what if there was a Han dynasty before Xinhai?

to clarify the big script of "the rise and fall of monarchy", we have to start with its ending. Last time, the idea of constitutional monarchy may be very good, but it was very unlikely to be realized under the conditions of China at that time. Moreover, the reason why Han people, who account for the vast majority of China's population, can't accept Manchu dynasty may be a reason, but it is not the main reason. As mentioned earlier, revolutionaries really regard "China is an alien dictatorship today, so we can't expect constitutional monarchy" (Jingwei: "Refuting the Recent Non-revolutionary Theory of Xinmin Congbao" and "People's Daily" No.4) as the main reason for abolishing the revolution of the monarch, and even explicitly state that "China wants to be constitutional, but the Han nationality will drive it and then merge it with Manchuria" (Zhi Shen: "On Manchuria, although it wants to be constitutional, it can't. But if the Han emperors (such as Yuan Shikai later) were changed, would they accept it? Sun Yat-sen mentioned at that time that, in the present situation, "even if you are a monarch, you can't help but make a revolution" (Volume 1 of Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen, Zhonghua Book Company, p.). It can be seen that radicalism did exist at that time. In addition to "alien", revolutionaries advocate * * * and there are still factors that pursue "thoroughness".

but that's not the point. At that time, the influence of the domestic revolutionary party was far less than that of the constitutionalists. If the Qing court was willing to change into a "virtual monarch" and accept constitutionalism, the strength of the constitutionalists and the court should be able to completely control the overall situation, and the revolution would be difficult to happen. But the problem is that there is almost no possibility that the Qing court will do so. The reason why the Qing court could not take the initiative to be a "virtual monarch" was that it had to be otherwise, and this was not mainly due to the "fear of Han" of Manchu.

actually, it doesn't need too many quotations. Let's take a look at the modern countries that have been successfully established through constitutional monarchy in the world. Whether it is Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, etc. in the west, or Japan and Thailand in the east, they all have the same feature, that is, they have implemented a "feudal" system in history, and monarchies are often not centralized, but they still get the respect of their subjects steadily. On the other hand, their royal status is mainly based on "high respect" or a certain religious aura, and even just a symbol (such as the coat of arms representing a family) can be considered inviolable by convention. Of course, such a royal family doesn't have to have real power, and without real power, it can't be harmful. Even if there are many disadvantages in current politics, it's not your fault. The public demands to innovate current politics, but they don't hate the royal family, and they don't support anyone to replace it. This is the so-called "orthodoxy" rather than "imperial power". In fact, those royal families have often "lost power" in history, but they can still "make the imperial plan permanent."

however, those autocratic countries that practiced the Qin system in history, from South Korea, North Korea and Vietnam in the so-called Confucian cultural circle around us to Russia, Ottoman Turkey, Persia and Egypt outside the circle, have not taken the road of constitutional monarchy. They either finally embarked on the road of * * * and through hard work, or implemented a totalitarian system under the cloak of "* * * and", so they still face the problem of culture. Only Iran (Persia) has been on the road of constitutional monarchy for a long time. The Pahlavi dynasty's "Japanese-style constitutionalism" (similar to the "preparatory constitutionalism" of the Qing court) fought with the British-style constitutionalism for decades, and finally ended up mutually assured destruction, which was replaced by Khomeini's "theocracy * * and country".

So I think what I said in the Ten Theories of Tradition (Fudan University Press) is still correct:

So we can know why we became the first * * * country in Asia as early as the Revolution of 1911, and on the other hand, the Millennium cycle continued after that. Nowadays, some people blame the Revolution of 1911 for being too radical and anti-traditional. They think that constitutional monarchy is suitable for the national conditions and conforms to tradition. In fact, the situation of 1911 can be completely explained by traditional logic, but constitutional monarchy is seriously contrary to our true tradition. Looking at countries with successful constitutional monarchy such as Britain and Japan, traditionally, the royal family is not as autocratic as ours, but more importantly, it is far more revered than ours. Don't say it's "a series of all ages", but at least there is no "everyone can want between wells" Even today when the theory of equality prevails, people still respect the royal family even if the radical left is in power (just as even the conservative right is in power, they still respect the trade union).

And our mysterious but unholy, frightening but not awe-inspiring traditional dynasty has its own traditional cycle of "Tangwu Revolution". It has been more than 26 years since the Qing Dynasty to Xinhai, and even without the introduction of western learning, it is time for "luck". Without the influence of western learning, the dynasty will change. With the influence of western learning, there will be no new dynasty after the Qing Dynasty. Although there is still autocracy, it is against tradition to fly the flag of the Qing Dynasty. As we have seen, in the real tradition, the reason why Chinese people respect the monarch is not so much based on their belief in Confucianism, but rather that they are mainly afraid of "magic potential." Therefore, under the constitutional system, it is difficult for a "virtual monarch" who has lost his magical power to get the kind of respect that constitutional monarchs in Britain, Japan and other countries have received. In the history before the modern constitutional system, there were often "virtual monarchs" in countries that did not have real power, and they also formed a tradition of respecting virtual monarchs. And once the monarch in our history is sidelined, even if he is sidelined by his closest relatives, such as his mother (such as Wu Zetian of the Tang Dynasty), his brother (such as Song Taizu to Zhao Guangyi), his father-in-law (such as Wang Mang at the end of the Western Han Dynasty) and his grandfather (such as Emperor Wen of Sui on the northern weekend), his life will inevitably be in danger. Therefore, our emperor is either a "real monarch" or a miserable abolished monarch, and a "virtual monarch" is farther away from "tradition" than * * *. Historically, it is rare for the abolished royal family to maintain a certain position in the early Republic of China without falling into the hopeless disaster of falling on the wall and being pushed by everyone.

To sum up, the complementarity of law and Taoism has formed the autocratic tradition in Chinese history. However, Confucian values do not support the system of virtual monarch. Apart from the well-known concepts of "virtuous monarch" and "kingly way", the distance between Confucian values and * * * is no greater than that between Confucian values and constitutional monarchy. Therefore, it is not surprising that China became the first * * * Republic in Asia after being influenced by the West, and did not embark on the road of constitutional monarchy. If * * * and ideals seem radical in the world, then they seem to be "conservative" in the "culture". Many of its contents can be supported by the traditional values of ancient Confucianism that are dissatisfied with the "Qin system" (note: what we are talking about here is to find support in values, not to say that ""as an institutional arrangement has been invented by ancient Confucianism).

It can be seen that the traditional "Qin system" itself has the paradox that the supremacy of administrative safety and extreme insecurity are mutually causal. It corresponds to the situation in Chinese history that "extreme governance leads to chaos, and extreme chaos leads to governance" and "long-term separation will inevitably lead to separation". The view that the chaos after the Qing Dynasty was simply attributed to "westernization" and "radicalization" is superficial: if the chaos after the Qing Dynasty was due to westernization, what was the chaos caused by the demise of previous dynasties? In other words, what part of the chaotic times after the Qing Dynasty was the result of "haste makes waste" in modernization, or was it just a part of the traditional cycle of "chaos control"?

This dynasty is not the same dynasty

Here I would also like to say: In the past, we translated the so-called dynasty in western history into dynasty, and West Renye Fang also translated our dynasty into dynasty. Now it seems that this is very debatable. I remember that in the discussion on the history of peasant wars in the s, some people said that the social change in China was a characteristic of our history. An article retorted that the change of dynasties was a phenomenon of every nation, such as the Plantagenet Dynasty, Lancaster Dynasty, Tudor Dynasty and Stuart Dynasty in British history, and the metabolism of Molovin Dynasty, Caroline Dynasty, Valois Dynasty and Bourbon Dynasty in France. This is obviously confusing their dynasty replacement with our "regime change".

The word "dynasty" in ancient Chinese has a positive meaning, which refers to the ancient "three generations" as the patriarch of "vassal states", especially the Western Zhou Dynasty. "Dynasty" is the court of Zhou Tianzi. At that time, there was no such thing as "Han Dynasty" or "Ming Dynasty". The "dynasty" of the Zhou dynasty lasted more than 8 years under the "feudal" system, which actually belonged to the same royal family as a series of dynastys in Britain that can be traced back to William the Conqueror from today, but it was somewhat similar to the dynastys of the Plantagenet Dynasty and Tudor Dynasty. As for the calendar "Chao" in the following Qin dynasty, it should be a completely different concept from the western dynasty.

the word dynasty in Spanish is said to come from the ancient Greek, which means power, be able to). The word itself does not involve the source of power, and can be used regardless of election or hereditary. By the end of Rome and the Republic of China, those in power often came from the same family in succession, so these "power families" were commonly called dynasty. Such as the so-called "Dynasty" of Julia Claudius, "Dynasty" of Flavi, "Dynasty" of Antony and so on. At this time, "power" has actually become more and more private, but it has to go through the procedure of parliamentary (Senate) election in form. The way of giving and receiving privately is also more flexible, which may be given to nephews, adopted sons, attendants, or even a "sage" that the former emperor likes (similar to China's so-called abdication), not necessarily a son, not necessarily his eldest son.

By the late Roman Empire and even the Middle Ages, heredity had become the norm, and the form of election was often gone. It seems that the Chinese people call dynasty a dynasty at this time. But in fact, because the king at this time was actually just the leader of the princes (somewhat similar to the Zhou Emperor), his actual power was limited, and under the rule that "the vassals of my vassals are not my vassals", the king actually had only some vassals (vassals) and no so-called subjects in the sense of China, and even often did not levy "national tax on imperial grain" and only lived on his own territory. But on the other hand, the kingship under this system is very stable. Although the nobles struggle for power and profit, they have no wild desires for kingship. It is difficult to have a royal system in the traditional era, and there is a great chance to retain it in modernization.

As far as Britain is concerned, since the Norman conqueror William occupied Britain in, it has experienced Norman (-), Plantagenet (also known as Anjou,-), Lancaster (-), York (-), Tudor (-), Stuart (-,-), Hanover (-) and Saxony-Coburg.

For example, Stephen, the last king of the Norman Dynasty, died childless, and his cousin Matilda, as the only legitimate descendant of the Norman royal family, married Auferil, the Earl of Anjou, whose fief was in France, and her son succeeded him as the king, thus becoming Henry II, the first king of the "dynasty" of Anjou. The Earl of Anjou took Plantagenet as his badge, so the Anjou Dynasty was also called Plantagenet Dynasty. When Richard II, the last king of the dynasty, succeeded his grandfather, his officials were dissatisfied with his arbitrariness. They took advantage of his visit to Ireland to support his cousin (another grandson of King Tai), the Duke of Lancaster, and called him Henry IV instead, which was the beginning of the Lancaster Dynasty. Soon the Duke of York, another grandson of the King Tai, rose up for the position and once gained an advantage. This was "house of york". And Catherine, the widow of Henry V of Lancaster royal family, remarried Owen Tudor, a Welsh aristocrat, and her grandson married Elizabeth, a princess of York royal family, so the two competing tribes of Lancaster and York merged again, and the new king henry vii took the Tudor family coat of arms as the royal emblem, even if the Tudor dynasty was established. Queen Elizabeth I, the last king of Tudor Dynasty, was unmarried for life. On her deathbed, she appointed Princess Margaret (the daughter of henry vii) to succeed James I, the son of Lord James of Stuart family, and the royal emblem was changed to the coat of arms of Stuart family, so the "Stuart Dynasty" was declared to be established. This unfortunate dynasty met with the English revolution, which was once reconciled with the faction of * * *, and was "restored" 11 years later. However, the restored King James II was ousted by Protestantism in Britain after the revolution because he believed in Catholicism, and invited his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband, Prince William of the Netherlands, as the couple's "double kings". This is the famous "glorious revolution".

but this "revolution" did not lead to "regime change". After the glorious revolution, although Britain has been a virtual monarch and parliament in essence, it has not only a king in form, but even a king's emblem has not changed. Different from the historical habit that the royal female husband changed his husband's family emblem to the king's emblem to start a "new dynasty", the Williams still adopted his wife's family's coat of arms (that is, the first king's), which continued the Stuart dynasty, despite their different (religious) positions. Until, because Queen Anne was childless, the throne was inherited by Princess Sophia of Stuart's royal family and her new German husband, George I, the son of the elector of Hanover, and the royal emblem of Hanover was used instead, so "house of hanover" appeared. And the last king of this "dynasty" was none other than the famous Queen Victoria, the symbol of the heyday of the British Empire!

the "glorious queen" is a "king of national subjugation"?

I'm afraid it's hard for us in China to imagine that neither of the two "revolutions" changed the dynasty, but the calm Victorian Age, which is the pinnacle of British history and has been talked about so far, turned out to be the end of the dynasty, while the great queen in British history, who has been in office for a long time, was regarded as the "dynasty" by China people. Isn't it? It was in her hands that house of hanover "perished": because her husband was the German Prince Albert of Saxony-Coburg-Gotha, her son Edward VII changed to his father's coat of arms after he succeeded to the throne and established the "Saxony-Coburg-Gotha Dynasty". Since the name of this dynasty came from Germany, Britain and Germany became enemy countries in the First World War. In order to show their national position, the royal family abolished the title of Saxony and replaced it with the coat of arms of the then King George V who succeeded to the former Duke of Windsor. So the "Windsor Dynasty" that continues to this day appeared in Britain.

Obviously, the British royal lineage has been in the same strain since, which has lasted for nearly a thousand years, but it is not necessarily from the paternal line, but sometimes from the maternal line. Although the royal family also has civil strife and struggles for the throne, including the chaos of "Red, White and wars of the roses" caused by the struggle between Lancaster family and York family, all this has always been an internal matter of the royal family, and "outsiders" without blood or in-laws will never participate. It is totally unthinkable for them that Qiansun Zhao and Li all came to "compete for the deer", "win the Central Plains" and "Zhu Lishi and Liu Guo, Liang Tang, Jin Han Zhou, all came to the fifteenth emperor, sowing chaos for fifty years". The interruption and change of the kingship is only possible if there is a conquest from other nationalities, such as the Norman invasion led by William the conqueror in 1996, which destroyed the kingdom of the native Anglo-Saxons, and the Roman conquest of Britain earlier. -but things like this, in our China people's view, are not just regime change, but the replacement of civilization, that is, Huang Zongxi's so-called "subjugation of the world", not just "national subjugation".

However, apart from the "subjugation of the world" several times a year ago, there seems to be no country there to die. More often than not, the above-mentioned "regime change" is just a domestic affair of the royal family, and the society is calm, usually just a new king emblem. Like "The Great Victoria"