Working for "The Empire" in Anime

[DonQuigleone]

Recently I've noticed that in a lot of Anime you see situations where the main characters are "working for the enemy", ie where the show has some kind of militaristic or even fascistic government that the hero starts out working for, and over the course of the show, they either destroy or set out to reform that state. Some examples :
*Full Metal Alchemist, the Elric brothers start out working for Amestris, which is highly militaristic, if not fascistic.
*Psychopass, where the cast are basically thought police in a totalitarian state
*Gundam, in most iterations, the pilots start out serving a state which is only a marginally less villainous then their opponents

In the west, I think the default would be for the heroes to serve the "rebellion" rather then "the empire". I have a few theories on this:
1. WW2,many of these states have some resemblance to either pre ww2 Germany or Japan, is this a way to try to examine their own wartime history? As losers, they can't look at the war in the triumphalist way Americans might.
2. Japanese conformist mindset, in the west I think we more easily empathise with the rebel or vigilante, perhaps in Japan they more easily empathise with figures who prefer to "fit in" rather then "stand out",at least starting out.
3. Literary antecedents, if you look at Chinese classics like romance of the three kingdoms, which I would say Anime is heavily influenced by, the heroes are fighting to preserve the empire, not destroy it! Despite the fact that the empire they're trying to preserve has long since rotted.

Am I off base? There are rebels in Japanese stuff of course (for instance every final fantasy ever), and in the west you get heroes serving tyrannies (say starship troopers) but I feel in the west the default is rebellion, and in Japan it's more "conformity" thoughts? Is Japanese entertainment more "conservative" then western entertainment?

[SeijiSensei]

The questions you are asking are ones that recur in discussions of Japan's "political culture," a concept widely employed by political scientists starting back in the 1960s. Democracy and participatory norms were largely imposed on Japan by the US after World War II rather than developing organically over time. I've skimmed a few works on this subject, and they often stress the effects of conformity and patriarchy on Japanese political attitudes. Social historians like Barrington Moore point to the long-term effects of feudalism on Japanese attitudes and institutions to explain the rise of fascism in Japan during the 1930s. These forces all contribute to a "top-down" rather than "bottom-up" style of politics that, as far as I can tell as a foreign observer, persist today.

Some modern anime screenwriters take a more "revolutionary" tone, particularly Nakashima Kazuki, the author of Kill la Kill and Oh! Edo Rocket. But I'd agree with you that these perspectives are still rather rare. In fact, it's pretty hard to find many anime that deal with political subjects at all. Sometimes political themes are snuck into more mainstream shows. One especially intriguing example is AKB0048, where the successors to today's idols are fighting a guerrilla war against anti-entertainment imperial forces. Japan actually experienced a period where entertainment was banned, the Tenpou Reforms that were instituted in the 1840s, which is the context for Nakashima's Oh! Edo Rocket.

[Triple_R]

America was a nation born out of an act of rebellion - Rebelling against the British monarchy and empire of the day.

The cultural aftershocks of that is felt to this day, leading to the American hero more likely to be a rogue, a rebel, a loner, or at the very least, fiercely independent and generally non-conformist.

Now, the national history that Japan looks back fondly on is the Sengoku period. You see this all over the place in anime, with one fictional version or another of Oda Nobunaga being in numerous anime shows. Now, what came out of the Sengoku period? In sharp contrast to the birth of America, it was Japanese unification under a centralized government headed by a Shogun. This to has its cultural aftershocks.

I think this might help to explain why big, sprawling empires are so popular in mecha shows. They're the logical international extension of what happened to Japan as a result of the Sengoku period. The idea of uniting vast regions under a very powerful and militarized government draws its inspiration from Japan's own real world past. And when you like the idea of large unified empires, then it's only natural for your hero to start out as a part of that empire rather than a rebel against it.

[Tempester]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

in the west you get heroes serving tyrannies (say starship troopers)

Starship Troopers's Terran Federation struck me as more of a military-based meritocracy than a tyranny.

[sunchips18]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Recently I've noticed that in a lot of Anime you see situations where the main characters are "working for the enemy", ie where the show has some kind of militaristic or even fascistic government that the hero starts out working for, and over the course of the show, they either destroy or set out to reform that state. Some examples :
*Full Metal Alchemist, the Elric brothers start out working for Amestris, which is highly militaristic, if not fascistic.
*Psychopass, where the cast are basically thought police in a totalitarian state
*Gundam, in most iterations, the pilots start out serving a state which is only a marginally less villainous then their opponents

In the west, I think the default would be for the heroes to serve the "rebellion" rather then "the empire". I have a few theories on this:
1. WW2,many of these states have some resemblance to either pre ww2 Germany or Japan, is this a way to try to examine their own wartime history? As losers, they can't look at the war in the triumphalist way Americans might.
2. Japanese conformist mindset, in the west I think we more easily empathise with the rebel or vigilante, perhaps in Japan they more easily empathise with figures who prefer to "fit in" rather then "stand out",at least starting out.
3. Literary antecedents, if you look at Chinese classics like romance of the three kingdoms, which I would say Anime is heavily influenced by, the heroes are fighting to preserve the empire, not destroy it! Despite the fact that the empire they're trying to preserve has long since rotted.

Am I off base? There are rebels in Japanese stuff of course (for instance every final fantasy ever), and in the west you get heroes serving tyrannies (say starship troopers) but I feel in the west the default is rebellion, and in Japan it's more "conformity" thoughts? Is Japanese entertainment more "conservative" then western entertainment?

This is an interesting topic. I honestly never really paid attention to this phenomenon. But now that I think about it, you're right.

Entertainment as a medium, always reflects the views of the time period that it was created. That's why you might find a period drama made today that would reflect the views of today, more than the actual time period that it's supposed to represent.

As many have already explained, this goes more back to the history of both the US and Japan. We as Americans tend to have a very high sense of justice. Since we grew up studying the American Revolution and seeing comic books, we tend to prefer taking things into our own hands and having the good guy always win.

Japan seems to have a more "shoganai" mentality. A translation of that is "it can't be helped." From what I've gathered, Japan tends to favor accepting things as they are and making the most out of what you have. That explains the difference in story themes.

[Darthtabby]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And when you like the idea of large unified empires, then it's only natural for your hero to start out as a part of that empire rather than a rebel against it.

Alternately you can have your hero try to create such an Empire. Unify the warring lands and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by Tempester

Starship Troopers's Terran Federation struck me as more of a military-based meritocracy than a tyranny.

I haven't actually read or seen Starship Troopers myself, but my understanding is that the book and the movie are very different. The director of the movie apparently meant it as satire and deliberately evoked the nazis with his portrayal of the humans in the film.

[Ithekro]

Starship Trooper (novel) is set in an Earth that survived some horrible war (long before the bugs came). The survivors were mostly soldiers, and they instituted a system were you had to serve in order to vote. The logic is that you can't really know what is best for the nation until you have served in the defense of said nation and potentally risked your life and blood for it and its people.

It was a society run my veterans. You could advance is society just fine without being in the military or potenally another service sector, but you could not vote. The Federation was suppose to find a way for everyone willing to serve something to do based on their merits regardless of skills. The idea being that you had to earn your right to vote though being willing to serve society.

[Jan-Poo]

Regarding Psycho Pass, I think that Gen Urobuchi made no secret of the fact that Dick was an inspiration for him for this anime, and the closest scenario (written by Dick) to the one described in Psycho Pass that I can think of is in "minority report".

Now if you have seen the movie you might think this as a clear example where Japanese go with the "evil" system and Americans fight it.

Except... the movie is the exact opposite of the original novel...

In the novel written by Dick the main character fights and even sacrifices himself in order to prevent the system from being dismantled (which is what the evil guy wanted to do), even though he recognizes that the persons that are imprisoned are technically innocent and that the mere knowledge that the "precog system" foresaw their crimes can potentially (and quite likely) prevent them from becoming criminals.
The basic rationale is that while the system isn't perfect it's still a lot preferable than a world without that system which is the same conclusion that Akane Tsunemori reached.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Am I off base? There are rebels in Japanese stuff of course (for instance every final fantasy ever), and in the west you get heroes serving tyrannies (say starship troopers) but I feel in the west the default is rebellion, and in Japan it's more "conformity" thoughts? Is Japanese entertainment more "conservative" then western entertainment?

I'm not quite sure about that, and there's the fact that Japanese works are as much influenced by the west then they are influenced by their own traditions.
The Final Fantasy series that you mention is a good example of this, because since its second installment it follows the successful formula of Star Wars. So there's almost always some sort of Empire and the Empire is evil.

I can't really think of many examples where something defined as "empire" isn't depicted as evil or at least partially evil. There might be good kingdoms and good kings, but good emperors and empires? Japan seems to agree with this trope in my experience even though "empire" (teikoku) is how defined itself during the expansionist era that ended with WWII.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I can't really think of many examples where something defined as "empire" isn't depicted as evil or at least partially evil.

How about Seikai no Monshu ("Crest of the Stars" and its sequels)? The female half of the main couple is an imperial princess. I haven't watched this show for some time, though its Wiki entry observes that their primary opponent is an "alliance of the democratic nations of the United Mankind, the Federation of Hania, the Republic of Greater Alcont, and the People's Sovereign Union of Planets." I never got very far into Legend of the Galactic Heroes because I was always turned off by the Prussian culture it portrays. Does that story have a "revolutionary" component to it later on?

Another possibility might be Hyouge Mono, a story set in the Sengoku period. The main character, Furuta Sasuke, starts off as one of Nobunaga Oda's vassals. After Nobunaga is assassinated, Sasuke schemes and manuevers to align himself with the winners like Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu. His actions seem like a wry commentary on the pressures to conformity in Japanese society.

Shows set in classical faux-Asian empires like Junni Kokki and Saiunkoku Monogatari often portray noble, benevolent rulers trying to maintain order and prosperity against an array of brigands and usurpers. In Seirei no Moribito the emperor is trying to protect his people against a possible threat from the spirit world and is even willing to assassinate his son whom the emperor believes is the carrier of the threat.

Starship Troopers bears little resemblance to Robert A. Heinlein's original novel if my recollection of both works is correct. Heinlein was a devoted libertarian follower of Ayn Rand. Most of his novels include charismatic individuals fighting against strong organizations. The character Lazarus Long, who appears in a number of Heinlein's novels, is the very embodiment of the "rugged individualist." I always saw him as representing Heinlein himself.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

America was a nation born out of an act of rebellion - Rebelling against the British monarchy and empire of the day.

The cultural aftershocks of that is felt to this day, leading to the American hero more likely to be a rogue, a rebel, a loner, or at the very least, fiercely independent and generally non-conformist.

Now, the national history that Japan looks back fondly on is the Sengoku period. You see this all over the place in anime, with one fictional version or another of Oda Nobunaga being in numerous anime shows. Now, what came out of the Sengoku period? In sharp contrast to the birth of America, it was Japanese unification under a centralized government headed by a Shogun. This to has its cultural aftershocks.

I think this might help to explain why big, sprawling empires are so popular in mecha shows. They're the logical international extension of what happened to Japan as a result of the Sengoku period. The idea of uniting vast regions under a very powerful and militarized government draws its inspiration from Japan's own real world past. And when you like the idea of large unified empires, then it's only natural for your hero to start out as a part of that empire rather than a rebel against it.

I think you're correct, however, I think you're incorrect to single out the Sengoku period, and I think the more important precedent is, in fact, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Three Kingdoms is VERY popular in Japan, and if anything, I'd say the popularity of the Sengoku period is an offshoot of the Three Kingdoms, then anything else. If you look at most sci fi and mecha anime, they almost always follow a plot quite similar to Romance of the Three Kingdoms (most obviously, they're usually split in three factions, and they all end out unified in the end). The most obvious of these would be Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which follows a structure similar to Romance of the Three Kingdoms (in particular, it's made up of battle arcs, where you see them plan the battle, execute the battle, and deal with the ramifications of the battle, interspersed with tactical debates and political discussions).

@SeijiSensei: Legend of the Galactic Heroes doesn't really go "revolutionary" at any point, but rather ends with

Spoiler for for legend of the galactic heroes ending:

a unification under a reformed galactic empire. Half the series is actually about the galactic empire consolidating it's conquered territories. The closest faction to revolutionaries are actually mad cultists

So I think this phenomenon isn't unique to Japan, but also dates back to China as well. It's interesting that in China the literate class were directly employed by the state as bureaucrats, whereas in Medieval Europe they usually were independent of the state, as clergymen within the church, or feudal nobility.

But what of the fact that many of the regimes featured are often quite similar to WW2 Japan? I've often thought that Anime Otaku in Japan often skew more conservative or nationalist, could this be a factor?


Another interesting thing: Most of the time in Anime villains are usually not all that villainous. They're usually misguided in some way. You don't usually get "elemental evil" like you would in say Star Wars, where the Emperor is evil because he's just evil. By contrast, in Japanese Sci Fi, the villains often use "evil" methods, but their ends are "good". In Gurren Lagann, the villains want to prevent the apocalypse, in Gundam, they're driven by self defense and nationalistic delusions, in Macross, it's just a misunderstanding (and the villains aren't actually all that bad). This is fairly sophisticated morality for work aimed at children and teenagers, I think, and I don't think you see much of that in our own equivalent entertainment (instead we have Dr. Dooms).

You do occasionally get out and out evil characters in Anime, but they're usually weak (IE, the guy who's bad is usually an incompetent lackey), or utterly insane.

Could this go back to differences in religious beliefs? In Asia, they don't believe in "Sin" the way we do...

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

But what of the fact that many of the regimes featured are often quite similar to WW2 Japan? I've often thought that Anime Otaku in Japan often skew more conservative or nationalist, could this be a factor?

There are different things that people self-identify by. Gender/sex, race/ethnicity, nationality, language, political affiliation, etc...

I think when two or more of these get tightly bundled up together, that tends to have a strong impact on people's sense of identity. I think that nationalism was fairly strong in European countries historically partly because of the frequent language/nationality overlap (English, French, Spanish, German, etc...).

Now, if you look at "Japanese", that bundles up three things in Japan itself - Nationality, language, and ethnicity/race. So I would think that the Japanese have a very strong sense of group identity, which probably leads to a heightened degree of nationalism given that nationality is part of that group identity.

America and Canada are quite different of course, so perhaps this accounts for some of the individualism/collectivism cultural differences you see between "East" and "West".

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

How about Seikai no Monshu ("Crest of the Stars" and its sequels)? The female half of the main couple is an imperial princess. I haven't watched this show for some time, though its Wiki entry observes that their primary opponent is an "alliance of the democratic nations of the United Mankind, the Federation of Hania, the Republic of Greater Alcont, and the People's Sovereign Union of Planets." I never got very far into Legend of the Galactic Heroes because I was always turned off by the Prussian culture it portrays. Does that story have a "revolutionary" component to it later on?

Another possibility might be Hyouge Mono, a story set in the Sengoku period. The main character, Furuta Sasuke, starts off as one of Nobunaga Oda's vassals. After Nobunaga is assassinated, Sasuke schemes and manuevers to align himself with the winners like Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu. His actions seem like a wry commentary on the pressures to conformity in Japanese society.

Shows set in classical faux-Asian empires like Junni Kokki and Saiunkoku Monogatari often portray noble, benevolent rulers trying to maintain order and prosperity against an array of brigands and usurpers. In Seirei no Moribito the emperor is trying to protect his people against a possible threat from the spirit world and is even willing to assassinate his son whom the emperor believes is the carrier of the threat.

I haven't seen Crest of the stars, Hyouge Mono and Saiunkoku monogatari so I can't talk about those but:

In Juuni Kokki, the world is divided between 12 kingdoms, not empires. So this doesn't contradict my point.

In LoGH the universe is initially divided between a decidedly evil empire and a very corrupt democratic federation of planets. Neither of them are really depicted in a good light.
The story however does seem to portray in a good light the kind of government that Reinhard creates through his conquests, which is a sort of autocratic system based on meritocracy opposed to aristocracy and blood rights.

So to sum it up LoGH is a kind of story where one of the MC works for the evil empire, however the empire is evil and he planned to overthrow it since the very beginning, so the theme of rebellion is there from start. On the other side Yang Wenli serves a corrupt democracy that descends from rebels of the empire and are still considered rebels by it centuries later.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Could this go back to differences in religious beliefs? In Asia, they don't believe in "Sin" the way we do...

Perhaps this is true for the rest of Asia but in my opinion the concept of "sin" (tsumi) in Japan isn't really much different from how "sin" is viewed in the west. The only relevant difference is that the west considers "sin" something that defies a supreme God while in Japan it's more about universal laws from Buddhist traditions.

What is truly relevant that differentiates the classical stories of western traditions and Japanese traditions is the theme of "compassion" which apparently is a lot stronger in the latter even though Christ stressed out the importance of mercy and forgiveness.

The way the west perceived evil throughout its history was more influenced by Manichean and Zoroastrian philosophies than the gospel itself.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

In Juuni Kokki, the world is divided between 12 kingdoms, not empires. So this doesn't contradict my point.

I would disagree. The concept of kingdoms, as portrayed in Juuni Kokki, is decidely based on the Chinese model of imperial government. In strictly technical terms, an "empire" is ruled by an emperor. As long as the head of state identifies himself as an Emperor, his territory is technically an "empire".

Hence the Holy Roman Emperor, even though for the better part of the Middle Ages, he ruled no more than the European equivalent of a "kingdom". Yet the title carried a certain prestige that had political value to the German princes of the era. And let's not forget that Japan is technically an empire as well, even though it certainly doesn't strike us to be one, not since the 1950s. Similarly, the Japanese Emperor continues to carry considerable moral authority for many of his people.

So, to paraphrase (the fictional) Marcus Auerlius from the Gladiator (2000), an empire (Rome) is an "idea". ("There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... It was so fragile.")

What makes a kingdom an empire? Is it pure military might? Sheer territorial size? Is it based on conquest and subjugation? In modern times, lots of people are used to the idea of an imperial America. The executive branch of the United States government has been likened to an "imperial presidency" by more than one historian.

It seems to me therefore that, when we think of empires, we're thinking of a type of civilisation — not just a country of arbitrary size. We're thinking of a model of government that exerts a tremendous amount of cultural influence, not just on its own people, but also on neighbouring nations.

So, in that sense, the "kingdoms" of Juuni Kokki are very much empires to me. Each of the 12 "kingdoms" represented a different social experiment, based on the vision of a single leader. More importantly, the leaders draw inspiration and lessons from other leaders, especially those who have lived far longer, the literal proof of their moral legitimacy to rule.

This form of government has become reviled as tyranny and dictatorship in the West. But it's the form of government idealised in Confucian tradition, and incidentally extolled by Plato himself, who felt that the rule of a philosopher-king is preferable to democracy.

What made Juuni Kokki wonderful for me is that it's the only fictional story I know of that actually explores how an idealised Confucian state could work. The story presents examples of how the "mandate of Heaven" can give moral legitimacy to such a government.

It's also one of the few stories or fictional settings I know of that doesn't automatically assume that empire = evil dictatorship = the Ultimate Big Bad^TM that must be toppled in righteous revolution.

Curiously, the one other example that immediately comes to mind are the Empires of the Elder Scrolls universe. While fraught with shades of grey, each of the three major empires in that setting were generally seen to be "civilisational" in nature, be it for good or evil. This is probably not so surprising, given that these empires were inspired by historical Rome.

Japanese and Chinese political cultures are so similar that I can say with some degree of confidence that both nations approach the concept of empire in more or less the same way: It's based ultimately on the belief that the classical empires of the past offer the best lessons and insight into modern-day political problems. Top Chinese leaders are extremely well-schooled in several centuries' worth of political thought, distilled from carefully recorded practical experience.

And Japanese politicians, especially the conservative ones, still generally think of their country as a "pure nation" that must not be overly sullied by foreign influence. There is a general reverence for the past that extends beyond simple national or cultural pride, and it's based on the idea that historical Japan enjoyed a kind of "golden age" that the modern country is still trying very hard to recover. It was this sense of patriotism, the "Yamato spirit" that drove the Meiji Revolution, which wasn't really a revolution in the Western political sense, since it actually replaced one form of dictatorship with another. But to the Japanese mind, this is just a matter of semantics.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

In Juuni Kokki, the world is divided between 12 kingdoms, not empires. So this doesn't contradict my point.

I wasn't focused on the concept of "empire" per se, but the positive portrayal of monarchs in the story. Junni Kokki follows the Chinese "mandate of heaven" theory of social order. Good rulers are looked upon favorably by the gods, and the people prosper as a result. What the people themselves do matters much less in this model of governance than the behavior of those who rule.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

So I think this phenomenon isn't unique to Japan, but also dates back to China as well. It's interesting that in China the literate class were directly employed by the state as bureaucrats, whereas in Medieval Europe they usually were independent of the state, as clergymen within the church, or feudal nobility.

Moore (see above) focuses even more on the role of the merchant class. In Europe merchants came to see feudal institutions and the power of the Church as impediments to their ability to prosper. Not so in Japan, says Moore, where the merchant class had a more "symbiotic" relationship with the ruling class. "Japanese merchants of the Tokugawa period were suffused with the feudal ethic. They completely failed to develop any intellectual standpoint with which to oppose the traditional outlook." (Social Origins, p. 240) The class that produced the bourgeois revolutions in Europe failed to play the same role in Japan.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I would disagree. The concept of kingdoms, as portrayed in Juuni Kokki, is decidely based on the Chinese model of imperial government. In strictly technical terms, an "empire" is ruled by an emperor. As long as the head of state identifies himself as an Emperor, his territory is technically an "empire".

To my understanding the Chinese Empire only came to be after its several kingdoms were unified.
Juuni Kokki is indeed founded on the Chinese model, but before the unification and not after. Why does the famous "romance of the three kingdoms" use the term "kingdoms" and not "empires"? Because clearly you can only talk about a chinese Empire when all of its holdings are seen as a whole, when they are fragmented, they are kingdoms.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

What makes a kingdom an empire? Is it pure military might? Sheer territorial size? Is it based on conquest and subjugation?

Simply put in a Kingdom all the populace share a single common identity, whether it is territorial, ethnic, religious or linguistic.
An Empire comprises several different kind of populaces each with its own identity. In fact you can even have a kingdom that is part of an empire.
For example Herod was a King even though Judea was part of the roman Empire.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I wasn't focused on the concept of "empire" per se, but the positive portrayal of monarchs in the story. Junni Kokki follows the Chinese "mandate of heaven" theory of social order. Good rulers are looked upon favorably by the gods, and the people prosper as a result. What the people themselves do matters much less in this model of governance than the behavior of those who rule.

Well I think I said that myself, after the sentence that you quoted, no disagreement with that.

[Jazzrat]

The Romance of Three Kingdoms are part of the 4 great classics of Chinese literature. The other 3 are Journey to the West, Water Margins (Suikoden) & Dream of the Red Chamber. Much like Shakespeare's influence on Western literature, these 4 novels are quite highly regarded and influential on east asian literature and you see some of their impact on a lot of modern stories from the east (novel/tv/anime/manga).

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

To my understanding the Chinese Empire only came to be after its several kingdoms were unified.

The Chinese "Empire", based on Confucian ethical principles and governed by Legalistic methods, came about only after the "warring states" were finally reunified.

What you have missed, however, is that those warring kingdoms were originally the fiefs of the Zhou nobility. The Zhou Dynasty, in Chinese historical tradition, is regarded as an empire in its own right. But it was an empire that more closely resembled European feudalism, in that landed aristocrats played a larger political role, just as they did in the Europe of the Middle Ages.

And prior to the Zhou empire, there was the Shang Dynasty which, again, is regarded as another empire in Chinese historical tradition.

And predating the Shang Dynasty is the semi-historical Xia Dynasty. More importantly, this was the empire that inspired Confucius. The earliest emperors of this dynasty were mythical figures who represented the pinnacle of moral virtue that Confucius sought to emulate throughout his life. Confucius believed that every individual first had to be the master his own moral character before he could aspire to rule others. That was the fundamental tenet of his socio-political philosophy.

In short, those earlier "empires" were the models of social order that Confucius believed to be the best hope for his time of seemingly never-ending war and social strife. This goes back to my definition of "empire" as a political idea. It's more than just the brute fact of military might and subjugation. It is, rather, a civilisational movement that transforms an entire society, the same way the Roman Empire remained the yardstick of effective Western government, even centuries after its collapse.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Juuni Kokki is indeed founded on the Chinese model, but before the unification and not after. Why does the famous "romance of the three kingdoms" use the term "kingdoms" and not "empires"? Because clearly you can only talk about a chinese Empire when all of its holdings are seen as a whole, when they are fragmented, they are kingdoms.

Juuni Kokki is based on the fundamental concept of legitimacy through the Mandate of Heaven. This concept was not invented by Confucius. Rather, it dates back a lot further into Chinese history, and Confucius merely sought to revive it for his times.

What I'm trying to say is that the Mandate of Heaven was a "civilisational idea". It represents a lot more than just the "divine right to rule" — if it were just that, it would make the concept no different from that of feudal Europe, where Christian monarchs were thought to be annointed by God. That's why regicide was once thought to be an attack on God Himself.

The Mandate of Heaven encompassed not just the right the rule, but also the requirement to govern ethically.

And those were the issues that the "kingdoms" of Junni Kokki grappled with. Ethical, civilisational issues, not just mere affairs of the state. That's why I believe you won't quite grasp the entirety of what the author was trying to explore through her novels, if you just think of her "kingdoms" the way you would a comparable European kingdom. It wasn't quite the type of monarchy she was interested in.

To be sure, I think some of the misunderstanding arises from the difficulties of translation. The kanji for "kingdom", 国, can also mean country, nation or empire. For the Japanese and Chinese, who have historically thought of their nation and country in civilisational terms, they don't make the same kind of distinctions between kingdom or empire as Westerners do.

I mean, China is quite literally 中囯, the Middle "Kingdom". But I can assure you that when the Chinese refer to their history, they most certainly do not think of themselves as a mere "kingdom". They were an empire. And contemporary Chinese are increasingly thinking of themselves the same way.

ADDENDUM:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Why does the famous "romance of the three kingdoms" use the term "kingdoms" and not "empires"? Because clearly you can only talk about a chinese Empire when all of its holdings are seen as a whole, when they are fragmented, they are kingdoms.

By the way, depending on which translation you read, the three "kingdoms" that you refer to were actually self-declared "empires", as far as Chinese historians are concerned.

They comprised the "empires" of Shu-Han (Liu Bei), Wei (Cao Cao) and Wu (Sun Quan). Especially Shu-Han, as Liu Bei is said to be a descendant of the Han emperors from a minor branch of the family. The important thing to remember is that each "emperor" proclaimed himself to be the legitimate successor of the Han Dynasty (to be sure, Cao Cao did not declare himself emperor; rather he acted as the regent to the actual Han emperor, who had become his hostage; but Cao Cao's son, Cao Pi, would eventually depose his liege to become emperor in his own right).

The novel favoured Liu Bei, who was a man so virtuous that he was able to attract the best men of his era to bolster his somewhat doubtful leadership ability. The truly capable leader was Cao Cao, but he's traditionally portrayed as the Machiavellian villian. In other words, the novel was actually propaganda that sought to promote the idea that the virtuous man was better than the effective leader. I'm not very fond of such propaganda but, alas, the best heroes served Liu Bei, so I usually end up playing his "kingdom" in Koei games.

[Jazzrat]

During the 3 kingdom period, the state of Wei, Shu and Wu are rightfully considered kingdoms serving under an Emperor. The empire itself didn't not dissolve but was under a state of internal conflict as the de jure liege still exist during the conflict.

As for Juuni Kokki, i'm pretty sure it's based before China was unified as all the kingdoms were autonomously independent (probably during Zhou dynasty where Confucius was born). Enho (Youko's mentor) in the show is pretty much based on Confucius.

I don't think the dynasties prior to Qin can be considered an empire as separate independent states still exist during their respective time period.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

In LoGH the universe is initially divided between a decidedly evil empire and a very corrupt democratic federation of planets. Neither of them are really depicted in a good light.
The story however does seem to portray in a good light the kind of government that Reinhard creates through his conquests, which is a sort of autocratic system based on meritocracy opposed to aristocracy and blood rights.

So to sum it up LoGH is a kind of story where one of the MC works for the evil empire, however the empire is evil and he planned to overthrow it since the very beginning, so the theme of rebellion is there from start. On the other side Yang Wenli serves a corrupt democracy that descends from rebels of the empire and are still considered rebels by it centuries later.

It's not really a revolution in the Empire of LoGH, but a coup. Neither protagonist (Yang Wen Li or Rheinhard) actually seeks to suddenly and drastically change the order within which they live. Both seek reform. I would say the work reflects a fairly conservative outlook, and a Confucian one (you could say Rheinhard gains the Mandate of Heaven through his personal virtue). While the aesthetics and setting is western, the story structure is much more Chinese.

Perhaps this is true for the rest of Asia but in my opinion the concept of "sin" (tsumi) in Japan isn't really much different from how "sin" is viewed in the west. The only relevant difference is that the west considers "sin" something that defies a supreme God while in Japan it's more about universal laws from Buddhist traditions.

What is truly relevant that differentiates the classical stories of western traditions and Japanese traditions is the theme of "compassion" which apparently is a lot stronger in the latter even though Christ stressed out the importance of mercy and forgiveness.

What is more important here is that in Japanese fiction, there isn't elemental evil. Few villains are ever out and out irredeemably evil. Antagonists are either misguided, insane, or more of a force of nature (which of course is amoral). And even when the villain isn't one of those, care is always taken to give the villain a motive. EG compare Full Metal Alchemist to Star Wars. Father in FMA gets a whole section showing that he has a inferiority complex, and is really quite pathetic. Whereas in Star Wars, the Emperor never actually is explained much. He does the terrible things he does for the sake of it.

I think this is because in the Western/Christian point of view we possess original sin and are naturally sinful. Our default is to be sinful, and sin is something we all want to do, but must resist in order to be virtuous.

I think in the Confucian tradition, our default is not sin, but amorality, and sin is a result of a defect of character. So in Confucianism, sinners are the exception, while in Christianity, they are the rule. And that is what I think is the root of this phenomenon.

@Three Kingdoms, 12 Kingdoms and Chinese "Empires":

I think TinyRedLeaf is generally correct here. The mistake I see many making here is that they're taking the term "Empire" or "kingdom" at face value, whereas these are just English translations for Chinese terms, which are not direct equivalences for western political concepts. A western Empire is based on military force or power (imperium itself means power) and unrivalled hegemony (like the Roman Empire). A Chinese Empire is maintained based on moral legitimacy received from Heaven, and while military force was a practical requirement, it wasn't what kept the Empire in a similar form almost continuously since the Qin Dynasty. As TinyRedLeaf said it was "the idea" that held it together, but I don't think the Roman Empire was held together by such an idea, or at least not as strongly. But the militaristic and tyrannical nature of the Roman Empire (just read any Roman history, all the Emperors are portrayed as morally depraved loons!) has informed modern ideas towards large imperial states. Roman Emperors were legitimate because they were strongest. Chinese Emperors we legitimate based on personal virtue, or a dynastic principle (The legitimizing virtue of their ancestor flowed into them).

I think the subtle differences in political theory is what makes empires so much more palatable to an East-Asian audience, and revolutionaries so unpalatable (which must be a difficulty for the communists...)

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The novel favoured Liu Bei, who was a man so virtuous that he was able to attract the best men of his era to bolster his somewhat doubtful leadership ability. The truly capable leader was Cao Cao, but he's traditionally portrayed as the Machiavellian villian. In other words, the novel was actually propaganda that sought to promote the idea that the virtuous man was better than the effective leader. I'm not very fond of such propaganda but, alas, the best heroes served Liu Bei, so I usually end up playing his "kingdom" in Koei games.

I wouldn't be so quick to label it propaganda! After all, Liu Bei loses and it's Wei not Shu that goes on to reunify the Empire!

The interesting thing about Liu Bei though is the subversive nature of the Peach Garden Oath, as though much is made of it throughout the novel, it's what ultimately clouds his judgement and leads to his downfall. There's subtext going on between Zhuge Liang and Zhao Yun on the one side and Guan Yu and Zhang Fei on the other, with Zhuge Liang/Zhao Yun favouring dynasticism and hierarchy, and Guan Yu/Zhang Fei favouring fraternity and egalitarianism.

I would say the novel supports hierarchical forms of government, as Zhuge Liang is the most idealised (as is Zhao Yun), while Guan Yu and Zhang Fei, while heroic, are very flawed; Guan Yu is arrogant, while Zhang Fei is violent and given to excess.

But of course, Zhuge Liang also goes on to lose too...

I think Three Kingdoms works on many different layers that are not always immediately apparent.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

I don't think the dynasties prior to Qin can be considered an empire as separate independent states still exist during their respective time period.

Again, this comes back to how Chinese historians approach their subject. I don't know if modern scholars still do, but from what I understand, Chinese historians traditionally regarded history as "cyclical" rather than "linear" in nature.

A linear approach to history, where events are presented as a progression from a backwards, barbaric past towards an enlightened future, was apparently something that used to be prevalent only in Judeo-Christian societies.

In most other cultures of the world, people used to take it for granted that History, with a capital 'H', moved in cycles. It was a reflection of the times, when most forms of social order took centuries to change. For the vast majority of people, it was natural to assume that tomorrow will always bring more of the same, the way seasons also changed, from spring to summer to autumn to winter and back to spring.

So, what I'm saying is that Chinese scholar-philosophers like Confucius traditionally regarded periods of strife as an aberration, a momentary deviation from a time of peace and prosperity.

Whatever you think of the actual status of the Chinese states that existed before Qin, it doesn't change how the Chinese of the time — and many Chinese today, for that matter — felt about those older dynasties. For them, they were empires. They were represented the ideal civilisation that they wanted to return to.

This longing for better times in the past, and the assumption that events will eventually bring them back, is best summed up in the opening lines of The Romance of Three Kingdoms: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think the subtle differences in political theory is what makes empires so much more palatable to an East-Asian audience, and revolutionaries so unpalatable (which must be a difficulty for the communists...)

It's... more complicated than that. The communists were originally seen to be rebels but, over time, they gained considerable moral legitimacy on their own, especially after they started actively fighting Japanese invaders in the north. And after the Long March, communist leaders like Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai were effectively propelled into mythic status.

You could say, therefore, that the mandate of heaven had thus passed into their hands, thus legitimising the government that the communists eventually formed in a "reunited" China.