Great Man Dynasties?

[Enakan]

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!

 

[Timaeus]

Why does it suffer?

If you want a particular state to survive, this 'Great Man' should have the institutions established and ready to handle his death. If you want him to form a dynasty, just have him sire a relatively competent heir and raise him to maturity. That should be enough.

This is why you avoid using 'Great Men' for TLs: you work with historical trends.

 

[aegis03florin]

There are historical cases where the succession worked fine.
Best example: The Ottoman early dynasty saw a succession of competent sultans. Genghis Khan is another example! His son Ogodey was great Khan (except he drank too much)....
Even Alexandre the Great was following his genius father...

If you want, you can skip a generation... Make the son good enough to barely keep his throne but mediocre in every aspect and push the grandson on hights, reforming the empire/kingdom, etc. Best example, in French med history: King Philip II Augustus(genius) followed by Louis VIII the Lion (which I do not think he was a bad ruler, just he had no chance to rule enough but die after 3 years or so) -> followed by Louis IX the Saint (great king) -> followed by Philip III (mediocre) -> followed by Philip IV Le Bel (The Iron King).

 

[Tonifranz]

Even men who is not "great" could establish lasting dynasties.

Example. Hugh Capet. Rudolf of Habsburg or Frederick III for the Habsburgs. Michael I Romanov of Russia is not a great man. And Philip V of Spain certainly wasn't. Etc.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

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?

If the immediate survival of the polity can be assured and there's a clear line of succession then the death of leader shouldn't matter much. Alexander's line of succession and even his choice of regents was hazy. Samo's Empire broke apart due to centrifugal forces inherent to being more of a confederation of different polities only unified out of a need to see off a threat. Prior to Tecumseh's death the clock had already struck midnight for his movement.

 

[isabella]

In the case of Alexander’s succession any of this: a) Alexander living three/yfive more years, b) Hephaistion still alive, c) Krateros either in Makedonia or in one of Babylon, Persepolis, Ecbatana, Susa and Parsagarde (if he is with Alexander is the best option) d) a son of either Stateira or Parysatide already born (or close to the birth) and you will see nothing of the OTL’s disaster...

 

[Arkenfolm]

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.

This is why you avoid using 'Great Men' for TLs: you work with historical trends.

I disagree, throwing in a "Great Man" is an easy and great way of starting a TL, starting with the established world's reaction to them and then how people take over after they die.

 

[Timaeus]

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

History is never simple. A question: where is this Great Man doing his thing in the first place?

I disagree, throwing in a "Great Man" is an easy and great way of starting a TL, starting with the established world's reaction to them and then how people take over after they die.

Eh. It's easy, but how do you establish a Great Man in the first place? Like, if, say, they're a Native American leader who turns around a few battles against the US Army. Ultimately, they're working against the historical trend of the US Army betraying and crushing those kinds of polities, and when the so-called Great Man dies, he leaves behind just another name for America to add to their list of worthy adversaries, such as they are.

Unless they come at a crucial time and period which could change that trend, like if this is a time when the United States is in a tense and deeply factionalized period, and the ATL victories somehow indirectly cause an ATL civil war in America, changing the landscape.

I mean, using Great Men is fine, but you'd have to understand the context of the time to make the Great Man succeed in what you're trying to make him do. Like for example, I've been wanting to get this TL where Andres Novales and his Creole captains succeed in driving out the Spaniards and establishing an independent Philippine state. I'm still at a loss of how it would go, because I don't understand the period well enough and I'm not sure how such a thing would happen. I'm not sure how much support Novales would have had among the Filipinos of different ethnicities. I'm not sure how Europeans would take it. And I'm still not sure about so many different factors of the period.

A Great Man in the traditional Carlyle-ist mold is almost impossible, save when he is tied into religion, and sometimes not even then.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Training up a successor can get complicated. Some examples

Edward III was a great and successful King of England. His heir was Edward, the Black Prince, and they avoided clashes of interest and feuds by having Edward BP rule Aquitaine as viceroy for his father. Edward BP in his turn had an elder son, Edward who he was raising to be his heir? What happened? Both Edwards died before Edward III so we ended up with Richard II

Edward IV had garnered lands and titles for his two sons, he had set up the eldest, Edward, Prince of Wales, with his own household and was training him to take an important role in government, administering one of the Councils that governed the regions. We all know what happened there - Edward IV died, his sons were still young, his brother seized power as Richard III

It could be an idea not to name your heir Edward, actually!

Then again, Henry VII had his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, with his own household, again a role in administration of a region, and a wife coming to marry him. Arthur died, and Henry took his place, to become Henry VIII.

 

[isabella]

Training up a successor can get complicated. Some examples

Edward III was a great and successful King of England. His heir was Edward, the Black Prince, and they avoided clashes of interest and feuds by having Edward BP rule Aquitaine as viceroy for his father. Edward BP in his turn had an elder son, Edward who he was raising to be his heir? What happened? Both Edwards died before Edward III so we ended up with Richard II

Edward IV had garnered lands and titles for his two sons, he had set up the eldest, Edward, Prince of Wales, with his own household and was training him to take an important role in government, administering one of the Councils that governed the regions. We all know what happened there - Edward IV died, his sons were still young, his brother seized power as Richard III

It could be an idea not to name your heir Edward, actually!

Then again, Henry VII had his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, with his own household, again a role in administration of a region, and a wife coming to marry him. Arthur died, and Henry took his place, to become Henry VIII.

Same story also for Henry IV (killed while his son and heir was still a minor), Louis XIII (dead when his son and heir was about 5 years old), Louis XIV (son, grandson and eldest great-grandson died all before him and the heir was his second great-grandson who had just five years) and Louis XV (son and eldest grandson died before him, his heir was his second grandson still teenager and without the personality to rule) of France really...

 

[Grey Wolf]

I guess there are several issues at play

1) Your heir might become a rival, and try to undermine, dethrone, and replace you
2) Your heir needs something to do while being heir, so having external provinces or if not regional governments he can administer is a good idea
3) Your heir might die before you, so having contingency plans is a good idea! But primogeniture can make those difficult since you can't simply have given son number 2 all these roles as a reserve if son number 1 goes and has a family - look what happens then! You get John of Gaunt, you get Richard III!
4) Getting the heir of your heir into place works well if you have the time, but even then they might die - see Edward son of the Black Prince

 

[Kaze]

Great man? How about Napoleon Bonaparte. He had heirs, cousins, and nephews. His heir died in obscurity under house arrest - but it did not stop Napoleon from writing "He shall be the Alexander to my Philip" concerning his son.

 

[Wendell]

The problem with hereditary succession is that the heir may never stack up to his predecessor, and will be viewed relative to said predecessor. Between genetics and the expectations game, Great Man dynasties will always inevitably rot.

 

[takerma]

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.

 

[Enakan]

I think the period I'm looking at is comparable to say 400-1000AD,

With weapons and armor fitting say a European style nation/state. There would be semi-powerful nobles/families underneath the ruler with varying levels of influence. Neighbors would be in more rugged terrain, undeveloped, like mountains and forests. Rivers would be the primary means of transport, at least the easiest. The GM or semi-GM could inherit this state and attempt to expand it, or keep it under his thumb.

The other possibility is a brother/son/bastard trying to raise a new state in the borderlands, against the established system. With not much to go on, the peoples there at least semi dependent on the larger more developed state. Which plays the border states/tribes against each other and has for years.

Love your input so far!

 

[Arkenfolm]

I think the period I'm looking at is comparable to say 400-1000AD,

With weapons and armor fitting say a European style nation/state. There would be semi-powerful nobles/families underneath the ruler with varying levels of influence. Neighbors would be in more rugged terrain, undeveloped, like mountains and forests. Rivers would be the primary means of transport, at least the easiest. The GM or semi-GM could inherit this state and attempt to expand it, or keep it under his thumb.

The other possibility is a brother/son/bastard trying to raise a new state in the borderlands, against the established system. With not much to go on, the peoples there at least semi dependent on the larger more developed state. Which plays the border states/tribes against each other and has for years.

Love your input so far!

Reminds me a bit of Southeast Asia's conditions. Many successors of Great Men there were successful because they consolidated the gains of their predecessor. Of course, the Mandala system in Southeast Asia is different from premodern Western concepts.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think the period I'm looking at is comparable to say 400-1000AD,

With weapons and armor fitting say a European style nation/state. There would be semi-powerful nobles/families underneath the ruler with varying levels of influence. Neighbors would be in more rugged terrain, undeveloped, like mountains and forests. Rivers would be the primary means of transport, at least the easiest. The GM or semi-GM could inherit this state and attempt to expand it, or keep it under his thumb.

The other possibility is a brother/son/bastard trying to raise a new state in the borderlands, against the established system. With not much to go on, the peoples there at least semi dependent on the larger more developed state. Which plays the border states/tribes against each other and has for years.

Love your input so far!

Looking at Anglo-Saxon kings, for inspiration

The Kings of Wessex generally set their eldest son and heir up as sub-king of Kent, prior to them succeeding their father.

West Saxon ealdormen were the main nobles, and can best be attested on charters (I wrote my dissertation on this 27 years ago!) - they were both the larger landowners, and those charged with administering what we now think of as the counties (Somerset, Dorset etc) for the king.

But unlike Frankish feudalism, they did not OWN the county, and their titles were not necessarily hereditary - their families might expect to keep the job in the family IIRC, but not by primogeniture as it was administration first, title second

If the state is at war, which of course Wessex was a lot with the Viking invaders, then the other sons of the king also get to be army commanders, especially since it was often necessary to keep more than one armed force in arms at any time, as the enemy didn't always come from one direction only.

Do I take it the area you are looking at does not have a coast?

 

[Wendell]

You also have the issue of rival heirs.

 

[CountPeter]

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.

 

[Wendell]

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.

The gunpowder empires emerged because nature abhors a vacuum. The Mongol realms were permanently divided and occasionally conflicting.