Asian 'Habsburgs'

The Habsburgs united Austria, Spain, and the Netherlands in a simple way: marrying heiresses. So to get an Asian equivalent, you just need matrilineal inheritance accepted as a possibility. The difficulty here is that it doesn't seem likely that dynasties will go for matrilineal inheritance when a just-as-related patrilineal inheritance is a possibility, and (dramatically generalizing here, I know) I think the typical Asian ruler, not constrained by Christian rules of monogamy, would have an easier time producing a son. Asia's a big place, though, and it's not absurd that some part of it would develop traditions that limit rulers' legitimate male heirs. I think such a practice, though, is a helpful substrate for Habsburg-style dynastic unions.

Again, I'm not sure how that's any different from the Mughals or Mauryas uniting Bihar, Orissa and Bengal by achieving overlordship of them.

Like I said in my earlier post, people seem to be ignoring the fact that plenty of Asian empires did what the Hapsburgs have done (going by kasumi's earlier statement that he was looking for an Asian empire that ruled over multiple nations at once). Bihar, Orissa and Bengal are just as disparate culturally and ethnically as Spain, the Netherlands and Austria.

If you want it done in the same way the Hapsburgs did (i.e. through dynastic inheritance politics) which is not what the OP stated, things are a bit harder since Europe's dynastic customs were very different from Asian ones.
 
Perharps a desintegration of China itself with several princes each claiming their own throne as warlord states, but I don't see how you could avoid an eventual reconquest by the splinter nation than wins the Yellow river heartlands as usually happens in Splintered-China periods.
 
I'm with Scholar on this. It has to be the Turks or Mongols, and no one else. In a way, they were the Germans of Asia anyway in that they got into power one way or another in states promoting a different identity. Like the Turkic groups too, there's also an overabundance of German nobles...
 
Now having the Cholas disintegrate into a dozen pieces, each ruled by a Cholas might be a good starting point.

Well, that's what I was suggesting.

I'm curious, though, to hear from you or anyone else with a knowledge of Southeast Asian history and culture about why there are such strong objections to a Habsburg analog in this region in particular. What is it that would make foreign dynasties more unlikely in Southeast Asia than in Europe or China?
 

scholar

Banned
Well, that's what I was suggesting.

I'm curious, though, to hear from you or anyone else with a knowledge of Southeast Asian history and culture about why there are such strong objections to a Habsburg analog in this region in particular. What is it that would make foreign dynasties more unlikely in Southeast Asia than in Europe or China?
China is dominated by the Imperial Royal Family, beyond times of crisis, every Kingdom and Dukedom is headed by a member of the Imperial Family. Because vassal states were naturally subservient to this imperial family. Often their own dynasties were respected as lesser, but honored, dynasties. In fact, when such a dynasty was deposed China wouldn't hesitate to send in an army to reinstate them. Now should the main line die out or there is a severe succession squabble or a coup a member of the royal family, if willing, could go over to rule that state.

Now in Europe the only reason why this occurs is because men are limited to one wife and the royal families are so interlinked a King of another country could be closer in relation to the throne than the King's cousin. This means that having enough sons that live into adult hood is much more difficult with just one wife than sometimes hundreds of wives such as in China (concubines really, though sometimes they are referred to as lesser or junior wives). This allows succession to go outside the country. The influence and power of those states also help their cases.

Southeast Asia is something different. It was feudal like Europe but it had families like China's nobility (a few wives). To means that while intermarrying occurred there would almost never be a situation for succession to transfer from one state to another. In addition they were paternal (or mostly paternal) in nature. The fact that your mother belonged to the Burmese States doesn't matter because you're your father's son, not your mothers. And you have quite a few brothers.
 

scholar

Banned
Perharps a desintegration of China itself with several princes each claiming their own throne as warlord states, but I don't see how you could avoid an eventual reconquest by the splinter nation than wins the Yellow river heartlands as usually happens in Splintered-China periods.
There were numerous instances of this happening, and it doesn't change anything. Because in family splintered civil war the only thing that matters is conquering everyone else, even if it destroys the country in the process. Look up the war of eight princes. Now for an Indian Kingdom this doesn't have that same effect because they have fundamentally different conceptions of government. They lack Tianxia and Heaven's mandate concepts. Where that could be stable, China could never be.
 
Again, I'm not sure how that's any different from the Mughals or Mauryas uniting Bihar, Orissa and Bengal by achieving overlordship of them.

Like I said in my earlier post, people seem to be ignoring the fact that plenty of Asian empires did what the Hapsburgs have done (going by kasumi's earlier statement that he was looking for an Asian empire that ruled over multiple nations at once). Bihar, Orissa and Bengal are just as disparate culturally and ethnically as Spain, the Netherlands and Austria.

If you want it done in the same way the Hapsburgs did (i.e. through dynastic inheritance politics) which is not what the OP stated, things are a bit harder since Europe's dynastic customs were very different from Asian ones.
One could argue that the Timurid dynasty fulfilled this in a way.
 

scholar

Banned
One could argue that the Timurid dynasty fulfilled this in a way.
I didn't think he was looking for conquest of many countries, because that's not actually ruling over those countries. It's conquering them. It's not a King ruling over multiple thrones, its a King ruling over a single throne that just happens to be very large.
 
China is dominated by the Imperial Royal Family, beyond times of crisis, every Kingdom and Dukedom is headed by a member of the Imperial Family. Because vassal states were naturally subservient to this imperial family. Often their own dynasties were respected as lesser, but honored, dynasties. In fact, when such a dynasty was deposed China wouldn't hesitate to send in an army to reinstate them. Now should the main line die out or there is a severe succession squabble or a coup a member of the royal family, if willing, could go over to rule that state.

Now in Europe the only reason why this occurs is because men are limited to one wife and the royal families are so interlinked a King of another country could be closer in relation to the throne than the King's cousin. This means that having enough sons that live into adult hood is much more difficult with just one wife than sometimes hundreds of wives such as in China (concubines really, though sometimes they are referred to as lesser or junior wives). This allows succession to go outside the country. The influence and power of those states also help their cases.

Southeast Asia is something different. It was feudal like Europe but it had families like China's nobility (a few wives). To means that while intermarrying occurred there would almost never be a situation for succession to transfer from one state to another. In addition they were paternal (or mostly paternal) in nature. The fact that your mother belonged to the Burmese States doesn't matter because you're your father's son, not your mothers. And you have quite a few brothers.

Thank you for your explanation. I wasn't even thinking about the polygamy factor!
 
I didn't think he was looking for conquest of many countries, because that's not actually ruling over those countries. It's conquering them. It's not a King ruling over multiple thrones, its a King ruling over a single throne that just happens to be very large.
The dynasty included the Mughal Emperors and the Bukharan Khans, as well as other Central Asian thrones and Persia. They all claimed Timurid lineage at the same time.
 

scholar

Banned
The dynasty included the Mughal Emperors and the Bukharan Khans, as well as other Central Asian thrones and Persia. They all claimed Timurid lineage at the same time.
I'm not disputing that, in fact I had already granted the Mongols and Turks this.

I'm merely saying that ruling over a very large nation, being the conqueror, is not the same thing as inheriting and ruling over separate nations. It's just ruling over a large nation, not multiple ones.
 
I'll admit first off that East Asia is not my specialty, but the Habsburgs got where they got because Europe was a feudal society. In the West, Japan has a reputation for being a feudal society as well. It may be possible for one of the Daimyo to build up a little empire through marriage, but I imagine that there would have to be a lot of assassinations and that the Daimyo's domains would be divided up more thoroughly after his death than the Habsburg domains after the retirement of Charles V. This is just speculation, could anyone else comment further?
 

scholar

Banned
I'll admit first off that East Asia is not my specialty, but the Habsburgs got where they got because Europe was a feudal society. In the West, Japan has a reputation for being a feudal society as well. It may be possible for one of the Daimyo to build up a little empire through marriage, but I imagine that there would have to be a lot of assassinations and that the Daimyo's domains would be divided up more thoroughly after his death than the Habsburg domains after the retirement of Charles V. This is just speculation, could anyone else comment further?
No, Europe got where it was because it was feudal and because there was only one wife. You'll notice that succession was strikingly less likely when there was more than one wife involved. This does not happen with the Daimyo of Japan. Occasionally brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, and fathers will quarrel and even establish separate domains. But they do not transfer to a party through any other means than paternal relations. Maternal ones are irrelevant, unlike Europe where they are at times exceedingly relevant.
 
Top