Hot take: hereditary kingdoms were a reasonably successful solution to curbing constant civil war in a time when representative democracies might not have been viable (for various reasons).
Hot take: hereditary kingdoms were a reasonably successful solution to curbing constant civil war in a time when representative democracies might not have been viable (for various reasons).
I don’t think you could call it reasonably successful. For example, much of European history consisted of war and succession disputes. The entire system of aristocracy was prone to instability and shifting alliances. It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
The Politics of Succession, by Andrej Kokkonen, Jørgen Møller, Anders Sundell
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Politics_of_Success...
> this book also shows that the development and spread of primogeniture - the eldest-son-taking-the-throne - mitigated the problem of succession in Europe in the period after AD 1000. The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power. The data used in the book demonstrates that primogeniture reduced the risk of depositions and civil war following the inevitable deaths of leaders.
> The predictability and stability that followed from a clear hereditary principle outweighed the problems of incompetent and irrational rulers sometimes inheriting power.
It doesn't though, incompetence is more dangerous than uncertainty. If someone wants to be a hereditary head of state as a formality, then ok that is one thing. But if we look at the most successful nation in the 1000s it is probably the UK, who haven't allowed the monarch to be in the room where the big decisions get made since Charles I was executed in 1649. From that point it is a stretch to say that the monarch is inheriting power. The power to agree cheerfully with what their government tells them to do, perhaps.
The Prime Minister meets the monarch every week. It's very, very naive to assume they only talk about the weather.
The Queen was known to object to legislation that affected her personally. And the monarchy - as the head of the aristocracy, the biggest land-owner, a major influence on the Tory Party, and a private corporation with significant business interests - can always use back-channels and cut-outs to have its say.
The British specialise in this kind of indirect hinting and insinuation. It's part of the culture at most levels, and it drives foreigners insane, because until you learn the subtext you'll completely misread what's being said.
> But if we look at the most successful nation in the 1000s it is probably the UK
There is also a solid argument to be made for France.
>It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
It beats strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
Farcical aquatic ceremonies have their uses.
Binding people to a shared worldview due to a fear of an unsuccessful afterlife?
History says: proved useful.
> It turns out hereditary succession is not a good way to choose a competent political leader.
I'm not sure republics have cracked that one either.
I read that at some point the system in Turkey devolved to the point that succession was always determined by a civil war.
This produced a very long string of extremely competent leaders, but the cost was too high.
Let's try technocracy!
How can you have a democracy when 90% of the populous is working 12 hour days 6-7 days a week just to pay the bills? How are they going to have an opinion on anything, other than “Stuff is too expensive”.
Note that the Ancient Greeks very often had democracies, when their standard of living was rather lower than what you describe. Life expectancy at birth was often below 30 years.
EDIT: Add some cites -
https://acoup.blog/2023/03/10/collections-how-to-polis-101-p...
https://acoup.blog/2025/07/18/collections-life-work-death-an...
https://acoup.blog/2025/10/10/collections-life-work-death-an...
Note that in the Ancient Greek democracies, the people who worked 12 hour days 6-7 days a week and had a life expectancy of 30 years were called "Slaves", and they were not allowed to vote.
Non-laboring, land-owning males were the only ones allowed to participate in the democracy, and they lived to ripe old ages just as in modern times, even allowing for the occasional hemlock ingestion.
The Old Greeks cannot be trusted with historic matters. They were victims of indigestion, you know.
Ancient Greek democracy was limited franchise and the average life expectancy figure is pop history and not accurate.
For most of human existence, life expectancy at birth was dominated by half of all kids not reaching puberty, and a quarter of all infants not making it through their first year.
Republics, like Venice and San Marino (oldest Republic still in existence), endured for a millennia.
I'll accept they don't have a good track record for defending themselves from hereditary monarchies. e.g. Nizny Novgorod to Muscovy, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (technically elected monarchy) to Prussia-Russia-Austria.
I'm sort of amazed that democracies came into existence at all.
On the other hand, I guess the actions of kings were a catalyst. (crazy taxation, closing ports, quartering troops, etc)
It's not just "kings", but "distant kings" in most cases. The French Revolution being a notable counterexample.
I suspect the root of democracy’s success lies in Galton’s observation