Crowns in Crisis
As you GM more and more adventures, it may become harder to find an unusual reason for player characters to go adventuring. There’s a lot of potential in “succession dramas” for adventure hooks, even if the adventurers are not amongst the possible heirs–for intrigue, lies, and deception.
There is precdent in history. An ordered succession following divine right, or the mandate of heaven, or just reasonableness, isn’t all that common. Frequently, vicious wars erupted over succession disputes to a throne or sub throne (such as a duchy or earldom). The Roman Empire in particular often suffered successor wars, but it’s common throughout history, to the point that some wars are named after the disputed succession (e.g., War of the Spanish Succession 1701-1714).
Elections
Let’s note that although elections are the modern way to determine succession (even in autocracies, the appearance is there), there was some form of elections throughout history all the way back to ancient times, as in many Greek cities and the Roman Republic. But this relies on the shared consent of the populace at large and the method can easily break down; even for elections there’s a question of who is able to vote.
Women were typically not considered as inheritors or successors, and with that, didn’t usually have voting rights. Rome didn’t have a female emperor even though women could (unusually) own property. China, Egypt, other empires typically had no more than one female ruler. Yet the medieval kingdom of Georgia (east of the Black Sea) had at least two female rulers and of course England has had several reigning queens.
Anglo-Saxon countries in the Dark Ages actually used elections, but only the “great men” of the land could vote. This is how Alfred the Great could be the fourth of his brothers to succeed, after the death of his third brother. In a time of war no minor child was deemed able to rule successfully.
Any succession method has flaws. Leadership is very important, and there’s no guarantee that a son will be as good a leader as the father, or that a military man will be a good leader for the country as a whole.
Without elections, what can you do? The major method was familial inheritance, the much less common was what amounted to co-opting, as the current ruler anointed a successor before dying. This was the original method in the Roman Empire.
Inheritance and Successors
The “divine right of kings” is a political and religious doctrine asserting that a monarch’s legitimacy to rule directly derives from God, rather than from the will of the people, aristocracy, or any other earthly authority. This form of familial inheritance in medieval Europe helped secure the succession even of very young children to a throne; that is, religion dominated the choice. In China, the Mandate of Heaven, philosophical but nearly religious in nature, helped secure the succession unless times were too troubled (the dynasty was losing the Mandate).
Inheritance could be a real mess. Even if some kind of inheritance was the agreed method, a ruler might choose a son other than his first-born; and if he had more than one wife in series (fairly common, think Henry VIII), the wives/former wives sometimes schemed to install their son as ruler even if he wasn’t eldest son. Illegitimate sons often became involved. When a young child succeeded to a throne, the regent (“temporary” ruler until the child reached age of majority) might ultimately displace the child.
Taken by Force
Usurpation by a general or even someone less prominent was a common form of succession in the ancient Middle East. The Emperor Sargon, founder of the “first” Middle Eastern Empire (Akkad), was more or less a usurper. The Persian emperor Darius, who first invaded Greece in 490 BCE, was probably a usurper.
The later Roman Empire (not Republic) suffered severely from succession problems. There was no notion of “divine right” that helped settle succession in later medieval Europe. Initially the first Emperor (Augustus) chose his successor. (More than one of the appointed successors predeceased him.) This tradition continued but gradually the appointed successor was often a son of the Emperor, to the point that if a son was not the chosen successor, he might dispute the succession on the death of his father.
Emperors sometimes had to recall generals who were “too successful” to avoid risking a rebellion. During the crisis of the third century (CE) Roman armies declared their leader to be Emperor, occasionally against the will of the general! Succession often became who was the best general or had the best army. This was hard on the quality of the army, as Roman armies kept slaughtering each other in ferocious battles right into the 4th century. Many historians say that the late Roman army was not as skilled and effective as earlier Roman armies, because through the decades training suffered, and many soldiers were killed.
The Byzantine Empire, more clearly Christian and more influenced by right of birth succession, still suffered from problems at times. Revolts by would-be Emperors, often successful generals, were not uncommon.
Divine Inheritance
Chinese dynasties on the other hand often followed the succession from father to a son (not necessarily first-born), at least until a dynasty as a whole fell to a successor dynasty. And look at the Japanese Empire, where the hereditary Emperor was typically a figurehead and the military leader Shogun ruled. But the Shogunate was usually hereditary as well! And the emperor occasionally revolted against the system (and was usually unsuccessful).
Even when there was an agreed method of inheritance succession, that method wasn’t always to the eldest son. The Merovingian and Carolingian successors to the Franks divided the kingdom amongst the King’s sons. Charlemagne had a brother who died within a few years after the death of their father, and Charlemagne inherited the brother’s part of the kingdom. (We’re not sure how Carloman died…) Only one of Charlemagne’s sons survived his father, but when Louis the Pious died the empire was divided amongst his three surviving sons, more or less originating France and Germany (the middle inheritance stretching from what is now the Low Countries to Italy was gradually divided up).
There is even inheritance practiced in some places where the youngest son inherits all the father’s assets, though I don’t know of that being used for a political state.
Choosing the Right Horse
The obvious way to integrate inheritance and succession into your games is to have the player characters be next in line, but that implies a likely end to adventuring once challenges are quelled and the successor is in place. Ruling isn’t typically as fun as adventuring (at least in traditional dungeon-crawl style fantasy role-playing games), so more likely PCs will be part of trying to put a successor on the throne, or defending attempts to dethrone them.
If the PCs “bet on the right horse,” their fortunes can change for the better. If they choose poorly, things may get much worse – but that’s the stuff adventures are made of!
Your Turn: How do you handle succession and inheritance in your campaign?
Read more at this site