the problem with elites holding the reins is that it inevitably leads to collapse. as generations go by, and elites are born into elite life, their position is taken more and more for granted. eventually their distant children have a more skewed view of the world than the lowly peasants do, and the unrest begins to fester (you are here). barring a voluntary and peaceful change in the ruling class, elites eventually get overrun and destroyed without mercy. This destruction comes either from the peasants, or neighboring societies looking to capitalize on the weakness.
It happened with Nero, it happened with Mary Antoinette, it happened with Tsar Nicholas, and it will happen here eventually. The time from inception to destruction varies greatly, but it goes without fail.
Yeah making it even mostly hereditary is a bad idea because nature doesn't hand out guarantees like that, and exceptional natural talent in particular is too fragile a balance of factors, it falls into mediocrity very easily.
The longer periods of stability seemed to come when the aristocracy had some churn, families fell from grace and titles were stripped, expansion and growth left room for new people to be promoted up, and frequent conflict tested the mettle of many and let new blood distinguish themselves and be chosen by achievement.
The greatest source of disorder I think is from the natural desire for the best for your children, so those in power do what they can to make sure their children get to be in power too, even when they're not fit for it. We could do with a mythology that idealises being a noble leader based on early life achievements, but also a society that doesn't allow those leaders to live a more luxurious lifestyle than the rest. So that when a parent recognizes their child isn't fit to follow in their footsteps there's not a conflict of interest in not having their children also lead.
the problem with elites holding the reins is that it inevitably leads to collapse. as generations go by, and elites are born into elite life, their position is taken more and more for granted. eventually their distant children have a more skewed view of the world than the lowly peasants do, and the unrest begins to fester (you are here). barring a voluntary and peaceful change in the ruling class, elites eventually get overrun and destroyed without mercy. This destruction comes either from the peasants, or neighboring societies looking to capitalize on the weakness.
It happened with Nero, it happened with Mary Antoinette, it happened with Tsar Nicholas, and it will happen here eventually. The time from inception to destruction varies greatly, but it goes without fail.
Yeah making it even mostly hereditary is a bad idea because nature doesn't hand out guarantees like that, and exceptional natural talent in particular is too fragile a balance of factors, it falls into mediocrity very easily.
The longer periods of stability seemed to come when the aristocracy had some churn, families fell from grace and titles were stripped, expansion and growth left room for new people to be promoted up, and frequent conflict tested the mettle of many and let new blood distinguish themselves and be chosen by achievement.
The greatest source of disorder I think is from the natural desire for the best for your children, so those in power do what they can to make sure their children get to be in power too, even when they're not fit for it. We could do with a mythology that idealises being a noble leader based on early life achievements, but also a society that doesn't allow those leaders to live a more luxurious lifestyle than the rest. So that when a parent recognizes their child isn't fit to follow in their footsteps there's not a conflict of interest in not having their children also lead.
still lead by an opposing faction of the elites either way
fair, but it still comes. a dissatisfied populace or weak leadership would make a country ripe for conquering.