Legitimacy and Succession in Iranian History

Document Type : Original Article

Author

University of Oxford

Abstract

Government in Iran was arbitrary from ancient times. The ruler and the officials appointed by him were not, each according to his station, bound by any body of established rules and traditions, except the expediencies which were necessary to maintain them in power and authority, that is, to prevent their decline and demise. Thus, in principle, rulers and officials were not answerable for their actions except to the authorities above themselves, or - in the case of the ruler himself - to God, from whom he was believed to have received his dominion over the entire society. Absence of established rules and procedures for determining legitimacy and succession, and non-existence of aristocratic and other ruling classes which acted as the state’s social base, were the chief causes of the insecurity of the position and the lives of rulers, princes of the blood, chief ministers, and other high officials, since the latter’s successful coups or rebellions would have been sufficient for the ruler to lose his power and be replaced by the leader of the coup or rebellion.

Keywords

References

  1. T. Bindoff, Tudor England, (London: Pelican, 1952); Christopher Morris, The Tudors (London: Fontana / Collins, 1966); J. P. Kenyon, The Stuarts (London: Fontana, 1966).
  2. H. A. L. Fisher, A History of Europe (London: Edward Arnold, 1936), Book II, chapters III and XIV
  3. N. Clark, The Seventeenth Century, second edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1960).
  4. C. V. Wedgwood, Richelieu and the French Monarchy (London: The English Universities Press, 1958).
  5. Maurice Ashley, Louis XIV and the Greatness of France (London: The English Universities Press, 1966).
  6. David Ogg, Louis XIV (London: Oxford University Press, 1967).
  7. Arthur Hassall, Mazarin (London: Macmillan, 1903).
  8. Alfred Coban, A History of Modern France , Vol. I, 1715-1799 (London: Penguin books, 1963).

  9. Clark, The Seventeenth Century; Herbert H. Rowen, ed., From Absolutism to Revolution, 1648-1848 (New York and London: Macmillan, 1963).

  10. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution in Europe, 1789-1848 (London: ABACUS, 1977)

  11. Melvin Kranzberg, 1848; A Turning Point? (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1959).

  12. Fisher, A History of Europe, Books II and III; Irene Collins, The Age of Progress, A Survey of European History between 1789 and 1870 (London: Edward Arnold, 1970).

  13. Maurice Ashley, Louis XIV and the Greatness of France (London 1964); David Ogg, Louis XIV;  Hassall, Mazarin (London: Macmillan, 1903); Wedgwood, Richelieu and the French Monarchy.

     Abolqasem Ferdowsi, Shahnameh, The Naficy-Berukhim edition in honor of the poet’s millennium (Tehran: Berukhim, 1934). (The recent edition by Djalal Khaleghi Motlagh, which is not yet widely available, is generally thought to be the most authoritative. But since our purpose in this study is not affected by linguistic or purely literary detail, the present edition is quite adequate). See vol. VII, pp. 1636-1637.  

    “Karnameh-ye Ardeshir-e Babakan”, in Zand-e Vohuman Yasn va Karnameh-ye Ardeshir-e Babakan, tr. Sadeq Hedayat, (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1963).

International Journal of New Political Economy
Volume 3, Issue 1
2022
Pages 1-30

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 June 2022
  • Accept Date: 03 June 2022
  • First Publish Date: 03 June 2022
  • Publish Date: 01 June 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics