Great Man Dynasties?

Southeast Asia (thinking mainly of historic Burma and Thailand) had a lot of "Great Men" who shaped the course of the region, but at times were succeeded by less competent men. Yet it took centuries for polities like Ayutthaya or Taungoo to collapse.

Most "Great Men" had stable successions, really
Got to agree with this.

Even someone like Genghis Khan (who is often pointed to as having unstable succession) had direct successors last for over 300 years, and the usual chaos that follows the dissolution of such large empires instead resulted in the great gunpowder empires.
 
I had not thought about a coastal region yet.

Maybe doing some map development to go along with the basic thought would be best?

Asia is interesting, it could also be the type of setting, I was just noting the era and equivalent arms and armor. Which with Eastern realms there could be similar or even better equipment out there!

I think one basic building block would be that I would have to have some kind of technological and industrial base. I'd have to be able to support myself and my folks, or have an outside source supplying me/us, to fight the big developed state. Quality could help out, a good warrior base, also good training. Like the Mongols with horsemanship and hunting/archery skills.

It's trying to gel, I get a thought and then.......lose it...........so dang close!
 
I’m trying to develop a time line but it suffers after about 30 or 40 years due to the principal “Great Man” dying off.

In many historical comparisons the “Great Man” does not develop a dynasty or has one, but it is usurped by subordinates and/or powerful enemies invade and the descendants are killed off or scattered to the winds.

Examples: Alexander and the Successor Wars, Samo’s Empire, Tecumseh’s Confederacy, etc.

Would having an heir(s) at a young age and training them up early in life help this out? Maybe if they had a regent or adviser who has no taste for power?

Maybe crushing all powerful enemies prior to his demise would ensure a peaceful assumption to power by the heir? Maybe the heirs not fighting amongst each other and starting up a civil war which wrecks what progress has been made?

Just from examples in history this is throwing me for a loop.

How would you get around this? Got to be a simple solution!

The ruler has to have a clear system to go pass on, otherwise, he falls into the problem of dictatorships. Dictatorships that do not account for a successor tend to fail, so did monarchies. Great Men are nothing without systems to sustain their greatness.

To me the Japanese model made always the most sense. Clan success over “heir”.

Look at how daimyo chose their successor. Often it was not their oldest son at all. When needed someone unrelated would be adopted in and made heir. They also tended to have large amount of choices as concubine’s sons could be used, nephews etc also more wives is also good more choices of heir


Ottoman idea of one kid killing off everyone else also seemed to have worked well. Key is number of choices, from 3-4 kids chances are low of getting a fitting heir. From 20-30 choices it goes up quite a bit.

The problem with Daimyo is you could have plenty of succession struggles if one heir was seen as unpopular or not as legitimate, sure it wasn't feudalism where valuable lands were divided, at least not too much but it was still feudal enough to have succession conflicts break out. See the Oda after the death of Nobunaga or the Imagawa after the death of Ujiteru, hell Takeda Nobutora was overthrown in a bloodless coup after he chosen heir Nobushige supported the prior heir Harunobu. However, even an adopted heir could be a source of foreign intrigue. Sue Harukata's coup against Ouchi Yoshitaka, only worked because he could bring in Yoshinaga's nephew Otomo Haruhide to succeed him, and Haruhide was at one point adopted to succeed Yoshitaka because they were related.
 
Fixed that for ya. :p

Which actually makes me wonder: What would have happened had Nobutada survived Honno-ji?

To not derail the thread, I tried to touch on it in Nobunaga surviving Honnoji? We really do not know what Nobutada is like, he was trusted to lead and conduct campaigns on his own, and might not have been as eccentric as his father was. However, Akechi Mitsuhide will realize he's committed an even bigger mistake than OTL, Nobutada's succession will be secure as no one can move against him, and without a split among the Oda clan, Nobutada could unify Japan much faster

Although this does make for a fine discussion of how the legacy of a Great Man can be thrown into disarray by factors outside of his control, considering the reason for Mitsuhide's rebellion is quite contested.
 
The only way to create a dynasty of consistently above average rulers would require the following steps to be taken:

1. Have the monarch, if male, be able to enter multiple marriages at once in order to have a larger pool of potential heirs;

2. Given that great rulers owe their success, for the most part, to their smarts, have an IQ test set up for their potential spouses;

3. Establish a meritocratic line of succession, meaning that every single one of the monarch's children, firstborn or not, male or female, is considered a spare until one of them manages to outshine all of their siblings.
 
The only way to create a dynasty of consistently above average rulers would require the following steps to be taken:

1. Have the monarch, if male, be able to enter multiple marriages at once in order to have a larger pool of potential heirs;

2. Given that great rulers owe their success, for the most part, to their smarts, have an IQ test set up for their potential spouses;

3. Establish a meritocratic line of succession, meaning that every single one of the monarch's children, firstborn or not, male or female, is considered a spare until one of them manages to outshine all of their siblings.

Your "recipe" is a recipe for endless succession wars... which might cripple the kingdom on the long turn, even if it might give it several outstanding rulers... The best examples are 1: the Ottoman and the Mongol Empires... and 2: the Principalities of Valahia and Moldavia (any single male outspring of the ruler had the equal right of becoming voivode... guess what: endless wars and endless foreign mixtures)
 
Your "recipe" is a recipe for endless succession wars... which might cripple the kingdom on the long turn, even if it might give it several outstanding rulers... The best examples are 1: the Ottoman and the Mongol Empires... and 2: the Principalities of Valahia and Moldavia (any single male outspring of the ruler had the equal right of becoming voivode... guess what: endless wars and endless foreign mixtures)

Even if the country's succession laws voided any claim to the throne other than the one of the appointed heir the moment they were chosen?

I'm not trying to be right at all costs, I simply wrote down what I thought would be needed to cut almost every possible incompetent out of a succession line, not what measures would be necessary to make the change stick.
 
Last edited:
I would look at Augustus for your example. After multiple qualified heirs died the reigns of empire went to a string of madmen but the bureaucratic institutions that he and Julius Caesar had established (and reformed) were strong enough to survive decades of neglect and misrule while still maintaining a multi-ethnic empire.
 
I think you mean Henry V, when Henry IV died Henry V was quite of age.
No, no... That is not Henry V of England (who can also belong to the list) but Henry IV of France and if you had read until the end that was pretty clear...
Henry V of England was not killed/assassinated and his son was just a baby
 
Last edited:
So it looks like;

Avoid having my leader becoming a dictator. This also involves using loyal and capable subordinates to help rule the state and also future territorial additions to the state.

Establish a family/families early to generate children/successors. Dude MUST be fertile! Sons to inherit and daughters to cement alliances.

Follow a strict line of succession to avoid future civil wars. Again, using loyal and capable subordinates/regents who do not undermine the legitimate heir(s).

The interesting one above was the IQ test, or abilities. A son/daughter who was more intellectual could inherit but would also have to balance that versus his more "barbaric" subjects and nobles, who looked upon that as not "manly". If the son/daughter was not interested in ruling they could also be placed into a church to grow in that heirarchy. Semi-support for their ruling family that way.

For truly incompetents, "hunting accidents" anyone?

Keep this rolling! AWESOME!

:cool:
 
Carolingians? Capetians?

Constantly breaking up their realms, then seeing them come together again, often violently

Look at the first lot of Capetian Burgundians for example (who provided Crusader leaders and the first royal family of Portugal) - the writ of the king hardly went anywhere in their domain

Dividing up the realm IS an answer to rival claims of your sons/grandsons but it obviously isn't much use where stability of empire is concerned

I suppose you could look to the Holy Roman Empire - the electors, the elective system, the elevation of the heir to King of the Romans, when it all worked out
 
Constantly breaking up their realms, then seeing them come together again, often violently

perhaps, but that's a consequence of the legal construction of society at the time - they're just examples for great men dynasties that had staying power/became "normal"
 
perhaps, but that's a consequence of the legal construction of society at the time - they're just examples for great men dynasties that had staying power/became "normal"

But the political constitution more or less explains why these dynasties survived - if it had been son against son, each using their powerbase to fight for imperial succession, then they would be weakening the unified empire each time someone died, and probably letting in rival claimants
 

Toraach

Banned
I would look at Augustus for your example. After multiple qualified heirs died the reigns of empire went to a string of madmen but the bureaucratic institutions that he and Julius Caesar had established (and reformed) were strong enough to survive decades of neglect and misrule while still maintaining a multi-ethnic empire.
Tiberius by any means wasn't an evil idiot. What was during his later reign was a diffrent matter. Also the first rebellion against the Dynasty of Augustus happened during Nero, in the later half of his reign when elites had enough of his madness. Also Augustus estabilished the political system which lasted to the middle of the III century.
 
I’d argue for Seleucus Nicator, after the death of Alexander he successfully seized power in the majority of the late and the great’s empire and indeed was able to march all the way to India once again, winning a large number of battles along the way, but ultimately lost the war with the Mauryans and moved on. This was around 300 BC and he died around 280 BC (give or take, I’m just doing this off my head). His son, Antiochus Soter, was able to avoid what had happened to Alexander and kept his father’s empire successfully United, even able to expand its power somewhat. His successor, Antiochus II was nothing terribly special but was able to keep his empire somewhat unified. His successor, Seleucus II was much the same but the Seleucid Empire. Each of them ruled for a further twenty years apiece.

His successor, Seleucus III, died after two years so I can’t say much about him. But his successor, Antiochus III “The Great” was something to be admired. He ruled for nearly 40 years and successfully expanded quite a bit. His only real mistake was going up against the Romans, who were able to subdue him and destroy the Empire for the most part. When he died, his successors continued to rule Syria for a hundred years.

While the actual empire building fizzled out after Antiochus I, the successors of Seleucus were able to maintain a fairly powerful state for 120-ish years until Antiochus VII died and left the empire confined to Syria.

The empire did fall quickly in the grand scheme of things, but there’s plenty of potential for a timeline where they stick around for a thousand years if it’s played right.
 
Top