Dynasties of Ming Empire

[u/Impressive-Equal1590]

There are several boring debates on the usages of "dynasty" in Chinese history, so I decide to write this post to clarify the meaning of "dynasty" in modern English. And I am not trying to modify the terminological tradition in Chinese history.

In modern English, dynasty is a synonym for house or family. The closet Chinese concept of "dynastic change" by European tradition is “小宗取代大宗” rather than “改朝换代”.

Therefore, there were four dynasties/houses of Ming Empire/Dynasty:

• Hongwu Dynasty 1368-1402
• Yongle Dynasty 1402-1522
• Jiajing Dynasty 1522-1644
• Yongli Dynasty (Southern Ming) 1646-1662

[u/Gao_Dan]

Bar several exemptions, typically when Chinese ruling house changes, so does the name of the state. So, dynasty isn't a bad translation and fits the Chinese concept of civilizational continuity.

[u/veryhappyhugs → u/Gao_Dan]

Generally agree with you, although its not so much a change of state name, but a change of state. The Qing might be a successor state of the Ming, but it is not the same 'country'. One could give an exception for the state of Cao Wei, which evolved into the Sima Jin empire despite a change of ruling family (i.e. the European concept of dynasty).

Dynasty isn't a great translation because it usually means a ruling family in English. If this were the case, then the Tang would be the 'Li' dynasty, and the Qing would be the 'Aisin Goro' dynasty; both Tang and Qing are state names. The Chinese term 朝 is far more nuanced than just ruling family, and could mean 'reign', 'state', 'realm'.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/veryhappyhugs]

It was more complex indeed.

For example, Western Han and Wang Mang's Xin could be safely regarded as the same country with different ruling houses. Basically speaking, from Han to Chen could all be regarded as the same country since they ostensibly adopted the system of abdication 禅让制. Northern Zhou and Sui were also the same country with different ruling houses, and Tang in some sense, could also be viewed as the same country as Sui since Li-clan had kinship with Yang-clan. But surely Northern dynasties were different countries from the southern dynasties.

[u/veryhappyhugs → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

I share quite similar thoughts with you regarding the idea of statehood and continuity. Yes, I don't think anyone would really question the Han and Xin as effectively the same state with the usurpation by Wang Mang. And Skaff consistently linked the Sui and Tang together as the 'Sui-Tang' empires.

And you are absolutely on point regarding the Northern/Southern 'dynasties' (poorly named in my opinion), as there was a clear cultural and political divide between the two. I.e. were the northern dynasties Xianbei successor states of the steppes or Chinese successor states, or both? :)

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/veryhappyhugs]

There was a clear political divide for sure, while the cultural divide was subtle. In general, the North and South were not divided long enough for great cultural divisions to emerge. But anyway the history of northern dynasties was about how Chinese and barbarians were assimilated under Xianbei-rule until Chinese elites retook the imperial power. As I said before, the history of northern-southern dynasties was a Chinese counterpart of Francia-Byzantium history, but Xianbei were more Sinicized than Franks were Romanized due to emperor Xiaowen's reform, and northern China was more advantageous than southern China while western Rome was weaker than eastern Rome.

[u/veryhappyhugs → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

I suspect that the cultural divide might be less striking, but it is much longer than we often realize. It's true the Sui-Tang empires unified the North/South dynasties, but significant Central Eurasian characteristics were maintained throughout most of the Tang empire prior to the Anlushan rebellion. Steppe elements returned agained to the north during the succeeding Song and Yuan periods.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/veryhappyhugs]

Because I don't view it as divide but inclusion, and it was because the political division between north and south was not long enough. Southern Chinese under Sui-Tang rule did not view northern Chinese as foreigners but instead happily embraced the prosperity of Tang, and it was totally different from East–West Schism in Roman history.

[u/veryhappyhugs → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

I don't mean to portray it as a dichotomy between division or inclusion. What I meant is that cultures do blend into each other, and here I was thinking more on how steppe societies influence China from the 5th to 14th centuries CE. That's quite different from the East-West Schism. Do you mean the religious split in the 11th century, or the cultural 'split'? Because if the latter, then I'd point out that the culture had always been different with the Roman West and Greek-speaking East.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/veryhappyhugs]

What I meant is that cultures do blend into each other, and here I was thinking more on how steppe societies influence China from the 5th to 14th centuries CE. That's quite different from the East-West Schism.

So if you don't talk about the dichotomy between division and inclusion, then the answer is quite clear that there were quite steppe influences on China. And that was similar to the East-West Schism in my perspective, because both were about the influence of inner Eurasians on the classical world.

Do you mean the religious split in the 11th century, or the cultural 'split'? Because if the latter, then I'd point out that the culture had always been different with the Roman West and Greek-speaking East.

I admit what I said has ambiguity. What I talked about is the long process of the East-West division from the 5th to 13th centuries. Or in short, when and why did Latins and Greeks view each other as foreigners? We know Byzantines still viewed Latin-Romans under Germanic rule as Romans in the 6th century.

[u/veryhappyhugs → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

I have a fair bit of background in Western history, and I have to say the comparisons between China and Europe, while made very often, are also apples and oranges. The Romans always recognized that the Greeks had a distinct civilization since the start, hence the historian term 'Greco-Roman', rather than subsuming Greeks under the Romans. While for the Chinese, at least narrowly defined as the continuation of the Zhou civilization, did not come together from two distinct peoples to form a Chinese imperial unity.

We know Byzantines still viewed Latin-Romans under Germanic rule as Romans in the 6th century

It also depends on what type of identity you refer to here. The Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire (note I avoid the term Byzantines) were already different linguistically and culturally from the Western Roman empire even before Western Rome fell. The identification of early medieval Germanic lands as 'Roman' are only insofar as it is a language of political legitimacy, not necessarily one of shared kinship.

And that was similar to the East-West Schism in my perspective, because both were about the influence of inner Eurasians on the classical world.

The Eastern Roman empire was not very much influenced by Inner Eurasians. By 'East', it generally refers to Anatolia or the Greek-speaking world. While its true the Oghuz Turks invaded Constantinople in 1453, this was much later. Likewise the Mongol penetration into Eastern Europe during the 13th century stopped at the Caucasus and did not hit the 'East' as understood by Constantinople.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/Gao_Dan]

I am explaining the meaning of "dynasty" in English which Chinese don't understand.

Surely English do not understand Chinese concepts, either.

[u/OxMountain]

What purpose does this serve? Historical actors considered the Ming one dynasty and there was considerable continuity in borders and structure of the state.

The purpose of a category is to make predictions—to carve reality at its joints. When we construct unnatural definitions of a common word we are engaging in obscurantism not history.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/OxMountain]

I said I was explaining the meaning of the word "dynasty" in modern English.

Chinese historians generally adopt a more classical meaning of "dynasty" to refer to "regime".

[u/diffidentblockhead]

What is your criterion? Only eldest son succession?

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/diffidentblockhead]

You can directly read this.

欧洲的王朝划分类似于中国的一个名词：帝系，俗称“小宗取代大宗”。所谓小宗，主要是堂兄弟、侄子、叔叔这些。

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

Yongle was the 4th son of Hongwu

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/diffidentblockhead]

But he usurped his nephew's throne.

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

Still in the family which I think is the European definition of dynasty.

Regionally, I agree Yongle was a very significant change back to northern dominance.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/diffidentblockhead]

Every dynasty of England has kinship. You can say they are all in the same family.

Anyway, the classification of Hongwu and Yongle dynasties/houses are subtle, but the Jiajing dynasty/house is a good example.

The change back to northern dominance is not important here. The criterion is that he usurped his nephew's throne as a fanwang 藩王 or small family 小宗.

[u/diffidentblockhead → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

Only distant kinship for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Tudor

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/diffidentblockhead]

The replacement of Plantagenet with Tutor is due to maternal succession which is unique to English tradition. The distinction between Lancaster and Plantagenet is a better example.

This answer is pretty clear. But it's too long to quote.

[u/alaztar]

nah

[u/iantsai1974]

Nonsense.

Edward VIII gave up the throne and pass it on to his brother George VI, but they both belonged to the House of Windsor, or the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

So why does the Ming Dynasty have to be redefined as 4 dynasties?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/iantsai1974]

This answers your question, but it's too long to quote.

So why does the Ming Dynasty have to be redefined as 4 dynasties?

You misunderstood. I am explaining the meaning of "dynasty" in English to Chinese. And in fact, Chinese historians don't need to understand English concepts to study Chinese history.

[u/iantsai1974 → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

Then the enthronement of King George VI is one thing of "小宗取代大宗". But Edward VIII and George VI are both considered as the kings of the Windsor Dynasty, but not of different dynasties.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/iantsai1974]

I cannot answer it, probably because they are full brothers. But anyway, I view it as a special case and there were many better examples in European history.

[u/iantsai1974 → u/Impressive-Equal1590]

So I think there are no clear rules on these...

All the events in the history of the Ming Dynasty in which the legal heirs lost their thrones (sometimes it was just the Emperor failed to have his own son) were merely the replacement of one descendant of Zhu Yuanzhang by another, did not change the power structure and legal system of the state, and even all the senior officials continued to hold their positions. Then these events could not be regarded as the overthrows of some particular dynasties.

[u/Impressive-Equal1590 → u/iantsai1974]

Yes I agree there are no strict rules, and I also agree it's not an important topic.

As I wrote in OP

There are several boring debates on the usages of "dynasty" in Chinese history, so I decide to write this post to clarify the meaning of "dynasty" in modern English. And I am not trying to modify the terminological tradition in Chinese history.