{"id":76238,"date":"2025-03-25T01:00:42","date_gmt":"2025-03-25T05:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=76238"},"modified":"2025-03-25T09:12:04","modified_gmt":"2025-03-25T13:12:04","slug":"qotd-the-nature-of-kingship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2025\/03\/25\/qotd-the-nature-of-kingship\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: The nature of kingship"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>As I hammer home to my students, no one rules alone<\/em> and no ruler can hold a kingdom by force of arms alone. Kings and emperors need what Hannah Arendt terms power<\/em> \u2013 the ability to coordinate voluntary<\/em> collective action \u2013 because they cannot coerce everyone<\/em> all at once. Indeed, modern states have far, far more coercive power than pre-modern rulers had \u2013 standing police forces, modern surveillance systems, powerful administrative states \u2013 and of course even then rulers must cultivate power if only to organize the people who run those systems of coercion.<\/p>\n

How does one cultivate power?<\/strong> The key factor is legitimacy<\/em><\/strong>. To the degree that people regard someone (or some institution) as the legitimate<\/em> authority, the legitimate<\/em> ruler, they will follow their orders mostly just for the asking. After all, if a firefighter were to run into the room you are in right now and say “everybody out!” chance are you would not ask a lot of questions \u2013 you would leave the room and quickly! You’re assuming that they have expertise you don’t, a responsibility to fight fires, may know something you don’t and most importantly that their position of authority as the Person That Makes Sure Everything Doesn’t Burn Down is valid. So you comply and everyone else complies as a group which is, again, the voluntary coordination of collective action (the firefighter is not going to beat all of you if you refuse so this isn’t violence or force), which is power.<\/p>\n

At the same time, getting that compliance, for the firefighter, is going to be dependent on looking the part. A firefighter who is a fit-looking person in full firefighting gear who you’ve all seen regularly at the fire station is going to have an easier time getting you all to follow directions than a not-particularly-fit fellow who claims to be a firefighter but isn’t in uniform and you aren’t quite sure who<\/em> they are or why they’d be qualified. The trappings<\/em> contribute to legitimacy<\/em> which build power<\/em>. Likewise, if your local firefighters are all out of shape and haven’t bothered to keep their fire truck in decent shape, you \u2013 as a community \u2013 might decide they’ve lost your trust (they’ve lost legitimacy, in fact) and so you might replace them with someone else<\/em> who you think could do the job better.<\/p>\n

Royal power works in similar ways. Kings aren’t obeyed for the heck of it, but because they are viewed as legitimate and acting within that legitimate authority (which typically means they act as the chief judge, chief general and chief priest of a society; those are the three standard roles of kingship which tend to appear, in some form, in nearly all societies with the institution). The situation for monarchs<\/em> is actually more acute than for other forms of government. Democracies and tribal councils and other forms of consensual governments have vast pools of inherent legitimacy that derives from their government form \u2013 of course that can be squandered, but they start ahead on the legitimacy game. Monarchs, by contrast, have to work a lot harder to establish their legitimacy and doing so is a fairly central occupation of most monarchies, whatever their form. That means to be rule effectively and (perhaps more importantly) stay king<\/em>, rulers need to look the part, to appear<\/em> to be good monarchs, by whatever standard of “good monarch” the society has.<\/p>\n

In most societies that has traditionally meant that they need not only to carry out those core functions (chief general, chief judge, chief priest), but they need to do so in public<\/em> in a way that can be observed by their most important supporters. In the case of a vassalage-based political order, that’s going to be key vassals (some of whom may be mayors or clerics rather than fellow military aristocrats). We’ve talked about how this expresses itself in the “chief general” role already<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I’m reminded of a passage from the Kadesh Inscription<\/em>, an Egyptian inscription from around 1270 BC which I often use with students; it recounts (in a self-glorifying and propagandistic manner) the Battle of Kadesh<\/a> (1274 BC). The inscription is, of course, a piece of royal legitimacy building itself, designed to convince the reader that the Pharaoh did the “chief general” job well (he did not, in the event, but the inscription says he did<\/em>). What is relevant here is that at one point he calls his troops to him by reminding them of the good job he did in peace time as a judge and civil administrator (the “chief judge” role) (trans. from M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature<\/em>, vol 2 (1976)):<\/p>\n