China Needs No Kings

Could there be a scenario in China where the institution of the Emperor is severely weakened, without disrupting the traditional Confucian structure? Something like:

1. The scholar-gentry getting the support of the military and expelling/executing the imperials, turning China into a giant Singapore ruled by bureaucrats of merit.

2. The scholar-gentry not doing away with the emperor but basically turning him into a figurehead. This has probably happened de facto in the past, whether by other members of the imperial family, or by the scholars, or by the eunuchs.

Basically, I know emperors have their place, to serve as the Sons of Heaven and to start dynasties and to lead military campaigns and do all of the things that a despot does. But seeing as how China was usually administered by scholar-bureaucrats, why couldn't those guys rule instead? Though I guess this is like saying "in medieval Europe the Catholic Church did much of the administration in the Holy Roman Empire, why don't the monks and bishops get rid of the kings?" But the difference there is that in post-Zhou China the class structure wasn't based on military strength like feudalism was.
 

scholar

Banned
2. The scholar-gentry not doing away with the emperor but basically turning him into a figurehead. This has probably happened de facto in the past, whether by other members of the imperial family, or by the scholars, or by the eunuchs.
This has happened many times actually, Dong Zhou, Cao Cao, Sima Zhao, Liu Yu, and many others for starters from military figures and politicians that were able to use the power of their military and their political guile in order to take command of the Empire, puppetizing the Emperor. With Dong Zhou there was a completely lack of guile leading to a number of revolts against him, but with Cao Cao he was able to take command of the Empire or at least half of it and rule it until his death. He climbed the ranks slowly, becoming a Prince, but never became Emperor. His son did so almost immediately after his father's death. Sima Zhao was an established nobleman, the second son of Sima Yi, and managed to do the same as Cao Cao, though with less reform and more politics and warfare. Liu Yu was a military commander that gained prominence in the Jin Dynasty, that Sima Zhao's son would later found, and would grasp the government and control it for several years before making himself Emperor. This is just the space of a couple hundred years in order to paint the picture that such actions were common, particularly in eras of fragmentation.

Instances where family controlled and manipulated family were also common, Wu Zetian the only female Emperor of China started out through manipulation of her own children and step children.

The Eunuchs almost were known to manipulate Emperors for generations, but their control always waxed and waned. Its hard to make them permanent authorities inside of China because most of their power comes from manipulating not just the Emperor, but the Emperor's family. When they become to overt they normally end up dead. Further, the position of Eunuch is at its nature domestic, without martial command, while they were able to manipulate military officials through bribery and appointments, they never were able to directly control it. They also were almost never really able to leave the capital without extraordinary circumstance, nor did they ever really manage to attain authority and official appointment outside of the capital. This leaves them in a very vulnerable position should anyone with an army decide to be rid of them.

The scholars, however, did not do this. Being a scholar alone was never enough to be able to grasp the reigns of government and manipulate it behind the scenes or even overtly because of the Emperor's family and political rivals. In order to fully manipulate the Emperor and his family without much complaint is to win the manipulation and power in military campaigns or acrewing a very long career with a reputation for loyalty and talent. Otherwise the only way for a scholar to gain control would be to be directly related to the Emperor or another very powerful minister. Many noted scholars did manipulate Emperors and even the Empire, but this was only in addition to strong military or political influence.

Basically, I know emperors have their place, to serve as the Sons of Heaven and to start dynasties and to lead military campaigns and do all of the things that a despot does. But seeing as how China was usually administered by scholar-bureaucrats, why couldn't those guys rule instead?
They often did, with the consensus of the government by manipulation or by the Emperor's own apathy. Several noted Emperors in the Tang, Han, Song, and other dynasties simply delegated all internal matters to the actual beurocracy. This was actually a common practice. The Emperor was the head of government, but like all governments the head of government does not manage everything themselves. The Confucian bureaucracy operated under the Emperor's direct authority as well as in the Emperor's absence and recluse. Its not quite "in-command", de jure, but its not without authority. However it was antethetical to Confucian Ideals [Tianxia/Five Relationships/Mandate of Heaven] to remove an Emperor and replace it with something else, and remained so until well into the European Age of colonialism. Even then the ideas didn't die until the cultural revolution and the PRC as well as the ROC taking command preceding that.

Though I guess this is like saying "in medieval Europe the Catholic Church did much of the administration in the Holy Roman Empire, why don't the monks and bishops get rid of the kings?" But the difference there is that in post-Zhou China the class structure wasn't based on military strength like feudalism was.
Yes and No, while legitimacy and authority came without the need of an army, the army was almost always used as a tool to gain control of the government. Often times the regents that would manipulate the Emperor at the behest of the Dowager were powerful leaders in the military. In times of fragmentation Empires were forged from the sword more so than the Bureaucracy with the Confucians attempting to legitimize actions already taken place rather than guiding said actions.
 
2. The scholar-gentry not doing away with the emperor but basically turning him into a figurehead. This has probably happened de facto in the past, whether by other members of the imperial family, or by the scholars, or by the eunuchs.
You can say this arguably happened quite frequently. The bureaucracy more often than not acted as a check to the arbitrary powers of the emperor, often rendering him impotent in exercising their power, particularly during the Song and Ming dynasties.
 
What purpose does an Emperor really serve? To be the guiding force of the great clanking machine of state? A figurehead so the people can have pomp and ceremony, as well as a scapegoat?
 
What purpose does an Emperor really serve? To be the guiding force of the great clanking machine of state? A figurehead so the people can have pomp and ceremony, as well as a scapegoat?

This depends on who the Emperor is. A more forceful Emperor (Qin Shihuang, Han Wudi, Tang Taizong, Zhu Yuanzhang, Kangxi, etc.) will actually take charge of the apparatus of state while weaker ones (especially some of the Ming ones like Zhengde and Wanli) tended to be more than content to let the mandarins and eunuchs run the circus.
 
Last edited:
You can say this arguably happened quite frequently. The bureaucracy more often than not acted as a check to the arbitrary powers of the emperor, often rendering him impotent in exercising their power, particularly during the Song and Ming dynasties.

Wait, when did bureaucrats thwart the ambitions and plans of the Ming Emperors? With the Hu Weiyong affair, it's clear that the Ming Emperors could keep the bureaucracy in check, it's just that they didn't want to.

This depends on who the Emperor is. A more forceful Emperor (Qin Shihuang, Han Wudi, Tang Taizong, Zhu Yuanzhang, Kangxi, etc.) will actually take charge of the apparatus of state while weaker ones (especially some of the Ming ones like Zhengde and Yuanli) tended to be more than content to let the mandarins and eunuchs run the circus.

I think you meant Wanli . . .
 
What purpose does an Emperor really serve? To be the guiding force of the great clanking machine of state? A figurehead so the people can have pomp and ceremony, as well as a scapegoat?

From what little I know about ancient China, it seems that there's more than either guiding the machine of state (in the sense we usually think of the term) or being a figurehead - rituals and other things. Not sure how many of those lasted, but that the Emperor was important for those sorts of things is far more than symbolic.
 

OS fan

Banned
There have been times in Chinese history (before the Warring States Period) when the scholars believed that the people came first and rulers were unimportant. There could have been states that were democratic republics in all but the name.
 

scholar

Banned
There have been times in Chinese history (before the Warring States Period) when the scholars believed that the people came first and rulers were unimportant. There could have been states that were democratic republics in all but the name.
Could you cite a few? There are a couple that come to mind, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. It is unlikely that a democratic republic could ever have formed, not just because the terms democracy and republic did not exist at the time, but that the notions, as far as I'm aware, never held water or much popular support. Something akin to a fully functioning bureaucracy by the noble gentry was "possible" with some creative butterflies, but a government from the peasantry and elected by the peasantry is something that would not have happened in the Spring and Autumn period, or all of the Zhou period.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Yeah, elected from the peasantry is a complete no-no, that would be a couple thousand of years ahead of it's time.

I guess with someone or a group of people who are chosen non-hereditary though, you could at least get rulers or oligarchs more accountable to the elite though. You could have a defacto "Republic".
 
FWIW, I feel this would be rather very implausible, at least from the Han dynasty onwards. At least in the strict sense as you've proposed -- i.e., where the institution of the emperor is weakened (or perhaps eventually discarded). Once actual 'Confucianism' (and its later developments) becomes part of the political culture, it's hard to see how -- or rather, why -- the scholar-gentry would think about or want to get rid of the imperial ideal. The Confucian political ontology is sorta centered on the emperor.

Them getting rid of it is sort of like asking why 19th century USA elites didn't just keep 'individualism' and 'freedom' but get rid of the structure of democratic government. The concepts, endocentrically for each of them, are organically interdependent, if you follow me? Sorry, too many anti-allergy tablets recently ;(
 

scholar

Banned
FWIW, I feel this would be rather very implausible, at least from the Han dynasty onwards. At least in the strict sense as you've proposed -- i.e., where the institution of the emperor is weakened (or perhaps eventually discarded). Once actual 'Confucianism' (and its later developments) becomes part of the political culture, it's hard to see how -- or rather, why -- the scholar-gentry would think about or want to get rid of the imperial ideal. The Confucian political ontology is sorta centered on the emperor.

Them getting rid of it is sort of like asking why 19th century USA elites didn't just keep 'individualism' and 'freedom' but get rid of the structure of democratic government. The concepts, endocentrically for each of them, are organically interdependent, if you follow me? Sorry, too many anti-allergy tablets recently ;(
While in name the institution of Emperor was never once limited by the Confucian scholars, in actuality it had went through a number of periods where the title was in the hands of regents and dowagers while sickly children had the title, but none of the power. The Later Han is filled with this, but its not solely with the Han as many dynasties often were replaced after a period of this weakening of the office. Even nearing the end of China's existence as an Empire we can find some examples of the Dowager having more authority than the Emperor in actuality even though the Emperor was supposed to be the supreme ruler in theory.
 
In one old text it says "資父事君", which basically means "serve your father and obey your lord". This idea of loyalty to a natural leader is inherent in Confucianism and thus lends itself to there being always being a monarch of some sort, someone who can be seen as the nation's "father". Whenever the last dynasty was toppled, there was always a strongman who appointed himself emperor, or at least there would have to be a monarch-figure.

The way I see it, the scholars were there to make the monarch's job more efficient, not to rule along with the emperor. It would be certainly possible, IMO, to have an emperor that placed great emphasis on education and scholarly authority, and you might even see the creation of a tradition in which the reigning emperor, instead of having to have children of his own, can appoint non-blood-related heirs. However, keep in mind that such a practice would meet a lot of resistance since the Confucian creed places supreme importance on the continuation of bloodlines. One way you could get around this is by saying that all of the emperor's subjects (i.e. all Chinese) are his children and therefore eligible for being heirs, an idea which could also lead to the notion of nationalism (we, the Chinese, are not just the emperor's subjects but his family).
 
Also, about the word "king". This was a term used only before Qin and during warring states eras, i.e. there was the king of Chu state or the king of Liang. "Emperor" refers to the guy ruling all of China.
 
Also, about the word "king". This was a term used only before Qin and during warring states eras, i.e. there was the king of Chu state or the king of Liang. "Emperor" refers to the guy ruling all of China.

Was the title of "King of Liang" actually official? I thought that was an informal thing for the Kings of Wei.
 
Was the title of "King of Liang" actually official? I thought that was an informal thing for the Kings of Wei.
I have no idea. My knowledge of ancient Chinese historical practices comes mostly from learning various old texts and their background. My example "the King of Liang" comes from having read a text in which Mencius speaks to a certain 梁惠王 about benevolent rule.
 
It would be certainly possible, IMO, to have an emperor that placed great emphasis on education and scholarly authority, and you might even see the creation of a tradition in which the reigning emperor, instead of having to have children of his own, can appoint non-blood-related heirs. However, keep in mind that such a practice would meet a lot of resistance since the Confucian creed places supreme importance on the continuation of bloodlines. One way you could get around this is by saying that all of the emperor's subjects (i.e. all Chinese) are his children and therefore eligible for being heirs, an idea which could also lead to the notion of nationalism (we, the Chinese, are not just the emperor's subjects but his family).

It's pretty fascinating how Imperial China, despite leapfrogging past feudalism in a dynasty, still placed such emphasis on familial ties. I mean certainly the family is the basic unit of society and all, but if the government was already based on meritocracy (in theory), why should there be an emperor still? Would not such a figure be constrained by his own blood ties at the expense at his capacity to govern on behalf of the state? Your idea is cool and reminds me of the Roman practice of adopting imperial heirs.

As far as the thread title goes, it's an oblique reference to something out of Empty America. Not the idea, but the saying "X needs no kings."
 
Top