Why did the world move away from co-rulers?

Romans, Carthaginians, Sparta. Why did the model of 2 or more co-equal leaders vanish? Is the concept worth revisiting?

because some empires aren't big enough for 2 people to rule. most empires prefer just 1 ruler.

There still is separation of powers in basically all government systems.

But there are no co-presidents.

Their basically is, the leader of the house and the senate alongside the supreme court. Presidents are largely ceremonial leaders, they have little more than the bully pulpit to enact most legislation. They are vastly less powerful than most people give them credit for.

Can someone tell me about the government of ancient Carthage? I know that it had a senate but it was different from Rome in a number of ways.

Shophets wielded more power than their consular counterparts

How did Sophats come to power?

what if the 2 co-leaders disagree?

Nothing, that's the point.

>Why did the model of 2 or more co-equal leaders vanish?
Because it didn't work.

The roman republic didn't work?

The point of having two leaders is having checks and balances.
That's very much a thing, at least in theory, in modern democracies.

Yeah, it literally didn't. What's your point?

Well, in my opinion, the Vice President was originally intended to have somewhat equal power, or at least somewhat respectable powers (before being turned into the sideshow almost joke he is now.)

See Consuls, in Rome at least, didn't rule together at the same time except under untypical circumstances. The Consul Ordinarii (don't let the word 'ordinarii' fool you) held Fasces (that bundle of sticks) for a month at a time, and usually the Consul who won the most votes would hold Fasces first.

By what measure do you define success then?

The stability of a nation above all.

The Roman Empire certainly doesn't count then.

Fuck you lmao. No nation in existence has ever lasted in an unaltered state for longer than like three centuries max.

Already the transformation we underwent in the 40's with FDR was a massive change from what we were before; or even the civil war illustrates that purpose.

You can, and therefore MUST only judge the success of a civilization by its impact on history and society in the civilizations to come.

And by that measure, Rome is greater than all.

There kinda used to be. Back in the day the winner of the election became president and the loser VP

2016 would've been wierd if they still did that

Then I guess stability isn't everything then...

Well I'm not the same guy as above, for the record.

But still. Stability in the long term does indicate that your society can extend its tendrils accross the world better and longer.

IMO that's why the British Empire, although Great, is never going to be seen as long lasting. The only impact they've really left anywhere is the English language, which is nice, but not a thing we'll remember the British for....