Which kingdom or empire had the highest rate of regicide?

[Roma_Victrix]

Frequent regicide in pre-modern kingdoms and empires is usually a good marker for revealing the political instability of said kingdom or empire, where succession crises following a ruler's death occur far too often along with assassinations by malcontents. There are many kingdoms and empires that experienced a shockingly numerous amount of such coups ending in execution or just plain old assassination. Which pre-modern state takes the cake, so to speak, in that category? We can also include kings and emperors who were killed in battle or captured by their foreign enemies and executed afterwards.

In the modern Anglophone world, the examples of the English kings Edmund I, Harold Godwinson, William I, Richard I, Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, Richard III, and Charles I and their regicides (i.e. not a natural death) are well known to historians and history buffs. However, this rate seems slightly paltry compared to that of some other countries in the past, even if we were to include George V (died from medicated drug overdose). The vast majority of English monarchs (and then British monarchs following the 1707 Act of Union) obviously died by natural causes.

I'd say prime candidates for consideration, with rates perhaps approaching nearly half of those who claimed the throne over any given span of time, would be the following:

* Hittite Empire - a goodly amount of assassinations
* the Seleucid Empire - plenty were killed either in battle or by other means
* Jin dynasty (265-420 AD) of Imperial China and the later Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (907 - 960 AD)
* the Roman Empire - too many assassinations to count! Byzantines included. And that's before deaths in battle are to be considered.
* ancient and medieval Persia, plenty of murder and intrigue
* Grand Duchy of Moscow and then Russia, very bloody

Overall I'd say the Roman Empire wins this infamous award, but that's just a guess. I haven't bothered making a table and doing this mathematically. I was tempted to add ancient Egypt to this list, but considering how its history is so much longer, the rate of known assassinated and executed pharaohs is comparatively smaller. Certainly the percentage of pharaohs who didn't die from natural causes is somewhere below 10%. The Kingdom of Denmark also had several of its kings assassinated, but nowhere near a rate that would justify adding it to this list. Likewise, the Kingdom of France had some very shocking assassinations (Henry III and Henry IV) and of course the execution of Louis XVI of France during the French Revolution (followed by the death of his ten-year-old son Louis XVII), but that doesn't warrant adding France to the list.

[Sir Adrian]

I think Rome and China take the cake. Rome had like 40 emperors over a 80 year period.

[Condottiere 40K]

Generally speaking, head of stateship includes executive power, and succession tends to nine tenths possession.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Extend this to 476: Honorius: Natural Causes (Edema), Constantius III: Unknown, Valentinian III: Executed, Petronius Maximus: Executed, Avitus: Executed, Majorian: Executed, Libius Severus: Natural Causes, Anthemius: Executed, Olybrius: Natural Causes, Glycerius: Natural Causes, Julius Nepos: Assassinated, Romulus Augustulus: Unknown.

[Roma_Victrix]

Even after one excludes suicide from the category of regicide, it becomes pretty clear that Rome is the winner here for violent and treacherous deaths of its emperors!

I can't find a similar graph, but I'll back Sir Adrian on the idea of Imperial China rivaling Rome in this department, but not for every Chinese dynasty. It seems like every other ruler of the Jin dynasty (the first one, from 265-420 AD) and the fragmented political era of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms was murdered, forced to commit suicide, or died in battle.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I added the last 81 Years of the Empire as well to it, adding 4 more natural deaths, 5 executions, 1 assassination, and 2 unknowns.

[Roma_Victrix]

I added the last 81 Years of the Empire as well to it, adding 4 more natural deaths, 5 executions, 1 assassination, and 2 unknowns.

And that's not even including the continuing Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire), which saw the assassinations of Alexios II Komnenos, Alexios IV Angelos, Constans II, Leo V the Armenian, Michael III, and Nikephoros II Phokas. Alexios V Doukas was executed in 1205 by the Latins of the Fourth Crusade. And of course the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos died fighting in the 1453 siege of Constantinople. With that in mind, I think Rome outdoes Imperial China in the department of regicide.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Rome was the longest lasting continuous state on the planet, if you begin it at 509 BC it matches Japan, while if you begin it at 753 BC it outdoes everyone else by about 300 years or more. It's bound to be pretty high on the list.

[Roma_Victrix]

Rome was the longest lasting continuous state on the planet, if you begin it at 509 BC it matches Japan, while if you begin it at 753 BC it outdoes everyone else by about 300 years or more. It's bound to be pretty high on the list.

Hold that thought, because I think there's an era of Chinese history I haven't listed that really trumps both the Jin dynasty and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms in the matter of regicide, and perhaps even the rate for that of the Roman emperors. Using the additional regicides up to 476 as you mention, that's altogether 49 Roman emperors who did not die by natural causes or suicide. I'm assuming this doesn't count forced suicide, because Nero, despite having his private secretary Epaphroditos kill him, did so because he was about to be captured and executed anyway. The figure of 49 regicides of Roman emperors from 14 - 476 AD is pretty astounding, especially when considering that in all of Imperial Chinese history (221 BC - 1912 AD), 105 Chinese emperors were killed by regicide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...inese_emperors

However, this list is incomplete, as it is only "murdered" emperors (i.e. executed or assassinated), and not those who died in battle, like Emperor Bing of Song who drowned at the Battle of Yamen in 1279 AD against the Mongol Yuan Dynasty ( the last Jin ruler of the Jurchen state, Emperor Mo of Jin, was also earlier killed in battle by the Mongols in 1234 AD). That also includes two Former Qin (351 - 394 AD) emperors who died in battle. The list also doesn't include the last ruler of the Ming dynasty, the Chongzhen Emperor, who hung himself from a tree in 1644 AD when Beijing was about to fall to rebel forces under Li Zicheng. It also doesn't include emperors like Li Qi of Cheng Han, who committed suicide in 338 AD after being demoted from emperor to Duke of Qiongdu. The second-to-last Jin emperor Aizong, seeing how the fight against the Mongols was futile, also committed suicide in 1234 before his successor was killed. Rulers during the Sixteen Kingdoms period who called themselves "kings" and not "emperors" were also not included in this list of 105 Chinese regicides at all!

Also, a clear majority of these overall regicides of Chinese emperors belong to the bloody and politically fragmented period of the Sixteen Kingdoms (304 - 439 AD) and the Northern and Southern dynasties (420 - 589 AD). This period witnessed a macabre succession of emperors being deposed, demoted to a lesser title, and then poisoned or strangled. For the Northern Wei dynasty this was basically the routine, par for the course. The rate of death in this period for monarchs easily rivals the Roman emperors and their regicides. In comparison, very few emperors of the earlier Han dynasty were killed, and the same could be said for the combined Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. The period between the Han and Sui dynasties can thus be judged truly chaotic and unstable, politically speaking.

[Abdülmecid I]

I'd vote for the Seleucids. From the 29 kings, only Antiochus I died from natural causes, while he was a king (perhaps, Antiochus IV also died from natural causes, but some say he was killed, just like Antiochus III in a failed attack in Susiana). Demetrius III nad Philip I probably weren't killed violently, but they were already dethroned.

[Rinan]

There's a difference between regicide and death on the battlefield though, I think you should make a clear distinction there. Then there's also the distinction in regicide by the people (Charles II of England, Louis XVII, Tsar Nicholas II) or by a pretender to the throne. The second usually signifies faults in the process of succession (as we discussed in the other thread ) the first shows general unrest in the country at large.

Also, for the medieval Romans i.e. Byzzies: weren't a lot of emperors ousted by coups, then blinded / sent into monasteries instead of assassination?
As for Russia: From the top of my head I can't think of a lot of examples, outside of the Time of Troubles (which was a mess anyway) and Tsar Alexander II and Tsar Nicholas II (which both got killed 'by the people', so to speak). We do have some royal heirs getting killed though. Daddy had a temper. :')

[Roma_Victrix]

I'd vote for the Seleucids. From the 29 kings, only Antiochus I died from natural causes, while he was a king (perhaps, Antiochus IV also died from natural causes, but some say he was killed, just like Antiochus III in a failed attack in Susiana). Demetrius III nad Philip I probably weren't killed violently, but they were already dethroned.

Do you think it matters how much time exists after the deposition and dethronement when the monarchs are executed or assassinated, usually by their successors who considered them a viable continuing threat? I ask that because most of the Chinese emperors who were executed or assassinated were usually customarily bumped down to being a prince, marquess, or a duke before their successor or regent had them poisoned or strangled (and usually done while they were under house arrest). This was often done just weeks after their deposition, while later historians would typically still record their title as being that of an emperor alongside the other noble titles bestowed on them as compensation for their deposition.

In any case, while 10 out of 19 Northern Wei emperors of China were killed by regicide (11 out of 20 if you count Yuan Hao, the pretender to the throne), even this rate of more than half doesn't trump the Seleucids. However, far more Seleucid kings died in battle than were executed and assassinated. I suppose a distinction should be made there, as Rinan points out.

I think we're ignoring other countries with long traditions of monarchy that could potentially rival these stats for Imperial China, the Seleucid Empire, and Roman Empire. Take India, for example, which had numerous kingdoms and at times empires that covered most of the subcontinent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_monarchs

Kudos to anyone who has the time to investigate every single one of these monarchs, but unfortunately many of them don't have a Wikipedia article yet. Also, I know very little about the fates of monarchs for the various kingdoms of Southeast Asia throughout antiquity and the medieval period. The same can be said for the Aztecs and Mayans, although I don't think they were as rigorous and meticulous in their record-keeping as the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese. Those were basically the only cultures in antiquity that had written full narrative histories, not simple chronicles, annals, and king lists like ancient Egypt had, for instance. It was only in the medieval period that you see works of history by professional historians being produced in other countries by other cultures, such as in Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Persia, and the Islamic world. Thus, it makes it harder to know exact details in other places. For instance, aside from their artwork and stone inscriptions showcasing the deeds of their kings, almost everything we know about the Khmer Empire of Cambodia is through contemporary Chinese writers, like the Yuan-dynasty diplomat Zhou Daguan who visited and stayed at Angkor Wat and other places in Cambodia from 1296 to 1297 AD. For that matter, it should be recalled that the chronicle was the chief method of recording historical events in medieval Europe, whereas full narrative histories didn't make a comeback until the likes of Voltaire and David Hume in the 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment. Still, even with medieval European chronicles we have far more information and data to work with than can be said for places like Southeast Asia or Central America (Mayans, Aztecs, etc.).

For that reason, our viewpoints here will be hopelessly skewed towards civilizations which were better at record-keeping, but just keep that in mind if you're trying to look at other kingdoms outside of the Western world, Islamic world, or East Asia.

EDIT: Small note, it appears that before the Muslim historians of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526) and Mughal Empire (1526–1857) of northern India, there was ONE narrative history written by non-Muslim Indians (i.e. Hindus) in Sanskrit. That would be the Rājatarangiṇī started by Kalhana in the 12th century and continued into the 15th century by Jonaraja. However, this focused exclusively on the history of Kashmir in northern India. It also included metric verses, so it was a bit different from your standard Greco-Roman or Chinese history.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Well, the way statistics work, the highest rate would be some empire that lasted only a couple of years with but a single ruler that got shanked for a 100% assassination rate. We should probably add a "lasted at least 100 years as a continues state" or some similar rule to the list.

I also wouldn't toss death in battle, accidents and suicide in the same category as murder or a coup. They're very different causes of death.

But all that aside, and assuming we're not trying to play the numbers, my guess (without starting a proper count) would be Imperial Rome and Byzantium which ran on the same type of regime. Of course, if we add the Roman Republic to the calculation, Rome's regicide rate goes way down...

[PikeStance]

I think the best way to look at this to look at the percentage of rulers rather than absolute value.

[Roma_Victrix]

I think the best way to look at this to look at the percentage of rulers rather than absolute value.

Well, the way statistics work, the highest rate would be some empire that lasted only a couple of years with but a single ruler that got shanked for a 100% assassination rate. We should probably add a "lasted at least 100 years as a continues state" or some similar rule to the list.

Precisely, since some kingdoms and empires lasted longer than others, but some were so short-lived or only had one ruler who might have been assassinated that it would be absurd to list it as the winner in this category. I think a century-long regime or dynastic era is reasonable as a minimum cut-off limit.

[Cyrene]

hmm unfortunately i don't really know much about Indian History, so i can't contribute in that field, if we're talking about Regicide though, the Rashidun Caliphate which was ruled by Muhammad's Companions after his death, had more Caliphs Assassinated than it's successor Umayyad Caliphate which ruled for more than twice as long as the first.

Abu Bakr - Died Peacefully

Umar - Assassinated

Uthman - Assassinated

Ali - Assassinated

Hasan - Assassinated

Husayn - Killed in Battle

so out of 6 rulers 5 were either Assassinated or died in Battle, which would make the Regicide Rate 83% , though it didn't really last for long.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Hmmm I think Cyrene might be right.
Another good contender might be the Hittites, who had a great deal of their kings killed by plots of the Royal Family or army officers.

Not sure about India to be honest. The last ruler of every major dynasty in India usually ended up getting killed by a usurper. But India has had so many kingdoms that it is hard to figure out. For instance Porus was said to have been killed by one of the Diadochi (a minor general who wanted to start his base in the area). All sorts of kings were killed in battle by some other kingdom so if there was conquest then chances are the conquered were put to the sword. So a great deal of those defeated by the Mughals were executed if they were not pardoned and made into vassals. For instance Hemu Vikramaditya was defeated by Akbar in battle and he was captured, so Akbar ordered Bairam Khan to chop off his head. And it usually tends to be that sort of thing war after war.

As far as I understand it most of Indian history comes from reliefs inscribed by kings and also some epics and poems made by unknown or semi-legendary story tellers. Later on by around the 800s some actual poets and story tellers come to light and after that it tends to be more actual history. Some of the more famous historians from India that I know about tend to be Muslim. Other sources from the Medieval period or the Mughal Empire were also inscriptions or these historians and poets that were hired by the king or a noble to write the story of his patron or a famous ancestor of the patron. Not too keen on the details though.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

As far as I understand it most of Indian history comes from reliefs inscribed by kings and also some epics and poems made by unknown or semi-legendary story tellers. Later on by around the 800s some actual poets and story tellers come to light and after that it tends to be more actual history. Some of the more famous historians from India that I know about tend to be Muslim. Other sources from the Medieval period or the Mughal Empire were also inscriptions or these historians and poets that were hired by the king or a noble to write the story of his patron or a famous ancestor of the patron. Not too keen on the details though.

The Artha-Shastra gives light on the civil history of Mauryan India, but relatively, compared to other nations, India never was a militarized nation like Rome, the reason is simple, the sheer abundance of resources, If there is no resource scramble then there is no reason to go to war. In cases of unrest, usually simple protests or worker strike would occur, but often, regicide was not needed and like a parliament a village council would change, I shall elaborate soon.

In extreme cases extra-constitutional remedies like the rebellion or regicide were suggested ; but they were usually impracticable. Villages and councils often had complete control and freedom to manage there affairs, In a sense, every town was semi-autonomous, but they were often more than happy to be united by an empire. The extreme cases would constitute when a king abandoned the council affairs managing based on jatidharma (Caste Principles) srenidharma (Guild Principles) and janapadadharma (foothold of local principles/customs) and seize absolute tyrannical authority, where sovereignty solely vested on the kings wish, in such cases, rebellion or regicide was applicable.

An example of this would be the Mauryan Empire, with direct control of the state vested in the Emperor, unrest grew with the followers of Brahmanism with the ascent of Ashoka's principles of Buddhism but stability persisted due to military presence, as the Empire de-generated with the incursions of the fierce Saka tribes, Indo-greeks and many others, a supreme military commander named Pushyamitra Sunga who was a Sena-Pathi (Supreme Commander) took the opportunity to seize power and assassinated the last Mauryan King during an army demonstration, following this the empire disintegrated into the Satavathana dynasty, the Sunga dynasty and a couple of others.

So the line of succession

Chandragupta Maurya - Died Peacefully
Bindusara Maurya - Died Peacefully
Susima Maurya - Died in battle as well as 99 other heirs killed by Ashoka (In battle)
Ashoka Maurya - Died Peacefully
Dasharatha Maurya - Died Peacefully (Empire was on slow decline now with Imperium breaking away)
Samprati Maurya (LOL! This name means "Just now") - Died Peacefully
Salisuka Maurya - Died Peacefully
Devarman Maurya - Died Peacefully
Satadhanvan Maurya - Died Peacefully (Invasions by Sakas and Indo-greeks)
Brihadratha Maurya - Assassinated by Sena pathi, like a boss. (End of Mauryan Empire)

Regicide rate for Mauryan Empire was 10% so not that high...

This is one example of regicide, although the rate of regicide in India was quite low as Dominvs Oda Nobvnaga said.

[Mausolos of Caria]

Just on a side note- the last place certainly goes to the Attalid Kingdom of Pergamon, where all of the rulers died peacefully or of diseases In stark difference to the rest of the Hellenistic world in the East, the Attalids kept closely together and seems to never have even thought of treachery or assassination- fittingly Attalos II earned the cognomen Philadelphos (brother-loving) because of his loyalty and support towards his brother Eumenes, who ruled before him.

[Roma_Victrix]

@Cyrene: thanks for sharing that. I'm not too well versed into the fates of various sultans and caliphs in the Islamic world, although the most obvious case of regicide that springs to mind is the last Abbasid caliph who was executed by the Mongols after they sacked Baghdad in 1258 AD. The other one I can think of is Imad ad-Din Zengi (died 1146), a predecessor to Nur ad-Din and Saladin who was assassinated. If someone could bother compiling a list of all the executed and assassinated sultans for say, the Seljuks, or other Islamic states, I would be fascinated to see the rate of regicide. From what I can remember the Ottomans had a very small rate or regicide.

@Lord Oda Nobunaga and Samraat Mahendra Maurya: thanks for the additional info about India! It may very well be the case that their rate of regicide was rather low for the reasons you indicated, Samraat.

@Mausolos: lol, thanks for that. It's something to consider and quite an achievement that a kingdom can exist for so long without any of its heads of state being offed and assassinated.