You can keep your throne but thessaly falls under my command to fight with me whenever I call

>You can keep your throne but thessaly falls under my command to fight with me whenever I call

How common was that? Isn't it very risky to defeat a king but leave him on the throne as an "ally"?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Bonaparte
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Enormously common. And while it was risky, most ancient polities just didn't have the organizational capacity nor the surplus manpower to have a more stable way of extending your grasp. Leaving client-kings in place meant that you didn't have to exert more administrative ability (which was often lacking in eras of mass illiteracy and difficult travel) than demanding tribute every so often.

It actually makes perfect sense desu. Makes the client state more willing to fight border wars for you, you get tribute and don’t have to micromanage their operations (so fewer beauracratic and military costs). They can’t try to usurp you as easily as an ordained state official with state resources. Rome used to operate the east like this up with states like Pergamon, Syria-Palestine and for hundreds of years with Armenia.

In the Bronze Age it was the norm, some Mesopotamian kings liked to place a son or cousin in charge of captured cities but for the most part they would leave them under the control of the natives, on the understanding that they were now subjects to the conqueror. This was generally about as effective as you;d expect, during peace time it worked well but when wars came around it wasn't unusual for a "subject" city to take the opportunity to declare independence and require re-conquest. This constant cycle is why the Assyrians were so famously cruel to conquered cities, they realized that if you terrorize your subjects enough, they won't dare try to throw off your shackles even when an opportunity presents itself. This is also why the Assyrians and, later, the Greeks had a custom of leaving "garrisons" (actually colonies, including women and children) in conquered territories, and why the Assyrians liked to deport the elites of conquered regions to Mesopotamia, to leave the subject regions without leadership to organize a rebellion.

Ozymandias did this as he made his way to India. He would leave some generals as administrators and proxies of sorts, but by in large his empire was a collection of vassal kingdoms.

The territories of the Aztec Triple Alliance were essentially ask this, which is why once a head off state died, his successor would have to put down several rebelling client states.
For a more recent comparison, there's a compelling resemblance between the classical client state approach and the protectorate system in used in British imperialism in Africa and India.

The fuck are you talking about dumbass? Ozymandias wasn't real, he's just some guy from a poem.

The Hittites were contemporaries of Mycenae. The Hittites were a single empire with the king of Hattusa being the "king of kings" however places like Hatti and Carcemish had their own kings. Sometimes Hittites kings would even rule over other kings, all under the king of Hattusa.

Alexander is also known as Ozymandias, the King of Kings.

>Ozymandias
Who? Is that the guy with the ruined statue?

"No"

That's just called an empire.

That's Ramesses, not Alexander.
>He is known as Ozymandias in the Greek sources,[9] from a transliteration into Greek of a part of Ramesses' throne name, 'Usermaatre Setepenre', "The justice of Rê is powerful—chosen of Rê"

Alexander had a greater empire than Ramses II.

That doesn't matter you brainlet.

Ozymandias was Ramses II of Egypt's title.

Client states like foederati were pretty common. The overlord gains a ruler who is better able to control the local populace and for a short time disconnected from any internal political factions, they also gain soldiers while reducing their manpower. These soldiers and officers will then accumulate some loyalty to the empire over their native land because of the better prospects for loot and promotion. The client King avoids total defeat.

Rameses II was a ginger though.

Yes, and Troy was a vassal of the Hittites (Wilusa) which aided them during the battle of Kadesh against Egyptians

Napoleon also put his family members on thrones across Europe

Some of them even turned against him.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Bonaparte

Egyptians would take the children of ruling elite in Levant back to Egypt so they'd grow up thoroughly Egyptian and loyal to the Pharaoh when they'd return as adults.

That is not true at all.

Walter White

The Romans did this with the Gauls and German tribes. Arminius was raised in Rome and eventually defected back to the Germans and betrayed Rome at Teutoburg Forest.

Taking the children of enemy leaders hostage and indoctrinating them was a common practice just about everywhere. China and India did it quite often too.

Get a load of this retard

Nothing he said is wrong tho. It's extremely obvious to everyone ITT which of you two is the retard.

>That's just called an empire
and? I literally pointed out what OP asked for.
Also, the term "king of kings" goes back to Babylonian times but is mostly associated with the Achaemenid Dynasty.

>That's just called an empire.

Nowadays it's called an empire, it wasn't called that when it actually existed, tho, because the concept didn't exist.

Dutchfag here, Louis Napoleon is still remembered quite positively here in the Netherlands for the way he stood up for Dutch interests and the way he really tried to become a Dutch king instead of a French puppet. He was also the father of Napoleon III, which not a lot of people seem to know.
That being said, he isn't a very good example for putting relatives on the thro e since he and Napoleon constantly butted heads.

It is incredibly risky and rebellions by "defeated" kings occur all the time.

But as so many have stated, in the ancient world most city states and even empires of their day lacked the organizational and political structure to control signficantly more land in one go.

It was easier to keep the idiot in charge and charge him tribute.

pretty common, you've been defeated so why die this day when you can fight for glory together, however the first system of leaving them all alone really fucks up in times of need, as they often rebelled or hid rebels and claimnants
rome perfected it by giving broad rights to people who willingly joined, then sending their soldiers off to the other parts of the empire so they didn't have soldiers to become rebels, whilst conquered peoples were enslaved reducing the population so if they rebelled a roman garrison could easily beat them