Build up your country to be the best it can be at the given time

>build up your country to be the best it can be at the given time
>it all goes to shit once your heir takes over

So how common has this been in Europe for rulers?

That's not just exclusive to European rulers, it's a common pattern in all monarchies.
>great king rules for a long time
>country is powerful, stable, and wealthy
>great king dies
>shit heir who wasn't prepared for ruling takes over
>pisses it all away in a matter of years

But weren't heirs trained their entire lives to become good rulers once taking over?

What's particularly bothersome about Dušan was that he wasn't made a saint, because at one point in his life he had to fight against his own father, who then died in battle (though not directly by his son's hand), but the weak fuck who was his heir actually got canonized because he was so tolerant and modest.

Seriously, his father was called the Mighty and he was the Weak.

Where the fuck did Dušan go wrong in educating his heir? I'd dearly like to know.

In theory yes, but in practice many kings weren't the most diligent fathers, and often left their heirs education to tutors of varying quality.

Sometimes the issue is the surviving son wasn't 1st in line, Commodus, Domitian, etc. Othertimes there are power struggles and 2nd or 3rd wife pushes her son in favor of other sons: Tiberius, Nero etc.
Sometimes the Old King is such a Brute, his whole family are little sadistic versions of him Constantine (to many to mention, at first), Severus (Caracalla, Gaeta)

Every time in CK2 man. fucking hell I thought assigning my heir a fief would be a good idea but nope... hey end up becoming a decadent shithead.

>great ruler
>known for being chad, fucked some hungarian princess during kingsmoot in visegrad
>left no heir
It happened twice in our history although August Jagiellon wasn't amazing but at least he continued jagiellonian legacy of stability and carefully planned politics

forgot pic

I tend not to give lands to my sons, I married my non-heirs to titled noblewoman to avoid troubles with inheritance and keep my heir next to me, without land. That one time in which I married my heir to a duchess my son thought that rebelling was cool.
Happened once and no more.

The trick is too never give your heirs land till you have married them too some good princess.
Like in absolutelly never.
Even if that means you will have to give away prosperous land to other nobles.

Seeing your son ditch the genious princess he was bethroed to for a forty years old courtier with aids isn't fun.

At least we gave you the great ruler Sigismund :^)

He was 0/10 trash.
Hs sons were decent but it was far too late to reform shit by then.

Just because they are groomed to lead doesn't mean they will be good leaders. When in comparison to great leaders that make their countries great by sheer will, their heirs with less natural talent and gravitas just can't hack it. This happened in Mesopotamia a lot as well.

Even if you're trained, you can do nothing if a foreign hordes decide to invade your country(like the Mongols) or if a plague happen(like the the Black Death), there are too many external factors, but at least,a monarch don't sell out his country unlike modern-day politicans.

>but at least,a monarch don't sell out his country unlike modern-day politicans.
bullshit, there were bad monarchs who sold their country too

Or maybe your training didn't do much good for you at all?

>there were bad monarchs

But there are a minority, while career politicians are all corrupt.

>there are
they are

>career politicians are all corrupt
This isn't true either.

>while career politicians are all corrupt.

[Citation Needed]

>But there are a minority,
[citation needed]

>while career politicians are all corrupt.
[citation needed]

Who are the kings with the shittiest sons?
First that comes to mind is Henry II

>build up your country to be the best it can be at the given time
>shitstain grandsons ruin it all

*Sad violin*

More like dumb Germanic inheritance laws ruin it all.

>want to create glorious european empire
>german or anglo always ruin it
Well maybe now that the anglo are out of the EU, we will be able to have one.

that was a German empire though

He was a good monarch, but too good to its people, if you give a finger to the peasants they'll take an arm and eventually your head. See Louis XVI, Nicolas 2, Gorbatchev, Kadhafi etc..

Yes, and their inheritance laws ruin it, german ruined their own empire.

...

The (((democratic))) system in place in all republics exists purely to maintain the status quo, which is fulling their own pockets with money without doing anything to aid the average citizen and in order to make career you'll have to cut shady and illegal deals or often go against the constitution and of course even when you go in with the most good of ideas you'll soon realize that you can't actually do anything without the consent of majority in the system so you'll soon realize that you better keep your mouth closed and follow the system which inevitably turns you into one of them, not giving a fuck about the people anymore or about anything beside keeping your position.

This is also the reason why great kings or dictators turned their countries into successful empires while bad ones are quickly dispatched of.

>bad ones are quickly dispatched of.
In ways that most of the time don't include bloody civil war, invasions by foreigners or game changing revolution?
And what if none does anything about the Monarch?
None ever did anything about Sigismund, August the Strong of Poland, Charles the second of spain or or Wilhelm the second of Germany ((Well, not in ways that didn't involve great amount of violence and suffering for their respetive nations))
And you got loads of Monarchies where the aristocracy, Church or any other power broker take control of the regent. Much of the bad rep kings have made came from nobles angry about the king not doing letting their well being go before that of the nation.

>Hs sons were decent

Sigismund may have been 5/10 but he was still the most competent Vasa.

Gustaf Vasa, Charles ix o and Gustavus Adolphus were all rather competent Vasas in my own modest opinion.

Too bad gustavus adolphus had to get himself killed before he sired a son.

Considering the time, we were probably not to bad off with the consequences from it all, and we ended up with the (for Sweden) decent Charles X.

Go to bed Hitler. Your rhetoric was tired by the time you published that stupid book.

Henry 7th builds up the treasury massively, then 8th wastes it on wars that are jus skirmishes and marches

>alienate middle class nobility, promote oligarchy by rewarding families that are already rich
>shitting on Zamoyski despite the fact that he secured him election by kicking habsurg brother of emperor out of Kraków
>sperg out and ruin plans of destroying muscovy forever
>shit on tolerance and alienate cossacks
>not reforming anything despite having many good opportunities to do so
>shitty pro-habsburg politics, cucking Poland by forcing it into conflict with Sweden instead of doing what France was doing aka supporting Sweden that was shitting on decentralized HRE
>promote zealous catholic retards and jesuits
I could go on you know.
>sperg about muh claims to swedish throne all the time
His rule is really ironic because nobility really peaked during it, country was functional because it really had good nobles and generals at the time but but its obvious that he was massive autist who wanted to convert Sweden/Muscovy at cost of poland and effects of his garbage years in power would shit on poland later on pretty damn hard.

also funny story about Sigimund
>he goes back to Stockholm and meets wife he divorced
>she tells him the child is his to humiliate him
>he denies that claim and gets btfo from Sweden anyway
that kid was Gustavus Adolphus btw

The Swedish Polish union could probably have survived for at least some time if not for Sigismund being so possessed by his Catholicism.
Unless I remember things incorrectly many nobles didn't want to betray their king even with him being a Catholic, Charles IX having to turn to sneaky tactics to beat Sigismund and his followers. May not have worked at all if the nobles had a more positive experience of Sigismund.

>but at least,a monarch don't sell out his country unlike modern-day politicans.

God-damnit, I hate edgy reactionary cucks like you.