I think one extra step further to take with this video topic outside of royalty, is looking at not just how recently, but also *how* a given noble line came to its ascendancy-did they support a military occupation, uprising, or coup that led them to control land and have a mini-state like a duchy? Did they deploy financial capital or human capital at an important economic time, that saw them gain a monopoly or have total control over a particular port (this is a big part of how London became so important)? Did they accrue enough wealth over time through church-based taxes that eventually their money became old and their family considered desirable for other powerful families to breed into?
Another aspect of dynastic dynamics - who rules the House, and who is the heir/heirs? Oldest son? Oldest child? Any member of the house the current leader finds particularly promising? Are there powers behind the throne, like some of the Empress Dowagers of China?
Mafias, business moguls, and noble houses have an overlapping point that I'm always interested in-maritime republics & merchant houses! Banking, shipping, and politics have a lot of historical overlap, especially in the Mediterranean and central europe during medieval-fantasy-analogue periods of history.
My favourite form of legitimacy is the divine right of kings: just the idea that if your the king, its cos god let you be the king, sl hou defo the right king.
In absolutist governments I like dynamics with a humble house head who chooses to delegate authority. Or with a weak house head who’s grandma (got) or other person is able to sort of manipulate the head. Authority is a fickle thing and nothing is how it seems.
Omg i was listening to the video first thinking the narrator is an old man. Did a double-take when i viewed the video and it isn’t 😂. Anyway nice vid 👍
Could you do a video on colonizing AND recolonizing? ie; settling uncharted lands, and reclaiming formerly lost lands? Great stuff as always tho Jbat, im happy to be here at the beginning of such a kickass channel
In my book, there are many kingdoms and many cultures (and mini cultures within those cultures) but the most interesting one are the Gaèllans (WIP name) who live near a wasteland filled with dragons. After a king dies, his sons will go to this wasteland and steal a dragon egg. After a few years, and they all raised their dragons, the princes will fight in an arena with the dragons, and whoever wins becomes the king, and keeps the others dragons (EDIT: and the founder of the family is also kinda mythical, since he brought peace to the kingdom)
A great example of Dynastic legitimately is france. The ancient regime had a legitimately due to their long ruling (amongs other things), so even when the revolution took over, they initially wanted to keep them around to keep the legitimacy of the new leadership: this is quire common in coups/takovers: i belive Facist Italy and Shogunate Japan are exaples, but im not an expert on the specifics. I digress however: followng the revolution, Napoleon gained jis legitimacy from the idea of a strong capablr military man, able to fight frances enemies. Je was removed after his defeat, as tjis was his main form of legitimately, compared to the other major monarchs of Europe, who he defeated many times, but rarely forced regime changes due to their legitimately not relying on military ability and victory. With the rise of Napoleon III, his legitimacy was buit from 2 ideas: one from his decent from hid uncle Napoleon I, and secondly from his idea of a "enlightened monarch" who acted almodt like a populist dictator, deriving his support from the majority good options (he did initialy become president and derived lots of his legitimacy frol this victory). His downfall came in the franco-prussian war when his military defeat finlay broke the charad of any militay competence from his uncle, and he became unpopular (as many leaders are when being utterly rolled in a war).
“Without just copying Game of Thrones, or Crusader Kings”
Why do I feel personally attacked?
I think one extra step further to take with this video topic outside of royalty, is looking at not just how recently, but also *how* a given noble line came to its ascendancy-did they support a military occupation, uprising, or coup that led them to control land and have a mini-state like a duchy? Did they deploy financial capital or human capital at an important economic time, that saw them gain a monopoly or have total control over a particular port (this is a big part of how London became so important)? Did they accrue enough wealth over time through church-based taxes that eventually their money became old and their family considered desirable for other powerful families to breed into?
That could be a whole video topic if I could work it into one!
Another aspect of dynastic dynamics - who rules the House, and who is the heir/heirs? Oldest son? Oldest child? Any member of the house the current leader finds particularly promising? Are there powers behind the throne, like some of the Empress Dowagers of China?
I would recommend reading The Prince by Machiavelli it helps to get into the mind set of rule
Mafias, business moguls, and noble houses have an overlapping point that I'm always interested in-maritime republics & merchant houses! Banking, shipping, and politics have a lot of historical overlap, especially in the Mediterranean and central europe during medieval-fantasy-analogue periods of history.
Excellent point!
I like your approach on dynasties.
Thank you!
I'm so happy i discovered this channel. I hope you achieve your goal till the end of the year!
Thank you! It's looking pretty good right now!
My favourite form of legitimacy is the divine right of kings: just the idea that if your the king, its cos god let you be the king, sl hou defo the right king.
It's a lot of fun. And "Divine Right of Kings" just goes unreasonably hard as a phrase
Great video! I subscribed. I'll probably binge watch the rest of your videos too. Seems high quality.
In absolutist governments I like dynamics with a humble house head who chooses to delegate authority. Or with a weak house head who’s grandma (got) or other person is able to sort of manipulate the head. Authority is a fickle thing and nothing is how it seems.
Appreciate you man I'm trying to do some Worldbuilding myself for my first book, I need to read your book.👍
No idea how this ended up on my feed, but very interesting and informative.
- your new subscriber
Prussiaboo and toilet shanking. That’s it. I’m binging all your back videos tonight.
This is my favorite comment now
Omg i was listening to the video first thinking the narrator is an old man. Did a double-take when i viewed the video and it isn’t 😂. Anyway nice vid 👍
Cool video - thanks.
Could you do a video on colonizing AND recolonizing? ie; settling uncharted lands, and reclaiming formerly lost lands? Great stuff as always tho Jbat, im happy to be here at the beginning of such a kickass channel
That could be a very interesting topic. I'll add it to the list! And thank you!
In my book, there are many kingdoms and many cultures (and mini cultures within those cultures) but the most interesting one are the Gaèllans (WIP name) who live near a wasteland filled with dragons. After a king dies, his sons will go to this wasteland and steal a dragon egg. After a few years, and they all raised their dragons, the princes will fight in an arena with the dragons, and whoever wins becomes the king, and keeps the others dragons (EDIT: and the founder of the family is also kinda mythical, since he brought peace to the kingdom)
A great example of Dynastic legitimately is france. The ancient regime had a legitimately due to their long ruling (amongs other things), so even when the revolution took over, they initially wanted to keep them around to keep the legitimacy of the new leadership: this is quire common in coups/takovers: i belive Facist Italy and Shogunate Japan are exaples, but im not an expert on the specifics. I digress however: followng the revolution, Napoleon gained jis legitimacy from the idea of a strong capablr military man, able to fight frances enemies. Je was removed after his defeat, as tjis was his main form of legitimately, compared to the other major monarchs of Europe, who he defeated many times, but rarely forced regime changes due to their legitimately not relying on military ability and victory.
With the rise of Napoleon III, his legitimacy was buit from 2 ideas: one from his decent from hid uncle Napoleon I, and secondly from his idea of a "enlightened monarch" who acted almodt like a populist dictator, deriving his support from the majority good options (he did initialy become president and derived lots of his legitimacy frol this victory). His downfall came in the franco-prussian war when his military defeat finlay broke the charad of any militay competence from his uncle, and he became unpopular (as many leaders are when being utterly rolled in a war).