-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As a Chinese, I still can't understand why you thought that eunuchs have so much power in the empire.
It has almost non-similarities to the Manluks, eunuchs in China have a status more similar to that of the Byzantine Empire, a tool that relies entirely on the emperor. They themselves only represent the power of the emperor, but do not hold any actual power.
Moreover, eunuchs in China are even more extreme and are not allowed to control any military forces. They usually only exist in the emperor's palace (known as the inner court, 内廷), rather than in the government (known as the court, 朝廷), and eunuchs usually cannot have any private communication with government officials.
In fact, most of the discussions on Chinese eunuchs in the forum are extremely strange to Chinese people, full of imagination and forced analogy that do not exist in reality. Including but not limited to the strange eunuch class bound to the mandate of heaven in EU4, the eunuch dynasty in Haless, and so on.
Last edited:
- 4
I generally agree with the core opinions of the esteemed @GeneralNoob GeneralNoob, @zeruosi, and @Carcossa Castile, but I personally have some objections.
I. Here are my differing opinions:
First, regarding the statementI have a different view. In fact, I find it rather odd, because your (@GeneralNoob GeneralNoob) view in the first half of the sentence is clearly not the so-called “Ottoman decline thesis” that was popular before last century, yet the perspective on military matters does not seem to be that of the “Transformation” (although I do not entirely agree with this ambitious new academic paradigm, it is evidently better than the old one). The Ottoman state in the eighteenth century was certainly not in decline, but its military failures during this period cannot be entirely attributed to what you call “ janissaries” (in fact, a more appropriate term would be “yeniçer,” as they are part of the Kapıkulu Ocağı). One might even say that the reasons for the failure of the empire’s reforms (not only military) are more complex. First, the so-called military decline of the Kapıkulu Ocağı and the other Askerleri (note that they were not merely soldiers but also included, in theory, other personnel providing military services) was due partly to logistical reasons such as deficiencies in military equipment and partly to the often insufficient duration of professional Kapıkulu training (by convention they were supposed to train for six years, but at that time they were frequently forced into warfare after less than three years, still in their apprenticeship stage). Second, as you also mentioned, although Ottoman economic policies were indeed flexible and practically oriented, the economy was fragile and not robust, and the empire’s infrastructure was also poor, which restricted the state’s investment in and development of its military; third—and most importantly—the yeniçeri were dissatisfied with the formation of a modern army (interestingly, their name literally means “modern army”), and these dissenters were not only those who held the status of Askerleri and were nominally registered as yeniçeri, but also citizens engaged in non-military occupations such as handicrafts. Moreover, as current scholars maintain, these so-called military reforms failed for reasons beyond those mentioned. In fact, these reforms were typically endorsed and implemented only by the faction represented by the Grand Vizier appointed within the Ottoman Sultan’s government, the Bāb-ı Ālī, while other factions, citizens, Ulama, and Sheikhs often held different reform opinions and quarreled among themselves. Interestingly, at that time the Ottoman Empire was in what some historians call the “Second Empire” phase; in this period the Sultan himself did not possess the so-called supreme authority (in fact, he never did) and was more akin to the position of the UK’s Charles III, so they were frequently forced to suspend or alter these plans due to conflicting reform views, as well as pressing social, economic, and military setbacks.
Next is the statement
“I am not familiar enough with China, but I know that eunuchs as a faction were a similar problem as the janissaries in the 18th century. It is not even a never-before-heard story either. The Mamluks had the same fate post late 14th century.”
In fact, this surprised me even more. First, the sentence “It is not even a never-before-heard story either. The Mamluks had the same fate post late 14th century” is rather odd, because the so-called “Mamlukization of the Mamluk Sultanate” did not occur at the end of the 14th century. For example, before 1412, former slaves in the army only occasionally ascended to the sultanate, whereas after that, the position of Sultan was almost always held by Mamluks (between 1412 and the end of the regime in 1517, 14 out of 20 sultans were former military slaves, while in the earlier period, among 24 sultans, 18 were descendants of previous sultans and never had a slave background). According to recent Mamluk historiography, it is more like “as the state grew, the merit principle based on administrative and military abilities became increasingly important, which in turn fostered a need to explain the priority of these principles by justifying [Mamluk] legitimacy on the same merit basis.” Therefore, “at the end of the 14th century, the sons of the rulers seemed to be considered eligible for succession because of their bloodline, but by the end of the 15th century, such bloodline actually caused them to lose their legitimacy for succession.” That is, after 1412 and the eventual collapse of the Sultan al-Ẓāhir Barqūq dynasty’s plan (1382–1412)—the emblematic event of this phenomenon being the public execution of a Sultan in Damascus in 412—the political elite of central Syria–Egypt experienced a rupture in the traditional model of dynastic state formation. This traditional model was challenged in an unprecedented manner, giving rise to an alternative ideal of state authority that transcended the authority of individual families and the notion of a dynasty’s supreme status. In other words, the ruling families gradually became the focal point for power and resources, which fostered a national consciousness and led the groups participating in this political order to no longer be loyal to any particular royal family but rather to the political order itself. This emergence of a political order concept centered around a new narrative of legitimacy and its distinctiveness—accompanied by the bureaucratic service demands of new agents and institutions to reproduce it—is what this article refers to as the “Mamlukization” of the Mamluk Sultanate.
Next is the even more erroneous claim that
“castrated men who never receive military training were just not good warriors (unlike the Mamluks)”;
I feel I must state one thing: the Mamluks were not castrated! In fact, the Mamluk state even had to station eunuchs (usually Ethiopians) in the barracks and schools to supervise, in order to prevent some Mamluk apprentices from sexually assaulting other apprentices. Furthermore, there were quite a number of the Mamluks’ descendants (usually referred to as Awlad Al-Nas, meaning “the children of the people”); although they theoretically could not inherit Mamluk status, they could pursue other professions and scholarly works (indeed, many Mamluks were also involved in academic endeavors) and exert influence. Research on them can be found in that [perhaps not very well-known] work Mamluk Descendants In Search for the Awlad Al-Nas and other related papers.
II. Finally, here is my endorsement of the two outstanding opinions:
- The so-called decline of the Ottomans and the Ming is a rather complex situation and is not necessarily entirely related to being too large and unable to adapt to changes in the world. In fact, modern historians are still studying this issue, and they often marvel, “How could they (Imperial China/中华帝国, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, Ῥωμαίων Πολιτεία, and Sacrum Imperium Romanum) have lasted for so long?”
- “Eunuchs have never been a social class.” I completely agree with this point. In fact, they are more like a special power group, just as one cannot consider the people of color in the court of Friedrich August I der Starke as an independent class (see the first article “Zwischen Sklaverei und Exotismus: People of Colour am Hof Augusts des Starken (r. 1694-1733) und Christiane Eberhardines (r. 1694-1727)” in the book Im Schatten der Macht: Subalterne Körper an Frühneuzeitlichen Fürstenhöfen); at best, they can only be regarded as a part of a larger group. Similarly, most regimes in Imperial Chinese history (including the Ming) were like this; their eunuchs did not wield the so-called “pen and sword,” nor were they responsible for production and economic operations as “farmers and merchants.” In truth, what were they more like? They were more akin to the eunuchs and servants employed by the Roman state (including the Republic, the Roman Principate, and the Byzantine period) and the “Great Kings” of the Iranian Bronze Age (forgive my use of this term): they were extensions of their master’s will, with their power largely derived from what was conferred by their master and hardly transferable by personal choice as a hereditary legacy to another person of the same occupation (just as the Patriarch of Constantinople could be arbitrarily removed by the Byzantine emperor), and they did not have heirs in the usual sense. In fact, even the Karaağalar (the chief eunuch of the Ottoman harem) and other black or white eunuchs of the highly powerful Ottoman Empire are hard to be regarded as a class, not to mention that the eunuchs attached to imperial power in Byzantium (although they could hold military positions—which seems somewhat better than in Imperial China, where they more often appeared as agents or harem staff) were even more formidable than the eunuchs of Imperial China (of course, we should note that the power of eunuchs in the early Ottoman Empire was actually not great).
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Unlike the janissaries, the political influence of the eunuchs was not sufficient to enable them to do such things on their own. As Carcossa Castile put it, they had neither books nor swords, and they had no powers of their own. It is completely unrealistic to think that the political influence of the eunuchs was sufficient to carry out these acts, unless the emperor himself approved of their choices, and to consider their influence only out of the emperor's favour rather than the political power of the eunuchs themselves. If the emperor himself no longer trusted the eunuchs, the eunuchs would be kicked to death at once, like wild dogs on the road.
If you do not understand something about China, please do not continue to make such surprising statements, eunuchs are not much like Mamluks or janissaries, they have no political power of their own and almost never will.
Again: I dont think they have "so much power". The eunuchs are a side topic. I am focusing on the Janissaries. All I basically said is "this is the issue with the janissaries in the 18th century Ottoman Empire, idk about China but they had similar groups, like the eunuchs". It is not the tin foil I am taking out either:
"Certain eunuchs gained immense power that occasionally superseded that of even the Grand Secretaries such as the Ming dynasty official Zheng He."
"The eunuch Zong Ai killed two Northern Wei Emperors and a Northern Wei prince."
"The Southern Ming Yongli emperor's wife Empress Wang (Southern Ming) had a boy eunuch slave who later wrote his autobiographical account "Yangjian biji". He was from Huguang province's Jingzhou prefecture. Rebels killed his parents and he was adopted by Liu, one of the rebels. Liu became a Southern Ming soldier. The Southern Ming court needed eunuchs so they ordered high-ranking military officers to give up their older than 7 year old sons to be castrated in Kunming (Yunnan Fu) for the Yongli court in 1656. Over 20 boys were castrated 1 month after the order despite Liu's attempts to save his adopted son from the castration."
"The lack of the restrictions allowed some eunuchs to rise to great power, for example, Wang Zhen, Liu Jin, and Wei Zhongxian especially. There were even a eunuch supervised secret police, which worked for the emperor. It was known as the Eastern Depot and Western Depot.[73]: 65 Also, Zheng He, a famous eunuch in China's history, became an early pioneer of seafaring and spread Chinese influence around the world."
Eunuchs in China - Wikipedia
This is from 5 minutes of research. Again: I have no idea what the issue with China was. I am familiar with the Mamluks and the Ottomans.
Both were shunned from society. Both were "recruited" by the central government. Both were servants (the Mamluks initially). Both had ranging responsibilities. They might not have similarities in their origin or function, but they did in their social status.
There are no discussions about eunuchs in this forum. I just mentioned it as a side-topic. In a single sentance.
Last edited:
- 1
"The emperor determined what is legal. Therefore it is impossible for them to have done something illegal"
Is a nonsensical statement.
1. I didnt make a statment about China. My comment was directed to the Janissaries. The eunuchs were a side-topic i mentioned in a single short sentance and I clearified what I meant with it.
2. Idk how things work in China, but in the West there is no opinion police and everyone is free to comment on whatever they want to. I am not going to allow you to silence me. Feel free to correct wrong statements I make.
- 1
I am keeping off-topic subjects deliberately short in order to avoid the derailing of OP's post. Hence I will do it again here:
1. The Janissaries are obviously not the sole reason, but they play a massive role, especially in the late 18th century, where most military reforms are happening. I do not agree that the Ottoman military was outdated in the early to mid 18th century, since they just came out of the Great Turkish Wars with enough victories to underline their military potency.
2. Decline refers to more than just the military and in that regards it is nonsense to speak about a steady +200 year long decline. The reforms conducted were most definetly an improvement of the status quo. The "ill man of Europe" analogy subsequently pops up in the late 19th century and not prior. And mind you the turbulent times the Ottomans underwent, was not a-typical for nations at that time.
3. The 18th/19th century experienced a mini-ice age, which massively effected rural economy. It negatively effected the Ottoman economy, but the Ottoman economy was not the only one affected by it.
4. The Ottomans losing some border regions is not equivalent of them losing their potency. If that was the case, Russia would have steam-rolled the Ottomans by the mid 18th century. The Problems the Ottomans faced were not a-typical.
5. The entire country underwent rapid reforms with the Tanzimat. You can not argue "stuff was bad in the late 18th century, therefor there was a +200 year long decline". Nations have ups and downs. Again by that logic Rome was in a steady decline since 9 AD.
Pre blasting the Janissaries into Albania? Sure. Post blasting them to Albania? No. Especially not with Abdülhamid II. who took full reign back to the dynasty.
1. Idk what "Mamlukization" is meant to mean, but the Mamluk Sultanate exists since Baybars. That much is historic fact. That is about mid 13th century. In the 14th century the Mamluk sultanate is in full "Mamluk operated" mode. An-Nasir, who is in charge right now, is just the outliner. Either way, I dont know how that is relevant to what I said.
2. It doesnt matter if Mamluks in particular became Sultans often or not. The country was run by them. I dont even know why you would dispute this. They had senior positions. Their strength determined which candidate could get in charge. Land was distributed to them. They were essentially knights with unchecked political control. You make it sound like the Mamluk Sultanate had some stable government, when they are in utter succession crises since their origin with the Ayyubids and subesquently the Seljuks.
3. When I say "the Mamluks had the same fate post 14th century", I am referring to their increasingly disruptive and corrupt nature, which ended with them being murdered on mass, just like the Janissaries. You are kicking a can of worms open, that is entirely unrelated to my statment.
I never made that claim.
I think I have to start to consider whether you are a qualified communicator. You casually expressed opinions that seemed strange to us without understanding China, persisted in your opinion even after we explained them, and began to press me with the hat of freedom of speech when I asked you to stop stating such strange remarks. Honestly, man, I hate to say this, but you're being a little rude.
I want to state a truth all the time: the power of the eunuch comes entirely from the emperor, so the eunuch cannot accomplish something by himself and needs the authorization or acquiescence of the emperor. The expression "Therefore it is impossible for them to have done something illegal" is very interesting. Can you frame it for me in one of my sentences?
As I recall correctly, freedom of speech requires respect for others. If you, as a Spaniard, saw someone who insisted that the Moors or Jews had long been a strong political force in Spain, would you at least ask them not to promote such absurd claims?
- 1
Seems that your major argument is “a powerful interest group with unbalanced power will block reforms, being one of the factors behind national decline”. That is something that I totally agree.
Just that by reasons stated above, I think the major interest group in Imperial China is the landed gentry, which controls the pen and the sword, instead of eunuchs, which usually need to rely on their alliance with fractions of scholar officials to seize power. You quoted sources about occasional rise of influential eunuchs which control the state, but for 99% of time the state was in control of Confucian scholar-officials from the landed gentry class.
“The emperor determined what is legal” is part of the Confucian ideology. Like the “Infallability of the Pope”, the Emperor as the Son of Heaven is the ultimate source of legitimacy, unless he apparently violates Confucian principles.
Just that by reasons stated above, I think the major interest group in Imperial China is the landed gentry, which controls the pen and the sword, instead of eunuchs, which usually need to rely on their alliance with fractions of scholar officials to seize power. You quoted sources about occasional rise of influential eunuchs which control the state, but for 99% of time the state was in control of Confucian scholar-officials from the landed gentry class.
“The emperor determined what is legal” is part of the Confucian ideology. Like the “Infallability of the Pope”, the Emperor as the Son of Heaven is the ultimate source of legitimacy, unless he apparently violates Confucian principles.
Luckly that is not up for you to decide and I have the freedom to continue to comment on whatever I want. Mind your attitude.
Which is completly normal and fine. I wrote the side-topic in a rush. Hence I clearified what I meant and the topic should be done there already. There is really no reason to further elaborate on the topic. I didnt and dont think that eunuchs are this large political organisation with control over China. That was not my intention.
"So you said something and clearified what you meant in additional mutliple comments. That means you are persisting on your initial comment and me telling you to stop writing about an entire country is a completly normal and polite comment."
Me: To clearifie my point I do not think eunuchs were a strong political organisation. Just that they were a group of people that (at certain times) did have a political impact. Feel free to correct wrong statements I make.
You: That is equivalent to saying that jews and Moors are a strong political force! Have some respect! Never talk about my country again!
Really? Much mature here.
Last edited:
- 2
Completly fair. I didnt meant to make a statment sounding like they were 99% in charge. However neither were the Janissaries. Their power was just particularly strong in the late 18th century. 95% of the time they were simply military servants of the Ottoman dynasty. Hence my comment.
Corruption was not just legally forbidden by the Ottomans, but also religiously. Yet you still had corrupt people. The issue here is not what is legitimate, but what people did regardless. I dont think Zong Ai killing a chinese emperor was legal, legitimate or morally right either. Yet it still happened. This is not meant to be understood as a justification for some eunuch organisation. Just a remark that it has very little to do with the subject at hand, since I never questioned the legitimacy and order of the confucian ideolgy/chinese emperor.
- 1
I apologize if my attitude seemed tough, which may have been caused by a stupid mechanical translation. I'm not trying to shut you up and not talk about it, but I'm hoping that if you don't understand something, try not to talk about it even after we've corrected it.
To tell you the truth, I find it hard to understand how you understand these strange meanings, when did I mention that eunuchs could not do anything illegal, or ask you not to discuss my country? Can mechanical translation cause so much misunderstanding? Well, if the misunderstanding has been cleared up, then this may be the end of it - I will only say that the political influence of the eunuchs derives from the emperor himself, and on this basis the political influence of the eunuchs is often limited to the emperor's favor, and they can do nothing by themselves.
- 1
For the 10th time: I didnt. I wrote several times already that I do not know what the issue with China was and that I do not know the impact of the eunuchs at various political heights. You are blowing a single sentance in a post about the janissaries up.
For the 10th time: I just meant to write that they exist and that at various times had some kind of political impact on the nation, which is a fact I showed with my quotes. Does that mean that the eunuchs were some kind of political organisation that impacted China for 99% of the time? No, just like the Janissaries. The point is that such groups can impact the political structure of your nation at a particular period of time. What do you want to dispute here?
Just like (de jura) the janissaries.
So let me also declare, once again with fatigue: I am not exaggerating your words, and I am not showing you any aggression. From the beginning, I just mentioned the topic of eunuchs and corrected you when you were partially wrong... Unfortunately, when I am exhausted, you again conclude that the eunuchs are akin to the Praetorian Guard, and I do not understand how an armed group with its own sword can be considered to have no political power of its own and only need the emperor to give it, to be equal to the eunuchs... ?
Of course, if you just want to point out that the eunuch is just a political being like the janissaries, then I don't think there's any problem.
- 1
Yeah, man, it's annoying to me, too. So why are you facing it“Well, if the misunderstanding has been cleared up, then this may be the end of it - I will only say that the political influence of the eunuchs derives from the emperor himself, and on this basis the political influence of the eunuchs is often limited to the emperor's favor, and they can do nothing by themselves. "To add" Just like (de jura) the janissaries."
It may be the result of mechanical translation, but it seems to me that you always declare the inconsistency and then tell me that it is somewhat the same. if you agree with "if you just want to point out that the eunuch is just a political being like the janissaries, then I don't think there's any problem. ", so let's end this torture.
They are similar in the fact that at various periods of times they had a political impact on the nation. As in: At some point in their entire respective history.
They are the same in their legal status, since de jura both were bound to the favour, order and the rule of their sovereign. They were both de jura servants of the sovereign/ruler.
They are different in their role in society.
They (eunuch and mamluks) are the same in their social status, since both were kinda shunned by society.
It really didnt make any crazy claims. I hope this clearifies everything now.
Johan's comments are super encouraging not going to lie. We know the devs are the worst players and they mostly roleplay how it is "meant" to be player and dont push the boundaries, and eventually autistic players will break the game, crack it, and blob like crazy, but the fact that devs with thousands of hours in EU4 struggle to get historical Russia, something a monkey with their eyes close could do in a drunk day in EU4, it is certainly very encouraging.
I hope unlike CK3, they ignore redditors complaining and keep it at this level of difficulty for the duration of the games life.
If anyone wants it easier, modding is your friend.
I hope unlike CK3, they ignore redditors complaining and keep it at this level of difficulty for the duration of the games life.
If anyone wants it easier, modding is your friend.
- 5
- 1
Well, I'm glad to be able to make this clear.
Um... In the sense of being indebted to the monarch? I agree that although the composition of power may be completely different, many political forces do benefit from the patronage of the monarch. Social status... Let me see, the Mamluks as slaves, and the eunuchs as sexually disabled, so both are generally less regarded groups in society? If so, I agree.
Have a good day, my friend, for it is precious to be able to resolve strange misunderstandings, and may your soul be as clear as the moon in its willingness to reconcile and explain.
- 2
The Mamluks were not slaves. They were bought as slaves, trained into professional soldiers and then given freedom. They were socailly shunned, because they barely spoke the local language and were unruly (corruption, rape, etc.). There were enough benovelent Mamluks, but the high amount of bad ones overshadowed the reputation of the remaining ones. Eitherway both (Mamluks and eunuchs) were less regarded in society.