3 ms·
Reading history I'm surprised at how many kings were bad kings even on monarchists terms of what's a good king. You'd think they would at least be somewhat good
by vintermann 3y ago
Reading history I'm surprised at how many kings were bad kings even on monarchists terms of what's a good king. You'd think they would at least be somewhat good at "reducing conflict related to succession", but then they go and do things like murder their heir in a fit of rage or abolish hereditary monarchy in favour of appointing their own successor, then dying before bothering to do it.
- ycombinete 3y agoThere's a very good book called The Dictator's Handbook. It covers why these conflicts are inevitable. IIRC it boils down to zero-sum power distribution in such systems.
- jacquesm 3y agoMurdering your heir is probably a case of 'who moves first'. Kings dying because someone was tired of waiting is a recurring theme in history. Other candidates are leaders of the military and extended family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regicides
- arethuza 3y agoThe real life Macbeth appears to fall into the "military leader" category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth,_King_of_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth,_King_of_Scotland
- vintermann 3y agoI was thinking of Ivan the terrible. I don't think he was terribly rational about it. If he was, it didn't work, since it led to a period of civil war and the eventual end of his dynasty.
- jacquesm 3y agoFor the longest time there was the theory that he died of syphilis, but that appears not to be the case, however, he did have an excess of mercury in his body and that was used back then to treat syphilis. So he may well have suffered from the disease and that in turn plus the mercury itself could well have resulted in him being less than rational.