How to get more parvenu dynasties in Europe?

How to get more dynasty founders in Europe who do not have any royal or noble blood?



One way of achieving it is through a shorter feudal period. Pre-feudal Europe has seen many persons of humble background became Roman Emperors. In China, arguably the most fertile land for parvenu dynasties, commoner-to-emperor rag-to-riches stories only became common once Shih Huang Ti abolished the feudal system and replaced it with centralised government.

The feudal system gives nobility much power. Weakening the feudal structure will create a more powerful gentry class. Hence, more possibility of a parvenu dynasty.

The reason parvenu dynasties did not become commonplace in Europe after the feudal system weakened OTL is because the society quickly moved to modern nation states in which absolute monarchies were replaced by constitutional monarchies and republics. On the other hand, China endured 2000 years of imperial rule after Shih Huang Ti abolished the feudal system and many parvenu dynasties were founded in this period. Maybe a longer transition period between the weakening of feudal structure and the ascendancy of modern nation states could do the trick?
Most founders of Chinese dynasties were actually aristocrats.There were only several occasions where someone with no noble ancestry like Liu Bang and Zhu Yuanzhang became emperor.
 
Last edited:
Most founders of Chinese dynasties were actually aristocrats.There were only several occasions where someone with no noble ancestry like Liu Bang and Shu Yuanzhang became emperor.

Liu Bang and Zhu Yuan Zhang were the ones from humble peasant family, but there were others from well off but non-aristocratic background like Zhao Kuang Ying. and that means 3 out of 8 united Chinese dynasties post-Shih Huang Ti were founded by non-aristocrats.

That's not counting the dynasties during period of disunity.
 
Liu Bang and Zhu Yuan Zhang were the ones from humble peasant family, but there were others from well off but non-aristocratic background like Zhao Kuang Ying. and that means 3 out of 8 united Chinese dynasties post-Shih Huang Ti were founded by non-aristocrats.

That's not counting the dynasties during period of disunity.
I'd say Zhao Kuang Ying should be classified as an aristocrat.In the years following Tang,a sort of military aristocracy did develop.Zhao Kuang Ying's father was a high ranking army officer.

The picture becomes even more skewed if you include non-unified entities like Northern Zhou,Southern Liang etc.
 
I'd say Zhao Kuang Ying should be classified as an aristocrat.In the years following Tang,a sort of military aristocracy did develop.Zhao Kuang Ying's father was a high ranking army officer.

The picture becomes even more skewed if you include non-unified entities like Northern Zhou,Southern Liang etc.

Don't think I agree with the 'military aristocracy' thing, or at least I don't think it should be applied to Zhao Kuang Ying. Maybe it could applied to warlords who could pass the control of their army to their son, but Zhao Kuang Ying's father was certainly not able to do so and his title and position was not inheritable. Zhao Kuang Ying still need to rise through rank in other people's army. I stand to be corrected though.

If non-united China is to be counted, many other figures could be found. Cao Cao's family, for instance. They were never the majority though. The point is that they existed in bigger number in comparison to most other societies. My own speculation in my first post is that the breakup of feudal (land-based) aristocratic after Shih Huang Ti and the rise of centralised government caused this and China was stagnating at this system for 2000 years, whereas in Europe the same breakup of feudal system and rise of centralised government had more limited effect because the time period was shorter as the states quickly moved on towards modern nation states in the form of constitutional monarchy and republics.
 
Don't think I agree with the 'military aristocracy' thing, or at least I don't think it should be applied to Zhao Kuang Ying. Maybe it could applied to warlords who could pass the control of their army to their son, but Zhao Kuang Ying's father was certainly not able to do so and his title and position was not inheritable. Zhao Kuang Ying still need to rise through rank in other people's army. I stand to be corrected though.

If non-united China is to be counted, many other figures could be found. Cao Cao's family, for instance. They were never the majority though. The point is that they existed in bigger number in comparison to most other societies. My own speculation in my first post is that the breakup of feudal (land-based) aristocratic after Shih Huang Ti and the rise of centralised government caused this and China was stagnating at this system for 2000 years, whereas in Europe the same breakup of feudal system and rise of centralised government had more limited effect because the time period was shorter as the states quickly moved on towards modern nation states in the form of constitutional monarchy and republics.
In China after the Western Han period,aristocracy doesn't have much to do with straight inheritance of ranks and titles,but rather the fact that you are much more affluent and influential than a peasant,thus being able to start at a much higher rank and promote much faster than a peasant would be based on your superior education and social connections.Cao Cao's family was definitely part of the aristocracy as they were large landowners who also dominated high government posts within the Han Dynasty prior to the Three Kingdoms period.Yuan Shao,the poster boy for the aristocracy throughout the period was an aristocrat being his family was able to appoint a large number of relatives and associates into government,who in turn repay the favour by supporting other Yuan clansmen and associates into government--all the time supported by the revenues generated vast Yuan clan farms which in turn expand due to the patronage of Yuan political influence.The Yuan family was able to do all of this not necessarily because of any hereditary title given to them.The official title of nobility(Marquis,Duke etc) are generally the icing on the cake rather than what gives the family power--as the titles are generally honorary and the revenues generated what whatever fief given are generally quite meager compared to the family's existing landholdings.
 
Last edited:
In China after the Western Han period,aristocracy doesn't have much to do with straight inheritance of ranks and titles,but rather the fact that you are much more affluent and influential than a peasant,thus being able to start at a much higher rank and promote much faster than a peasant would be based on your superior education and social connections.

Maybe the word "aristocracy" in Mandarin is often used in that sense. Even by that definition, I would still not call figures such as Zhao Kang Yin aristocrat. and, by that definition, although Cao Cao was an aristocrat, Liu Bei was not.

In English, it's only used in that sense for modern, not historical, usage.

"Aristocrat" and aristocracy, in modern usage, refer colloquially and broadly to persons who inherit elevated social status, whether due to membership in the (formerly) official nobility or the monied upper class. (Wikipedia)

Regardless, the English usage of the word "Parvenu royalty" is often used to refer to families such as the Bonapartes, even though they were minor nobility.
 
Maybe the word "aristocracy" in Mandarin is often used in that sense. Even by that definition, I would still not call figures such as Zhao Kang Yin aristocrat. and, by that definition, although Cao Cao was an aristocrat, Liu Bei was not.

In English, it's only used in that sense for modern, not historical, usage.

"Aristocrat" and aristocracy, in modern usage, refer colloquially and broadly to persons who inherit elevated social status, whether due to membership in the (formerly) official nobility or the monied upper class. (Wikipedia)

Regardless, the English usage of the word "Parvenu royalty" is often used to refer to families such as the Bonapartes, even though they were minor nobility.
Liu Bei had the official status of being an extended member of the Imperial family ,which was recognized by the emperor and even his enemies.So he's no aristocrat but he ain't a complete peasant either.

The term aristocracy after the Western Han Dynasty had a lot to do with money,social connections and nepotism rather than an official thing.Zhao Kuangyin,by virtue of his father's connections would have had a much easier time entering the upper echelons of the army as opposed to some random bloke with the same talent.Indeed,many of these families have long official family trees just like the Western Europeans does.It's the same deal with the British aristocracy of the 18th to 19th century--the vast majority don't hold noble titles.

One more thing to clarify is that the post-Tang military aristocracy I was referring to was that apart from the presence of warlords,many warlords had to give substantial rights to the troops.Mutiny and deposition of warlords who were seen as incompetent or ungenerous was a common theme back in those days.
 
Last edited:
There are few reasons why there were more parvenu dynasties in China.

1. centralised vs feudal regime

As being stated by the OP, a centralised regime is more likely to have less emphasis of bloodline in dynastic change than a feudal one. In Europe we can see that in Rome and Byzantine and also in Napoleonic era. The centralised governance of China since the Qin dynasty is an important factor contributing the less emphasis of bloodline in dynastic change.

While social mobility was heavily restricted in feudalism, in centralised states the existence of bureaucracy & standing army give commoners more chance to rise & held important position, even though most of the time the most important ranks in bureaucracy & military were still dominated by man of noble birth since they have the connection and resources needed to train & equip themselves with the skills. In centralised state bureaucracy and the standing army played more important role in dynastic change and sometimes it's just happened that the generals or officials who ended up on the throne were from commoners background.

2. mandate of heaven

So basically the concepts known as "divine right of kings" and "right by conquest" in Europe were apparently combined into one in China, known as "mandate of heaven". It's no wonder that there were many people with no blood claim to the throne wanted to purse it since they had ideological ground to justify it if they succeed.

3. state, not dynasty

what people commonly refer to as "dynasty" in China is actually more akin to "state". "Han dynasty", "Tang dynasty", "Song dynasty" etc should really be known as "Han state", "Tang state", "Song state" etc. In European sense the word dynasty is often used in the context of family name. This is clearly not the case with dynasties in China. If we apply European use of the word to China, then instead of "Han dynasty", we should really refer it as "Liu dynasty of Han state. Instead of "Tang dynasty", the term should be "Lee dynasty of Tang state".

So a change of dynasty in China is really a change of state, in which the old state is supplanted by the new state, which may or may not held the same territory as the old state. Since it is a new state altogether, as opposed to same state with different dynasty as in Europe, the blood connection to the former ruling family is of course less important.

The same can be observed in Korea too, with states such as Goryeo, Silla, Joseon etc...
 
Last edited:
Top