Why is it so rare for great men to pick great heirs?
Why is it so rare for great men to pick great heirs?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Why is it so rare for great men to create solid institutions in a way such that their new empire won't implode the moment they get a less brilliant leader?
The history of monarchy is an endless series of attempts at getting lightning to strike twice in the same spot.
this pretty much
the achaemenids are the only ones i can think of that had 4 pretty goos kings in relative succession (even if Cambyses was something of a cunt) and after that it's all a bit mediocre
Roman empire. Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius
I thought it was the five good emperors not the four
Nerva is the 5th (1st) but his only contribution from his short reign was preventing a civil war by naming Trajan as his heir/co-ruler
Nerva wasn't very good and reigned for only two years.
Finish this sentance:
without Byzantine Empire, we wouldn't have...
It's a shame Marcus Aurelius cocked it up so hard by naming Commodus as his successor.
Orthodox Christianity
Christianity
Istanbul as the capital of Turkey.
Hey now, at least with the Romans it took a lot of terrible leaders to run it down. One person like Nero barely left a mark even considering the civil war after he died. I would say Augustus did leave the institutions with pretty solid ground. No one just ever laid out any kind of official succession rules.
A non-Muslim eastern and Central Europe
Ottomans during their rise.
a great byword for being a useless pos
europe.cavalry archers from the east
Probably because inheritence of power is a shitty way of running a country. Also, someone's always butt hurt about not being chosen for the throne which tends to cause problems later on down the line.
...
damn you're right.
pretty much everyone from osman to suleyman with the exception of bayezid I was at least a solid 6/10 king.
I understand what youre trying to say but this is a really shitty map.
No legend, no source this could be a map of anything by any scale.
Scientific progress. If you think Christianity held back science, tell us of all the great Muslim inventions post 1400a
...
He did nothing wrong. How was he supposed to know he would die youngish or what a monster his son would grow into?
uh fuck colour gradients brah
Closer.
What is the percentage of? Population, people claiming a religion? Where did the data come from?
>filename
please tell me more about all those scientific discoveries of byzantine empire
Islam in Europe is not a source, its a title.
>Anatolia
>steppes
You can find a lot of mathematical, scientific, and philosophical contributions by Muslims. The problem is almost none of them are Arabs.
Also having the country names by the percentage does not clarify it any more. It could mean the 30% of the land in Albania was pissed on by a Muslim
Indeed it could, good thing it isn't being posted without any context or filename that indicates what the percentages are of.
The first part he is truly blameless for. The second part is something I say there should have been some warning signs. But regardless of whether it was a cock-up of his own fault or a cock-up of chance, it was a still cock-up.
In old age they finally realize it's all spooks.
Because Great mens empires/nations/whatever are all ruled through the ability of that great man.
And because great men only appear when there is instability and and great change.
A great man will never appear for example in a stable western democracy.
>Islam is cancer too
>therefore Christianity isn't cancer
Strong logic.
I'll tell you of great classical inventions pre 300 AD
Not a steppe area.
Relying on assumptions is lazy and not informative. It gives no backing to the vague information presented. The map was not made with this thread in mind and does not properly represent any sort of practical information.
-Cartographer
codified law systems
Because inherited autocracy is fundamentally flawed on that basis.
Trajan picked Hadrian
Genghis picked Ogedei
Julius picked Augustus
A lot of that is based on the the works from the Greeks and Romans.
>1400
>1 and a half century after the sack of baghdad
although, persia and andalusia were doing pretty great. the Safavids are my favorite islamic persian dynasty
pic related, best example of Safavid architecture
fugg
andalusia was super comfy
>No one just ever laid out any kind of official succession rules.
That might actually be the reason why it did better than regular monarchies.
Muslim architecture> desu
The first cruzade