1. Blag
    Offline

    Blag New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0

    About Dyansty Rule

    Discussion in 'Plot Development' started by Blag, Dec 12, 2015.

    I want to ask how long does a king/queen rule and live in a Dynasty Rule? I want to know some averages, so that i can get a good estimate of generation jumps. LIke, 5000 years of dynasty rule will be 10 generations if the dynasty time period is 500 years, i.e. on average each time the dynasty head rules for 500 years.

    So i'll ask the question again, what's the average dynasty time period in the real world for a human?

    Also i've got some extra related questions: On average when does a person get his rule/starts ruling? and on an average when does the person give up his rule/loses his rule/dies?
     
  2. BayView
    Offline

    BayView Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,658
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Huh?

    Like... how long do kings and queens tend to rule for? Is that the question?

    There's going to be a lot of variation - you could look at some of the longest reigns, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs and compare with some of the shortest ones, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shortest-reigning_monarchs.

    In terms of averages? I think this is really going to vary from culture to culture. But if you said, for example, that the average life expectancy in your civilization was 60 years, and the average age for a man to have his first son was 25 years, then...

    King A - dies at 60, his first son is 35, takes the throne, becomes King B (his first son, C, is already 10 years old).
    King B rules for 25 years, dies at 60, and King C takes over at 35 years.

    So each reign would be 25 years long. But there's so much variation likely that I'm not sure this is a useful number at all.

    I'm also not sure it's even what you were asking about...
     
    Blag and Ippo like this.
  3. Ippo
    Offline

    Ippo Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2015
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    23
    I think this should help him. If he has an average he gets a reference value to play around with. This would make a good contrast for example for an instance of a short reign for which he now knows that anything under 25 might be considered relatively short, etc.
     
  4. Blag
    Offline

    Blag New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is, thanks for the links. The shortest reigning is too short though, i mean, 20 minutes, really?
    I thought that they would be some comprehensive study, of the length and health of all monarchs in history through all cultures, on the net somewhere, but for a normal monarchy i think 20-40 years seems fine. And i guess 45+ seems like a strong monarchy, and anything downhill 20 would be a weak one, i guess.
    I'd still look forward to more information.
     
  5. divided_crown
    Offline

    divided_crown Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Aberystwyth, United Kingdom
    As with many things in history, there isn't a whole lot that's completely out of line - some very absurd situations have already occurred in real life.

    Long reign may be tied to dynastic stability, but the causal relationship seems to be the other way around: a long-reigning monarch generally has more time to produce issue one or two generations down, so by the time they pass away, the realm tends to have a good idea of who'll succeed them. On the other hand, if they ruled a very centralized kingdom, the opposite may occur, with people having wildly differing opinions as to who should follow the monarch.

    One thing to consider might be the kind of succession law that specific realm uses. For example, if you want to know about a hereditary, male primogeniture, you shouldn't necessarily look at the reigns of Holy Roman Emperors (who were elected and, consequently, tended to be older). If you're interested in the workings of an administrative realm where ministers were more important for policy than the ruling Dynasty, China (especially the long-lived Han dynasty) might be interesting (there was an incident in Chinese history where an Emperor was captured while campaigning and the enemy tribe issued a demand for ransom, to which the court replied, basically "nah, you can keep him, we'll just replace the guy".)

    And because I have nothing better to do right now (do I ever? :D ) - here are some averages:

    Han Dynasty: 31 emperors, 480 years (incl. interregnum) -> 15.48 years
    Tokugawa Shogunate: 15 shoguns, 264 years -> 17.6 years
    United Kingdom / Great Britain: 13 monarchs, 308 years -> 23.69 years
    Capet-Valois-Bourbon Dynasty of France: 33 monarchs, 805 years -> 24.39 years
    Modern Swedish Houses (Vasa to Bernadotte): 23 monarchs, 492 years -> 21.39 years
     
  6. Necronox
    Offline

    Necronox Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia
    Typically, anything under 10 years is considered short, however, anything between 10 and 20 is quite normal, anything above that is considered long. However that entirely depends on your culture and your succession type. etc... etc..

    If let's say you have ultimogeniture (where the youngest son inherits all), then your average rule will probably be extended by 5-10 years since most royal families have large families as a rule of thumb.

    However, on the other end of the spectrum, if you have a seniority succession or tanist successions then the rule is significantly shorter. In some rules of inheritances it passes laterally instead of vertically, i.e, the next oldest brother inherits instead of the sons. the his brother, then so on so fourth, once all brothers have ruled and died, it goes to the oldest son of the oldest brother and the cycles repeats. In those circumstances, ruling for 5 years could be considered lengthy.

    As @divided_crown said, it's very much depends on the rule of successions, and also on the culture, certain culture prefer older men to rule, some dislike that. some culture have their kings willingly abdicate and nominate their next heir. It entirely depends so it's very hard to give a "average" for something with such little detail.

    However, it should be noted that a lot of those longest and shortest serving monarchs have reasons, for example, the french king who rules 20 minutes, only did so because his father abdicated in his favor, and he in turn abdicated 20 minutes later.

    On the otherhand, kings like Louis XIV, who rules for well over half a century, typically inherited the throne at a very young age, (6 for instance). Therefore, their first dozen years are typically very chaotic where the king does actually rule their kingdom - a regent does. Thus, their rule could quite easily be reduced by a good 10 years, maybe more or less depending on the age the inherited.

    When doing averages, extreme should be excluded, typically, you do 2 standard deviations from the average mean. that way you get rid of the extremes on both ends so they do not affect the mean.
     
    BayView likes this.

Share This Page