Ruling System of Ancient Kings

　Each historical era ― ancient, medieval and modern ― like human life, consists of birth, growth, maturity, decline and death. These historical eras naturally have their own traits. The beginning of each historical era is when these unique traits first appear, and the end is when they disappear. In that case, the first step is to know these traits of history. This evolutionary theory begins by defining the ancient, medieval and modern eras.
　Let’s begin with the ancient era . The history of ancient Japan spans about 1,000 years from the Asuka period to the Sengoku period. It begins in the Asuka period (593-710), when the ancient king seized all power over Japan, reigned as king, and began to rule the state. And, the end was the Sengoku period (the end of the 15th century to the late of the 16th century). The Sengoku period was the period of the largest civil war in Japanese history and the collapse of the ancient dynasty.
　

＜Existing historical classifications＞

※The medieval period ended during the Muromachi period.

＜Historical classification advocated in this book＞

※The early modern era has been excluded.
※The medieval era spans from the Kamakura period to the end of the Edo period.
※The Kamakura and Muromachi periods belong to a special period in which ancient and medieval eras coexisted.

　 In ancient Japan, the king had centralized control over the land, people and state. The land was the king’s land (public land), the people were the royal subjects (citizens), and the state power was absolute sovereignty.
　Law was the exclusive property of the ancient king, and the ancient king was the law. But the law was not the consensus of the people.
　Laws thus arose, changed and disappeared depending on the ancient king. This ruling system is called autocratic government. The people of the ancient state did not defy the king, because those who opposed the king became considered the enemies of the king. And they were almost always defeated as bandits and rebels. Therefore, the ancients ensured security with absolute obedience to the king.
　Only the ancient king’s lineage could hold the royal power forever. This was also a shared trait of most ancient states around the world. But there were exceptions that someone other than the king could rule the state. One was the regency system. When the king was young, an agent of the king emerged to take charge of politics. This was most often the maternal grandfather of the young king. This arrangement is known as a regency. Such a noteworthy maternal grandfather was Fujiwara no Michinaga (966-1028).　As he married his daughters to kings, he became the father-in-law of the kings. And as maternal grandfather, he took the place of the young king (his grandson) and did as he pleased with that tyranny.
　Another case was cloistered rule. The agent of the ancient king was his father or his paternal grandfather. Cloistered rule meant that a king who abdicated the throne continued his tyrannical rule through a newly appointed king. This meant that direct kingly rule was reduced to a mere formality. Therefore, children and grandchildren, who were the new kings, became a kind of puppet ruler. Go-Shirakawa (1127-1192) was a famous king of cloistered rule.
　Whether it was rule of king, regency, or cloistered rule, they were all forms of tyranny of the king's lineage .
　The ancient king created a system of rule peculiar to antiquity, in which the king could gather all power for himself and strongly execute the king's orders.
　First is the state system. It is called the centralized system,and saw all state power concentrated under the king. The ancient king dispatched aristocrats from the capital to act as his agents, and had them govern the regions for a certain period of time. The agent’s main job was to maintain public order and collect taxes. The policies of the ancient king were brought to all corners of the state through these agents. The taxes of the whole state were collected through these agents and brought to the king in the capital. This centralized system was also common to other ancient states of the world.
　There were two types of state system in the world; one was the centralized system and the other the decentralized system. Japan’s medieval state system was a decentralized system in which land, people and power of the state were divided and owned by a number of feudal lords, and yet there was a certain order in place. Hence, the state system differed during the ancient era and medieval era, as they were diametrically opposites. (Decentralization will be discussed in more detail below.)
　Tyranny was another form of government established to centrally control the whole state. The politics of ancient Japan was the dictatorship of the ancient king. Of course, there were those who assisted him, but they were nothing more than assistants. The words of the ancient king meant everything. Such a dictatorship is called tyranny. This form of government was also unique to the ancient era and common to other ancient states around the world.
　Assisting the king’s despotic rule were the nobility and the religious. As will be discussed in more detail later, in many ancient countries the king developed close relationships with the nobility and the clergy, who formed the ancient ruling class. The nobility assisted tyrannical rule practically, while the clergy assisted tyrannical rule spiritually. Therefore, the king sometimes granted land ownership to the nobility and clergy on an exceptional basis.
　The king, centralized system, and tyranny were considered the “three major elements” of ancient rule. This book refers to this as ＜the ruling body＞ unique to ancient states. The ancient era refers to the era during which this ruling body survived. Therefore, the ancient era in Japan spanned about 1,000 years from the establishment to the collapse of the ancient ruling body. The ancient king, centralization, and autocracy can be summed up as despotism. In other words, the essence of ancient states was despotism.
　Noteworthy, the ruling body is a universal concept that functions beyond time and space. For example, Russia and China of the 21st century are the ancient states, as they consist of the ancient ruling body (dictator, centralized system and tyranny.) They have remained ancient over the past 1000 years, not progressed to the medieval era. And these despotic countries are in conflict with democracies on various fronts today. The concept of the ruling body has a universality that transcends time and space, and is one of the keys to provide the evolution of history. This is discussed in more detail in this book.
　Various systems and organizations are arranged under this ruling body. These were institutions used by the king to maintain and develop their ruling systems, such as the land system and the tax system. The land system in ancient Japan underwent many changes, from complete state ownership of land and citizens to the Sanze-isshin Law (assuring possession of land for three generations) to the Konden Einen Shizai Law (permitting permanent ownership of newly cultivated land), and finally came to be established as a manorial system with the right to exemption from tax and inspection. In this way, the land system and organization changed many times under the will of the ancient king. The author refers to this as a ＜means of control＞.
　It is important to note that the ruling body is immovable and solid, and although it may have experienced some strength and weakness depending on the period, it continued to exist for hundreds of years and supported the state from the ground up.
　The means of control, on the other hand, are not static, but change on occasion. For example, the land system and tax system changed two or three times according to the demands of the time period. In a word, the ruling body determines the means of control.
　Therefore, making a breakthrough in history based on the easily changeable means of control such as the land system, poses a big problem. This creates an inaccurate division of history and results in a fabricated history of Japan. History should be delineated by the ruling body. To divide history is to discern the emergence and disappearance of the ruling body, but this cannot be accomplished using the land system.

Contract System of Ancient Dynasty

　The ancient king was the owner of the entire country. He carved up the land, and gave each piece to the people, who farmed it and paid taxes to the king as rent. It is a simple and clear land system and tax system.
　However, this system eventually collapsed, and the ancient king's lineage was hit by financial difficulties. The people shunned the system. This was because no matter how hard they worked, the land did not belong to them, and the peasants had no choice but to work hard as slaves for their entire lives. Moreover, the tax rate was high. As a result, peasants abandoned their fields.
　Therefore, the ancient king sought a new tax system. This resulted in the introduction of the manorial system. This system gave the land to the people instead of renting it to them. This system in which the people owned land was truly a breakthrough system. As a result, Japanese society changed dramatically.
　Of course, the bestowing of land was not a simple gift to the people. Under the manorial system, land-owners were called manor lords. They were senior aristocrats, large temples and shrines, wealthy peasants and samurai. They employed peasants in manors to produce agricultural products such as rice and accumulate wealth. The king skimmed off the top of this wealth as a new source of tax revenue. In essence, the ancient king attempted to solve his financial difficulties by giving up his land.
　But whatever the ancient king’s intentions, the establishment of the manorial system ignited the desires of the people. A manor was a great asset. In search of wealth, all the powerful people competed with each other to build manors. They developed virgin land and owned manors large and small. This marked the period of large-scale cultivation. As a result, new jobs, dialects, occupations, organizations, villages, and distribution networks emerged one after another, increasing the mobility and diversity of Japanese society.
　This, however, also greatly damaged the idea of despotism. The ancient king fell from the position of the absolute ruler. The lands and wealth of the state were no longer monopolized by the ancient king, but rather by these few powerful persons.
　Nevertheless, the ancient king continued to rule over the state’s land. This is because the ancient king ultimately determined and approved whether or not the farmland developed by the people was suitable as a manor. The ancient king still held a strong grasp on the state. There could be no manor if the ancient king did not authorize the farmland as a manor, or if the authorization was reconsidered and revoked. Although the ancient king lost absolute land ownership, he continued to secure the right to authorize land ownership (a kind of land lease right). In that respect, the ancient king remained the absolute ruler.
　Eventually, the manorial system changed. The ancient king granted tax exemption to the nobility (manor lords). Put another way, the king did not tax the production of the manor and allowed it to substitute for nobility’s salary. This production was in essence their salary. This was partly because the king yielded to the demands of the nobility, but also because the ancient king no longer had the ability to pay the nobility (officials) their salaries; thus, the original purpose of the ancient king, to skim off the top of wealth, was completely exhausted. Nevertheless, the dynasty succeeded in greatly reducing labor costs.
　The ancient king’s predicament continued, however. The next action taken was to dismiss the officials who served the ruling dynasty. The king subdued the dynastic work, and assigned each to a specific nobleman. This assignment was not temporary, but permanent. For example, political work of the dynasty was given to noble A, ceremonial work to noble B, and cooking to noble C. Then, it was hereditary, and political work became the family occupation of noble A's family for generations. This was the emergence of a privileged class.
　The key was that the family trade was a privilege recognized by the ancient king. And privileges, of course, generated profits. The nobility served the ancient king and continued the work of the dynasty (unpaid) while at the same time working hard at their family trade and earning more money. That was their salary. It was a contract system.
　The contract system was one of the usual means of survival for rulers in ancient states around the world. Once the agency system ceased to function, the contract system began. The contract system was found in many ancient states such as in ancient Europe and ancient Arabia. The main purpose of the contract system was to reduce labor costs and stabilize finances. However, it often resulted in irresponsible regimes and disturbed domestic order.
　The ancient king also abandoned his army. This was because he did not have the money to maintain his army. So, the king contracted military affairs to several military nobles and, as a result, several private military units were formed, and the warriors who had served the dynasty until then simultaneously moved to those armies. This also became one type of family trade. In the end, the abandonment of the army under the direct control of the dynasty led to the weakening of tyranny.
　The ancient king's dumping of duties continues even further. He also dumped local governance (maintaining public order and collecting taxes). Because the emergence of the manor system ignited the desires of the people and desires swirled around the manors in each region, villains ran rampant and taxes collected from the manors were often stolen by them.
　As a result, the dynasty and manorial lords could not collect enough taxes, and their finances were in crisis. Despite this, the dynasty was unable to enact new systems or laws to restore order, and local officials were unable to take effective measures.
　The king dismissed the local governor, and instead gave him or a local influential person full authority to govern the region. It was a contract for local governance, making him the dictator of the region. The contractor was freed from the instructions of the dynasty and thoroughly ruled independently. It completely transformed the local governance.
　The contractor increased his military forces to crack down on the villains, and set his own taxes and tax rates. Of course, the tax rates were raised high, and as a result, huge amounts of tax revenue went into his pocket. As per the contract, he delivered a portion of the tax revenue to the king or the lord of the manor, and kept the rest in his own pocket. He instantly became wealthy, while the peasants suffered from heavy taxes and the countryside became even more desolate.
　The king preferred tough local rulers to honest but weak agents. He didn't care if the countryside was ruined and the peasants suffered, so long as sufficient tax payment was carried out. The king was no longer a good ruler, but an irresponsible and ruthless usurper.
　Times changed a lot. The authority, laws and institutions of the dynasty was already useless for local governance. And it became clear that the only thing that could control people's raging desires was force. This foreshadowed the emergence of a new world in which samurai were the protagonists.
　The dispute in the countryside got more and more intense over the years and sometimes leading to political strife and even uprisings. In such a situation, the king, who had already abandoned his own army, had no choice but to rely on the army of the military nobility.　Under the orders of the king, the military aristocrats marched east and west, successfully conquering uprisings across the state.
　As a result, military aristocrats received many rewards from the ancient king, such as a high rank within the dynasty and local rulership over the provinces. Therefore, the ancient king controlled the military aristocrats, but in reality he could not rule Japan without their military might. The armies of the military aristocrats were subordinate to the ancient king, but also semi-autonomous. This was dangerous for the king.
　Taira no Kiyomori (1118-1181) was an archetype military aristocrat. Trusted by the ancient king, he quelled local strife. As a reward, he owned 500 manors, and held power in politics that surpassed that of the nobility. This was almost comparable to the power of the king. As a result, the ancient king's lineage, fearing his growing power, increased their confrontation with him and attempted to oust him from power.
　In 1179, Kiyomori staged a coup d’etat, attacked the king, imprisoned him in a detached palace, and chose the young son of the ancient king's lineage to be the new king. Because the child was his grandson, Kiyomori was able to reign as a de facto ruler as the king’s maternal grandfather. This was a regency. Even though the king changed, the ancient ruling system remained intact. Therefore, the coup d’etat can be viewed as a scene in ancient history of a power struggle within the ruling class. Although his reign lasted only a few years, it was still a major event in history.

Portrait of Kiyomori as a regent

　At that time, the third son of the imprisoned ancient king urged samurai across the state to raise an army. Taking this as an opportunity, samurai from all over Japan rose up and attacked as well as subjugated the Taira clan. This was one of the most famous battles in Japanese history and inspired many stories and plays. As a result, the ancient king's lineage happily returned to the political arena, but once damaged, the power of the ancient king never returned to its original form.
　On the other hand, the samurai who saved the ancient king's lineage from crisis further strengthened and expanded their power. The most noteworthy samurai who quelled this coup was Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147-1199), a descendant of a military aristocrat. Yoritomo was cool-headed and did not immediately seek rulership of Japan, nor did he attempt to oust the king from the capital or kill him. Instead, Yoritomo established his own samurai government in the eastern part of Japan. This was the Kamakura Shogunate (1185-1333). This marked the first dynasty of medieval Japan.
　The Kamakura shogunate overlapped with the Capetian dynasty (987-1328), the first medieval dynasty in France, and the Norman dynasty (1066-1154), the first medieval dynasty in England.
　In this manner, ancient dynasties were weakened. The wholesale delegation of administrative work, local governance, and the military hollowed out ancient rule and resulted in irresponsible regimes. The state power was dispersed in several directions and so, the ancient ruling body--kingship, centralism, and tyranny--became formal. Naturally, the state’s order was disrupted and security deteriorated.
　At that time, the manor was the only way to build wealth. It represented the chaos of desire. The manor housed the arrogance and greed of the manor lord, the embezzlement of the annual tribute by manor administrator and tax collector, the unity and claim of autonomy of the peasants working in the manor, and the mission and self-interest of the local officials who administratively managed the manor.
Ordinarily, routine proceedings concerning manors were tried under the authority of the king. But there was no end to people’s desires. Those who were unsatisfied with litigation or who ignored it eventually resorted to force and deceit.
　Whether it was to rob a manor or protect it, a new force emerged and grew. Every player gathered samurai and hired bands of warriors. Force determines the clash of desires. This marked the rise of a new class of samurai and the beginning of the medieval era.In this respect, samurai were like the offspring of the manorial system.
　This concludes the explanation of the ruling body of ancient Japan and the decline of the ancient dynasty. The next section will explain how this weakened ancient rule was culled and ended, and how the new ruler, the samurai, replaced the ancient dynasty and formed the ruling body of the medieval era . This section will make clear the difference between the ancient era and the medieval era , and the historical division between the two.Then Japanese history is entering its first historical evolution.