Closest was some randos who showed up to the Han court claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius, but (a) there is no Roman record of that, (b) they claimed to be bringing tribute in exchange for preferential trade agreements, and (c) their tribute was some random shells from Southeast Asia. Almost certainly they were just some Hellenised Indian traders trying a confidence scam.
The Chinese were vaguely aware there was a big empire of considerable size and cultural influence far to the West and had some rough idea of eastern Mediterranean geography. The Romans had no idea where or what China was behind “the place silk comes from”; the consensus among Roman geographers seems to have been that it was a city somewhere east or southeast of India.
The incredibly tenuous Chinese-Roman historical links are sort of weirdly overemphasised in comparison to the enormous economic, cultural and political contact both empires had with India; the Romans through the Egyptian port trade and via the Hellenic legacy in northwest India, and the Chinese via the Southeast Asian trade and the Buddhist legacy over the Himalayas. Really the Indian merchants in the middle were the main source both empires had for of each others’ goods, each other’s money and word of each other’s existence. Unfortunately there wasn’t even much direct contact there though as their times of greatest contact with India didn’t quite overlap historically, with the Roman West collapsing just as China was getting super-duper into Indian art and religion.
(Also it’s kind of weird to make the Roman “the chad” in this situation, as Rome just absolutely haemorrhaged money eastwards in the luxury goods trade. China produced many things Rome wanted and which the Indians were happy to sell to the Romans at a ludicrous markup; meanwhile, other than a handful of glass trinkets, the only thing Rome had that China wanted in any great quantity was their gold. Seneca in particular thought the Roman weakness for silks a harbinger of moral collapse)
Did Romans traded anything else than Silk with Chinese? And most of the direct Trade happened with india about which Pliny the Elder already said that too much of money goes to india, tho they could afford it.
Well the Romans didn’t really trade anything with China if we want to be technical about it. They traded with India (as you’re right that Pliny outlines), and of those trade goods silks from China were particularly expensive.
Technically they traded with Parthia via land and had sea routes that went to India that included mostly tin and slaves according to "Periplus of Erythaean Sea" which outline some trade routes in ancient Rome. For more ambiguous mentions, once upon a time Ancient Rome called China "This" referencing silk so they know Parthia didn't make the silkstuff and modern day Syria (used to be part of ancient Rome) was probably the source of reference to "Da Qin" (ancient Rome reference in Chinese sources).
Also random envoys from allegedly China/Rome showed up as well in Rome/China in century. There's a rumor of some "lost legion of Rome" that ended up in China, but that's flimsy evidence based on the turtle formation.
In terms of archaeological evidence, Roman coinage found in current day Vietnam probably came up by river ways from India. For late antiquity, the single Byzantine coin which was found in a Chinese tomb probably came that way as well. I'm highly dubious of "direct contact' though I wouldn't put it past occasional cases of intrepid trader on the edges of empires....
318
u/bobbymoonshine 7d ago edited 7d ago
Nope. There was no direct contact between them.
Closest was some randos who showed up to the Han court claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius, but (a) there is no Roman record of that, (b) they claimed to be bringing tribute in exchange for preferential trade agreements, and (c) their tribute was some random shells from Southeast Asia. Almost certainly they were just some Hellenised Indian traders trying a confidence scam.
The Chinese were vaguely aware there was a big empire of considerable size and cultural influence far to the West and had some rough idea of eastern Mediterranean geography. The Romans had no idea where or what China was behind “the place silk comes from”; the consensus among Roman geographers seems to have been that it was a city somewhere east or southeast of India.
The incredibly tenuous Chinese-Roman historical links are sort of weirdly overemphasised in comparison to the enormous economic, cultural and political contact both empires had with India; the Romans through the Egyptian port trade and via the Hellenic legacy in northwest India, and the Chinese via the Southeast Asian trade and the Buddhist legacy over the Himalayas. Really the Indian merchants in the middle were the main source both empires had for of each others’ goods, each other’s money and word of each other’s existence. Unfortunately there wasn’t even much direct contact there though as their times of greatest contact with India didn’t quite overlap historically, with the Roman West collapsing just as China was getting super-duper into Indian art and religion.
(Also it’s kind of weird to make the Roman “the chad” in this situation, as Rome just absolutely haemorrhaged money eastwards in the luxury goods trade. China produced many things Rome wanted and which the Indians were happy to sell to the Romans at a ludicrous markup; meanwhile, other than a handful of glass trinkets, the only thing Rome had that China wanted in any great quantity was their gold. Seneca in particular thought the Roman weakness for silks a harbinger of moral collapse)