 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| Part of thePolitics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms ofgovernment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List of forms ·List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power | ||||||||
Power ideology
| ||||||||
 Politics portal | ||||||||
Auniversal monarchy is a concept and political situation in which onemonarchy is deemed to have either sole rule or a special supremacy over all otherstates (or at least all the states in a geopolitical area).
A universal monarchy is differentiated from an ordinary monarchy in that a universal monarchy is beholden to no other state and asserts itssovereignty over all states of the contemporary geopolitical system. The concept is linked to that of auniversal empire, but combines the possession ofimperium with the monarchic form of government.
The concept has arisen inAncient Egypt,Asia,Europe, andPeru. It may have appeared, particularly in pre-modern times, that the dominant superpower in a region seemed to rule over the entire world, but in practice, there has never been a universal monarchy.
Some philosophers in theMiddle Ages, such asNicole Oresme[1] andErasmus,[2] were critical of the concept, whereas theorientalistGuillaume Postel was more favourable of the concept.[3] Universal monarchy is frequently associated withDante'sDe Monarchia; although he used the term "universal monarchy" one time, what he actually argued for was a universal empire.[1]Protestants generally rejected the concept, identifying it withCatholicism.[4]Immanuel Kant anticipated that a universal monarchy would suffer from either a "soulless despotism"[5] or "frequent civil strife" occasioned by partisan attempts to break away.[6] Kant did, however, acknowledge that some form of "federative union" might be viable.[5]John Rawls mentionsHume,Montesquieu,Voltaire,Rousseau, andGibbon as other authors opposed to the idea of a universal monarchy.[6]
For the ancient Egyptians, the four directions of the world were regarded as "united in one head" of the pharaoh.Ramesses III was presented as the "commander of the whole land united in one."[7] Except for theAmarna period, Egypt's official ideology did not recognize coexistence of two or more kings.[8]The Hymn of Victory ofThutmose III and theStelae ofAmenophis II proclaimed: "There is no one who makes a boundary with him ... There is no boundary for him towards all lands united, towards all lands together."[9][10]Thutmose III was acknowledged: "None presents himself before thy majesty. The circuit of the Great Circle [Ocean] is included in thy grasp."[11] Asiatic kings recognizedTutankhamen: "There is none living in ignorance of thee."[12]
The Pharaoh was believed to be the Son of the Sun and to rule all things under the sun. The ascent of a pharaoh was associated with the sunrise. The same verb translated as "dawned" was used for the ascent of king and the rising of the sun.[13] OnAbydos Stelae,Thutmose I claimed: "I made the boundaries of Egypt as far as the sun encircles ... Shining likeRa ... forever."[14] The sun symbolized universality both in space and time.The Story of Sinuke expresses both: May all the gods "give you eternity without limits, infinity without bonds! May the fear of you resound in lowlands and highlands, for you have subdued all that the sun encircles."[15]
The genre ofking lists was introduced into the Egyptian tradition during the reign ofUnas of theFifth Dynasty (2385–2355 BC). The ideological purpose of the genre was to stress the pharaoh's royal universality as the only legitimate king stretching back in an unbroken succession to the time of gods.[16] The contemporaryMesopotamian civilization had a much weaker tradition of universal monarchy, but it also developed aking list to legitimize their royalty as universal monarchs. Mesopotamian kings did not claim to rule all that the sun encircles, but they did claim to be "King of the Four Corners" of the world and "King of the Inhabited World".[17]
According to the Sumerian King List, kingship descended from heaven twice, before and after theFlood; in the second attempt, it was received into the city ofKish. When Kish eventually declined in power, the status "King of Kish" obtained the meaning ofKing of the Universe without geographic sense. The term was used by dominant Mesopotamian monarchs fromSargon of Akkad (c. 2334–2279 BC) to theSeleucid kingAntiochus I Soter (281–261 BC).
In Europe, the expression of a universal monarchy as totalimperium can be seen in theRoman Empire during itsByzantine period. The emperor, by virtue of being the Europe's predominant sovereign state and thus the de facto head ofChristendom, claimed sovereignty over all other kings -- even though in practice this could not be enforced. The Byzantine conception of universal monarchy went through two phases. Initially, asEusebius expounded, the Byzantines believed that just as there was oneGod so too there could only be one Emperor.[18] During the 10th century, this developed into the image of the emperor as thepater familias of a family of kings, placing him in a position of authority over the other rulers in the world.[19] The successor state to the Roman Empire, theOttoman Empire, adopted this understanding of universal monarchy, particularly when military rule was augmented by theCaliphate.
The idea of a sole sovereign emperor would re-emerge in the West withCharlemagne and theHoly Roman Empire.[20] The idea of the Holy Roman Empire possessing special sovereignty as a universal monarchy was respected by its surrounding powers and subject states, even while the empire was weakened by severe fragmentation.[21]Frederick III's iconic phrase"All the world is subject to Austria" is an expression of the idea that all states are subject to one monarchy.[22] The medievalhierocrats argued that thePope was a universal monarch, rather than the emperor.[23]
Charles V'sempire encompassing much of western Europe and the Americas "was the nearest the post-classical world would come to seeing a truly worldwide monarchy, and hence the closest approximation to universal imperium."[24] It was envisaged by its supporters as a world empire that could be religiously inclusive.[25]
The idea of a universal monarchy based on predominance rather than actual total rule would later become synonymous withFrance attempting to establish hegemony over western Europe.[26]Louis XIV, stylized as the "Sun King" around which all the other monarchs were subordinate satellites, exemplified the universal monarch. In 1755, during the reign of his successorLouis XV, DukeAdrien Maurice de Noailles, a member of the Council of State and formerly a key foreign policy advisor to the king, warned of a British challenge for "the first rank in Europe" through the domination of Atlantic commerce. Noailles wrote, "However chimerical the project of universal monarchy might be, that of a universal influence by means of wealth would cease to be a chimera if a nation succeeded in making itself sole mistress of the trade of America."[27]
Monarchy was strong inRussia. TheRussian monarchy wasOrthodox,autocratic, and possessed a vast contiguous empire throughout Europe and Asia, making it similar in some ways to Byzantine rule.[28]
TheBritish monarchy was "Protestant, commercial, maritime and free"[29] and was not composed of contiguous territory, drawing comparisons to theSpanish Empire. Both were "empires on which the sun never sets." But whereCatholicism provided ideological unity for the Spanish Empire, British Protestant diversity would lead to "disunity rather than unity".[30] AnImperial Federation was later promoted byJoseph Chamberlain to provide unity through economic control.
Napoleon came close to creating a universal monarchy with hiscontinental system andNapoleonic Code, but he failed to conquer all of Europe. Following theBattle of Jena when Napoleon overwhelmedPrussia, it seemed toFichte that the universal monarchy was inevitable and close at hand. He found a "necessary tendency in every civilized state" to expand and traced this tendency toantiquity. An "invisible" historical spirit, he posed, runs through all epochs and urges states onward toward that goal. "As the States become stronger in themselves... the tendency towards a Universal Monarchy over the whole Christian World necessarily comes to light."[31]
The last attempt to create a European universal monarchy was that attempted byImperial Germany inWorld War I. "If Germany is victorious", thoughtWoodrow Wilson in 1917, "the German Kaiser would have been suzerain over most of Europe".[32][33]
Published after World War I,The Decline of the West byOswald Spengler proposes a theory of global "Caesarism" (an authoritarian, populist, and autocratic form of government inspired by Julius Caesar's reign). Spengler writes that the formation of the "battling society of nations" marks the beginning of every civilization. This society ends by contest "for the heritage of the whole world." The strongest race wins and seizes the management of the world. At the same time, an "accelerating demolition of ancient [political] forms leaves the path clear to Caesarism." Spengler argues that Caesarism is an inevitable product of such an age. Democracy struggles against the rise of Caesarism, but inevitably, the latter will prevail. The transition from "Napoleonism to Caesarism" is an evolutionary stageuniversal to every culture that takes about two centuries. Spengler applied his theory to three "ages": he argues that the cycle began in China circa 600 BC, in the Mediterranean circa 450 BC, and in the modern world circa 1700. The culmination of Caesarism occurred in China with theFirst Emperor, and in theMediterranean withSulla andPompey. In the modern world - Spengler predicted - it was still forthcoming, but global Caesarism was likely to appear in "one century"; the Spenglerian century ended in 2022.[34]
The title "Son of Heaven" emerged in China during theZhou dynasty. The title denotes universality, rulingall under Heaven. The title also implies a highercelestial rule, in contrast to kings who rule between heaven and earth and modern presidents who are merely earthly rulers. TheBook of Odes states:
Beneath all heaven
There is no land that is not theking's;
Throughout the borders of the earth,
Imperial China was regarded by its citizens as a universal monarchy, and all other monarchs were regarded astributaries. This is reflected in the Chinese name for the state which survives to this day,Zhongguo, meaning "Middle/Central Kingdom". Even during the centuries-long period of independent states (771–221 BC), the Zhou-period concept of universal monarchy remained unchallenged, and no significant movements for national identity or independence developed:
"When we examine the writing of the hundred schools of the [later] Zhou period, we are forcefully struck by the ongoing tenacious hold of the ancient idea of universal kingship even during this period of division. No outlook emerges that is prepared to treat the multistate system as normative or normal ... No Chinese Grotius or Puffendorf emerges.[37][38]
The inscription of theFirst Emperor of China said: "Wherever life is found, all acknowledge his suzerainty."[39] ThisSinocentric paradigm survived until the 19th century. WhenGeorge III of Great Britain proposed establishing trading contacts, the Chinese declined, because "the Celestial Empire, ruling all within the four seas ... does not have the slightest need of your country's manufactures." They added that George III must act in conformity with their wishes, strengthen his loyalty and swear perpetual obedience.[40]
The Chinese concept of universal monarchy was taken up by theMongol Empire,[41][42] who underGenghis Khan were able to enforce the concept more widely than China. The Chinese Son of Heaven also contributed to a counterpart in Japan, and in some aspects, the Japanese made their monarchy more universal. The Chinese emperor was bound to theMandate of Heaven, but no such mandate existed for theTenno. Descended from the Sun GoddessAmaterasu in the immemorial past, one Dynasty is supposed to rule Japan forever. The Chinese ended their dynastic cycle in 1911;the Japanese Dynasty continues until the present day and is the oldest active dynasty in the world, albeitDouglas MacArthurun-deified it in 1945.
The Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain concept of theChakravartin exemplifies the ideal of a universal monarch.[43][44]
InSunni Islam, the concept of theCaliphate can be considered a universal monarchy. The Caliph is not necessarily a spiritual leader; rather, he is the secular head of theMuslim community and is (theoretically) bound by and subject to Islamic law.[citation needed] The wordKhalifah can be translated variously assuccessor, steward, deputy, orviceregent, with the implication that the Caliph is theworldly successor to theProphet Muhammad.[citation needed] (Importantly Sunni Muslims donot consider the Caliph his spiritual successor; Muhammad is considered to be the last prophet, so he can have no spiritual successor.)[citation needed] The duties of the Caliph theoretically include the administration ofIslamic law; the enactment of policies for the welfare of Muslims; thecustodianship of Islamic holy sites and care of pilgrims; thecustodianship of conquered non-Muslims and mediation of their interests relative to those of Muslims; the prosecution ofholy wars (bothoffensive anddefensive); and the representation of the diplomatic interests of the global Muslim community, even beyond the borders of the Caliphate's domains (a precedent set duringMuhammad's life, and his interactions with other heads of state).[citation needed]
InShia Islam, the concept of theImamate is comparable to the SunniCaliphate, but it is not identical. The Shia Imam is considered to be both the spiritual and the secular leader of theglobal Muslim community; therefore, the Imam holds authority over policy and administration, and is theinfallible final arbiter in the interpretation oflaw andtheology.[citation needed] Like the Sunni Caliph, the Shia Imam's authority as a monarch is considered universal. The Imamate is tied to theAhl al-Bayt; dynasties that claim the Imamate also claim descent fromMuhammad viaAli andFatimah, and pass the title of Imam down from father to son, with differentShia denominations following different lineages.[citation needed] For example, theTwelver Shia Muslims follow the line ofthe Twelve Imams, of whom the last has supposedly been inoccultation since the 9th century CE; in contrast, theNizari Shia Muslims follow adifferent and still-living line of Imams, of whomthe Aga Khan V is the current head.[citation needed]
In the Americas, theInca monarchy was universal in the sense of a sole rule over the whole contemporary geopolitical area, around which were only unsettled societies.[45] The Inca people called their state the "realm of the four quarters of the world",[46][47] a concept of universality in space analogous to the "four corners" of other universal monarchies. Similar to how the Chinese called their state "middle country", the Incas called their capital,Cusco, "the navel of the world".[48]Inca Garcilaso de la Vega calls the Inca monarchy one of the most absolute and divine in history.[49][50] The Incan monarchs "were respected as gods" and considered universal monarch.[51] The royal title,Sapa Inca (lit. 'the only emperor'),[52] implied that no other emperor could exist anywhere in the world. The Inca believed their king to be divine: the Inca founder,Manco Capac, was the son of the Sun GodInti, and subsequent monarchs were titled Sons of the Sun. They were mummified after death and worshipped as gods by subsequent generations.[53]
 | Theneutrality of this section isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(September 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Some of the earliest examples ofcosmopolitanism are related to the idea of universal monarchies.
For example, in ancient Egypt, theGreat Hymn to the Aten dated during the reign ofAkhenaten of theEighteenth Dynasty (c. 1353–1336 BC) reads: The "tongues of peoples differ in speech, their characters likewise; their skins are distinct, forAten distinguished the peoples." But Aten is said to care for all of them: "In all lands of the world, you set every man in his place, you supply their need, everyone has his food..."[54] A book titledCosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers... and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean concludes: "The cosmopolitanisms which emerged in the concerned regions in theAxial Age were products of universal monarchies."[55]
Amy Chua emphasized cosmopolitanism and tolerance as imperial cement in hercomparative research of hyperpowers. Most of the hyperpowers she selected happen to be universal monarchies.[56] Her ex-compatriot, Sunny Auyang, also finds several good cases for the thesis that the expansion and endurance of empire is a function of its cosmopolitan openness and tolerance.[57] Those monarchs who made no cosmopolitan compromises did not approach universal rule too closely or for too long. Thus, according toAnthony Pagden, cosmopolitan policy was created out of need rather than generosity.[58] ClassicistErich S. Gruen prefers to avoid sweeping postulates of cosmopolitan ideals in favor of a practical concern for harmony and stability of the realm.[59] Tolerance, according to his colleague Phiroze Vasunia, was "just a way to keep the conquered peoples quiet."[60]
ThePersian universal monarchs tolerated the cultures, languages, and religions of the subordinated peoples and supported local religious institutions.[61] The gateway complex to the royal acropolis was called "The Gate of All Nations."[62] Local elites were integrated into the imperial administration.[63] The founder of the Empire,Cyrus the Great, expressed cosmopolitanism on a scale unknown in previousAssyrian andBabylonian empires.[64] He ceased their policy of mass deportations and allowed deported peoples to return to their lands and restore their temples. HisCylinder only mentions peoples deported from eastern regions of the Babylonian Empire, but the policy was not limited to them. Jews alsoreturned from theBabylonian captivity to their land and restored theirTemple. The attitude of theHebrew Prophets changed from hatred of previous empires (such as Assyria and Babylon) to glorification of the Persians, titlingCyrus the Great as "The God's Messiah."[65]
Mauryan EmperorAshoka did not favour Buddhism at the expense of other religions, nor differentiated among social and ethnic groups.[66][67] Ashoka'sRock Edicts 6, 7, and 12 emphasize tolerance toward all sects.[68][69] After the dissolution of the universal monarchy in India, Buddhism with its universalist appeal was replaced by Brahmanical particularism; (svadharma)[70] however, in the universal monarchies of China and Japan, Buddhism remained widely accepted.[71]
Alexander the Great introduced a multi-ethnicecumenical principle of rule that extended beyond pan-Hellenism. He planned to found the capital of his empire inBabylon to promote a collaborative governance of the realm, placing Persians on par with his own people.[72] All three of his official wives were non-Greek, and he encouraged intermarriages among his subordinates as well. Nearly one hundred such international marriages were reportedly celebrated atSusa.[73]
Following the rise of Alexander to universal monarch,Stoicism became the dominant school ofHellenistic philosophy. The Stoics articulated a form of Greek citizenship that united people who had been, until then, separated by polis borders. Its founder,Zeno of Citium (c. 334 – c. 262 BC), advised that inhabitants of all poleis should form "one way of life and one order."[74] Stoics were radically cosmopolitan by contemporary standards. They did not differentiate between the Greeks and barbarians[75] and preached to accept even slaves as "equals of other men because all men alike are products of nature."[76] Later Stoic thinker Seneca in hisLetter exhorted: "Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies." The Stoics held that external differences, such as rank and wealth, are of no importance in social relationships. Instead, they advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. According to the Stoics, all people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another. Stoicism became the predominant influential philosophy under the Hellenistic and Roman universal monarchs[77] and has been called an official philosophy of the monarchy.[78]Marcus Aurelius was a self-declared Stoic cosmopolitan.[79]Antigonus was praised by the Stoics for his love of mankind, calledphilanthropia by the Greeks orhumanitas by the Romans.[80]Edward Gibbon concluded on the Roman universal spirit of toleration: “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrates, as equally useful.”[81] TheEdict of Caracalla in 212 CE extended Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire.
Cosmopolitanism also flourished under the universal monarchy of Tibet. Buddhism was introduced into China under theHan dynasty. TheTang dynasty saw the influx of thousands of foreigners who came to live in Chinese commercial hub cities. Expatriates spilled in from all over Asia and beyond, with a bounty of people from Persia, Arabia, India, Korea, and Southeast and Central Asia. Chinese cities became bustling epicenters of commerce and trade, abundant in foreign residents and the plethora of cultural riches that they brought with them.[82] A census taken in 742 AD showed that the foreign proportion of the registered population had massively increased from nearly a quarter in the early seventh century to nearly half by the mid seventh century, with an estimated 200,000 foreigners in residence in Canton alone.[83]Buddhism,Confucianism andDaoism were practiced undisturbed in China, as well as in Japan, where the three coexisted withShinto.
The Mongols were famous for their religious pluralism and tolerance for diverse religious and philosophical beliefs. They practiced multicultural politics based on the recognition that the peoples under their rule would have their own laws, religions, and customs. The Mongol administration was multi-ethnic and multi-religious.[84][85]
Universal peace is a term given byDante toPax Romana. Not until the time of Divus Augustus, he says, was there a complete and single universal monarch who pacified the world. Then, "mankind enjoyed the blessings of universal peace," the greatest “of all things that have been ordained for our happiness."[86]
The view of Dante has been popular in world history. Universal monarchies dominate the lists ofperiods of regional peace andPax imperia. The Roman universal monarchy is known for Pax Romana andAra Pacis Augustae; the Chinese forPax Sinica andTwelve Metal Colossi. Such testaments of founding universal monarchs asCyrus Cylinder,Edicts of Ashoka,Steles of Qin Shi huang andRes Gestae glorify peace or non-violence.
Pacifist creeds, such as Buddhism, Stoicism and Christianity, were products of universal monarchies. TheHan dynasty favored Confucianism and Daoism over the Chinese equivalent ofrealpolitik,[87]Legalism. The creeds advanced by universal monarchs have many pacifist elements in common. Compliance is preferable over resistance, self-depreciation over pride, and self-denial over self-assertion. In the face of injustice, humility is best. Asceticism strives to become a prime virtue.[88] Having smashed all their rivals, universal monarchs preached peace, advanced pacifist creeds, and on one occasion (Ashoka) expressed a regret: "It is considered very painful and deplorable by the Beloved of the Gods" to attain the universal rule by mass slaughter,confessed Ashoka.[89] But, as Robert G. Wesson summarizes the attitude of monarchs toward brutality necessary for universal conquest, "eggs are broken to make the omelet."[90]
In the earliest in history universal monarchy, Egypt, “when the gods inclined to peace,” they decided to “established their son... to be ruler of every land.”[91] Having become universal, Egyptian kings expressed less militarism and more pacifism. The royal names in theSecond Dynasty (c. 2890 – 2663 BC) abandoned the element of fighting — Horus the fighter, Horus the strong, or arm-raising Horus —and introduced pacifist names — Horus: the two powers are at peace (Hotepsekhemwy) and Horus and Seth: the two powers have arisen; the two lords are at peace in him (Khasekhemwy-nebwy-hetep-imef).[92][93] The concepts of pacifying and calming the Two Lands of Egypt and of the imperial periphery “craving for peace” and "bearing peace” may be found passim in all forms of ancient Egyptian literature.[94][95][96]
The Neo-Assyrian visual program broadcast forceful annexation. This changes under the Persian level of universality. Besides theBehistun Inscription, the Achaemenid art is devoid of scenes of might and aggression. It does not depict particular historical moments or events but rather features of timeless, universal monarchy. The Achaemenid carvings reflect the visual program of Persepolis illustrating "the cooperative, harmonious and voluntary support of the empire by its constituents."[97] Peoples were warring, explainsDarius the Great, "one smote the other." Having "smitten" nineteen of them "exceedingly,"[98] Darius rejoiced "that one does not smite the other any more."[99]
In China, thefirst universal monarch of the post-Warring States period "confiscated the weapons of the world, collected them together... and [at a great banquet] smelt them into bells and bell-racks, as well astwelve bronze statues."[100] Complementing the destruction of arms was the empire-wide leveling of city walls and other obstructions of military importance. Mount Chieh-shih inscription from 215 BC described the historic mission of the First Emperor: “He has been the first to achieve a single great peace. He has demolished the inner and outer walls of cities."[101] The whole world, explained the First Emperor, had suffered from endless wars and battles, because there were numerous independent kings. "They celebrated a great bacchanal... Thanks to my ancestors, the Empire has been pacified for the first time." The "black-haired live at peace, with no use for the weapons and armor." The world has attained "harmony and peace." Restore independent kings, however, and war returns.[102] Seventy scholars praised the achievement: Now "everything within the seas has been pacified... and all men are at peace and suffer none of the disasters of warfare."[103]
Ammianus Marcellinus (circa 330-400 AD) in one of the earliest external accounts on the Seres (Chinese) described: “The Seres themselves live a peaceful life, forever unacquainted with arms and warfare; and since to gentle and quite folk ease is pleasurable, they are troublesome to none of their neighbors.”[104] No heroic epic is known from the universal monarchies of Egypt and China, no Egyptian equivalent of theEpic of Gilgamesh, nor Chinese ofMahabharata. The absence of Chinese heroic epic was noted by Hegel (Lectures on Aesthetics) and ever since.[105][106][107][108][109] Egyptian and Chinese heroes weresages and inventors.[110]
Instead of poetic drama with epic heroes, the Chinese tradition from the beginning presents historicist prose with sage kings, wise ministers, and loyal functionaries. Besides the complete absence of heroic epics, the whole mythic genre is "exceedingly fragmentary." Some Sinologists detect "mythic references" or "transmuted mythic material" from immemorial past but already in theearliest extensive written sources all the "mythopoetic urge" is "suppressed" and the tradition is "extraordinarily different in spirit" from the early classics in India, Mesopotamia and Greece. The "whole atmosphere is somehow rendered un-mythic." The editors worked to elaborate an orderly,normative world.Benjamin I. Schwartz partly explains the difference by different political orders, the Chinese universal monarchy vs civilizations of city-states.[111]
Herodotus notes that the Egyptians "are not accustomed to pay any honors to heroes."[112] Universal monarchs preferred prosaic narrative. "No epic narrative spanned past generations, no tale of destiny urged a moral on the living."[113] This stands in sharp contrast with Mesopotamia. With the "rejoiced heart" and "brightened spirit," Gilgamesh smites theHegemon of his world.[114] The contemporary Egyptians would be shocked and awed by such a story. Since the Old Kingdom, the Egyptian God loved obedience. An Egyptian form ofwisdom literature,Sebayt, was focused on loyalty and obedience.The Maxims of Ptahhotep (around 2375–2350 BC) advised: "Give way unto him that attacketh." "Put thyself in the hands of God, and thy tranquillity shall overthrow [thy enemies]." One Sebayt was literally named "Loyalist Teaching."[88] Analogously, the Chinese heroes were "loyal functionaries."[115]
The Chinese expressionPing Tianxia, meaning "to pacify All under Heaven," was pacifist euphemism for conquest.[116] Since 221 BC, each reunification of China was defined as "pacification." In 207 BC, Qin was "completely exterminated. Five years later, the world was pacified by Han.”[117] Similarly, the Romans derived from the nounpax (peace) the verbpacare (to pacify) to avoid saying conquest.[118] The Romans fought to “pacify” Greece[119] and Spain.[120]
The rise of the Roman universal monarchy was celebrated with theAra Pacis Augustae, Altar of Peace, instead of the traditional triumphal arch.[121] The final scene on Vergil'sShield of Aeneas, which shows representatives of the conqueredoikumene within the walls of Rome, is at the same time an image of a city at peace.[122] The major prophecy of theAeneid (6:853) charts the expansion of Roman military power through military conquests to fill the universe and establish a completely new era of peace: “This will be your genius—to impose the way of peace.”[123]
The Roman Legate,Quintus Petillius Cerialis, preached peace to the Gauls: “Struggle for power and feuds ravaged Gallia until you accepted our laws... War of all against all—that is what waiting for you if—gods save—the Romans would be expelled from Gallia. . . So love peace and guard it.”[124] To “keep our arms constantly in hand” was regarded by the Romans as “the only way to preserve peace.”[125] The Sassanian King,Chosroes I (531-579 AD), wrote in a letter to the Byzantine EmperorMaurice (539–602): "There are two eyes to which Divinity confined the task of illuminating the world: these are the powerful monarchy of the Romans and the wisely governed Commonwealth of the Persians. By these two great empires the barbarous and war-loving nations are kept in check; and mankind given better and safer government throughout."[126]
The Pax Romana was lamented by Dante millennium after it had disappeared. The contemporary plurality of warring governments crazed him: “But the condition of the world since the day when the nail of greed tore that seamless garment [of Pax Romana] is something we can all read about, if only we did not have to see it, too!” (De Monarchia, 1:16). The contemporary conditions, indeed, were getting worse, as the European governments went more warring. In 1637, JesuitGiulio Alenio reported that he was often asked by his Chinese friends: "If there are so many kings, how can you avoid wars?" It was a good question in the middle of the frightfulThirty Years' War.[127]
A more pacifist nature of universal monarchies appears from the difference between the two main monarchies in Americas. The Inca monarchy was universal while the Aztec regional and warring with other monarchies of its world. Inca were defeated by the Spaniards within "scarcely three hours," by a force outnumbered 1 to 45 and without a single Spaniard killed. The Aztec defeat stands in sharp contrast despite the same disadvantage in military technology. The last independent Aztec tlatoani,Cuauhtémoc, held a fierce defense ofTenochtitlan for 80 days, forcedHernán Cortés to mobilize tens of thousands of Indian allies, and impressed him with valor.[128]
Generally,comparative historical research on monarchies finds that universal monarchs were more absolute and divine than the modern Europeanabsolute kings. The ideologies of modern absolute monarchies claimed the monarch to be subject to divine, not human, law. "But he was no ancient emperor; he was not the sole source of law; of coinage, weights and measures; of economic monopolies... He owned only his own estates."[129] Caesar is the republic, proclaimedOvid (Tristia 4:4-15). And modern historians find him right. "In his person Augustus accumulated the pillars of power: armed forces, control of the elite, wealth and patronage of the public clientelae. That is why Augustus, perhaps more than Louis XIV, would have been entitled to say: L'etat, c'est moi."[130]
The Egyptian and Inca kings were "god incarnate."[131][132] They were mummified and worshiped for generations as gods (chapters on Egypt and Inca above). The Chinese monarch was not god incarnate. His status was above gods,[133] approximating certain features of the God Almighty of the Abrahamic religions.[134] Resembling the Jewish God, Chinese monarch's name was tabooed. He was invisible for the vast majority of his subjects, generally enclosed behind the walls of theForbidden City. Normally, no statues were erected, no paintings drawn and no image was reproduced on coins.[135]
The Japanese, having established their universal monarchy, borrowed these features from China. Since the beginning in the Third century AD, the Japanese monarch never revealed himself to people. While walking outside the Palace, he was covered by curtains. For this, he too was associated with the Hebrew God.[136] But the Japanese outperformed the Chinese in several aspects. A founder of Chinese dynasty could be a mortal man of very simple social origins and Chinese dynasties needed theMandate of Heaven. Otherwise they could be, and were, replaced. The Chinese tradition counts 36 Dynasties.[137] The Japanese Dynasty, by contrast, has been permanent and is said to be of divine origins, the founder being the direct descendant of goddessAmaterasu. The Chinese ended their dynastic cycle in 1911, whilethe Japanese Dynasty continues as the oldest active dynasty in the world, thoughun-deified byDouglas MacArthur in 1945.
In India, the function of the East Asian Heaven performed Dhamma (cosmic eternal law). The Chinese and Japanese universal monarchs were inferior to Heaven. They were its Sons and the Chinese required itsmandate to rule. TheChakravarti, by contrast, did not display any inferiority related to Dhamma. He "turned the wheel" of Dhamma which otherwise would not be enacted. Hence is the literal meaning of Chakravarti, a "wheel turner," adopted by the first univresal monarch in India,Asoka, and hence onward meaning "universal monarch."
The Egyptian royal tombs –pyramids – is perhaps the best expression of the level of veneration. 700,000 workers worked on theEpang Palace and theMausoleum of Qin Shi Huang (Sima Qian I:148, 155), containingTerracotta Army. The foundation platform of Epang sized 1270 × 426 m. Some estimates make the mausoleum the largest burial complex of a single ruler ever to have been constructed anywhere in the world.[138] With the rise ofuniversal monarchs in Japan, impressivemegalithic tombs covered their land and gave name to theKofun period, meaning the era of burial mounds.
A divinity threshold was crossed the moment of universal conquest. Following theQin universal conquest in 221 BC, theFirst Emperor of the universal realm was titled "Huang" meaning 'august', and "Di", meaning 'Divine'.Sima Qian explicitly states the causal link between the universal conquest and divinity.[139] The Inca ruler, with the establishment of his universal monarchy, changed his royal "Capac" title, somewhat equivalent of "Duke," for the divine name by which he was thereafter known to history, "Viracocha Inca."[140]
Following another universal conquest,Alexander the Great broke with much of the Macedonian royal tradition, where kings were mortal like the rest of humans[141][142] and traditionally elected by the assembled people to be chief among equals. He also broke with the Greek model of Hegemon, leader of the pan-Hellenic league, practised by his fatherPhilip. Instead, he modeled his rule on the Kings of Persia and Egypt alien to the Greek tradition.[143] Alexander and hisPtolemaic andSeleucid successors became divine and some added to their namesEpiphanes, meaning 'divine'. By 323 BC, several Greek states were worshipping Alexander as a living god. Cults were offered to his successors with greater frequencies and magnificence. Proclaiming monarchy as the best form of government, Stoicism provided ideological justification.[144] Michael J. Puett finds that universal empire and deification of monarch developed together. He compares Macedonia with China, where universal empire coincided with a new type of theomorphic claim.[145]
The most striking link between universal conquest and rise of a divine monarchy is Rome. Rome is the only case in world history of universal empire established by a non-monarchical state.[146] TheRoman Republic was born in a violent rejection of monarchy.[147] The Roman ideal oflibertas rivals that of the modern West.[148] Its acceptance was never disputed in the republican Rome. The opposite of libertas wasregnum - in proper sense, absolute monarchy[149] which could not be tolerated under any condition.[150][151][152]
Despite all, when Rome conquered the Mediterranean world, the Republic turned into universal monarchy common for other universal empires.Julius Caesar, havingcrossed the Rubicon toward the universal monarchy, became "Divus" and traced his origins toVenus.[153] Another word for "Divine" isAugustus. In 23 BC, Augustus received “greater proconsular command unlimited in time" (imperium proconsulare maius infinitum). With him, the ancient triumphant Republic and the unshakable ideal of libertas gave up to an absolute divine monarchy and thecult of emperor, “the degradation of the high tradition of human freedom.”[154] Henceforth, universal monarchs defined the history of the Roman world. Their images and monuments filled the public space of their cities, their words were heard in silent awe by their subjects, their names provided the framework for the measurement of time.[155]
Augustus' image reminds that of Jesus. TheCalendar Inscription of Priene (9 BC) uses the term "gospel" referring to him and describes him as "Savior" and "God manifest." Augustus "had wiped away our sins"[156] shortly before Jesus did it again.
Universal monarchy had at least three independent origins - in the Near East, China and Peru. Their "essential alikeness" in extreme absolutism and divinity despite their isolation from each other, according to Robert G. Wesson, suggests a common structural cause. It is instructive to find such common features, "even to an exaggerated degree, in the Inca empire... which drew nothing from the empires of the Old World." Wesson supposed that this cause is the "overgreat" state ruling over tremendous areas and multitudes.[157]
The rise of extremely absolute and divine personality on earth triggered a similar process in Heaven.[158] The omnipotent authority on earth makes paves for men the way to accept the single divine will above ordering the entire universe.[159] Main gods rose to more universal andtranscendent status and on several occasions universal monarchies generated monotheism.Sigmund Freud was one of the earliest scholars to causally link universal monarchy (of Egypt) with monotheism.[160]
Akhenaten undertook the earliest knowattempt, albeit short-lived.[161][162] TheGreat Hymn to the Aten is the earliest record in world history to proclaim God as "sole" beside whom there is "none". Beginning withSargon II, Assyrian scribes began to write the name ofAshur with the ideogram for "whole heaven."[163] According toSimo Parpola, theNeo-Assyrian empire developed a complete monotheism. The earliest recorded in history Son of God "sent for the salvation of mankind" was the king of Assyria.[164]
The Assyrian case is crucial regarding Judaism — the only ancient monotheism which is not a product of universal monarchy. Notably, the Jewish religion became monotheist in the Babylonian captivity.[165] One hypothesis maintains that the Jewish priests adopted the local monotheism and replacedAshur withYahweh. The Assyrian monotheist concept of "(all) the gods" was translated into Hebrew asElohim, literally "(all) the gods." This explains the puzzle ofPsalm 46:4–5 with God dwelling in his City on the river. There is no river in Jerusalem. The City of Assur was on the river.[166] "Yahweh's emergence as a major player on the divine scene mirrored those of...Marduk and Assur." The former, as Yahweh, had a temple without an image to express his monotheist nature.[167] Some scholars also supposed the influence of the Egyptian universal monarchy, particularly of the Great Hymn to the Aten onPsalm 104.[168][169][170][171]
Synchronously with Judaism, the Persian universal monarchy elaboratedZoroastrianism considered by most as monotheistic.[172] It has been supposed thatDarius elevatedAhura Mazda to monotheist status to associate the sole king with the sole god.[173]Cleanthes (330-230 BC) andAratus (c.315/310–240 BC) equate Zeus with "Mind" or "Nature"—as the soul that animates the material universe. With them, Stoicism "turned the god into something like God."[174]
Alternatively, other universal monarchies preserved polytheism but following the rise of a universal monarchy a kind ofmonistic orimmanent substance took on itself qualities of the monotheist god, such as theStoic logos, Heaven[175] in China and Japan orDhamma in Buddhism.[176] Universal monarchs in China and Japan wereSons of Heaven and in China they ruled by themandate of Heaven. Heaven was conceived of as a transcendental supreme god.[177]Mark Elvin describes Heaven during theZhou universal monarchy (c. 1046-771 BC) as evolving from anthropomorphic deity into amorphic principle. Due to its affinities and differences with the monotheist God, Elvin referred to Heaven with a capitalized "It."[178] On a heterogenous religious landscape, the Chinese superimposed the worship of Heaven.[179] Made in China, this concept of Heaven was borrowed by Japan when its universal monarchy rose.
Buddhism spread under the universal monarchy ofAshoka. Whoever sees me, says Buddha, sees Dhamma; whoever sees Dhamma, sees me. While Christians see Jesus as God-become-human, Buddhists see the Buddha as human-become-Dhamma.[180] Heaven and Dhamma propelled East Asian and Indian respectively monarchs to their universal triumphs.[181]
TheAxial Age, characterized by universal kingship, saw what is called "transcendental breakthrough" named as the only common underlying impulse in all these "axial" movements.[182][183]Max Weber stressed the synchronism between political and theological universalizations in the period his compatriot,Karl Jaspers, would later termAxial.[184] Weber's observation motivatedShmuel Eisenstadt to research the synchronous transcedental breakthroughs in a volume devoted to the Axial Age.[185][186] One of the contributors to this volume,Mark Elvin, shared the view of the Axial theological breakthrough but noted that the term "transcendental" is not successful because in China the breakthrough wasimmanent rather than transcendental.[187] In fact, in his earlier research Schwartz noted the tendency in the Chinese tradition to associate the transcendent with the immanent.[188] According to Björn Wittrock, the breakthrough was manifested in different ways in different civilizations but the most direct and explicit axis is between the mundane power of universal monarchs and the main intellectual-religious carriers of the new cosmology.[189]
Explaining the Axial Age, Wittrock links universal monarchy with cosmopolitanism, world religions and divine rulers. The Axial Age, he says, created universal monarchies that encompassed peoples across vast distances and beyond a circle of kin. Synchronously with these new forms of political order emerged new religious ecumenes characterized by new world religions and a new kind of supreme ruler embodying divine features. The new Axial religions and their ecumenes greatly strengthened the legitimacy of universal monarchies.[190] In the case of China, Wittrock adds that its theological breakthrough by centuries pre-dates the Axial Age and coincides in time with theZhou universal monarchy (c. 1046-771 BC) when Heaven obtained monist qualities and developed its Mandate.[191]
Eventually, two most popular monotheist legacies of universal monarchies became Christianity and Islam. One God, one Emperor, one empire, proclaimedEusebius (AD 290–330).[192] One study names Islam as the clearest example of convergence between monotheist religion and universal monarchy.[193]
Following the conquests of Genghis Khan, an "imperial" version ofTengrism evolved with a monotheistTengri.[194][195] The edict ofChinggis Khan stated: "This is the order of the everlasting God. In heaven there is only one eternal God; on earth there is only one lord..." Similar proclamations by him and his heirs were issued, alternatively embellished with Quranic, Confucian, or Biblical verses, depending on their prospective audiences.[196]
With the dissolution of universal monarchies, cosmopolitanism and pacifism give way to nationalism and militarism. By contrast, monotheism does not dissolve back to polytheism. One legacy of the universal monarchies is overhalf of humanity remaining monotheists.
For ancient Egypt, China, Japan and Inca, the beginning of history was marked by the emergence of universal monarchy. This event in terms of their traditions originated during the time these people saw as what we would callprehistory. And vice versa, from their perspective, we have not ended our prehistory and still live in the pre-dynastic period of our civilization with plural sovereigns. Civilizations which performed their universal conquest and established universal monarchy viewed those who did not as a primeval savage who "fights since the time of Horus, neither conquering, nor being conquered."[197]
Universal monarchies lacked linear,teleological,utopian orprogressive vision of history of the Western kind.[198] For them, the ideal state is not in an utopian future but a historic past and no further progress was even theoretically possible. All what was needed ever since the rise of universal monarchy was to maintain it, and if lost, restore it as soon as possible. Thus history acquired cyclical pattern with long phases of universal monarchy interrupted by evanescent falls.[199][200][201] The Egyptians, according to Herodotus, look only to the past and not the future. Their great reverence for age and the ancestral manifest a determined and changeless tradition of stability and rest.[202] While Plato constructed his good order through a process of dialectic ratiocination, Confusius did it by studying history. In theAnalects, Confucius remarks that "he transmits and does not create."[188]
SinologistBenjamin I. Schwartz supposed how this concept evolved in China. In the Chineseclassical tradition, All under Heaven had theTao but lost. Before it was lost, all had been ideal. The Tao that is here affirmed is neither a legendary golden age, nor garden of Eden following the Creation. It is a fully articulated, crystallized socio-political order that had presumably been realized in a particular historical period. Both the pre-Confucian texts and Confucius himself seem to assume that this period is the universal monarchies of Xia, Shang and Chou (until 771 BC). The actual order of the early Chou could be far from ideal but the image projected by Confucius and his predecessors was not entirely an ideal construct. The universal rule had established a relatively peaceful and lawful order and its memories could provide the nucleus for ideal construction. Comparing China with other civilizations, Schwartz finds the Chinese relative order longer-lasting than the precarious orders of pre-Axial Mesopotamia, Greece, Israel, and India, but explicitly excludes from his generalization Egypt, another case of persistent universal monarchy with a similar view on history.[203]
What Schwartz supposed for China, Robert G. Wesson applied to universal monarchies in general. In the anarchy that follows its breakup, he says, universal monarchy is remembered as ideal and the vision of fixed authority governing mankind is more entrancing than ever. Its crimes are forgotten; in retrospect it seems an age of order and tranquillity which must be restored to the land divided against itself.[204] Herodotus was puzzled by the Egyptian mentality of universal monarchy. After a brief interlude when they enjoyed freedom, they reverted to monarchy again because they could not endure without submitting themselves to despotic rule for any length of time.[205]
German Sociologist Friedrich Tenbruck, criticizing the Western idea of progress, emphasized that China and Egypt remained at one particular stage of development for millennia. This stage was universal monarchy. The development of Egypt and China came to a halt once their empires "reached the limits of their natural habitat," that is, became universal.[206]
Periods when monarchies were more universal –Shang,Zhou,Han andTang dynasties in China,Maurya,Gupta andMughal dynasties in India, theHeian Japan, the Augustan and Antonine Rome – were remembered by posterity as "Golden Ages."Edward Gibbon described theAntonine age as best in human history.[207] When civilization establishes a universal monarchy, generalizedCarroll Quigley, it enters upon a "golden age." At least this is what the posteriority remember.[208] TheIslamic Golden Age also begins during the universalAbbasid dynasty. TheSpanish,Portuguese andBritish Golden Ages similarly coincide with periods when their monarchies came closest to universal.[209][210] Their achievements in art, literatue and architecture were outstanding and the collective memory of these realms lasts centuries:
The universal empire is the grandest of human creations, the mightiest and most impressive structure known to man; it never ceases to possess the mind and remains indelibly imprinted upon society. It weighs on all subsequent life of the peoples upon whom it has impressed its unforgettable glory.[211]
Golden ages in multipolar civilizations, by contrast, such as Hesiod's "Race of Gold,"Satya Yuga, "Gullaldr" ofGylfaginning, usually parallel the BiblicalGarden of Eden as a legendary period following the creation of the world with affairs going from bad to worse ever since and not expected to improve before the Apocalypse or, its Hindu version,Kali Yuga. In the Graeko-Roman world, the Augustan poets, the first generation of the Roman universal monarchy, were the first to transfer the "golden" period from the time of gods to the present.[212]Aelius Aristides decided thatHesiod was wrong in his timing and identified Hesiod's golden age with the age of Rome. The idea appears also inVirgil'sFourth Eclogue.[213] The legacy of the Roman golden concept is still strongly with us. Transferred from the legendary to the historical, it has become a commonplace to describe as "golden age" any outstanding period of history, literature, orporn.[214]
Seeing the ideal model in the past, most universal monarchies had a greater concern with history than their non-universal colleagues did. Universal monarchies leave behind the mass of records.[215] The difference is striking comparing the volumes of historical records of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, China and India, or Rome and the post-Roman Europe. Usually, the more monarchy is universal in space and lasting in time, the more history it writes.[216] Two of the features of the Axial Age named in theCambridge World History (2015) are universal monarchies and increase in "historical consciousness."[217]
Herodotus called the Egyptians the greatest preservers of the past, both in memory and in written records.[202] Four centuries later,Diodorus Siculus also distinguished Egypt as civilization where "numerous deeds of great men worthy of record were chronicled."[218]Lucian (c. AD 125 – after 180) in his satiricalHow to Write History reveals the obsession with history in his universal monarchy: All the population is "carried away with the need to write history."[219]
As China forged a universal monarchy, the profession of court historians was invented. The father ofSima Qian debuted in the new function. The Tang dynasty institutionalized the History Bureau, a higly complex apparatus of court historians working in cooperation with royal diarists, astronomers, literary composers and a separate Historiographical Office. History writing was the "textual manifestation" of the Chinese universal monarchy.[220][221]
The genre ofuniversal history by such Historians asPolybius,Diodorus Siculus and Sima Qian was the product of universal rule, and Polybius explicitly links his motive of writing history with the rise of Rome to universal empire. All three wove detailed descriptions of imperial expansions into an organic, synthesized whole.[222] By contrast, the world history of Herodotus is a collection of isolated events. According to Raoul Mortley, universal history was introduced following the Greek universalism engendered by Alexander.[223] With the exception of Athens, history writing does not characterize states in multipolar civilizations. Most of these states were indifferent to history. Historical information inRigveda, for example, is so scant that the brightest minds of today cannot fix whether it isdated to 1500 or 1000 BC.[224]
Regarding future, universal monarchies are prominent in their optimism. They did not expectapocalypse orcosmic recycling, nor even lesser disasters like destructive warfare or imperial fall characteristic for Mesopotamian,Hindu eschatological, Hebrew prophetic, and classical Greek literature. Apocalyptic ideas were present in the universal monarchy of Egypt[225] andeschatological creeds thrived in later universal monarchies[226] but universal monarchs insisted on an alternative belief in eternal orderly existence. The First Emperor of China proclaimed the universal monarchy he established to last for ten-thousand generations.[227][228]Karl Jaspers, who coined the termAxial Age, generalized that the universal monarchies which came into being at the end of his Age considered themselves founded for eternity.[229] Those monarchies were deemed universal in both space and time. Gods provided the Egyptian kings with "eternity without limits, infinity without bounds."[230] InAeneid (1.278–79), Jupiter promisedimperium sine fine, empire without limit either temporal or geographical.[231][232] In Japan even dynasties were not supposed to rise and fall.One dynasty was believed to ever last. A great culture of eternity evolved.[233] The pyramids, mummies andTerracotta Army were designed to last forever.
Until the 2nd century BC, Roman and Greek classics expressed an endless cycle of imperial rise and fall. The tradition originated in the East where its later version was theFour kingdoms of Daniel. Earlier, through Herodotes, it had migrated to Rome. Following the rise of Rome to primacy, Greek and Roman classics counted five empires in history with Rome being the fifth and to be followed by next empires. A century later, the concept changes with Rome becoming the fifth and the last empire. Fortune, saysPlutarchus (c.AD 40 – 120s), had flitted lightly and quickly over numerous empires but when she arrived to Rome, "she took off her wings, stepped out of her sandals, and abandoned her untrustworthy and unstable globe."[234] The history ofimperial successions ends in the Roman version of theEnd of History, asMichael Weissenberger associated.[235] Eastern traditions, such asDaniel 2 and theBook of Revelation, adopted the new concept replacing Rome with the Kingdom of God as the “fifth empire,” the ultimate and eternal. The idea of Rome's eternity became coterminous with Christianity's eternity.[236] The concept of the “fifth empire” echoed centuries later with theFifth Empire andFifth Monarchists. Beginning with Cicero, appears the idea ofRoma Aeterna[237] and becomes paradigm under Augustus. Hisyears are witness to the radical increase of references to aeternitas (eternity) especially in Augustan poetry (Virgil, Tibullus, Propertius, Horace and Ovid).[231] The change reflected a new mentality towards the permanence and stability of the state.[238] The Augustan poets proclaimedRome “Urbs Aeterna,” which translates from Latin as the “Eternal City,” and Rome is known as such until today.
.svg)