Golden Cages and Succession

[Sindri]

The Kafes system of the Ottoman empire in which surplus claimants to the throne were stored in a secure location instead of being left free to start civil wars or being killed off and thus endangering the line is quite fascinating to me. However, historically some problems emerged due to ill-preparedness for ruling or psychological problems due to confinement. Is there a way to reduce these problems?

[ericthered]

Ministers. Having somebody else do the actual ruling is an old idea. In the middle east it merged with the idea of a wazir, or visir, or however you want to say it. Some Middle east kingdoms had a wazir reporting to a sultan who was reporting to a caliph. The caliph was a religious figure head. The sultan did his one simple job for him: hiring and firing the wazir.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Sindri

The Kafes system of the Ottoman empire in which surplus claimants to the throne were stored in a secure location instead of being left free to start civil wars or being killed off and thus endangering the line is quite fascinating to me. However, historically some problems emerged due to ill-preparedness for ruling or psychological problems due to confinement. Is there a way to reduce these problems?

Medieval Europe assigned surplus claimants to the Catholic Church, either the regular or the secular clergy. I'd assume that on average, that worked better than imprisonment.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Is there a way to reduce these problems?

A large part of the reason surplus heirs were a problem was the lack of a way to decide which one *was* the heir, other than the word of the current ruler, who might (or be said to have by the only witnesses) change his mind with his last breath. Anything that makes it harder for somebody to claim a change - e.g. primogeniture or other fixed line of inheritance, formal written wills that always take precedence over verbal ones, nomination by the monarch taking effect only on confirmation by the Senate, annointing your heir co-regent during your own lifetime - will help.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Medieval Europe assigned surplus claimants to the Catholic Church, either the regular or the secular clergy. I'd assume that on average, that worked better than imprisonment.

The one major time I know of that system failing was when Philip II made it fail. As Phillip wanted to own Protugal by inheritance, he refused to let the the Pope (who had to obey Phillip) let the King of Protugal out of holy orders to wed and sire an heir. But other than stunts like these, the European system seems to have worked better.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Ministers. Having somebody else do the actual ruling is an old idea. In the middle east it merged with the idea of a wazir, or visir, or however you want to say it. Some Middle east kingdoms had a wazir reporting to a sultan who was reporting to a caliph. The caliph was a religious figure head. The sultan did his one simple job for him: hiring and firing the wazir.

Well yes, but that's kind of cheating. Plus there is no reason not to try to make the ruler as capable as possible even if the system could work with a vizier instead.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Medieval Europe assigned surplus claimants to the Catholic Church, either the regular or the secular clergy. I'd assume that on average, that worked better than imprisonment.

It does leave them at liberty in the world with a certain amount of a different kind power though.

Originally Posted by malloyd

A large part of the reason surplus heirs were a problem was the lack of a way to decide which one *was* the heir, other than the word of the current ruler, who might (or be said to have by the only witnesses) change his mind with his last breath. Anything that makes it harder for somebody to claim a change - e.g. primogeniture or other fixed line of inheritance, formal written wills that always take precedence over verbal ones, nomination by the monarch taking effect only on confirmation by the Senate, annointing your heir co-regent during your own lifetime - will help.

This is useful but doesn't eliminate the problem at hand. If the ruler dies then someone else needs to rule. If the person next in line knows it's them then they can try to kill the first guy. The point of imprisoning other claimants is to keep people around as insurance while restricting their ability to gain power unnaturally.

Originally Posted by Astromancer

The one major time I know of that system failing was when Philip II made it fail. As Phillip wanted to own Protugal by inheritance, he refused to let the the Pope (who had to obey Phillip) let the King of Protugal out of holy orders to wed and sire an heir. But other than stunts like these, the European system seems to have worked better.

However it's this system that I'm interested in. I'm not sure how it would work but is there perhaps a way to give someone ruling experience while still keeping them from making a bid for power?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Sindri

This is useful but doesn't eliminate the problem at hand. If the ruler dies then someone else needs to rule. If the person next in line knows it's them then they can try to kill the first guy.

There's no strong need for it to be a 'next in line'; various sorts of councils can be used to simply decide which of several heirs is the right one, and they may be reluctant to pick the killer. Obviously this transfers some power to the council, but that's true for any enforcement method.

In reality, the serious problem isn't when one guy assassinates another guy -- it's not that easy to do, and it isn't really that big of a problem for the country. The serious problem is when the lines of succession are unclear enough that two or more heirs can collect armies to fight one another.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There's no strong need for it to be a 'next in line'; various sorts of councils can be used to simply decide which of several heirs is the right one, and they may be reluctant to pick the killer. Obviously this transfers some power to the council, but that's true for any enforcement method.

In reality, the serious problem isn't when one guy assassinates another guy -- it's not that easy to do, and it isn't really that big of a problem for the country. The serious problem is when the lines of succession are unclear enough that two or more heirs can collect armies to fight one another.

The person next in line in that case is whoever the council decides is next in line. In some cases the decision might be known or suspected beforehand.

A problem is when the lines of succession are unclear. Another problem is when the lines of succession are clear and someone wants to implement a different system under which they are the ruler. Another problem is assassination.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Sindri

The person next in line in that case is whoever the council decides is next in line. In some cases the decision might be known or suspected beforehand.

A problem is when the lines of succession are unclear. Another problem is when the lines of succession are clear and someone wants to implement a different system under which they are the ruler. Another problem is assassination.

You also have strong-arming of the council. The early Caesars of Rome mostly kept their power through holding a ton of separate offices and having a loyal army that kept the senate terrified.

As for the OP, on a good way to produce competent rulers that didn't lead to infighting?.....

The best I can think of was the Adoption system of some of the roman emperors. You designated a ruler after he was grown, adopted him, and gave him his own court.

The roman's problem wasn't that this system failed so much as it was that the emperor's power was based on the loyalty of the troops in the first place.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

There's no historical precedent for this that I know of, but since we're talking about something for a game, I assume completely made-up ideas are OK: don't let the heirs know. Don't let anybody know until it's time. Have a system where the palace is a moderately large community. The extended royal family lives there, along with servants and noblemen, who perhaps circulate in and out periodically to do service to the throne. Every year a potential heir is born, children born at the palace are marked (tattoos or branding, for example), the marks secretly recorded, and the children "farmed out" to be raised by aristocratic families across the nation. They're rotated between spots now and again so they see more of the country. They grow up in positions of moderate power and military responsibility, picking up skills and exposure as they go. When the previous ruler dies, an heir is chosen, and the books are cracked open to see who the chosen heir is. The remaining "palace children" for that year can be folded back neatly into the bureaucracy and military. The children grow up isolated from their real families, but each can dream of becoming supreme ruler some day.

Now, that won't actually work either. Too easy to breach secrecy or to have a faction just pick one and use him as a figurehead. But it makes for nice stories, and that, ultimately, is what roleplaying campaigns are made of.