How should rulers keep themselves in power?

>Well, one way is to make sure the nation can't really operate without you
You're probably right at the core, but taking this to literally Hitler levels is probably a bad idea. That nigga was pretty much the only one who exactly knew what was going on in the country at any given moment, meaning that despite his generals probably being the best in the world at the time they often acted based on incomplete or outdated intel, and often without knowing what other branches of the military were doing.

Being in power must be stressful. It's a balance between keeping enough power to not make yourself expendable, yet delegating enough power to make sure your underlings can do what they're supposed to do. Having enough underlings to not make one of them too powerful, but not having so many that you stretch your resources thin.

This is why only plebs want to be king. Patricians want to be the trusted advisor to the emperor. The guy that's useful to keep around and probably survives the king's death. Friendly reminder that Talleyrand was chief diplomat for the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of the French, the First French Republic, the Empire of the French, the Restored Kingdom of the French and the July Monarchy. Nobody ever bothered getting rid of him because he was just THAT good, and perhaps the only reason why France didn't get ripped a new asshole in 1815 and actually came out of the Napoleonic wars in a relatively good position on the global stage. Not as good as it could've been, but certainly not as bad as it could've been.

Being a ruler is a bitch of a thing.

The way I see it, though, if you have a nation wherein you control the purse strings and sponsor most of the judiciary and civil works engineers, you can pretty much keep control as long as you have a sufficiently defensible position. Even more so if your ''Royal'' forces are the only standing forces in the land.

Rebellion becomes really hard when your oppressor is sitting behind thick walls and has the only siege engines and military engineering corps in the nation, especially if its backed with a loyal personal guard and a militia.

But then again, this is all hypotheticals derived from reading Machiavelli so take it with a pinch of salt.

Disclaimer: This is just an opinion based on historical and political observations and personal knowledge.

1. You need to work in a group. A full dictatorship never lasts long, since it is valuable to murder and shit. A reasonably sizable group with strong ties to one another ensures safety and efficiency (as long as you have no traitors within)

2. You need to be good. Really, sometimes it is just that. Show that you have good side and will only refrain to harsh actions when it is rightful to do so.

3. Educate and indoctrinate. Teach people about the world and explain thoroughly why your leadership is the best that can be, but do those with proper logical arguments, so they will not sound like propaganda (even though they will be).

4. Give people some space, some freedom. Let them go and even die for you out of their own conviction.

How "should" they keep themselves in power is different from how they often do. The ideal ruler establishes a trustworthy administration above all. Even if it's repressive, it's paramount that both your underlings and the public at large understand what to expect from your government. Second, don't mess with the merchant class. People generally don't care if you rule them as long as they can make money but when you mess with merchants you start showing up as an expense on the budgets of people wealthier than your administration and that will really put your government down the shitter.

Step aside ladies. Let me show you how to get supreme executive power

>1. Be just and wise

>2. Also secretly be heir to throne

>3. Pull a sword out of a rock

>4. Have some watery tart lob an entirely different sword at me

>Amateur mode

- Bribe everyone.

>Moderate mode

- use threats and play different groups off against one another.

>Hard mode

- Run things so well that you become essential to the system.

Not a terrible idea if you don't trust the independence or effectiveness of your courts

It is not about trying to gain more power.
It is all about having enough power to make sure that everyone else has less.

just because a moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you doesnt make fit to rule. They'd put you away.

Never establish absolute dominion over your lands. Always allow a token resistance/opposition or hated minority to remain among your people and perhaps even among your government officials.

Sooner or later, even the best leader makes a mistake or some random misfortune befalls the nation and things go badly. If you're the unchallenged god-emperor of your domain, then the responsibility for anything that goes wrong is going to end up with you, and if things have gone badly enough, you risk being overthrown. But if there's an opposition lurking around, you can pin the blame on them. The economy didn't crash because you bungled the kingdom's finances, it was the work of socialist trade unions! The war wasn't lost because of poor strategy, it was lost by subversive activist leading protests at home! The crime wave isn't due to ineffectual policing, it's the fault of violent immigrants!

The biggest mistake Hitler made was wiping out Germany's Jews. When Germany lost WWI, they blamed Jews for "stabbing them in the back," and German nationalism could be restored quickly. But when Hitler lost WWII, it was all on him and his entire political movement was completely discredited.

This is the only good way to run a country, by letting the people come to the conclusion of your being the best under only some guidance

Anyone willing to expand on this topic further, IE if one was going to run a PMC or a Motherbase like scenario? Eventually reaching enough power to contend with an already existing government?

/thread

I am doing this in Rogue Trader right now to carve my own personal empire out without the Rogue Trader knowing.

Combine with a touch of and voila, a new Rogue Trader in the making.

Very carefully

Well making yourself indispensable (ideally without going full Hitler) has already been pretty well covered

was about to post that. It's based on a very interesting book that is pretty much a updated version of only you not not shitty

by consent of the governed

From an absolute standpoint, so long as is necessary and achievable. Just make sure the people feel the benevolence and effectiveness of your rule (through whatever bread and circus falls within the acceptable purview of your ideology) and you'll win their heart. Morality however, is ultimately subjective.

>But when Hitler lost WWII, it was all on him and his entire political movement was completely discredited.
The decades of occupation and forced reeducation might have influenced that.

Being good with math.

Ideally? Through the consent and support of the people under them.
Realistically? By manipulating the system and keeping the people who support them in the government in power to support them in return.

Make more people think you're on their side than there are people who think you don't represent their best interests.

Cull the latter category using the former category.

Repeat every decade or so until you die.

Rulers should not 'keep' themselves in power at all, but hand off power after an agreed upon procedure and a fixed time span. This greatly limits the number of rebellions, war of succession, ect. and thus stops such event sapping the strength of the nation.

Calm down Sulla, some of us want to remain in power

doesn't that just fall under 3) minimize key supporters?
a supporter with supporters is essentially many supporters, but uplifting one who is loyal only to you and not his own supporters you now have fewer to please.

Tallyrand was bullshit. How do you come out of the Napoleonic wars with more than you went into it as the fucking loser?

By turning potential enemies against one another. The best way is to purge people in power, doesn't even need to be directed against actual political enemies, just having a secret list of traitors and executing those on the list will make most people publicly support you out of fear, while at the same time preventing those who are secretly disloyal from courting allies due to causing widespread personal distrust among the political elites.

Stalin's purges may not have been good for the USSR but they were extremely good for consolidating his own power, to the point where he could essentially do whatever he wanted. Saddam did something similar, having a list of traitors that he read outloud. When he called a name the secret police or whatever dragged the man out, eventually everyone assembled started chanting his name. After he was done rounding up the traitors (real, imagined, or completely fabricated) he had those he spared serve as the firing squads.

Alternatively be a competent leader and people will often support you even if your domestic policies go against what they want and what benefits them. Give a man a house, a full belly, and a sense of purpose and he often won't care that he doesn't have the right to vote.

Actually, among literary scholars it's commonly acknowledged that Machiavelli didn't really 'believe' what he wrote down in The Prince, since the work was written with the purpose of winning points with the new ruler of his city, who had taken over from. His much less well known writings, but generally better written, include a number of works on Republicanism.

Which is all well and good if you care about the nation over yourself, but we're assuming the alternative.

Remember you are but mortal.

Rule yourself more strictly than any other subject.''

Do your subjects better justice than they may deserve, and know that your judgement cannot be undone.

Live with no fear of death; conduct yourself as to give yourself no reason to fear it.

By being so individually powerful that revolt is effectively impossible.

by creating a system of trust in the government that abides by the laws it sets forth, holds holds its employees personally accountable for their actions, and enforcing a zero tolerance policy towards corruption.

Vlad Tepes did nothing wrong.

Yes and no. While he may have preferred republicanism, he was more of a pragmatism than moralist. He also wanted an united Italy first.

Always remember: The pawn is the most important piece.

>get cucked by your wife
>get killed by your son
what went wrong

Hadn't those new rulers of the city recently imprisoned and tortured him?

not quite
satire and sucking up are one of about four main scholarly interpretations of his work. Scholars don't agree about shit much less commonly acknowledge it.
Unless there's some weird consensus specifically among literary scholars and you're leaving out historians and philosophers or something.

indeed

But it tends to fail after you die

by any means necessary. Whatever works...

only good answers