AH Challenge: Different sucession traditions

Justin Pickard

Is there some way that we could alter the accepted doctrines of sucession in Europe in the Middle Ages so that when a noble dies, their territories and possessions are divided roughly equally between all of their sons and daughters.

What kind of effects do you think this would have?
 

Max Sinister

Banned
Very easy - the territories would be split and split, until there are so small that you can step over them (as Heinrich Heine said in one of his satires OTL). And since nobles tend to marry, they'd be put together in a way that makes gerrymandered constituencies look sane. Administration would be a nightmare. Princes would pray: "Lord, let one of my heirs survive - BUT NO MORE!" I wonder how long it would take until someone had the same idea the Ottomans had - the heir has to kill all of his siblings.
OTOH, for a potential conqueror this must look like an invitation...
 

Archdevil

It happened in reality, the Franks are the prime example.

So, just like in OTL people will get smart and start implementing succession by a single son.
 

Max Sinister

Banned
I have no idea how, since it is a good idea to implement... the only people disadvantaged by it are the other kids who don't get anything. Maybe if the Christians had no monasteries, so you couldn't send your second, third, and so on son there to become a bishop instead? Or a stronger feeling for justice, so it would be unacceptable for a prince to give some of his kids nothing at all?
 

Max Sinister

Banned
@George: Ah, so that was the reason? But first, shariah should forbid murder, esp. fratricide as well (unless Islam was really worse than I thought), and second, in other Islamic states empires also weren't constantly divided - or did the Caliphs of Baghdad murder their brothers as well?
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Archdevil said:
It happened in reality, the Franks are the prime example.
Click to expand...

This may have been done before, but how about the opposite POD to the one being discussed here - the Franks adopt primogeniture earlier and Charlemagne's empire isn't broken up?
 

Scarecrow

Thande said:
This may have been done before, but how about the opposite POD to the one being discussed here - the Franks adopt primogeniture earlier and Charlemagne's empire isn't broken up?
Click to expand...
i am actulay trying to write a timeline about that. i posted a map about it a while ago...
 

Max Sinister

Banned
Such a big empire might be difficult to maintain. Charles the Fat who inherited France after he already owned Germany certainly couldn't, which is why his empire soon broke up.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Justin Pickard said:
What I really meant was: can we stop the idea of single son sucession from spreading?
Click to expand...

Unlikely since its a system that works. I doubt you can get acceptance of women in such a division unless the other great institution of the day, the Church (at least in Europe), also changes its perception and dogma about women, which it is always preaching to the masses.

There would also have to be changes within the society of state, that such multiple division among offspring is common. Division of a single territory among inheritors would most likely have to repeated down on the farm.
 

Archdevil

George Carty said:
Didn't the Ottomans resort to fratricide because Shari'ah law prohibits primogeniture?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it was because the Muslim tradition is to leave the inheritance not to the oldest son, but first to (if existing) surviving brothers and the sometimes even cousins before turning to sons. The explanation being that this better ensures older and thus more experienced rulers. With the size of the harems the Ottomans maintained, this could get out of hand quite quickly....

So that leaves you with a lot of brothers and in case of multiple wives a lot of about the same age, all of them potential rivals. Better to kill them all to clear up the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top