Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MidniteMustard t1_ixkqnmr wrote

Reply to comment by ScoffSlaphead72 in Coins study suggests ‘fake emperor’ was real, say scientists by IslandChillin

Japan had a similar setup with daimyos, shoguns, and the emperor.

Doubtful it's related to Rome, but still an interesting similarity.

41

phenomduck t1_ixkxydf wrote

It's not super surprising to have a similar system pop-up.

Ruler of one region defeats the other. The victor, in order to more easily control a larger region, leaves the defeated ruler locally in charge as long as they swear allegiance to the larger empire.

37

chineseduckman t1_ixl6k7o wrote

>as long as they swear allegiance

*pay massive amounts of money in taxes/tribute

29

francisdavey t1_ixlk3fu wrote

There was only one shogun (when there was any). The emperor > shogun relationship was not at all like emperor's relationship with kings or imperial subjects in the Holy Roman Empire for instance.

The shogun *nominally* ruled on behalf of the emperor but in fact the emperor was a ceremonial figure and had no actual power (except, perhaps, at the outset of the Ashikaga Shogunate, when there was what we might think of as a civil war between pro- and anti-Ashikaga factions, one of which was "imperial").

Sometimes the shogun was themselves a figurehead - eg during much of the Kamakura Bakufu when it was the Hojo regents that were actually in control or at least nominally so.

Daimyo are more complicated and a bit more like feudal subjects in the Reich sense. But only a bit.

14