AHC: European Dynastism

[John7755 يوحنا]

Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to create within Europe a dynastic system of governance in regards to the relation of the nobility and the monarch. this system, is modeled primarily around the Arsacid and Sassanid systems of governance and relationship-conceptions.

POD: 200 CE (must be post-Roman Empire, otherwise one could easily use the Gauls to form this)

Areas that must be covered under this system: Gaul and Germnia at least

Areas that are disqualified for the POD: Russia, Eastern Europe, Balkans, Byzantium, Scandinavia, etc...

Background

By dynastism, I refer specifically to a system that developed in some lands, most notably, post-Seleucid Iran and lasted in said region for 1000 years approximately. It too, was a system that existed in ancient Assyria, with the great 120 Old Assyrian families, who ruled the land of Assyria proper outside the cities for approximately 1100 years.

Dynastism is a system wherein the nobles or landowners hold lands in a primordial sense separate from the ruling monarch. They are, kings and rulers of the land in their own right and owe no service to the monarch. Thus, it differs from feudalism, wherein the nobility owe certain obligations to the monarch and vice versa (feudalism operates as a sort of vertical caste system, where the nobles are granted lands and can have these revoked and so forth); dynastism is wholly separated by way of the monarch existing as a first among equals with the nobles and is unable to revoke lands under any circumstance and further his legitimacy is derived through the nobles. In a sense, this creates an empire structure, that some have referred to as a Dynastic-Confederalism, and hence the Sassanid and Arsacid Confederacies, signifying that in each eras, there was a royal clan and then a selection (usually 7 or so major) of noble hosues that jointly ruled the country as equals except with a certain family being given the most high title. In the Sassanid period, this high title of Shahhanshah, was almost an avoided title by the nobles, who seemed to prefer the concept of someone else on the throne, instead of them ascending and becoming dependent upon other noble houses.

This system means, that said state will be enormously decentralized to a degree that exceeds any example from Medieval Europe, especially in terms of monarchical absolutism. This also requires a noble estate that is exceedingly more powerful than otl Europe. During the Sassanid empire, this created a polity that was while generally resistant to reforms and decentralized and poor with income (the nobles absorbed income into their estates); it also constructed a political regime that was enormously durable to exterior changes and unified politically. It also assured strong noble armies.

Challenge

Some criteria for Dynastism in Europe for your challenge, to meet the challenge, achieve as many as possible:

1. Nobles do not fight liege wars by duty, but by request. They wage war for honor and glory and continuance of royal gifts, but not out of command. In fact, the nobles should see direct commands to go to war as insulting and belittling.

2. The nobles must collect taxes in their own name and have their own regulations and systems, which are not intervened by the high monarch except by taking his annual dues.

3. War councils should be where the monarch is not sole commander, but listens to a war council of nobles as a custom.

4. Nobles are reserved all commander roles aside from those taken by the high monarch.

5. The noble lands cannot be revoked by any reason, aside from death of all of their inheritors, in which case it is transferred depending upon succession law, not automatically inherited by the monarch.

6. The nobles do no prostration to the monarch, only bows and other actions as equals, the only difference being sizes of crowns or titles.

7. Nobles command their own armies for their estates, however, the monarch may have his own standing army; as long as it is not drawn from the nobles.

8. The monarch must bestow 'gifts' to the nobles annually which amount to an expenditure. In the Sassanid period, the nobles made requests of the monarch, who gave them their request in gifts, but did not call it an expenditure.

9. The Nobles must consider themselves as the source of monarchical legitimacy, they crown him and see him as their protector and ally, but not their master.

10. The nobles must see the monarch's court as a grounds to improve noble standings and compete with one another for his children in marriage and for higher amounts of gifts.

11. There can be no bureaucracy within noble lands from the monarch.

12. If you have any other idea in this vein, include it in your post and that can be credited as a great attainment of the challenge.

Thank you for reading, have fun attempting to turn at least a portion of the Roman Empire into a Dynastic-Confederacy!

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly I think the concept are pretty alien to Europe as we know it. It also seems to to rigid. Feudalism was established because state structure was in full blown collapse, and the state was no longer able to monopolies force. So to upkeep some kind of central power and rule of law, you had to outsource the enforcement to lesser actors.

The structure you describe need a more stable environment than Europe (yes I know it sounds ironic today).

 

[Avrorrange]

For the most part,isn’t this otl HRE?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

For the most part,isn’t this otl HRE?

No, it does not meet many or any of the requirements. Compared to the Sassanid era opinion, it would be seen as a centralized entity or one with an absolute monarch of sorts. There also was a clear cut understanding that the local nobles were just decentralized vassals of the emperor. There was no co-equality between the lord of Saxony and the Emperor. Further, the emperor could revoke authority of his subjects legally and gained dues from them as a fixed tax, it was a scene where there was a clear caste.

In our challenge, the dues taken by the monarch are not expected, it is a request, that is only submitted to on the basis of tradition and custom but not legally binding. Imagine the nobility having massive holdings and in standards and custom were equal to the emperor and their relation to the monarch was less decentralized vassals, but was more akin to a nobility version of the Papacy.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Honestly I think the concept are pretty alien to Europe as we know it. It also seems to to rigid. Feudalism was established because state structure was in full blown collapse, and the state was no longer able to monopolies force. So to upkeep some kind of central power and rule of law, you had to outsource the enforcement to lesser actors.

The structure you describe need a more stable environment than Europe (yes I know it sounds ironic today).

This is partly why I moved the tl so far back. To see if there might be any thoughts on perhaps a northeastern invasion that could conquer vast lands and create this system utilizing their existing nobles. In Iran, this dynastism was formed by a steppe nomad conquest of the Seleucid empire and the varied noble clans gained massive segments of the country and were seen as equal kings to the Arsacids.

 

[Avrorrange]

No, it does not meet many or any of the requirements. Compared to the Sassanid era opinion, it would be seen as a centralized entity or one with an absolute monarch of sorts. There also was a clear cut understanding that the local nobles were just decentralized vassals of the emperor. There was no co-equality between the lord of Saxony and the Emperor. Further, the emperor could revoke authority of his subjects legally and gained dues from them as a fixed tax, it was a scene where there was a clear caste.

In our challenge, the dues taken by the monarch are not expected, it is a request, that is only submitted to on the basis of tradition and custom but not legally binding. Imagine the nobility having massive holdings and in standards and custom were equal to the emperor and their relation to the monarch was less decentralized vassals, but was more akin to a nobility version of the Papacy.

I was talking about the HRE post-14th century.The emperor was definitely seen as a first amongst equals type of ruler and that most de jure vassals do not even contribute taxes and troops to the ruler unless the emperor requested it and that it got passed in the diet.Legally,the emperor could revoke territory, but it was rarely done at all.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

Seems fairly close to the kingdoms of Viking Scandinavia where the king had to frequently prove himself in battle and the nobles could leave and go raiding at any time. They were gift economies and the concepts of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were very informal. I see you excluded Scandinavia specifically, but it is an example of extreme decentralization from Medieval Europe.

I think a longer lasting Western Roman Empire, which sees even more "barbarization" is a good case for this. There's the bureaucratic structure to fall back on so that there are indeed nobles who can be given official titles... but made entirely ad hoc by by the decline of the 3rd through 5th centuries, and foederati generals and vassals. In a Western Roman Empire that lasts into the 500s, it means that being Emperor means almost nothing and the Emperor can only rule by being a more conniving strongman than the other strongmen who are his vassals, loosely directing an unstable coalition. The estates in Gaul were already virtually independent and it would also turn into a gift economy over time as Francia did.

The Frankish Empire as it was, was also far less rigid than its successors let on. Without the Carolingians the stem tribes, counts, and dukes may well be practical equals with the king, though the Mayor of the Palace would have to also lose power.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I was talking about the HRE post-14th century.The emperor was definitely seen as a first amongst equals type of ruler and that most de jure vassals do not even contribute taxes and troops to the ruler unless the emperor requested it and that it got passed in the diet.Legally,the emperor could revoke territory, but it was rarely done at all.

The nobles saw themselves as equals to the emperor? There is also huge differences in their titles, aside from Bohemia and the lands of nobles seem minuscule compared to my stated situation. In Sassanid period Iran, the title, Shahhanshah, king of kings, came to mean less so master of kings, but instead a king among kings, the principle king. The Emperor wound never have concluded such a formation and his vassals understood their submissive status hence seeking his arbitration constantly in religious matters before the wars of religion. Even the ability to enforce religion upon constituents is a sign of absolute power, one that the Sassanids had no power to do.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Seems fairly close to the kingdoms of Viking Scandinavia where the king had to frequently prove himself in battle and the nobles could leave and go raiding at any time. They were gift economies and the concepts of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were very informal. I see you excluded Scandinavia specifically, but it is an example of extreme decentralization from Medieval Europe.

I think a longer lasting Western Roman Empire, which sees even more "barbarization" is a good case for this. There's the bureaucratic structure to fall back on so that there are indeed nobles who can be given official titles... but made entirely ad hoc by by the decline of the 3rd through 5th centuries, and foederati generals and vassals. In a Western Roman Empire that lasts into the 500s, it means that being Emperor means almost nothing and the Emperor can only rule by being a more conniving strongman than the other strongmen who are his vassals, loosely directing an unstable coalition. The estates in Gaul were already virtually independent and it would also turn into a gift economy over time as Francia did.

The Frankish Empire as it was, was also far less rigid than its successors let on. Without the Carolingians the stem tribes, counts, and dukes may well be practical equals with the king, though the Mayor of the Palace would have to also lose power.

Good catch! I removed Scandinavia as I see it as a place without Catholicism and a different turn, could develop much like Iran in terms of its ruling system. Part of the major theory of dynastism, is that the power of nobles derives from the tribal agnatic clan structure of many of the ‘northern’ steppe and Germanic-Celtic populaces of Eurasia. This means; Scythiana-Saka, Germans, Celts, Slavs, Dahae, Yuezhi-Tocharians and possibly the ancient iranic peoples of Central Asia and the Aryans into Hindustan. It also finds a similar code among the Arabs and certain Semitic groups, especially the Akkado-Assyrians-Babylonians whose noble houses were literally lasting thousands of years.

 

[dandan_noodles]

The nobles saw themselves as equals to the emperor?

The emperor was one of the princes of the Empire (during the Habsburg period, kings of Bohemia, but occasionally Electors of Bavaria/the Palatinate when the other electors were unhappy with them); if not equal in rank, his position was very much analogous to that of the other electors. He had preeminence because of his election by the other princes, not anything in his own inheritance. He was the one to whom authority was delegated, rather than a source of authority to the other princes. I think people whose idea of feudalism is so top down are kind of missing the essence. European 'feudalism' was an evolution of Germanic practices, in which the leader was elected by the free men or nobility, and was thus responsible to them. Hugh Capet was a powerful lord who was made king by the election of the other nobles of France. Power in feudalism (and really every system) comes from public support, and kings had no more power than their vassals and their patrimony allowed them.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The emperor was one of the princes of the Empire (during the Habsburg period, kings of Bohemia, but occasionally Electors of Bavaria/the Palatinate when the other electors were unhappy with them); if not equal in rank, his position was very much analogous to that of the other electors. He had preeminence because of his election by the other princes, not anything in his own inheritance. He was the one to whom authority was delegated, rather than a source of authority to the other princes. I think people whose idea of feudalism is so top down are kind of missing the essence. European 'feudalism' was an evolution of Germanic practices, in which the leader was elected by the free men or nobility, and was thus responsible to them. Hugh Capet was a powerful lord who was made king by the election of the other nobles of France. Power in feudalism (and really every system) comes from public support, and kings had no more power than their vassals and their patrimony allowed them.

Is there a situation when the nobles without Papal assistance dethroned the monarch more than once? It seems to me more, that feudalism is not derived from the nobles and their power, but through the Papal authority and prowess. There is a reason in my opinion, the only person who could unilaterally nullify vassal loyalty to a monarch was the Papacy. Feudalism operated under the context too of the Papacy as the confirmation of monarchical power and this was a precedent legally in many European countries and the Papacy is noted for its deposition of monarchs. The European nobility however, I tend to see as far more submissive to the monarch than the Papal power and certainly so to the Great Houses of Eranshahr. Also, my position is not to assert the top-down nature of feudalism, but to draw a distinction between it and dynastism as derived from powerful patriarchal clans who reject even the notion of mutual relations with the monarch as existing legally; they performed for the emperor on their own accord and wishes and had no obligations aside from respecting certain vows. Feudalism inherit inside it, is the ideal that there is mutual duties due to one another and that the land is ultimately held by liege lords who distribute it out in usufruct. Dyanstism requires the lands of the nobles to be seen as sacrosanct and hence why at no point in over 1000 years, was lands taken by the monarch from one of the noble houses, even for the offense of treachery or rebellion, it was simply too taboo to do so.

 

[Miguel Lanius]

Holy shit why this isn't in CKII

I didn't know Persia post-Parthians worked like that, its so weird.

Honestly, it seems a lot like a tribal confederacy to me.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Is there a situation when the nobles without Papal assistance dethroned the monarch more than once? It seems to me more, that feudalism is not derived from the nobles and their power, but through the Papal authority and prowess. There is a reason in my opinion, the only person who could unilaterally nullify vassal loyalty to a monarch was the Papacy. Feudalism operated under the context too of the Papacy as the confirmation of monarchical power and this was a precedent legally in many European countries and the Papacy is noted for its deposition of monarchs. The European nobility however, I tend to see as far more submissive to the monarch than the Papal power and certainly so to the Great Houses of Eranshahr. Also, my position is not to assert the top-down nature of feudalism, but to draw a distinction between it and dynastism as derived from powerful patriarchal clans who reject even the notion of mutual relations with the monarch as existing legally; they performed for the emperor on their own accord and wishes and had no obligations aside from respecting certain vows. Feudalism inherit inside it, is the ideal that there is mutual duties due to one another and that the land is ultimately held by liege lords who distribute it out in usufruct. Dyanstism requires the lands of the nobles to be seen as sacrosanct and hence why at no point in over 1000 years, was lands taken by the monarch from one of the noble hosues, even fro the offense of treachery or rebellion, it was simply too taboo to do so.

The history of England saw one king after another deposed; Richard II is probably the most famous example, but earlier John Softsword was compelled to make major concessions to the barons when they rebelled. Medieval nobility were extremely protective of their rights and privileges, and they codified them in many places. The Siete Partidas of Castille give precise definitions for what tyranny meant to medieval people, and endorses their right to throw off the yoke when even lawful rulers made bad use of their power. The Act of Abjuration by the Estates of the low countries similarly articulated the medieval belief that the prince was responsible to their subjects, without whom he could be no prince. Medieval lords did not serve at the pleasure of the king; they did not let him take what they saw as theirs. Regarding the Papacy, the fact that there were decades of Antipope conflict demonstrates pretty definitively that medieval kings were not remotely subservient to the pope; even when Henry IV was famously excommunicated, he then won the civil war and replaced the pope with his own candidate. Evidently the noble houses he relied on didn't respect the pope as the ultimate authority over their own calculations of advantage.

I really don't know much about late antique Iran; is there a good source that lays out this unique system?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The history of England saw one king after another deposed; Richard II is probably the most famous example, but earlier John Softsword was compelled to make major concessions to the barons when they rebelled. Medieval nobility were extremely protective of their rights and privileges, and they codified them in many places. The Siete Partidas of Castille give precise definitions for what tyranny meant to medieval people, and endorses their right to throw off the yoke when even lawful rulers made bad use of their power. The Act of Abjuration by the Estates of the low countries similarly articulated the medieval belief that the prince was responsible to their subjects, without whom he could be no prince. Medieval lords did not serve at the pleasure of the king; they did not let him take what they saw as theirs. Regarding the Papacy, the fact that there were decades of Antipope conflict demonstrates pretty definitively that medieval kings were not remotely subservient to the pope; even when Henry IV was famously excommunicated, he then won the civil war and replaced the pope with his own candidate. Evidently the noble houses he relied on didn't respect the pope as the ultimate authority over their own calculations of advantage.

I really don't know much about late antique Iran; is there a good source that lays out this unique system?

Regarding the Papacy, I think that there is as many examples against your example. It is very clear that the Papacy held its own against the strongest power in Europe prior to 1200 and managed her effectively. By the time the Papacy utilized interdiction, the lords of Europe were generally defeated in fell swoops. Innocent III was able to out maneuver almost every foe whom he genuinely encountered with diplomacy+interdiction, even far away Norway submitted to Innocent III in terms of their investiture crisis. There is no doubt, the power the Papacy held of interdiction was the most powerful legal action a person in the Middle Ages could take, which in theory, could cause the rupturing of realms. The fact that when interdiction on France was made in 1301, and France began to immediately face rebellion in the Flanders and rapid weakening of her position in outlining lands, that they resorted to attacking the Papacy directly, exhibits the enormous potential for legal destructive capability that the Papacy had.

Yes, I would suggest a book called ‘The Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire’ by Parvaneh Pourshariati. There is an entire section within said book that describes the nature of Iranian Dynastism in the Arsacid and Sassanid periods. It also indulges into what the term dynastism is and discusses the origins of the term which has its origin in the study of Armenian and Caucasian nobility (the Armenian nobility derive their customs from the Arsacid empire). Essentially, the book claims that there is generally in relation to nobles a hierarchy or scale of three:

1. Statism: A government of bureaucrats wherein provinces are managed by governors and appointments by the monarch or otherwise central government.

-Roman Empire
-Tang Dynasty-Song Dynasty
-Assyrian empire outside Assyria-Babylonia proper
-Achaemenid Empire
-Maurya empire
-Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt
-Most major empires of Java and Khmer
-Qin Dynasty

(Middle Ground, those that tend to be between feudalism and statism)

-Han Dynasty
-Mongol Empire and successors (bucked the trend of steppe empires)
-Byzantium
-Mughal Empire
-Seleucid Empire

2. Feudalism: A system where the lords/nobles rule the land in the stead or in usufruct to the monarch or supposed central authority.

-Frankish monarchy-France
-Umayyad Caliphate
-Ghurid Empire
-Seljuk Empire
-Most of medieval Hindustan
-Delhi Sultanate(s)
-Russian Empire
-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
-Ethiopia

(Middle Ground)

-Zhou Dynasty China
-Medieval and early Sengoku Jidai Japan
-Holy Roman Empire
-Abbasid Caliphate
-Aztec Triple Alliance
-Assyrian-Babylonians in their Mesopotamian holdings; outside Mesopotamia, they were a bureaucratic empire mostly.


Dynastism: A system we have already described at length. The nobility ruled the land as a matter of supposed primordial fact and were seen as equals in local title to the monarch. Developed through the imposition of a state over an existing large and powerful agnatic tribes, who became nobility thus, kings over their own realms.

-Arsacid Empire
-Sassanid Empire
-Scythian tribal custom
-Kushan Empire
-Arab custom prior to Islam
-Armenia under Arsacid-Bagratoni rule
-If steppe empires were to be placed, most of them fit into this category; especially the Xiongnu.
-Many Germanic and otherwise Northern-/steppe peoples of Eurasia.

Notice, the criteria I am going for, is more difficult than just having powerful nobility or high decentralist tendencies.

 

[Hegemon]

Regarding the Papacy, I think that there is as many examples against your example. It is very clear that the Papacy held its own against the strongest power in Europe prior to 1200 and managed her effectively. By the time the Papacy utilized interdiction, the lords of Europe were generally defeated in fell swoops. Innocent III was able to out maneuver almost every foe whom he genuinely encountered with diplomacy+interdiction, even far away Norway submitted to Innocent III in terms of their investiture crisis. There is no doubt, the power the Papacy held of interdiction was the most powerful legal action a person in the Middle Ages could take, which in theory, could cause the rupturing of realms. The fact that when interdiction on France was made in 1301, and France began to immediately face rebellion in the Flanders and rapid weakening of her position in outlining lands, that they resorted to attacking the Papacy directly, exhibits the enormous potential for legal destructive capability that the Papacy had.

Yes, I would suggest a book called ‘The Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire’ by Parvaneh Pourshariati. There is an entire section within said book that describes the nature of Iranian Dynastism in the Arsacid and Sassanid periods. It also indulges into what the term dynastism is and discusses the origins of the term which has its origin in the study of Armenian and Caucasian nobility (the Armenian nobility derive their customs from the Arsacid empire). Essentially, the book claims that there is generally in relation to nobles a hierarchy or scale of three:

1. Statism: A government of bureaucrats wherein provinces are managed by governors and appointments by the monarch or otherwise central government.

-Roman Empire
-Tang Dynasty-Song Dynasty
-Assyrian empire outside Assyria-Babylonia proper
-Achaemenid Empire
-Maurya empire
-Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt
-Most major empires of Java and Khmer
-Qin Dynasty

(Middle Ground, those that tend to be between feudalism and statism)

-Han Dynasty
-Mongol Empire and successors (bucked the trend of steppe empires)
-Byzantium
-Mughal Empire
-Seleucid Empire

2. Feudalism: A system where the lords/nobles rule the land in the stead or in usufruct to the monarch or supposed central authority.

-Frankish monarchy-France
-Umayyad Caliphate
-Ghurid Empire
-Seljuk Empire
-Most of medieval Hindustan
-Delhi Sultanate(s)
-Russian Empire
-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
-Ethiopia

(Middle Ground)

-Zhou Dynasty China
-Medieval and early Sengoku Jidai Japan
-Holy Roman Empire
-Abbasid Caliphate
-Aztec Triple Alliance
-Assyrian-Babylonians in their Mesopotamian holdings; outside Mesopotamia, they were a bureaucratic empire mostly.


Dynastism: A system we have already described at length. The nobility ruled the land as a matter of supposed primordial fact and were seen as equals in local title to the monarch. Developed through the imposition of a state over an existing large and powerful agnatic tribes, who became nobility thus, kings over their own realms.

-Arsacid Empire
-Sassanid Empire
-Scythian tribal custom
-Kushan Empire
-Arab custom prior to Islam
-Armenia under Arsacid-Bagratoni rule
-If steppe empires were to be placed, most of them fit into this category; especially the Xiongnu.
-Many Germanic and otherwise Northern-/steppe peoples of Eurasia.

Notice, the criteria I am going for, is more difficult than just having powerful nobility or high decentralist tendencies.

I don’t know very much about this, but I think an alternative Frankish Empire may kind of work. IOTL, the Frankish Empire was a large agglomeration of sub-Kingdoms and loosely held territories such as Bavaria, Aquitaine, and Lombardy-Italy. This may give rise to the situation of relatively powerful regional territories and relatively weak central government. Already, the Frankish acquisition of wealth was mainly from plunder, and the nobility were difficult to tax and control. If exactly the right combination of events were to come about, perhaps the sub-Kingdoms and Emperor could become a confederacy of sorts, with the King of Francis holding the imperial title out of prestige and ruling with the Kings of other regions (Aquitaine, Burgundy, Saxony, Bavaria, Bohemia, Italy) as at least de facto equals, thus creating a new equilibrium that remains stable because of the confederated Kingdoms’ desire to protect their autonomy.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I don’t know very much about this, but I think an alternative Frankish Empire may kind of work. IOTL, the Frankish Empire was a large agglomeration of sub-Kingdoms and loosely held territories such as Bavaria, Aquitaine, and Lombardy-Italy. This may give rise to the situation of relatively powerful regional territories and relatively weak central government. Already, the Frankish acquisition of wealth was mainly from plunder, and the nobility were difficult to tax and control. If exactly the right combination of events were to come about, perhaps the sub-Kingdoms and Emperor could become a confederacy of sorts, with the King of Francis holding the imperial title out of prestige and ruling with the Kings of other regions (Aquitaine, Burgundy, Saxony, Bavaria, Bohemia, Italy) as at least de facto equals, thus creating a new equilibrium that remains stable because of the confederated Kingdoms’ desire to protect their autonomy.

This is perhaps the last part in which we could solidify it in this late a tl. That is partly why I placed the POD a fair distance back.

 

[Gloss]

I'm not really contesting the weakness of the central state in the Persian states, but I do wonder if they were really that much weaker when dynasties lasted so long, I imagine there must have been some kind of inertia that avoided other noble houses from taking over the "first among equals" position?

 

[Albert Blake]

I'm not really contesting the weakness of the central state in the Persian states, but I do wonder if they were really that much weaker when dynasties lasted so long, I imagine there must have been some kind of inertia that avoided other noble houses from taking over the "first among equals" position?

Rivalry with other nobles, wouldn’t want to become the king if my most hated house owns part of my kingdom. That’s begging for a revolt.

 

[Optical_Illusion]

As presented, what's in it for the monarch? Having to give out gifts to a bunch that you can only request and not command to aid you and the country, with no taxation powers, sounds like the opposite of a desirable situation.

 

[Falecius]

I'm not really contesting the weakness of the central state in the Persian states, but I do wonder if they were really that much weaker when dynasties lasted so long, I imagine there must have been some kind of inertia that avoided other noble houses from taking over the "first among equals" position?

Yes, I am also under the impression that @John7755 يوحنا is somewhat overstating how decentralized the Sasanid state was. The Sasanids did, at least in their last period, attempt to centralize their power more (which backfired horribly), and clearly the sources depicted their monarchy as mostly absolute, even if that was more the projection of their ideological wishes than actual facts on the ground.
But I tend to agree with this broad outline. The very fact that as soon as the Sasanids tried to centralize their power the attempt backfired horribly (to the point that major noble houses allied with either the Romans, Ephtalites, or Arabs at times) shows the inherent weakness of their control over the state.