Abstract: Weber’s concept of “legitimate domination” can be divided into two elements： “authoritarian power of command” and “belief in legitimacy”. From the perspective of modern political order, the modern state with bureaucracy at its core places too much emphasis on top-down hierarchical and coercive order （“authoritarian power of command”）， but has no bottom-up conceptional recognition （“belief in legitimacy”）. This further threatens the stability of political order and leads to a “crisis of legitimacy”. The solution lies on how to reintegrate “belief in legitimacy”， however， at the same time， it needs to be based on real political considerations to avoid the destruction of “everyday routine needs” caused by excessive integration. The “charismatic dominance” favored by Weber and its two evolution methods have different levels of limitations in solving the above-mentioned “crisis of legitimacy”. This article examines Weber’s “non-legitimate domination” through a typological comparison of the “uniqueness” of medieval western cities as well as an analysis of burghers’ identity characteristics， life-work styles， political demands， and participation in the legal process. It is found that “non-legitimate domination” provides a bottom-up path unique to the Western civilization that preserves “everyday routine needs”， and ultimately “through legal means of safeguarding economic rights and interests， it applies the selective neglect of ‘authority’ to achieve the stability of the order”. This provides a new possibility for the integration of “belief in legitimacy” and the solution of “crisis of legitimacy”. In addition， this paper provides a tentative interpretation of the concept of “non-legitimate domination” through a review of Weber’s study of the “city”： the expression of a “non-domination” of order within an order that has a tendency to dominate.

Key words: non-legitimate domination, medieval city, burgher, the belief in legitimacy