no mention of it. Except that is for one in-direct reference by Origen in 240 AD which interestingly predates all known Josephus manuscripts. Origen make two references to Josephus. First he mentions the lesser known reference by Josephus as Jesus being the Brother of James but significantly goes on to note that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. It is important here to remember that Christians were still seen as enemies of Rome at that time so wouldn't have the resources needed to undertake such widespred forgery of an existing work. Therefore, it is clear that even if the church later embellished copies (perhaps converting Josephus to a christian) there must have been two references to Jesus in the original work by Josephus - how else could Origen have referred to them?Next, we need to go even further back to consider the one of the earliest Christian documents - the Didache. This contains the early basic instructions, teaching and practice of the Christians. It is generally believed to be authentic, possibly written by the original Apostles and is usually dated between 50 - 120AD. This remarkable document not only mentions Jesus but states that baptism must be "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." And remember that this is quite possibly a first generation christian document.Also, consider the accounts of the apologists. Take the case of Tertullian born 155/160 AD. Tertullian is widely accepted as being a Roman citizen, well educated and well versed in the law and his text is considered genuine. In a written defense of his faith to the senate he stated, ' At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty....All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.'Tertullian is clearly identifying Jesus, His death, His resurrection and the darkness that fell upon the earth, and stating that a written report was submitted to the emperor by Pilate. It should also be pointed that there is not (as far as I'm aware)not one single early Roman document or reference to one in which Rome ever denied it had crucified Jesus - given the problems it faced with Christians had there been no Jesus and no crucifixion Rome would have certainly have said so.In this regard Julian the apostate (331-363 AD), the last Roman Emperor to oppose Christianity, referred to the records of Jesus' being put to death. These records must have still been available in his day. He was a firm and thorough opponent of the faith he once professed to follow and had every interest in refuting and defeating the spread of the Christian faith. Had there been no knowledge or record of Jesus' existence or execution, he undoubtedly would have mentioned this. In fact, the reverse is the case.Outside the Bible and the forgery that was inserted in Josephus writings The antiquities of the Jews Book 18, Chap. 3, sec. 3, there are no verifiable proof that Jesus ever existed. His stepbrother, James, actually existed as his tomb was found. Allegedly, his tomb was identified by being said to hold the half-brother (son of Joseph and Mary, not the Holy Spirit and Mary) of Jesus.Also, Herod, the one who tried to take the Messiah out as a kid, has been proved by archaeologists to have actually existed, as well as many others. Yes. If Jesus wasn't ever alive, how could a world wide religion come out of it? There are historical records when Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. If you think this entire thing could have been made up by a folklore specialist just at the time that Christianity began, when B.C. turned into A.D., think again. I'm Christian and I believe Jesus Christ is real. But there is no proof that Jesus Christ was alive. It's called belief. If you believe he was real and you except him in your heart, then you will be 'reborn' and will be sent to heaven. If don't except him in your heart, then you will be thrown into the 'Lake of Fire.' Believe it if you want, but you don't have to. Remember, it's all about belief! Jesus is real, just by believing. By simply believing in Jesus and God, makes them exist. The Bible was not a book, it was a bunch of diaries. Which means He must have existed, or people would have been writing about someone they knew, but didn't exist. That makes no sense. He must have existed. AnswerThe fact that Herod and various others existed does not mean that Jesus himself was real. Saying that a collection of books written by various people centuries apart just proves that many people knew about Jesus, not whether he was real (by that token, any longrunning series can be construed as evidence for the existence of that series' major and minor characters). There is no current evidence - no trial records, no death records, no census records - that Jesus, the person believed to be the incarnate Son of God in Christianity, was a real person. No. There are many reasons why people believe he existed, the biggest one is faith. Faith does not take into account facts. To this day there has been no hard evidence found that Jesus Christ even exisited. There's no evidence that Nazareth even existed at the time that people claim Jesus did. There are 133 different years that people have claimed he was born and every month of the year has been claimed to be the month he was born at one time or another. The Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Luke, The Gospel of John and The Gospel of Matthew are the first writings that were ever discovered (in the Bible) about Jesus and they were written at least 70 years after Jesus was said to have died. If you want to consider that evidence you can, but science and history won't. I have done my research and I have sincerely found no evidence that Jesus ever existed.No historian who lived in or around the Mediterranean at the time jesus christ supposedly did never cited him as a historical figure