The form of the relationship between the state and social class throughout the history of Iran has always been explained by theories of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ and ‘Oriental Despotism’. According to these theories, the power of the state is unlimited and it has all classes under its control. Meanwhile, many historical data of the Qajar era question this point of view and represent a situation in which various social forces limit the power of the state. The present article was written in response to the conflict between the theory of the ‘Asian state’ and the historical reality of the Qajar era. The main question of the article is: was the Qajar state limited by the social classes or did it have absolute and supra-class power? In answer to this question, the state classifications of Elman Service, Andrew Vincent, Max Weber, Karl Marx and Samuel Huntington are used. The research method is a historical case study that collects and analyzes data using two documentary methods and pattern matching. The results of the research show that the pattern of “balance, opposition and limitation” is established in the relationship between the state and the social classes of the Qajar era. This pattern can be described according to the classification of states based on the criterion of “accumulation and distribution of power”. It is split into three periods. The first period is characterized as a “patriarchal” state, the second — as a “patrimonial” state, and the third — as a “constitutional” state. The state in the first and second Qajar periods was associated with a low accumulation of power and centralized power distribution, and in the third period, that of post-constitutionality, it took the form of a low accumulation of power and scattered power distribution.