Seminar notes: Imperial states

What is an empire?

Empires as the most common form of political organization

• more common than nation-states

A general model of empires

• no two empires are the same, but there are general ways to characterize them

Empires are far larger and more heterogeneous than nation-states

• contain a great number of different ethnic groups, religions
• there are often hundreds of different languages

Impressive imperial center

• but political institutions of your typical empire are decentralized
• most power is wielded indirectly

The center has military and fiscal control over its own lands

• but there are separate political institutions for each region, ruled by a governor or suchlike
• the governors have considerable independence as long as they are compliant, give tribute, and collaborate in military affairs
• this decentralized institutional structure has made empires flexible and strong

We are interested in the ancient empires of Asia above all

• Mauryan and Gupta empires in India
• Han, Song and Ming dynasties in China
• Achaemenid and Sassanian empires in Persia
• Byzantine and Ottoman empires in Constantinople

Cf. European empires — overseas vs. land-based empires

• overseas empires as quite different
• European empires are all overseas
• different structure

land-based empires

• the empire is you
• no way to keep it distant

Today’s class

• the role of the ruler — the court and the capital city
• questions of diversity
• relations between the center and the periphery
• the international system of an empire

Process of unification

• the competitive systems we’ve talked about …
• competition ends with an empire

for example

• the Mauryan Empire defeated and united the janapadas in 322 BCE
• the Warring States period came to a close with the establishment of the first Chinese empire, the Qin dynasty, in 221 BCE
• In Japan, the wars ended in 1603 with the military victory of the Tokugawa Shogunate
• The taifa kingdoms in Spain were replaced by the Almoravids and then by the Almohads
• Yoruba city-states were eventually united by the Oyo Empire
• mini-states in the Valley of Mexico were turned into constituent parts of the Aztec Empire

Very successful

• very long-lived

Interesting to ask why?

• efficient administration
• military power
• “civilizational integration”
• flexibility and pragmatism

Beware of nationalist propaganda

• Ottoman Empire as “the sick man of Europe”
• nations came to break up the empires — this was “the direction of history”

But not so clear where history is going

• EU as a sort of empire
• Perhaps a future “African empire”

Why no empire in Europe?

• How did Europe retain a system with many sovereign states?

Europe as a very unusual case

• must keep in mind when we talk about the relevance of European examples
• but there were many attempts at a take-over
• and the imperial idea is still strong in Europe

Møller:

• combine “system-level pressures and domestic factors”

what does he mean by that?

• “Geopolitical competition facilitates territorial consolidation and state rationalization”
• the character of state-society relations when such geopolitical competition kicks in: geopolitical pressure interacts with state-society relations
• “system-wide balances or domination”

State-building

A “bottom-up” model for shoring up military capabilities

• strong societal groups – such as nobility, clergy, and townsmen – before state consolidation and geopolitical competition
• the state has to negotiate with these groups
• these negotiations further institutionalizes their privileges and established constrains upon rulers. This scenario characterized medieval Europe. It constitutes .”

A “top-down” mobilization

• there are no strong such intermediary groups
• the state will be dominated by the ruler

Imperial domination

• strong intermediary groups hamper quest for imperial domination
• if there are no groups, geopolitical competition intensifies absolutism

separate states as weak and strong

• it is not possible for one empire to take over all of Europe since the social organizations in each society are too strong
• easy to capture but difficult to hold

Asia — the opposite:

• no civil society — strong states — difficult to capture but once they fall, they fall completely

Some critical point:

• Warning regarding “Orientalism” …
• also, there are different kinds of empires — some are like EU — mainly an aggregation of various entities
• what about geography?
• Europe is more difficult to dominate because of the forests — cf. Africa

Consequences of no empire in Europe:

• a particular social and political system
• economic competition — economic development
• “why Europe was first”

“Oriental despotism”

• the supposed inherent autocracy or tyranny of states in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa
• contrasting “Oriental” forms of governance with Western ideals of democracy and liberty

Greek legacy

• early historians and thinkers like Herodotus, who contrasted the “freedom” of Greek city-states with the “despotism” of the Persian Empire
• an attempt to cover up their tracks — cf. Black Athena

Enlightenment

• Montesquieu, and others

19th and 20th-century Orientalists, political scientists, and historians

• Wittfogel

Alleged features

“Centralization of power”

• Extremely centralized form of governance, with absolute power vested in a single ruler

“Absence of civil liberties”

• There is an assumed absence or suppression of civil liberties, political freedoms, and individual rights
• People are effectively slaves of the ruler
• Always at his disposal for work — great irrigation projects

“Economic control”

• The state often has direct control over resources and the economy, as opposed to a free-market system
• All land the property of the ruler

“Lack of political participation”

• There’s an absence of public political participation or representation
• no contractual obligations — no negotiations between social groups
• no institutionalization

But, basically wrong on all accounts

• but crucial if we are to understand the relations between Europe and Asia
• justify imperialism — liberal expansion — cf. the Opium War
• strong legacy to this day … cf. US invasion of Iraq

Orientalism in art

Coleridge, Kubla Khan

A vast and dreamlike landscape of Xanadu’s pleasure-dome surrounded by ancient forests, gardens, the sacred river, and an Abyssinian maid playing a dulcimer, creating an atmosphere thick with magic and mystery.

A grand and ethereal scene set in Xanadu, showcasing the stately pleasure-dome, the sacred river Alph, lush gardens, and a damsel with a dulcimer bathed in phantasmagorical light.

A vast desert landscape with caravans moving towards a distant oasis city, representing the essence of Orientalism and transgression.

A moonlit Xanadu with majestic palaces rising amidst floating islands, capturing the enchantment and Orientalism.

The Emperor

• surrounded by an amazing amount of pomp and circumstance

the aim was to overwhelm the visitors

cf. “the sublime”

• quick explanation from Burke etc.

Titles

of the Ottoman sultan, for example

• Sultan (سلطان): The primary title for the ruler, meaning “authority” or “power.”
• Padishah (پادشاه or پاشا): Translated as “Great King” or “Emperor,” underscoring the sultan’s superior status.
• Khan: A title with Turkic and Mongolic origins emphasizing leadership of a vast empire.
• Caliph (خليفة): Signifying the sultan’s role as the successor to the Prophet Muhammad and leadership over the Sunni Muslim world.
• Amir al-Mu’minin (أمير المؤمنين): Meaning “Commander of the Faithful,” it emphasized religious authority.
• Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques: Indicating the sultan’s role as protector of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s holiest sites.
• Ghazi (غازى): A title for sultans with significant military victories, meaning “warrior” or “veteran” for Islam.
• Sovereign of the House of Osman: Emphasizing the sultan’s leadership of the ruling Osmanlı dynasty.
• Sovereign of the Imperial House of Osman: Another title highlighting the leadership of the Osmanlı dynasty.
• Sultan of Sultans: Underlining the sultan’s preeminence over other rulers.
• Lord of the Lords of this World: Reinforcing the sultan’s supreme authority.
• Kayser-i Rûm (قيصر روم): “Caesar of Rome,” asserting the sultan’s role as the successor to the Roman and Byzantine emperors after the conquest of Constantinople.

The ruler not only of a country, but of a world

• emperors as the head of mankind — the subjects were the limbs
• the guardian of the world

divine attributes

• associated with the sun — pope and emperor as two suns
• solar chariots taking the king to heaven
• emperors were anointed — just like Jesus — transformed into a sacred person
• holiness was ascribed to their body-parts — hair, nails etc

double role:

• advocate of his people before heaven
• sacrificial hostage of heaven among his people
• the royal touch
• healing the sick
• the powers of rhetoric too

Ottoman Empire — court ceremonies

The second depiction showcases the pivotal audience with the Grand Signior. Set in a grand audience chamber, the Grand Signior attentively listens from his ornate throne as the Ambassador, accompanied by key members of his delegation, conveys his message. This critical diplomatic event is observed by select Ottoman dignitaries, emphasizing its significance.

The first illustration offers a detailed view of the moment when the Ambassador and his entourage are presented with the ornate Vests in a beautifully adorned Ottoman chamber. The Ambassador, easily distinguishable in his European attire, is in the process of examining one of the Vests. The scene exudes an aura of cultural exchange and mutual respect.

The second representation provides a glimpse into the opulent Audience chamber of the Ottoman Sultan. The Ambassador and his team, after being introduced, bow before the Grand Signior’s majestic throne, flanked by the chief Vizier. The chamber’s grandeur, from the gold-studded ball to the elaborate carpet, exemplifies the magnificence of the Ottoman court.

The first illustration captures the scene post-banquet. The Ambassador and his entourage, donning ornate Vests, are led closer to the Grand Signior’s presence by the Champertous and two Capigibashees. In the background, the Ambassador’s gifts are prominently displayed, and disciplined Janizaries maintain order in the outer courts.

Paul Rycault, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, 1670

• After the banquet, the Capigibashees, or chief of the Pursuivants, leads the Ambassador, along with some of his entourage, to a secluded area. There, they are presented with several ornate vests, or long garments made of silk decorated with various patterns. This is a token of the Grand Signor’s favor. The Ambassador first dons one, followed by others in his group, numbering between 10 and 19. Accompanied by two Capigibashees, or chief porters—well-regarded figures at the court with silver staves in hand—they approach closer to the Grand Signor’s presence.Following them are the gifts brought by the Ambassador, displayed to their best advantage, handed over to designated officers.
• The outer courts teem with Janissaries, among whom profound silence reigns. As the Janissaries salute their superior officers in passing, they simultaneously bow, displaying both martial prowess and courtly manners, indicative of strict discipline and obedience.The Ambassador is then led to a grand gate near the Audience chamber. Its porch is crowded with white Eunuchs in silken attire and cloth of gold. Beyond this point, only select individuals like the secretary, interpreter, and a few of the highest-ranking members can proceed.
• Deep silence pervades the entrance to the Audience chamber, punctuated only by the soft murmur of a nearby fountain. A solitary white Eunuch stands guard. This silent ambiance amplifies the sense of awe and reverence. Access to Eastern monarchs was always more restricted compared to Roman practices or contemporary Western norms, where seeing the king is considered both his pride and the people’s privilege.
• Inside the chamber, the Grand Signor’s throne, slightly elevated from the ground, stands supported by four gold-plated pillars. The chamber’s opulence is evident from the gold-studded ball hanging at the entrance, festooned with chains of pearls. The floor is carpeted in crimson velvet embroidered with gold, studded in places with seed pearls. The Signor’s seat and adjacent cushions are lavishly decorated with gold and jewels. Only the chief Vizier is present, standing to the Signor’s right, exuding respect and modesty.As the Ambassador is introduced to the Grand Signor, he’s ushered in by the aforementioned Capigibashees, who guide him in bowing deeply before the throne.
• During the audience, the Ambassador remains standing, conveying through his interpreter his master’s messages and reasons for his visit. These are first inscribed in writing, which, along with the letter of credence, is handed over to the chief Vizier, the point of contact for further discussions.

Of the Mutes and Dwarfs

• … there is a type of attendants that make up the Ottoman Court, known as “Bizebani” or Mutes. These are men who are naturally deaf and, consequently, due to their inability to hear sounds of words, are mute. There are about 40 of them. At night, they lodge with the Pages in two chambers, but during the day, they station themselves outside the Mosque belonging to the Pages. Here, they learn and master the language of the Mutes, which consists of various signs. Through these signs, they can converse and fully express themselves, be it for everyday questions, recounting stories, understanding the tales of their religion, comprehending the laws and teachings of the Alchoran, uttering the name of Mahomet, and everything else that can be expressed verbally.
• The eldest among them, numbering around eight or nine, are termed the “Favorite Mutes”. They have the privilege of serving in the “Hazar”, primarily acting as jesters for the Grand Signor. Their roles include being playfully kicked by the Grand Signor, being thrown into cisterns of water, or being made to spar like the famous duel between Clinias and Dametas. However, the sign language of the Mutes is so popular at the Ottoman Court that nearly everyone is proficient in it. This language is particularly useful to those in the presence of the Grand Signor, as it’s deemed disrespectful to even whisper in his presence.
• Dwarfs in the court are referred to as “Giuge”. They also stay with the Pages in the two chambers until they have been appropriately trained to stand respectfully in front of the Grand Signor. If a Dwarf happens to be both mute and later becomes an eunuch due to certain procedures, he is held in much higher regard than if he were a perfect specimen. One such individual was gifted by a Pasha to the Grand Signor. This individual was so cherished by both the Grand Signor and the Queen Mother that he was immediately dressed in Cloth of Gold and was granted unrestricted access to all the gates of the Seraglio.

Chinese empire — court ceremonies

The first illustration portrays the grandeur of the imperial garden with ornate pavilions. Chinese Mandarins and officials are shown in their ceremonial attire, prostrating in reverence. In contrast, George Macartney and his entourage observe the ceremonies with curiosity and respect.

The second image captures Macartney’s encounter amidst the vast courtyard of the palace. The Emperor’s presence is symbolized by an opulent screen, while Chinese officials show deep veneration. Macartney and his delegation stand amidst the scene, their expressions reflecting a mix of fascination and restraint.

Illustration showcasing the grandeur of the Chinese imperial court during George Macartney’s visit in 1793. The scene unfolds within an expansive palace hall, adorned with intricate carvings and golden embellishments. Luminous lanterns hang from the ceiling, casting a soft glow over the assembly. The Emperor, though not visible, exudes an aura of majesty from behind an elaborately decorated screen. Rows of Mandarins and high officials display their obeisance by bowing deeply. At the center, George Macartney and his delegation are depicted, their Western attire contrasting sharply with the traditional Chinese garments around them. The atmosphere is thick with ceremony, reverence, and the harmonious notes of traditional Chinese music.

Historical representation of George Macartney’s audience with the Chinese Emperor in 1793. Set in a lavish throne room, ornate columns and exquisite artworks set the backdrop. A large imperial throne stands elevated, with the Emperor’s presence subtly hinted at by the shadowy silhouette behind a silk screen. On either side, Mandarins and courtiers in their finest robes pay their respects, their postures reflecting utmost devotion. In the midst of this grand assembly, Macartney and his British entourage stand out, their expressions a mix of awe and diplomatic composure. The scene encapsulates a moment where two distinct worlds, Eastern and Western, come face-to-face in a setting of unparalleled opulence.

Macartney in China, 1793

• This day being the Emperor’s birthday, we set out for the Court at 3 o’clock a.m., conducted by Van-ta-gin, Chou-ta-gin, and our usual attendants. 1 We reposed ourselves for above two hours in a large saloon at the entrance of the palace enclosure, where fruit, tea, warm milk, and other refreshments were brought to us. At last notice was given that the festival was going to begin, and we immediately descended the stairs into the garden, where we found all the great men and Mandarins in their robes of state, drawn up before the Imperial pavilion. The Emperor did not show himself, but remained behind a screen, from whence, I presume, he could see and enjoy the ceremonies without inconvenience or interruption. All eyes were turned towards the place where His Majesty was imagined to be enthroned, and seemed to express an impatience to begin the devotions of the day. Slow, solemn music, muffled drums, and deep-toned bells were heard at a distance. On a sudden the sound ceased, and all was still; again it was renewed, and then intermitted with short pauses, during which several persons passed backwards and forwards, in the proscenium or foreground of the tent, as if engaged in preparing some grand, coup de theatre. At length the great band struck up with all their powers of harmony, and instantly the whole Court fell flat upon their faces before this invisible Nebuchadnezzar. “He in his cloudy tabernacle sojourned the while.” The music was a sort of birthday ode or State anthem, the burden of which was c Bow down your heads, all ye dwellers upon earth; bow down your heads before the great Kien-long, the great mien-long? And then all the dwellers upon China earth there present, except ourselves, bowed down their heads, and prostrated themselves upon the ground at every renewal of the chorus. Indeed, in no religion, ancient or modern, has the Divinity ever been addressed, I believe, with stronger exterior marks of worship and adoration than [p. 314] were this morning paid to the phantom of his Chinese Majesty. Such is the mode of celebrating the Emperor’s anniversary, according to the Court ritual.

The powerlessness of the imperial center

in practice many emperor were quite powerless

Certainly. Throughout history, there have been many cases where emperors, sultans, and other rulers wielded only nominal or symbolic power, while the real authority was held by others behind the scenes. Here are some non-European examples:

• Emperor of Japan vs. the shogun
• Emperor of China vs. the eunuchs
• Ottoman sultan vs. viziers and janissaries
• Ftamid caliphs and mamluk soldiers
• Sultans of Delhi vs. slave soldiers
• Persian emperors vs, grand viziers
• and so on …

Eunuchs

castrated men

• held positions of importance in various empires throughout history

for example

Reason for their existence:

. Their roles, trustworthiness, and influence were rooted in several factors unique to their condition. Here are the reasons for their significance, along with the empires in which they were prominently featured:

1. **Trustworthiness**:
– Eunuchs were often seen as trustworthy because they couldn’t father children. This meant they had no direct lineage to vie for the throne or key positions, making it less likely (in the eyes of rulers) that they would be involved in plots to establish their own dynasties.

2. **Loyalty to the Ruler**:
– Due to their unique status, eunuchs typically depended on the patronage of the ruling elite for their positions and welfare. This made them, in many cases, fiercely loyal to their benefactors.

3. **Access to Inner Sanctums**:
– In many cultures, eunuchs were the only men allowed in the private quarters of royalty, particularly where the royal women resided. This exclusive access gave them significant influence, as they controlled the flow of information and people to and from the ruler.

4. **Administrative Roles**:
– Eunuchs often held significant bureaucratic or administrative roles. They were educated and trained to manage various aspects of governance.

5. **Absence of Clan Politics**:
– Unlike other officials who might be tied to influential families or clans, eunuchs, due to their inability to create familial lineages, were often viewed as more neutral or independent.

Empires and regions where eunuchs held significant roles include:

1. **Chinese Dynasties**:
– From the Han dynasty onward, eunuchs played influential roles, often as trusted court officials and sometimes even as kingmakers. Their influence peaked during certain periods, like the Later Han and the Ming Dynasty. However, they were also often implicated in court intrigues and corruption.

2. **Ottoman Empire**:
– Eunuchs had various responsibilities, ranging from serving in the palace harem to administrative roles. The Chief Black Eunuch, responsible for the imperial harem, was among the most powerful positions in the empire.

3. **Byzantine Empire**:
– Eunuchs served in various capacities, including as high-ranking military officers, administrators, and religious officials.

4. **Islamic Caliphates**:
– Eunuchs served in a variety of roles, from court officials to military commanders. They were particularly prominent in the Abbasid Caliphate.

5. **India**:
– Eunuchs held roles in various Indian courts, notably during the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. They served as guards, administrators, and even generals.

6. **Ancient Middle East**:
– Eunuchs served in various ancient Middle Eastern civilizations, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires.

7. **Korean Joseon Dynasty**:
– Eunuchs in Korea served the royal family closely and had significant roles in the court.

Eunuchs’ positions within these empires were not without controversy. They often faced suspicion and resentment from other officials and were frequently involved in political intrigues. Nonetheless, their presence across so many diverse cultures and empires underscores their historical importance and the unique roles they played in governance and courtly life.

Harems

Certainly. Throughout history, many emperors and rulers maintained collections of women, often referred to as concubines, harems, or similar terms. These women were not only for sexual purposes but also for consolidating power, forging alliances, and ensuring a succession of heirs. Here are examples from various empires:

1. **Ancient China**:
– Chinese emperors, especially during the Han, Tang, Ming, and Qing dynasties, maintained large harems. The Forbidden City in Beijing, for instance, had quarters for the emperor’s concubines. These women could wield significant power, with some even manipulating court politics.

2. **Ottoman Empire**:
– The Ottoman sultans had a renowned harem system, housed in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Women in the harem included both concubines and legal wives. While the sultan had sexual access to the concubines, they could also exert considerable influence, especially if they bore a son who later became sultan. Notably, some of these women, known as “Valide Sultans” when their sons ascended to the throne, wielded significant political power.

3. **Islamic Caliphates**:
– Caliphs and rulers in various Islamic empires, such as the Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates, maintained harems. The presence of slave women and concubines in these courts is also mentioned in various Islamic historical texts.

4. **Ancient Middle East**:
– Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian rulers were known to keep large numbers of women as part of their courts. King Solomon of Israel, as mentioned in biblical texts, had many wives and concubines.

5. **Mughal Empire (India)**:
– Mughal emperors had harems filled with wives and concubines. The women played a crucial role in court politics and succession matters.

6. **Ancient Egypt**:
– Pharaohs were known to have multiple wives and concubines. These relationships were often a mix of political alliances and personal choices.

7. **Medieval Europe**:
– While the term “harem” wasn’t used in Europe, many kings and nobles had mistresses in addition to their official wives. Though not the same as a harem system, it’s worth noting that rulers like King Henry II of England had well-documented relationships with several women outside of their marriages.

8. **Mongol Empire**:
– The Mongol Khans, including Genghis Khan, had multiple wives and concubines. This was both a personal choice and a method to create bonds between various tribes.

9. **African Kingdoms**:
– In various African empires and kingdoms, such as the Kingdom of Dahomey or the Ashanti Empire, rulers had multiple wives and concubines. These women often played significant roles in diplomacy, politics, and religious rituals.

In many of these empires, the women in harems were not just passive figures. Some gained immense power and influence, and their roles went beyond merely bearing children. They could act as advisors, diplomats, patrons of arts, and, in some cases, regents or co-rulers.

Slave soldiers

Indeed, many empires utilized slave soldiers, and these military units often played pivotal roles in both the rise and administration of their respective empires. Here are some prominent examples:

1. **Mamluks (Islamic Caliphates and Egypt)**:
– *Origin*: The Mamluks were mostly of Turkic, Circassian, and Caucasian origin and were purchased as slave boys. They were then converted to Islam and trained as elite soldiers.
– *Role*: They rose to prominence in the Ayyubid dynasty but later took control and established their own Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt and Syria (1250–1517). They are famed for halting the Mongol advance at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. The Mamluks maintained power by ensuring that only members of their military caste, and no hereditary rulers, could become sultans.

2. **Janissaries (Ottoman Empire)**:
– *Origin*: The Janissaries were Christian boys levied from the Balkans and Anatolia through the devshirme system. They were converted to Islam and given rigorous military training.
– *Role*: As elite infantry units, they became a key component of the Ottoman military from the 14th to the 19th centuries. They were influential in Ottoman politics and played roles in palace coups. However, as their influence grew, they became a conservative force resistant to reforms, leading to their disbandment in 1826.

3. **Saqaliba (Islamic Spain and the Maghreb)**:
– *Origin*: The Saqaliba were Slavic slave soldiers.
– *Role*: They served in the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba and later in various North African Muslim states. They often rose to significant military and administrative positions.

4. **Ghulams (Various Islamic Empires)**:
– *Origin*: The term “ghulam” refers to a youth and was used to describe slave soldiers in various Islamic empires, including the Abbasids and Ghaznavids.
– *Role*: They often served as elite cavalry units and could attain high-ranking positions, including generals or governors.

5. **Kipchak slave soldiers (Delhi Sultanate)**:
– *Origin*: These soldiers were of Turkic Kipchak origin and were brought to Delhi from Central Asia.
– *Role*: Under the Delhi Sultanate, especially during the reign of Sultan Iltutmish, they played a key role in the military. However, they also became embroiled in politics, leading to instabilities during certain periods.

6. **Manumitted slaves in West African Empires**:
– *Origin & Role*: In empires like Mali and Songhai, slave soldiers were not necessarily foreigners. Sometimes, individuals enslaved for other reasons (debt, war captivity) were integrated into armies. These soldiers, once manumitted, could rise to prominence in the court and military hierarchies.

The use of slave soldiers was often rooted in the idea that because they were dependent on the state or ruler for their status, they would remain loyal and not challenge the ruling class. However, as many of these examples show, the military power and cohesiveness of these groups often allowed them to become influential power players, sometimes even overthrowing the very regimes they were meant to protect. Their roles in their respective empires were multifaceted, encompassing military prowess, political influence, and administrative capabilities.

The imperial capital — the “cosmopolis”

• we have already talked about this

res-publica

• as the “public thing”
• freedom and self-rule
• aristocratic democracy

coherence, unity, fellow feeling

• the polis as small and actually quite repressive, conformist
• you’d better belong!
• problem of the outsider

“Cosmopolis”

• Persia ― or rather Babylon ― as the constant counter-part
• an enormous city ― lots of different peoples ― no self-government ― incredible diversity of languages, cultures, religions
• people cannot even understand each other

has to be ruled by a tyrant

• a powerful leader which keeps everyone in their place
• this is the image of Asia
• compare ziggurat and agora

Long thought a truth of political science

• democracy only works in very small city-states
• cf. the idea of “representative democracy”

Correcting European prejudices

• Patricia Springborg

In cities such as Istanbul, Cairo, and Baghdad,

• the ethnic communities were ruling themselves, electing their own leaders, and making their own decisions
• Marriages, inheritance, and all civil matters were governed by the community’s own codes. Jews drank wine and Christians ate pigs
• Many professional organizations, guilds, and charitable foundations that looked after common affairs
• There were no teeming masses — all inhabitants had a place in a community
• Each community was its own Athens, as it were, its own polis, and the cosmopolis was a collection of such poleis

The imperial political structure too,

• but it mattered little in people’s daily lives
• the empire was more like a general framework which organized relations between self-governing groups
• There was no despotism
• The communities to which people belonged protected them from the imperial state.

Contrast northern Europe:

• the political culture of Mediterranean cities and the large agricultural states of the rest of Europe
• merchants vs. peasants
• peasants easier to control
• the wealth of merchants is easier to hide than the wealth of peasants
• self-rule vs. rule by kings

Diversity

A key to the stability and longevity of empires is their ability to handle diversity

• Minority groups have to be given a recognized place and a chance to advance
• the imperial bureaucracy has to be seen as fair and neutral

Religious diversity

• while an empire might have an official religion, other religions must be tolerated

Examples

• Mongol Empire, 1206–1368 CE, Tengrists who worshiped the blue sky, but many leaders were also Christian or Muslim
• Qing dynasty China, 1636–1912 CE, Confucianism, but the emperors also engaged in various Buddhist and Daoist practices
• Mughal Empire, 1526–1857 CE, a Muslim ruling class governed a majority Hindu population, but most emperors encouraged religious

Language policy

• Ottoman Empire — Ottoman Turkish — but with a lot of Arabic and Persian thrown in
• Chinese dynasties — used pictographs — which could be read with different pronounciations
• Mughal empire — used Persian — better to use a language that was neutral between local languages
• Arab caliphates — start by using Greek

Ritual integration

cf. orthopraxic religions

• as a means of social control
• concrete ways of fulfilling their obligations; rituals define social classes and help maintain the hierarchical order of society
• as long as people participated in the officially prescribed motions, it did not matter what, if anything, that went on in their minds

Rituals have no opposites

• the same rituals can be associated with any number of diverging opinions
• even if people mean different things by the same actions ― or indeed, if they mean nothing at all ― they can still get on without conflict
• in a society that emphasizes rituals, there can be no political dissent, only bad manners or a lack of education

Dhimmi system of Muslim caliphates

Sharia law gives a protected status to the “peoples of the book”

• Jews and Christians could practice their religions without interference and they regulated their own affairs according to their own customs. Jews kept the Sabbath and Christians celebrated Easter
• Even practices which were regarded as haram, prohibited, were allowed for other groups. Thus, Christians could drink wine and eat pork
• Non-Muslims were charged an additional tax, but this also meant that the authorities were discouraged from converting them to Islam since conversions would reduce the tax base

Certainly. The “dhimmi” system is a historical legal and social structure implemented within Muslim-majority societies, particularly during the classical period of Islamic caliphates. It pertained to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state.

**Origin**:
The term “dhimmi” derives from the Arabic word “dhimmah,” which means “protection” or “covenant.” Dhimmi refers to non-Muslims who were granted protection by the Muslim state in exchange for certain obligations.

**Key Aspects**:

1. **Protection**: Dhimmis were assured protection for their lives, property, and freedom of worship. They could practice their religion, maintain their places of worship, and administer their internal community affairs with little interference.

2. **Jizya**: In return for state protection and exemption from military service, adult male dhimmis were required to pay a tax called “jizya.” The amount and manner of collection varied by time and place.

3. **Additional Taxes**: Dhimmis also paid a land tax called “kharaj.” However, it’s worth noting that Muslims paid other forms of tax, like “zakat,” which dhimmis were exempt from.

4. **Regulations**: Dhimmis had to follow certain regulations, such as not openly displaying religious symbols in public, not building religious structures taller than nearby mosques, and not proselytizing among Muslims.

5. **Dress Codes**: In some periods and regions, dhimmis had to adhere to specific dress codes to distinguish themselves from Muslims.

6. **Legal Matters**: In disputes between a Muslim and a dhimmi, Islamic courts (sharia courts) were typically used. However, for internal disputes within the dhimmi community, their own religious laws and courts might be applied.

7. **Non-Compulsion**: A fundamental principle was that non-Muslims should not be forced to convert to Islam. This principle is rooted in the Quranic verse: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).

**Varied Implementation**:

– The status and treatment of dhimmis varied considerably depending on the time, place, and specific ruler. While the dhimmi system provided certain protections, it also underscored the secondary status of non-Muslims in the Islamic polity.

– Over time and especially in later centuries, the rigid application of dhimmi regulations relaxed in many areas. In some periods, particularly during the era of the Ottoman Empire, the “millet” system further evolved the treatment and administrative handling of non-Muslim communities, allowing them significant autonomy in their internal affairs.

**Critique & Context**:

– **Supporters**: Proponents argue that, when viewed in the context of the time, the dhimmi system was relatively progressive. It allowed religious minorities to live, worship, and thrive under Muslim rule, especially compared to the treatment of minorities in other contemporary societies.

– **Critics**: Critics argue that the dhimmi system inherently discriminated against non-Muslims, relegating them to a second-class status.

In understanding the dhimmi system, it’s essential to consider the historical and regional context and avoid broad generalizations, as practices and conditions varied widely across the vast and diverse territories of the Muslim caliphates

the contemporary legacy — Lebanon etc. — maybe ex-Yugoslavia too

How this differs from “multi-culturalism”

Zarakol, Diversity in the Ottoman empire

the “millet system” in the Ottoman Empire

• known for its diversity, but also for the opposite
• the empire was not static — above all: changes in the international environment

repressions when …

1. state centralization
2. external actors with ties to internal groups
3. governing ideology that viewed heterogeneity as a threat

two volatile periods:

• the long 16th century — the empire was “Sunnitized”
• the long 19th century — threat of European imperialism

the millet system

• institutionalized only in the 18th century
• never dealt well with the enormous diversity of the empire
• early Ottomans, very ad hoc in relation to different groups

Ottoman conquest

• Christians and pagan soldiers too
• Osman’s son married a Christian

already here:

• the state as Islamic
• its institutions and the demography of the land it controlled very diverse
• find a way to combine these two — pragmatism and flexibility

little idea of cultural and religious assimilation or conversion

• the Ottoman state was never inquisitional

16th century — Sunnitization

heterodox Muslim communities

• went after the Kızılbaş
• buılt a lot of mosques — punished people for not attending

centralization of the state

• standardized army

took over religion

• state-run religious training
• defined orthodoxy — Hanafi school and the ulama hierarchy

Sufi lodges

• vectors of resistance
• millenarianism in both Europe and Ottoman Empire
• accused of being Safavids or Shiites — closed down by the authorities

three  trends

• interimperial competition
• state centralization and
• ideological conflicts

they were all interrelated and fed on each other

19th century

great decentalization in the 17th and 18th centuries

• people relaxed and had more fun
• economic growth
• coffee house culture

ethnic minority groups — nationalism

• more and more groups required recognition

state recentralization in response to international pressure

• tanzimat reforms, 1839-1876

ended with the horrors of genocide

• laissez-faire systems of diversity are fragile during crises

Homosexuality and imperialism

Furthermore, Nedîm seems to have subverted the ideals of Ottoman erotic poetry, as erotic desire in his works seem to also be directed towards older men, in stark contrast to the mostly pederastic norms of erotic literature at the time.^[9] In a poem, Nedîm mentions how his lover is kissable “from hair to hair”; this, according to Murray, can only be used to refer to an adult male.^[9] Homoerotic themes can also be found in his frequent usage of the phrase serv-i revân (flowing cypress), which is a gendered term in the context of Ottoman poetic tropes, referring almost exclusively to tall men.

• Or consider questions of gender and sexuality. In most Asian empires, eunuchs had a prominent place. Eunuchs were servants at the imperial court who had been castrated at an early age. Neither men nor women, they constituted a third gender. Since they had no descendants and no in-laws they could favor, they were regarded as more trustworthy than other servants. Often, eunuchs managed the imperial harem and the daily operations of the court. In imperial China, some eunuchs were generals and explorers; in Mecca, they cared for Prophet Muhammad’s tomb. But genders were fluid also outside of the imperial court. Transvestites were common in all empires, and so were homosexual practices. In Tokugawa Japan, homosexuality was not only tolerated but actively encouraged; and many Chinese emperors had both male and female lovers. Many Ottoman poets wrote love poems to boys rather than to women. Western visitors to the Asian empires were often horrified by the consequent goings-on. Before they were stationed in Istanbul, European diplomats were warned not to fall for any of the “unnatural temptations” for which the Ottoman Empire was famous. In the West, homosexuality was a crime, and transvestites and cross-dressing were banned

Sexual norms in ancient Asian empires were shaped by various cultural, religious, and socio-political factors. Generally speaking, the ancient world, including many Asian cultures, approached sexuality with a level of fluidity and pragmatism, which might appear different from later eras, especially after the global spread of Abrahamic religions. Here’s a broad overview of some prominent Asian empires and their attitudes toward sexuality:

1. **Ancient China**:
– **Homosexuality**: Male homosexuality was often referenced in literature as “the passion of the cut sleeve” or “the bitten peach,” inspired by stories of historical figures. Emperors like Han Ai Di were known to have male favorites. While not universally accepted, male homosexuality wasn’t particularly stigmatized until later periods.
– **Concubinage**: Having multiple wives or concubines was a sign of status and wealth among the nobility.

2. **Ancient India**:
– **Kama Sutra**: This ancient text, often mistaken as solely an erotic manual, provides a detailed look into various aspects of life, including sexuality. It offers insights into heterosexual relations, but also touches upon homosexual practices.
– **Hijras**: The hijra community (often understood as eunuchs or transgender individuals) has existed since ancient times and is referenced in early texts like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.
– **Temples and Sculptures**: Many ancient Indian temples, like those in Khajuraho, display erotic sculptures showcasing various sexual practices.

3. **Ancient Japan**:
– **Nanshoku**: This term refers to the love between samurai warriors and their apprentices. Such relationships were both romantic and pedagogical, with the older samurai imparting knowledge and skills to the younger male.
– **Kabuki and Onnagata**: In Kabuki theater, male actors, known as onnagata, played female roles, and they often became the subjects of male desires. Edo period woodblock prints often depicted such figures erotically.

4. **Ancient Korea**:
– Historical records suggest that male homosexuality existed and was recognized in ancient Korea. However, similar to other societies, the primary emphasis was on lineage, leading to a societal expectation of heterosexual marriages.

5. **Ancient Southeast Asia**:
– **Ramayana Adaptations**: Variations of the Indian Ramayana, like the Ramakien in Thailand, sometimes depict characters with fluid sexual and gender identities.
– **Temples**: Similar to India, some temples in ancient Cambodia depict erotic scenes, which suggest a more open societal view on sexuality.

6. **Mongol Empire**:
– **Tolerance**: The Mongols were relatively tolerant about sexuality, primarily because their main concerns lay in expansion, conquest, and administration.
– **Multiple Wives**: Like other nomadic cultures, it wasn’t uncommon for Mongol men, especially the nobility, to have multiple wives and concubines.

In many of these cultures, while homosexual acts might have been practiced and even celebrated in art and literature, societal expectations also emphasized heterosexual marriage for procreation and lineage continuation. Additionally, while ancient empires might have had fluid views on sexuality, these norms shifted with time, influenced by various factors such as foreign invasions, religious shifts, and cultural changes.

Finally, while these descriptions offer a broad overview, it’s crucial to approach them with nuance. The perceptions and practices surrounding sexuality in any society are multifaceted, and there’s always more depth to explore than can be summarized briefly

Sexuality in the Ottoman Empire

The attitudes toward homosexuality in the Ottoman Empire were complex and evolved over time. The Ottoman Empire spanned over six centuries (1299-1922) and covered vast territories, encompassing a variety of cultures, religions, and societal norms. Here is a broad overview:

1. **Early Ottoman Period**:
– **Tolerance**: In the early days of the Empire, there was a level of tolerance towards homosexual relationships, especially among the elite. Poetry and literature from the period sometimes celebrated or mentioned homosexual love. The concept of “müsahiqe” refers to female-female relations, and “müsahiq” denoted men who sought male lovers. This literature provides some evidence that such relationships existed and were acknowledged.
– **Sufism and Poetry**: Some Sufi circles and poets wrote homoerotic ghazals (a poetic form) that celebrated male-to-male love. However, interpreting these poems can be complex because Sufi poetry is often symbolic, using earthly love as a metaphor for the divine.

2. **The Role of Janissaries and Pages**:
– The Janissaries, an elite corps of soldiers in the Ottoman army, sometimes took on pages—boys who served them. There are accounts and allegations of sexual relationships between Janissaries and their pages, though it’s essential to approach these accounts critically.

3. **Baths and Brothels**:
– The Ottoman Empire had a robust culture of public baths (hamams), and some sources suggest that these spaces could facilitate same-sex interactions. Furthermore, there were male brothels in Istanbul and other major cities where men could seek relationships with younger men or “köçek,” dancers who were often the objects of male desire.

4. **Legal and Religious Views**:
– Islam, the dominant religion of the Empire, prohibits homosexual acts based on interpretations of the Quran and Hadiths. However, enforcement of these religious prohibitions varied. While the legal system of the Ottoman Empire, based on the Sharia, formally criminalized homosexual acts, enforcement was inconsistent. Penalties could be severe, but prosecution was not always pursued aggressively.

5. **19th Century and Modernization**:
– As the Ottoman Empire underwent modernization and faced pressures from European powers, attitudes began to shift. The Empire’s leadership sought to adopt European legal codes and norms, which during the 19th century were increasingly anti-homosexual. As a result, there were efforts to curtail and criminalize homosexual behavior more rigorously.
– The Tanzimat reforms in the mid-19th century, aimed at modernizing the Empire, decriminalized homosexual acts. This change was part of broader reforms to move away from religious-based legal systems to secular codes modeled after European laws.

6. **Late Ottoman Period and Republic**:
– By the late Empire and the transition to the Republic of Turkey, Western-style nationalism and modernization led to a decline in the public celebration or acknowledgment of homosexual relationships. The new nation-state had a vested interest in promoting specific family structures and gender norms aligned with its vision of modernity.

In summary, while the early Ottoman Empire showed a level of tolerance and even celebration of homosexual relationships, especially in literature and art, these attitudes shifted over time, particularly during periods of intense modernization and westernization. The Empire’s vastness and longevity mean that attitudes and practices varied considerably across different regions and periods.

Center and periphery

The same prejudices that Westerners have had regarding the imperial capitals, they have had regarding the empires as a whole. They called it “Oriental despotism.” The image here is of a tightly controlled state ruled from the center by a dictator and his efficient, merciless bureaucracy. The emperor controls everything, and everyone defers to his will, no matter how arbitrary. In fact, the emperor owns all the land in the country, and ordinary people are not just his subjects but his slaves who can be commandeered to labor on public works like the building of walls and digging of canals

How the caliphates sort of imploded

Again, we are dealing with Western misunderstandings, prejudices, and propaganda. And again, we must try to set the record straight. Basically, the imperial center was never as powerful as the Westerners imagined. Rather, different provinces always had a considerable degree of autonomy. In China, people would say, “the sky is high and the emperor is far away,” and then they would go on to do pretty much whatever they wanted. In Tokugawa Japan (1603-1868 CE), the provinces had their own educational systems, currencies, and even their own armies. Passports were required to travel from one province to the next. And the Muslim caliphates were all decentralized in much the same way. The Abbasid caliphate (750–1258 CE) was officially ruled from Baghdad, but the emirates in Central Asia — Samarkand, Bukhara, Tashkent, and so on — had their own rulers who took few orders from the caliph. The Ottoman Empire was organized in the same fashion. At the height of its power, it included all of the Middle East, North Africa, and most of Eastern Europe. There is no way such a sprawling collection of entities could have been centrally directed from Istanbul. Instead of despotism and repression, there was decentralization and pluralism. Different policies were implemented, different solutions tried, and the center was never anywhere near as powerful as the Westerners imagined

Satrapies of the Persian empire

Or consider the so-called “satrapies” of the Parthian Empire. A satrapy is a province, and the Parthian Empire (247 BCE to 224 CE) was an empire in today’s Iran. The Parthian empire was always made fun of by later empires for being weak and divided, but 500 years is a long time for any political entity to survive. At its peak, the Parthian empire controlled vast territories spanning from modern-day Iran to parts of Central Asia and the Middle East. To govern such a vast and diverse empire, the Parthians developed a system of satrapies or semi-autonomous regions, each ruled by a governor or satrap appointed by the central government.

The satrap was appointed by the central government and was responsible for the administration, defense, and collection of taxes in his region. While the satraps owed allegiance to the Parthian king, they had a degree of independence in governing their territories. This allowed them to adapt to local conditions and respond to regional challenges in ways that were not always possible for a centralized government. As a result, the Parthian satrapies were often centers of cultural and economic development, with local elites wielding significant power and influence. The Parthians adopted a policy of religious tolerance, allowing their subjects to practice their own religions and customs. This policy helped to foster a sense of unity and shared identity among the diverse peoples of the empire, contributing to its stability and longevity.

But the imperial structure still mattered. The empire assured peace above all. The various provinces rarely, if ever, fought each other, and when conflicts arose, the imperial center had the means to arbitrate between competing claims and restore order. “Pax” means “peace” in Latin, and historians often talk about the peace imposed by some empire or another — Pax Mongolica, Pax Ottomana, Pax Tokugawa, and so on.

We should think of the empire as a composite structure linked to a central power by indirect rule. The central power exercises some military and fiscal control in each major segment of its imperial domain, but there are separate institutional structures for the various provinces. Here, imperial power is exercised indirectly. The provincial rulers enjoy a lot of independence in return for the delivery of compliance, tribute, and military collaboration with the center. The reason for this structure is that the empire has expanded as a result of military expansion. Successful generals establish themselves as governors. They are also a source of conflict. They might turn on the center. The empire might disintegrate. Flexibility can turn into a weakness.

The Western image of an all-powerful emperor is incorrect. In fact, in most empires, it was often far from clear who was in charge. What we find are not all-powerful centers but rather centers that are imploding. In Tokugawa Japan, there was an emperor, but he lived in retirement in the city of Nara. In at least one case, he was so poor that he had to sell his own calligraphy in order to make a living. Instead, the country was run by a military leader, a shogun, who lived in Edo, today’s Tokyo. But often the shogun too was sidelined and other leaders took over. As a result, power was decentralized, diffused within the political system.

In Fatimid Egypt (909–1171 CE), the center was imploding in much the same way. Here, the caliphs generally had far less power than the viziers, their ministers, but the ministers often had to defer to the leaders of the Mamluks. The Mamluks were slaves whom the Fatimids had captured and raised as soldiers. Some of them rose to gain considerable power and wealth. Giving weapons to slaves turned out to be a bad idea.

In the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922 CE), this pattern repeated itself. Although power formally remained within the same Osman family for some 36 generations, the actual rulers were often the grand viziers or the leaders of the Ottoman slave soldiers, the so-called Janissaries.

When Western countries showed up in Asia in the nineteenth century, the empires suddenly looked shaky. Armed with the kinds of lethal weapons which the industrial revolution allowed them to produce, the West had for the first time a clear military superiority. They took advantage of the decentralized structure of the empires and made deals with regional rulers. This is how the Ottoman Empire came to be looted of its archaeological artifacts. Western adventurers decided that this or that item was theirs and proceeded to send it back to museums in Europe. Before long, one Ottoman province after another was picked off and turned into a Western colony — France invaded Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881; Britain invaded Cyprus in 1878, Egypt in 1882, and Sudan in 1899. This was when the Ottoman Empire came to be referred to as “the sick man of Europe.” Reacting to this pressure, the empires did indeed turn repressive. This was the case with the Ottomans but also in the case of China

The sankin kotai system

• How Japan cut itself off and formed its own international system. How the Tokugawa shogunate held it all together. Sankin kotai. More detailed about the Chinese tributary system. Similar stories about coming to the Byzantine Empire.

The **sankin-kōtai** system, translated as “alternate attendance,” was a policy instituted by the Tokugawa shogunate in 17th-century Japan during the Edo period. The primary purposes of this system were to strengthen central control over the daimyōs (feudal lords) and to indirectly finance the administration of the Tokugawa government.

Here’s how the sankin-kōtai system worked and its implications:

1. **Residence Requirement**:
– Each daimyō was required to maintain residences in both their home domain and in Edo (modern-day Tokyo, the seat of the Tokugawa shogunate).
– Daimyōs were mandated to spend every other year in Edo. During their absence from Edo, their families were required to remain there as virtual hostages, ensuring the daimyōs’ loyalty to the shogunate.

2. **Economic Impact**:
– The system was costly for the daimyōs. They had to maintain and travel between two residences, fund large processions to and from Edo, and sustain their households in the capital. This significant financial burden ensured that the daimyōs had limited resources to challenge the central authority or wage wars.
– The regular travel of daimyō entourages to and from Edo also stimulated road maintenance, inn construction, and other infrastructure-related industries, boosting the economy of regions they passed through.

3. **Control and Surveillance**:
– By requiring the presence of daimyōs in Edo on a rotational basis, the shogunate could keep a closer watch on them, making it harder for them to plot against the central government.
– The system also facilitated a more regular and direct interaction between the shogunate and the daimyōs, ensuring smoother governance and better communication.

4. **Cultural Impact**:
– With the regular movement of daimyōs and their retinues, there was a cultural exchange between provinces and the capital. This led to a certain level of cultural homogenization across Japan.
– Edo flourished as a cultural, economic, and political center, with many daimyōs contributing to the city’s cultural institutions, such as theaters and schools.

5. **Decline of the System**:
– As the Edo period progressed, the financial strains of the sankin-kōtai system became evident, and some daimyōs faced significant economic challenges. The shogunate occasionally made exceptions or adjustments in response.
– The system came to an end with the Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century, which dismantled the feudal structure of Japan.

In essence, the sankin-kōtai was a masterstroke of political control by the Tokugawa shogunate, ensuring its dominance over the daimyōs and maintaining peace throughout the realm for over two centuries.

Japan had an emperor too but during the Tokugawa period he was entirely sidelined and it was instead the shogun in Edo who held political power, but as we saw above the shogun’s power was severely circumscribed. Like the Chinese emperor the shogun held audience at his court and the format, copied from China, was as ritualistic as the original. In Edo too the visitors were asked to “move on their hands and feet humbly and silently” towards shogunal throne, and Engelbert Kaempfer, a German naturalist who accompanied a Dutch mission to Edo in 1691, calls the proceeding “very awful and majestic.” However, the ceremony lacked the cosmic significance of its Chinese counterpart. Every second year when the daimyos appeared in Edo they paid a visit to the shogun following the prescribed protocol, and the occasional foreign visitor did the same, but the atmosphere was clearly more relaxed than in Beijing. The shogun, Kaempfer reported, ordered the Dutchmen to “to walk, to stand still, to compliment each other, to dance, to jump, to play the drunkard, to speak broken Japanese, to read Dutch, to paint, to sing, to put our cloaks on and off.” In this way, said Kaempfer, “we must suffer ourselves to contribute to the Emperor’s and the Court’s diversion” for two whole hours.

Instead it was the annual trips of the 250 plus daimyos to and from Edo which was the focus of public attention. These grand affairs took the shape of long processions which in case of the larger daimyo could include up to 2,500 people, and which for distant regions might take up to fifty days to complete. Worried about a build-up of military forces in Edo, and concerned about the costs involved, the shoguns periodically sought to restrict the number of soldiers a daimyo could bring, but the restrictions had little effect. For the han it was a matter of prestige to send as many men as possible and often they would hire temporary laborers to swell the ranks just as the procession entered Edo or the home capital. This, the spectators were supposed to conclude, is a particularly powerful daimyo hailing from a particularly distinguished region.

Clearly the processions were a spectacle no one wanted to miss. When entering a new han the traveling delegation was met by local officials who “offered us everything which could be useful to us during our voyage,” and who accompanied them until they entered the next han where the representatives of that prince came to offer the same services. The roads were swept clean — or, in the summer, watered to keep the dust down — and decorative sand was piled up along the sides. In villages and towns along the way the processions were greeted by large crowds and ushers commanded people to get down on their knees as a sign of respect. Aware of the attention they attracted the daimyo and their retainers did their best to put on a good show. The soldiers would crouch together and walk in synchronized goose steps, and at particular points along the way they would look sideways at the people in an impressively intimidating fashion. The lance-bearers were particularly admired and the tallest and most handsome men were usually picked for this task. And, when they passed the capital of some local daimyo, the poor, occasional, Europeans were often asked to dance and perform various other apish tricks.

Imperial international systems

• Relations with political entities located outside of the empire’s own borders are hierarchical too. They are “asymmetric power structures” or “hegemonies.” One power is vastly more powerful than all the others, which in turn are more or less equal to each other. In systems such as these, there is no anarchy and no problem of sovereignty. Sometimes, the metaphor of a solar system is used. The empire is the sun around which smaller states circulate in their respective orbits. Everyone turns towards the sun, and it is the sun that keeps the system together. The empire imposes order, establishes rules and norms, and tells the others what’s what. In theory, at least, imperial international systems are more peaceful than nation-state systems. Since empires are enormously more powerful than the political entities that surround them, they have no competitors except other empires. For this reason, the question of sovereignty doesn’t really arise. Emperors are not “sovereign”; they are the “sons of heaven” or “lords of the earth.”
• Imperial international systems don’t have problems of anarchy. There is no power politics, no balances of power. But international relations did not completely disappear. In some cases, there were other empires to contend with, and even when this was not the case, a few independent states would typically remain outside the perimeters of the empire itself. Vastly smaller in size and influence, they could still make plenty of trouble, and a policy was needed to deal with them. Authors who wrote on these topics were theorists of imperial international systems, and there were many of them.
• Here too, however, there was plenty of international relations to write about. Somehow, the subordinate states had to be kept in their subordinate positions. Traditional military and diplomatic measures often served this purpose. Diplomats were dispatched from the imperial capital, and military campaigns were undertaken. But military campaigns were costly, and the recalcitrant states were often located far away. It would be much better if the members of the system could somehow be convinced to police themselves. Such self-control was encouraged as the empires spread the blessings of their civilization, including their language, religion, social practices, and legal system. The hope was that if all states came to see the world from the empire’s point of view, they would be a lot easier to control. In addition, rituals were established which required the subordinate states to show up at the imperial capital at regular intervals, bringing gifts and paying obeisance to the emperor. These diplomatic practices were enumerated in the manuals of court rituals, and they were described in great detail by imperial historians. Again, we are dealing with IR theory.

The problem of the steppe

Byzantine diplomacy

• Establishing and maintaining diplomatic relations with barbarian leaders, including negotiating treaties and alliances, exchanging gifts, and arranging marriages between Byzantine nobles and barbarian leaders.

example 1:

• Byzantine practice of offering subsidies and gifts to frontier peoples in exchange for their cooperation in defending their shared borders and providing military assistance when needed. This approach allowed the Byzantine Empire to maintain a level of control and influence over its border regions without the need for direct military intervention or occupation.

example 2:

• Dissatisfied pretenders, defeated candidates for kingship, were welcomed at Constantinople. Thus there were generally some princes, thoroughly under Byzantine influence, who at a favourable opportunity could be imposed on their compatriots. Throughout Justinian’s reign there was a constant influx of foreign potentates to Constantinople, and he overwhelmed them with attentions, pompous ceremonies and valuable presents.

Divide and rule:

• Exploiting rivalries and tensions among barbarian groups to prevent them from uniting against the Byzantine Empire. This often involved supporting one faction against another, thus keeping the barbarian groups weakened and dependent on Byzantine support.

example:

• By supporting the Lombards against the Gepidae, Justinian prevented the Gepidae from becoming too powerful and threatening the Byzantine Empire’s interests.
• Justinian I used the Avars to counterbalance the Huns’ influence in the region, preventing either group from becoming a significant threat to the Byzantine Empire.

Military power:

• Demonstrating Byzantine military strength to deter barbarian aggression and secure borders. This could involve military campaigns, border fortifications, or stationing troops in strategic locations.

Cultural influence:

• Encouraging the adoption of Byzantine culture, religion (Christianity), and political practices among barbarian groups. This helped to foster a sense of shared identity and common values, making it easier for the Byzantine Empire to exert its influence over these groups.

this is how it worked:

• In the land which he undertakes to convert, the missionary endeavors to gain the confidence of the king and influential persons, and makes it a special object to enlist the sympathies of the women. If the king hesitates, it is suggested that he should visit New Rome. The attraction of this idea is irresistible, and when he comes to the capital, the pomp of his reception, the honors shown him by the emperor, and the splendor of the religious ceremonies overcome his last scruples. Thenceforward imperial influence is predominant in his dominion; priests become his advisers; a bishop is consecrated, dependent on the patriarch of Constantinople; and the barbarians are transformed by the penetration of Byzantine ideas.

example:

By the application of these various means, Justinian established Roman influence in Nubia, Ethiopia and South Arabia, in the Caucasian regions, and on the coast of the Euxine. The conversion of the Lazi (of Colchis) was specially notable, and that of the Sabiri, who were politically important because they commanded the eastern pass of the Caucasus known as the Caspian Gates. It will be observed that the great prestige of the Empire was one of the conditions of the success of this policy.

Assimilation:

• Incorporating barbarian warriors and leaders into the Byzantine military and political structure. This helped to secure the loyalty of these individuals and their followers, while also benefiting the empire through their military prowess and local knowledge.

example 1:

• More important potentates were invested with a costlier dress. In these investitures precedence was carefully observed. The chiefs thus received a definite position in the Empire, and the rich robes, with the ceremony, appealed to their vanity. In some cases they were admitted to posts in the official hierarchy,—being created Patricians, Masters of soldiers, &c.

example 2:

• Another mode of Winning influence was to marry barbarian princes to Roman wives, and rear their sons in the luxury of the palace.

Tribute systems

Certainly. Tribute systems were prevalent in several Asian empires, serving as both symbolic acknowledgments of superiority and mechanisms for economic and political exchange. Here are examples from some notable empires:

1. **Chinese Tribute System**:
– This is one of the most well-known and long-standing tribute systems. From the Han Dynasty through the Qing Dynasty, China was regarded by many neighboring states as the “Middle Kingdom” — the cultural, economic, and political center of the East Asian world.
– Tributary states or envoys would come to the Chinese imperial court to offer gifts or tributes, symbolizing their respect and subordinate status.
– In return, the Chinese emperor would bestow gifts, often of greater value, upon the tributary state, solidifying a relationship of patronage.
– The system was more about diplomacy and trade than subjugation. For many states, participation was voluntary, recognizing the benefits of trade and political alliance. Participating states included Korea, Vietnam, and several Central Asian kingdoms.

2. **Mughal Empire**:
– The Mughals in South Asia had a system where local rulers and chieftains acknowledged the Mughal Emperor’s sovereignty by paying tribute. This tribute often took the form of money, soldiers, and goods.
– In return, these rulers received protection, recognition, and sometimes autonomy in their internal affairs.

3. **Khmer Empire**:
– At its height, the Khmer Empire in Southeast Asia demanded tribute from neighboring states, reinforcing its political and economic dominance in the region.
– Tributes were collected from states in present-day Thailand, Laos, and parts of Vietnam. In return, they had access to the extensive trade networks and protection of the Khmer Empire.

4. **Tribute System in the Malay Archipelago**:
– The Srivijaya Empire, based on Sumatra, established a maritime tribute system. It controlled trade routes in the region and demanded tribute from smaller states in the form of goods and recognition of Srivijaya’s dominance.
– Later, the Majapahit Empire in Java also established a tribute system in the archipelago, collecting tributes from states in present-day Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

5. **Mongol Empire**:
– The vast Mongol Empire instituted a tribute system for conquered territories. These regions were required to pay regular tributes in goods and manpower.
– In return, the territories under the Mongol domain enjoyed peace (known as the Pax Mongolica), freedom of movement, and access to extensive Eurasian trade networks.

6. **Japanese Tribute System**:
– In the early history of Japan, before it became a unified state, the Yamato court in central Japan collected tributes from outlying regions of the islands, consolidating its power and influence.
– Later, during the period of the Ashikaga Shogunate, certain neighboring entities, such as the Ryukyu Kingdom, sent tributes to Japan.

Tribute systems, while varying in their specifics from empire to empire, typically served multiple purposes. They were symbols of dominance and acknowledgment of an empire’s central position. Economically, they facilitated trade and the movement of goods. Politically, they provided a framework for diplomacy, alliances, and sometimes protection.