War of succession
[7] A succession war may arise after (or sometimes even before) a universally recognised ruler over a certain territory passes away (sometimes without leaving behind any (legal) offspring, or failing to clearly designate an heir), or is declared insane or otherwise incapable to govern, and is deposed.
Next, several pretenders (also known as 'claimants', 'candidates', or 'rivals') step forward, who are either related to the previous ruler (by ancestry or marriage) and therefore claim to have a right to their possessions based on the hereditary principle, or have concluded a treaty to that effect.
[26] Potential candidates were not always limited to members from the royal household; depending on circumstances, aristocrats of other noble families within the realm were eligible to replace the deceased monarch, and could seize the opportunity of a succession crisis to take control of the state and found a new dynasty.
[28] The minority of a ruler necessitated regents and ministers to run state affairs until they came of age, which made opposition from military and administrative elites to the underage monarch easier, and also increased the risk of widespread political instability and civil conflict.
[1][34] Braumoeller (2019) attributed this drastic decrease (and practical extinction) of wars of succession from the 18th century onwards largely to the fact that 'succession no longer serves either to cement territorial holdings legitimized by continuous bloodlines or to create de facto alliances or long-standing allegiances among the Great Powers.
'[40] Nolan (2008) added about the 1650–1715 period in Europe: 'Complex issues of succession of Bourbon and Habsburg were the daily stuff of high European politics at all times, and the bane of the lives of the masses of peasants swept away by ebbing and waning tides of peace and the maelstrom of war.
'[41] "The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas it is the most bare-faced falsity ever imposed on mankind."
[56] Helen James (2004) stated that in the late 17th-century Burmese Restored Toungoo dynasty, "the transfer of power upon the death of a monarch was always a problem, for there were many contenders to the throne owing to the practice of polygamy.
During the reign of Duke Zhuang, Zheng was the most powerful Spring and Autumn period state, but the 701–680 BCE war of succession following his death reduced it to one of the weakest.
[70]: 775 The Yamato state did not have clear rules on succession (such as primogeniture), and the death of a monarch frequently resulted in a crisis with multiple claimants from several powerful clans vying for the throne.
[76] This lack of constitutional theory has been attributed by Ali Abdel Raziq (1888–1966) to the idea that the prophet Muhammad had been primarily concerned with religious regulations, and had not given priority to founding a political system, never left a known successor (= caliph), nor established standard rules by which future leaders were to be appointed.
[citation needed] Therefore, many early Muslims perceived this dynasty to lack legitimacy, and this 'arguably biggest problem' contributed to its downfall during the Third Fitna (744–747) and the closely connected Abbasid Revolution (747–750).
[39] Citing Ibn Khaldun, Black argued that this was one major factor why virtually all Islamic dynasties (with the notable exception of the Ottoman Empire) lasted only about 100 to 200 years before falling apart due to succession crises.
[citation needed] In our quarter of the globe, the succession to the crown is settled in favour of the eldest by wise and fixed laws; but in Hindústan the right of governing is usually disputed by all the sons of the deceased monarch, each of whom is reduced to the cruel alternative of sacrificing his brothers that he himself may reign, or of suffering his own life to be forfeited for the security and stability of the dominion of another.
[81] 17th-century French traveller François Bernier, who spent about 12 years in India (1658–1670; partially overlapping with the Mughal war of succession of 1657–1661), praised Aurangzeb as "a great King" with "a versatile and rare genius", but was critical of the "unjust and cruel" means by which he and other Mughal emperors rose to power through war rather than the European method of succession "in favour of the eldest son by wise and fixed laws" that Bernier himself was familiar with.
[88] From the Trunajaya rebellion (1674–1681) onwards, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) began to exploit the dynastic crises to expand its economic, political and territorial control over Java by supporting their preferred candidate for the throne with superior firepower, in return for extensive concessions upon victory.
[89] An early 19th-century British writer observed: "In Malay States, a War of Succession almost invariably follows the decease of the Rajah, and with their other feudal contentions are the bane of them all — oppressing the inhabitants, checking industry, and obstructing commerce.
"[90] He recommended that the British government take certain measures to prevent these wars from happening in the interest of both natives and foreigners, but argued that the English should not become "conquerors and oppressors" to the Malays, "as the Dutch are in all their possessions throughout the Archipelago".
"[95] Following common Central Asian tradition, during their father's lifetime, all adult sons of the reigning sultan were given provincial governorships in order to gain experience in administration, accompanied and mentored by their retinues and tutors.
[97] In 1617, the Ottoman dynasty would adopt a system of succession called ekberiyet, by which the oldest surviving male relative of the deceased sultan (often an uncle or brother) would assume the throne.
[94] This was combined with the kafes ("gilded cage") system in 1622, which put all male members of the royal family under house arrest within the palace grounds, to ensure a pool of potential successors under the control of the reigning sultan.
[94] About the Hoa Lư-based early Vietnamese kingdom of Đại Cồ Việt (968–1054), Nicholas Tarling (1992) noted: "the Hoa-lu kings ruled chiefly by threat of violence, and the death of each one was followed by a war of succession.
"[16] Tarling added that "the Tran kings made decisions in consultation with their uncles, brothers, and cousins, thereby fostering solidarity within the royal clan", and that the dynasty began to collapse when these rules were no longer observed.
[16] When the childless king Trần Dụ Tông failed to designate an heir, his death in 1369 marked the beginning of two decades of succession-based warfare, until prime minister Hồ Quý Ly seized power and restored order in 1390, and abolished the Tran dynasty in favour of his own in 1400.
"[12] Although European visitors to Thailand at the time tried to discern any rules in the Siamese order of succession, noting that in practice the dead king's younger brother often succeeded him, this custom appears not to have been legally enshrined anywhere.
The composition of the governmental institutions of the various provinces and territories also eased their partitioning in case of a conflict, just like the status of claims on individual parts of the country by foreign monarchs.
"[3] Usually, a designated or prospective heir to a property (typically but not always the owner's oldest son) would face off demands by uncles and brothers, aunts and sisters (often represented by their husbands) and their children to grant them a fair share in the inheritance.
[3] Moore stated: "Title to landed property would always remain a source of endless and bitter contention, governed by infinitely various and complicated combinations of differing legal traditions and local customs and conditions.
[101] The claims to legal titles from the dynastic sphere were a strong reason for war, because international relations primarily consisted of inheritance and marriage policies until the end of the Ancien Régime.
[14] Another major effect of the near-universal introduction of male primogeniture was the strengthening of patrilineality, and the structural undermining and destruction of the women's property rights, be they mothers, wives or daughters.
