This is mostly outside of our time frame, but I came across a curious statistical analysis of the reigns of Roman Emperors and their Western Empire successors. They excluded co-emperors and children who weren't really ruling during a regency. What they
found is that an emperor had only a 25% chance of dying of natural causes, rather than death in battle, palace coups, assassinations or suicides.

They also did an analysis of death risk over time. The highest risk, unsurprisingly, was immediately following their accession, and that risk declined precipitously over the next few years, stabilizing about four years in at a relatively low level. Then
there was a spike in death probability at about 13 years, to as high as it was within the first two years, before again dropping off to minimal. Presumably a dozen years was about how long it took for the emperor to get complacent, for his base of
support to drop off, for him to accumulate enough new enemies, and for the next set of rivals to conclude the time was ripe for taking a go at him rather than just waiting for him to die or risk having someone else take him out and losing their chance.

For what its worth, when they added in the Eastern Roman Emperors, the ratio of natural deaths rises, so they met fewer violent ends, on average, than in the west. Some other findings: there was no difference in the death statistics when comparing
Italian to non-Italian-born emperors, but there was a difference between those who inherited the throne as opposed to those who seized it, with the former having longer average spans. In light of this, it is also unsurprising that average time to death
was less in the later centuries than in the first century of the empire (when succession was more orderly).

While most royalty during the medieval period would presumably not follow this pattern because of the hereditary nature of most crowns, I have to wonder if an analogous pattern of post-succession death might be observed with those kingdoms not practicing
male-preference primogeniture, though I am not sure we have enough information on any of them for a statistically-valid evaluation.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210850

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17-Oct-21 9:25 AM, taf wrote:

This is mostly outside of our time frame, but I came across a curious statistical analysis of the reigns of Roman Emperors and their Western Empire successors. They excluded co-emperors and children who weren't really ruling during a regency. What

they found is that an emperor had only a 25% chance of dying of natural causes, rather than death in battle, palace coups, assassinations or suicides.

They also did an analysis of death risk over time. The highest risk, unsurprisingly, was immediately following their accession, and that risk declined precipitously over the next few years, stabilizing about four years in at a relatively low level.

Then there was a spike in death probability at about 13 years, to as high as it was within the first two years, before again dropping off to minimal. Presumably a dozen years was about how long it took for the emperor to get complacent, for his base of
support to drop off, for him to accumulate enough new enemies, and for the next set of rivals to conclude the time was ripe for taking a go at him rather than just waiting for him to die or risk having someone else take him out and losing their chance.

For what its worth, when they added in the Eastern Roman Emperors, the ratio of natural deaths rises, so they met fewer violent ends, on average, than in the west. Some other findings: there was no difference in the death statistics when comparing

Italian to non-Italian-born emperors, but there was a difference between those who inherited the throne as opposed to those who seized it, with the former having longer average spans. In light of this, it is also unsurprising that average time to death
was less in the later centuries than in the first century of the empire (when succession was more orderly).

While most royalty during the medieval period would presumably not follow this pattern because of the hereditary nature of most crowns, I have to wonder if an analogous pattern of post-succession death might be observed with those kingdoms not

practicing male-preference primogeniture, though I am not sure we have enough information on any of them for a statistically-valid evaluation.

I'm not sure that there were enough Roman emperors to draw valid
conclusions beyond political exigencies and chances. What statistical
value can be placed on delay if an eventual successor-assassin had
plotted the deed for a decade or so before getting an ideal opportunity?
Or on the circumstances where an emperor had eliminated potential rivals
in advance of his own succession, if not between 4 and 13 years in the
purple?

Peter Stewart

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 23:25:27 UTC+1, taf wrote:

This is mostly outside of our time frame, but I came across a curious statistical analysis of the reigns of Roman Emperors and their Western Empire successors. They excluded co-emperors and children who weren't really ruling during a regency. What they

found is that an emperor had only a 25% chance of dying of natural causes, rather than death in battle, palace coups, assassinations or suicides.

<snip>

I am currently reading 'Praetorian' by Guy de la Bedoyere, a history of the term 'praetorian' and of the 'Praetorian Guard'. One aspect of this is the guard's relationship with the emperor, and their mutual dependence. This throws some light on the sort
of things you mention.

Chris

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)