Chinese meritocracy vs aristocracy

>Imperial China had a centralized meritocratic imperial bureaucracy
>Imperial China also had a landed aristocratic class with dukes, marquis, viscounts, and barons
How did this work? What was the relationship between the nobility and the bureaucracy, who was really in of the lands, how did stuff like tax collection and implementation of law happen when there are two groups of "rulers" in place underneath the emperor?

Excellent question, bumping for an answer.

Kind of like how the church functioned under nobles in Europe I'd guess. Everyone was subordinate to the ruler, but aristocrats had certain privileges and exemptions that bureaucrats had to work under or around.

You could advance to nobility and nobles were the ones in charge of the lands and supervising the bureaucrats which allowed them to pocket money to themselves.

The bureaucracy were the ones really in charge, they effectively became the aristocracy in the form of the educated elite. It helps that having money makes it easier to get an education in the first place so as to be able to sit the imperial exams and gain a position in the civil service.

>ask broad question about an unspecified but probably huge period of time
>gets replies with broad answers with no reference to time period, making them utterly meaningless

Veeky Forums: the thread

Every modern state today (ignore shitholes) has a "meritocratic" bureucracy. Those countries normally also has economical elites and lobbies. How is the case of China weird except for the fact that it was more sophisticated than others in previous eras?

>Aristocrats were hamstrung by the state to prevent the broad accumulation of power
>The emperor was kept sequested in a bubble by the bureaucracy

Pretty much this

Weren't it like in Europe, that the clergy (and university educated) and nobles were the one and same?

In Europe the clergy functioned almost as a pension and social security net for the younger sons and daughters of European nobles. That's where they could go if they got too old or sick, or their older siblings inherited the estate, or if they were mentally challenged etc.

Abbots, abbesses, bishops, archbishops, doctors, judges = 99 % nobles.

If you want to bureacrat in China, you need an education.
To have an education, you need to be rich.
If you are rich, you are most likely a noble or soon to be one.

They would try to balance each other out.

In some regimes, they were pro-business and were laxed on wealthy landowners/merchants. In other cases, they would tax them hard and make some industries illegal (state monopoly). In most cases, it would be a balanced approach though. State would get good chunk of some economy while taxing businesses but not too hard they'd go bankrupt. They would tax landowners fairly. During peace times, the money would be used to fund for social causes like taking care of the elderly and the sick.

Not really, by the Song Dynasty the nobility was mostly vestigial outside the imperial family. A lot of poorfags managed to become important officials without ever interacting with any existing aristocracy. The main problem for peasants to become officials was money and time, not social restrictions. Some were able to get around that by being exceptionally learned, therefore attracting higher attention, or getting the whole village/town to fund their education. The funds given back to local communities by officials from there was often an immense boon.

Depends of the period. Early on the nobility had a lot of rights, land and power.

eventually the court centralized things. the nobles were basically just retainers of the imperial family and not very relevant to government outside of perhaps the military. The scholar bureaucrats were the ones really running the show, and became a mini aristocracy of their own as they and their decedents bought up most of the land.

China also had a hereditary all-powerful Son of Heaven

>hereditary
Dozen or so different dynasties. Some even from non-traditional Chinese states like Mongolia and Manchuria.

No.

While religion certainly is important in China, nobles weren't same as religious class. Nobles in China mainly include rich merchants, family of prestigious generals, rich landowners, and some high ranking imperial officials.

England had multiple dynasties too. Some of them were even Scottish.

>What was the relationship between the nobility and the bureaucracy

generally speaking, membership of nobility and bureaucracy frequently overlapped. however, those in bureaucracy were theoretically concerned with keeping the central government functioning and in power, while nobility primarily advanced individual clan interests. these agendas sometimes aligned together, such as in the tang dynasty.

a better question would be about the relationship between the inner and outer court, or the imperial family and related/favored aristocratic families vs the non-imperial aristocrats and bureaucrats that ruled locally.

>who was really in of the lands,

aristocrats have mostly controlled land, but bureaucrats were responsible for collecting taxes. however, because bureaucrats were exempt from tax, aristocrats took advantage of this as much as possible.

under the equal fields system, all land theoretically belonged to the imperial government, which was parceled out to individual families. however, collaboration among families and land acquisition by buddhist monasteries virtually nullified the system.

because directly controlling land was a unfeasible, imperial governments usually focused on controlling the resources harvested, or the taxes paid in kind. therefore, fiscal and monetary policies (probably more significant among them was them the transition from paying tax in kind to use of silver taels in the song or thereabouts) were where the real fights between bureaucrats and aristocrats took place.

>Imperial China also had a landed aristocratic class with dukes, marquis, viscounts, and barons
The later aristocrats rarely controlled physical land especially after a rebellion in the Han dynasty. Instead, they were given the tax income from a certain amount of households. For example a wan-hu-hou (ten thousand household marquis) was given the tax income of 10,000 households.
They later also introduced a system where your rank would decrease by one every generation to prevent power build up and to encourage more contribution to the family; ie if you are a duke, your eldest son would be a marquis, etc. unless he accomplishes enough to become a duke again.

>how did stuff like tax collection and implementation of law happen when there are two groups of "rulers" in place underneath the emperor?

aristocrat and bureaucrats were not diametrically opposed to each other, especially since aristocrats composed the majority of the bureaucracy. because of the desire for families to accumulate power and wealth, the success of the reigning imperial government depended on creating a mutually advantageous situation with non-imperial aristocrats. hence, incentives like tax exemption for bureaucrats and legal protection under the tang penal code.

laws to prevent graft and corruption were enacted to limit the abuse of power. the Rule of Avoidance was a policy regarding the appointment of officials that started in the Sui dynasty, wherein officials were not allowed to serve in their home district. this policy restricted the influence and power of the aristocratic families, but also limited the effectiveness of the officials serving in unfamiliar with regions.

the bottom line is that the imperial government and bureaucracy had to walk a fine line between strictness and leniency in order to maintain power and prevent rebellions.

God I love China. Whenever I think the West is cutting edge in some policy or bureaucratic decision, the Chinese did it 200 years earlier.

I guess it goes both ways though

>the Rule of Avoidance was a policy regarding the appointment of officials that started in the Sui dynasty, wherein officials were not allowed to serve in their home district.
Wouldn't that create resentment among the locals who end up being governed by outsiders unfamiliar with their needs and customs?

We have the same thing today and yet you find it so hard to comprehend?

It means equal treatment before the law instead of nepotism/favoritism. Lineage was a pretty big deal.

Our modern democratic plutocracy isn't really much like ancient feudal nobles.

>theoretical meritocracy that's actually a plutocracy with rampant nepotism

chinese have been there and done that

And then you have guys like the Hongwu Emperor who started off as a dirt poor tenant farmer and became the founder of a new dynasty that displaced the Mongols.

it's almost like chinese history goes through cycles where the plutocracy rise and fall.

The same way judicial and federal powers exist at the same time

Chinese history appears cyclical largely because the Chinese followed a standard formula when writing the history of dynasties