Most Epic Succession War in History?

[Cikomyr]

I was wondering, what do you think was the most epic succession war know to history?

"Epic" can also qualify as horrible. I just want to know the uberest scale.

Personally thinking of the Spanish Succession Crisis, or perhaps the 3 Kingdom era following the collapse of the Han dynasty.

[Closet_Skeleton]

3 Kingdoms period isn't a succession war. It wasn't even really a civil war, it was just an interval in there being one big state. The civil wars that led to new dynasties weren't really succession crisises either. Succession wars didn't really happen much outside of Europe since dynastic states vanished when the dynasty died out so their replacements were successor states but the rulers didn't succeed their predecessors, Asian ones tended to be brother vs brother like the Mughal and Ottoman civil wars.

100 Years War sort of was though, so I'd probably say that one even though for most of it the succession thing was a pretence. The Norwegian Civil War era also lasted over a 100 years and went through 24 Kings and Pretenders. For a shorter but possibly more horrible one there's the Moscow Time of Troubles. Some might argue the Roman Crisis of the Third Century but really you could argue that the Roman Empire itself is one long succession crisis, there never being any real laws about how the succession worked and constant problems.

The Glorious Revolution is probably the least epic, but it led into the often ignored actually violent Williamite wars in Scotland and Ireland so its usually under-rated.

Which Spanish succession crisis? There were quite a few. The War of the Spanish Succession and the Carlist Wars being the actually seriously violent ones.

[Grif]

Which Spanish succession crisis? There were quite a few. The War of the Spanish Succession and the Carlist Wars being the actually seriously violent ones.

I believe he meant the War of the Spanish Succession. Which yes, qualifies as one huge succession crisis that dragged every major player in continental Europe into it.

[snowblizz]

I guess this depends on how we define "succession war". Few of the really big conflicts that came out of issues of succession was only limited to that question alone.

I think the most epic one for me would be the War of Spanish Succession. The most global succession war and one which strongly shaped our present. Although historically speaking it doesn't interest me as much. Horse & musket isn't my thing.

The Wars of the Diadochi (ie those fighting for the Empire of Alexander the Great) I'd also rate fairly high.

If we accept a somewhat broader definition allowing for something like the 3 Kingdoms Period I'd also rate that for it's mythical impact. I'd probably also include Japan's Sengoku Jidai though again it depends on definition, but it was essentially a struggle to gain ultimate authority even though in this case there was even an supposed authority existing. If nothing else again it's ability to capture our imagination. 150 years and 3 larger than life personalities before the succession was sorted out. And the last guy even managed to make a credible claim in a succession kind of way.

That said, the most epic one for my because it tickles my fancy of period is probably the 30 Years War. Which of course started out as a war about who was going to be king of Bohemia. Who'd thunk hippies could cause that much trouble.:smalltongue::smallbiggrin::smalltongue::s mallbiggrin::smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[Dienekes]

Probably not the most epic. But the wars and plotting after the death of Alexander the Great were pretty crazy. (edit: I see Snowblizz ninja'd this one, good historic taste)

The Romans pretty much continuously had a succession problem with wars breaking out after emperors died. The entire Crisis of the 3rd Century can be seen as a succession crisis that almost destroyed the empire completely, where basically every general with a sizable army under them declared themselves emperor and just plotted out their own territory and then fought the others. Most were assassinated, died in battle against each other or the barbarians that saw this as an opportunity to carve up their own territory (or a continuation of that opportunity, they were encroaching before this started). That might be my vote for most epic.

[Aedilred]

It depends what you mean by all your terms, to an extent. The succession war to Edward the Confessor was over relatively quickly in just three major battles all in the space of a few weeks but had a massive impact on the future interrelationship between England, Scandinavia and France. Conversely, the Anarchy (i.e. the succession war to Henry I) was just about the nastiest civil war England has undergone but probably had relatively little long-term impact. However the most epic in English history are undoubtedly the Wars of the Roses, especially if characterised as a succession war to Richard II in which case they lasted 87 years with periods of peace. (By the same measure, admittedly, the Hundred Years War can be characterised as a succession war to Charles IV, and neither interpretation is entirely accurate).

By the standards of the rest of the world, though, that's pretty small beer. The war of the Austrian Succession is a candidate for first "world war", with fighting on three continents, although the scale of the war of the Spanish Succession was probably bigger in Europe. The Thirty Years War, possibly the worst war in relative terms that Europe has seen, certainly until the twentieth century, was sparked by a dispute over the Bohemian succession.

As mentioned there were some big ones in the ancient world. In terms of epic in the traditional sense, though, there is probably only one serious European contender, which is the war over the "succession" to Julius Caesar in Rome, between Octavian, Antony and the tyrannicides (and later between Octavian and Antony), which has inspired literature and cinema worthy of being called epic on their own.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Definitions:

Not a succession war: No legitimacy disputes and no change of rulers, but it is a war.
Examples: WW2,

True Succession War: There is a legitimacy dispute over who gets to be the heir. At least two figures claim the throne and fight it out. One of them wins.
Examples: 1066 Crisis, Wars of the Roses, War of the Spanish Succession

Complicated Succession War: Other stuff is involved, but the above all happens. Can be a mix of invasion and rebellion.
Examples: War of the Austrian Succession, Hundred Years War.

Succession war via invasion: A pretender from outside the country lays claim to the throne. The only succession war that isn't a subtype of Civil War.
Examples: 1066, Battle of Bosworth, Italian Wars

Succession war via rebellion: A pretender from inside the country leads a rebellion. The type of succession war that is most a subtype of Civil War.
Examples: Jabocite uprising, Wars of the Roses.

Civil War: A long period of rebellion with various factions struggling for power. Can overlap with a succession war but doesn't have to.

Rebellion ending in deposition: There's not necessarily a legitimacy dispute, but the ruler is replaced at the end.
Examples: Henry Bolingbroke's rebellion (at least according to Shakespeare), Great Sepoy Revolt.

Invasion ending in dynasty change: No legitimacy dispute, one ruler replaces another purely through Right of Conquest but claims the former ruler's title rather than merely annexing their territory. Not a succession war effectively similar to one.
Examples: Charlamagne's invasion of Lombardy, Alexander I's establishment of Congress Poland

Invasion installs puppet: When the ruler changes but the leader of the conquering army doesn't take that role for himself.
Examples: 4th Crusade, Russian Time of Troubles

Invasion supported by rebellion: When things get blurry between an invasion and a rebellion. Often part of a complicated succession war but not necessarily a succession war.
Examples: Qing conquest of China, Williamite wars, King John vs Prince Louis of France

Legacy Succession War: A war that isn't really a dynastic succession war but is fighting over who gets to be the heir to a legacy.
Examples: Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Charlamagne becomes Holy Roman Emperor

Wars can contain other wars. The 30 years war was not a succession war, it contained many but that doesn't overwhelm the whole.

The reign of the Winter King is one of the shortest and least epic episodes in the 30 years war. It happened to start it, but it was caused by the Habsburg King of Bohemia's religious disputes and religion remained the key issue.

The Hundred Years War also included multiple wars of which not all were about succession, but the character of the Hundred Years war as a whole is about the inheritance of the extinct House of Capet.

The War of the Austrian Succession was really just named after the War of the Spanish Succession. It was more about French and Prussian opportunism than who actually got to succeed to Austria. Crappy sequels don't get to be "the most epic".

When the winning Emperor got to spend the rest of his life with an empty pointless title and it just went straight back to the old dynasty after his death that kind of puts a dampener on things.


However the most epic in English history are undoubtedly the Wars of the Roses, especially if characterised as a succession war to Richard II in which case they lasted 87 years with periods of peace.

Wars of the Roses is not epic. Compared to the shorter Anarchy it was a joke. Compared to the Scottish Wars of independence (also a succession war) its not all that interesting.

There was more violence in one campaign of the Hundred Years War than in the whole of the Wars of the Roses. Most medieval wars had sieges longer than the actually violent parts of the Lancaster/York conflict.


I'd probably also include Japan's Sengoku Jidai though again it depends on definition, but it was essentially a struggle to gain ultimate authority even though in this case there was even an supposed authority existing.

I can't really say its wrong to include it as a succession war, but its less clear cut than 1066. Most of it is just local power struggles.

It was sparked by a succession crises, but mostly they were fighting over who got to be regent to a regent, that's a whole two steps down fighting over who gets to be King.

[Aedilred]

Wars of the Roses is not epic. Compared to the shorter Anarchy it was a joke. Compared to the Scottish Wars of independence (also a succession war) its not all that interesting.

There was more violence in one campaign of the Hundred Years War than in the whole of the Wars of the Roses. Most medieval wars had sieges longer than the actually violent parts of the Lancaster/York conflict.

This must be why Shakespeare wrote several plays about each of the Anarchy and the Scottish wars of independence and none about the Wars of the Roses. And nobody's ever based an epic fantasy series around the events of the WotR either. No modern sporting fixtures named after it or anything. Biggest battle on English soil? Must have been some other war.

It's almost like "epic" is a sufficiently vague term that there might be a difference of personal opinion on the subject. But that's just crazy.

[Cikomyr]

Definitions:

Not a succession war: No legitimacy disputes and no change of rulers, but it is a war.
Examples: WW2,

True Succession War: There is a legitimacy dispute over who gets to be the heir. At least two figures claim the throne and fight it out. One of them wins.
Examples: 1066 Crisis, Wars of the Roses, War of the Spanish Succession

Complicated Succession War: Other stuff is involved, but the above all happens. Can be a mix of invasion and rebellion.
Examples: War of the Austrian Succession, Hundred Years War.

Succession war via invasion: A pretender from outside the country lays claim to the throne. The only succession war that isn't a subtype of Civil War.
Examples: 1066, Battle of Bosworth, Italian Wars

Succession war via rebellion: A pretender from inside the country leads a rebellion. The type of succession war that is most a subtype of Civil War.
Examples: Jabocite uprising, Wars of the Roses.

Civil War: A long period of rebellion with various factions struggling for power. Can overlap with a succession war but doesn't have to.

Rebellion ending in deposition: There's not necessarily a legitimacy dispute, but the ruler is replaced at the end.
Examples: Henry Bolingbroke's rebellion (at least according to Shakespeare), Great Sepoy Revolt.

Invasion ending in dynasty change: No legitimacy dispute, one ruler replaces another purely through Right of Conquest but claims the former ruler's title rather than merely annexing their territory. Not a succession war effectively similar to one.
Examples: Charlamagne's invasion of Lombardy, Alexander I's establishment of Congress Poland

Invasion installs puppet: When the ruler changes but the leader of the conquering army doesn't take that role for himself.
Examples: 4th Crusade, Russian Time of Troubles

Invasion supported by rebellion: When things get blurry between an invasion and a rebellion. Often part of a complicated succession war but not necessarily a succession war.
Examples: Qing conquest of China, Williamite wars, King John vs Prince Louis of France

Legacy Succession War: A war that isn't really a dynastic succession war but is fighting over who gets to be the heir to a legacy.
Examples: Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Charlamagne becomes Holy Roman Emperor

Wars can contain other wars. The 30 years war was not a succession war, it contained many but that doesn't overwhelm the whole.

The reign of the Winter King is one of the shortest and least epic episodes in the 30 years war. It happened to start it, but it was caused by the Habsburg King of Bohemia's religious disputes and religion remained the key issue.

The Hundred Years War also included multiple wars of which not all were about succession, but the character of the Hundred Years war as a whole is about the inheritance of the extinct House of Capet.

The War of the Austrian Succession was really just named after the War of the Spanish Succession. It was more about French and Prussian opportunism than who actually got to succeed to Austria. Crappy sequels don't get to be "the most epic".

When the winning Emperor got to spend the rest of his life with an empty pointless title and it just went straight back to the old dynasty after his death that kind of puts a dampener on things.



Wars of the Roses is not epic. Compared to the shorter Anarchy it was a joke. Compared to the Scottish Wars of independence (also a succession war) its not all that interesting.

There was more violence in one campaign of the Hundred Years War than in the whole of the Wars of the Roses. Most medieval wars had sieges longer than the actually violent parts of the Lancaster/York conflict.



I can't really say its wrong to include it as a succession war, but its less clear cut than 1066. Most of it is just local power struggles.

It was sparked by a succession crises, but mostly they were fighting over who got to be regent to a regent, that's a whole two steps down fighting over who gets to be King.

Fighting over who gets to be the boss is fine to me. Regardless if its titular or genuine.

I liked Caesar's succession mentioned earlier. Ultimately, his death caused a massive void in the Republic, and his followers/killers tried to fill it in one epic Battle Royale that ended with a single guy on top.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'll vote for the Wars of the Roses. Even though it was attached much later, that name clearly makes them the most epic. :smallwink:

[Closet_Skeleton]

This must be why Shakespeare wrote several plays about each of the Anarchy and the Scottish wars of independence and none about the Wars of the Roses. And nobody's ever based an epic fantasy series around the events of the WotR either. No modern sporting fixtures named after it or anything. Biggest battle on English soil? Must have been some other war.

Way more people have heard of William Wallace than of the Earl of Warwick.

Shakespeare wrote plays about the Wars of the Roses because the Tudors were still in power. He didn't have free reign to choose his historical topics and when he did, he picked Julius Caesar instead.

He also wrote just as many plays about the Hundred Years War, so if you're going by Shakespeare as your criteria the Wars of the Roses still loses.

The general assessment of historians has been that even with the Wars of the Roses going on England was one of the most peaceful countries in Europe in this period. There are revisionist disputes to that but the 20th century assessment typified by the incredibly influential Kenneth Bruce McFarlane is that the wars were massively exaggerated by the Tudors.

The prevailance of big pitched battles may have made it more dramatic but they also made it a relatively low key civil war compared to those raging on the continent which destroyed much larger amounts of infrastructure and more heavily impacted on the lives of the average person.

Biggest battle on English soil doesn't mean anything if you're looking at a global perspective. Though I'm not an expert on this period so don't know which battle that would be.

The King in the North part of ASoIaF actually far more resembles the Scottish Wars of Independence than anything in the Wars of the Roses, so that doesn't work as an argument at all. ASoIaF condenses the violence a lot, so don't assume that the fictional version really says anything about how dramatic the historical one is. Fiction in general tends to draw from several real world conflicts at once and ASoIaF is no exception.


It's almost like "epic" is a sufficiently vague term that there might be a difference of personal opinion on the subject. But that's just crazy.

I'm just assuming it means "big and dramatic" in this case.

[Dienekes]

If we're going by death count and territory, then I'm definitely giving it to the Crisis of the Third Century, at least on the European front. Chinese wars tended to have a higher death rate, in general. But come on, nearly toppling the (debatably) greatest empire of its time, theoretically lowering the average life expectancy by as much as 7 years. It was fought over most of Europe, and parts of Asia and Africa. With 22 official emperors and possibly a hundred unofficial ones all making the claim for the title.

[Olinser]

I don't recall the specific names off a lot of the fighting off the top of my head, but there were MANY succession wars in Japan throughout it's history, and they tended to be very brutal and bloody.

The Genpei War may not have been the bloodiest, but the war directly resulted in the entire political power structure of the country being turned upside down, effectively making future Emperors a puppet to the Shogun. It was also interesting for the fact that a natural disaster in the form of famine actually put a stop to the fighting for a short period of time (an estimated 100,000 people died of famine, given that this was the late 1100s, that is an unbelievable death toll).