A princely rebellion or princely revolt is an intrastatearmed conflict by a prince (or princess) against a reigning monarch of his (or her) own family, the ruling dynasty. A prince may rebel against a well-established monarch (usually his father, brother, or uncle, or sometimes mother) in order to seize the throne for himself immediately (either because he is impatient to wait for the current monarch to die or abdicate, or wants to prevent potential rivals from acceding first), to ensure his supposed right to sit on the throne in the future, or to secure other rights, privileges or interests such as appanages, alliances or sources of revenue that the monarch allegedly encroached upon, or failed to deliver or guarantee.[1]
Like wars of succession, princely rebellions were a common type of war in human history, but have seldom occurred after 1900 due to the disappearance of absolute monarchies.[2][3]
Princely rebellions or revolts may also be described with ambiguous terms such as 'dynastic struggles/conflicts' or 'succession struggles/conflicts/disputes', but they aren't always synonymous. Although these terms are sometimes used interchangeably with wars of succession, princely rebellions are not (necessarily) caused by succession crises, but directed against well-established monarchs which are commonly recognised as legitimate.[note 1] Scholars sometimes disagree which term fits a certain conflict best, for example the 1657–1661 Mughal dynastic conflict, which consisted of several subconflicts, phases, and factions.[note 2] Both types of conflict could have the same causes, however, such as the creation of collateral dynastic branches, which stimulated wars of succession upon a monarch's death, as well as princely revolts by cadets and cousins while they were still alive.[4]
1817, 1826, and July 1832–1835: Mehmed Karamanli's rebellions against the bey Yusuf Karamanli of Tripoli. Yusuf abdicated in favour of his son Ali II Karamanli in August 1832. This transfer of power did not appease unrest, and Mehmed Karamanli continued to claim the throne for himself with support of various tribes who revolted due to Yusuf's recent tax increase.[6]
Nigeria
1845–1851: Lagos succession dispute. Kosoko against his nephew oba Akitoye of Lagos, who had been enthroned in 1841. It started with the Ogun Olomiro (Salt Water War) of July 1845, which brought Kosoko into power, and ended with the British-backed Akitoye returning with the Reduction of Lagos in 1851.[7]
657–651 BCE: The Li Ji Unrest or Rebellion was a series of destabilising events in the ancient Chinese state of Jine, wrought by Duke Xian of Jin's concubine Li Ji, who sought (and briefly succeeded) in discrediting many princes of the ducal family, in order to put her own son Xiqi on the Jin throne.[citation needed]
In the Mughal Empire (1526–1857), an Islamic dynasty in the Indian subcontinent, princely rebellions revolved around the tensions between the expected solemn loyalty to the supposed absolute authority of the emperor and the imperial court on the one hand, which rejected the very idea of rebellion as unacceptable disobedience, and the alleged patrimonial rights violations, imperial malice and unfair dealings by the emperor towards the princes, against which efforts to justify and conduct princely revolts were made.[11] According to Faruqui (2012), there were 'seven significant princely rebellions' from 1526 to 1707,[11] five of which took place during 'the high period of Mughal rule (1585–1680s)'.[11] From 1556 to 1606, these focused especially on the entitlement of princes to appanages (a province of the empire to govern personally as a semi-independent kingdom), and their right to rebel if the emperor broke his supposed promise of granting appanages to princes, as this was 'imperial encroachment on their territory'. However, the Mughal emperors managed to centralise and increase their powers by abolishing the system, and successfully crushed all princely rebellions (the last in 1606 by Khusrau Mirza against his father, emperor Jahangir) against its abolition.[5] The focus of princely revolts thereafter shifted towards the princes' entitlement to an equal claim upon the imperial throne and the realm's entire territory after the monarch's death.[12] This meant that the princes opposed the designation of an heir, let alone any fixation of the order of succession, and would wage war against the emperor whenever they felt that this entitlement was being undermined in some way.[12]
Although all Mughal emperors faced opposition by princes and often princely rebellions, none of the major rebellions succeeded, and no emperor was ever killed by a prince.[10]
Historiography
According to Faruqui (2012), official court chroniclers showed a strong tendency to engage in what he termed 'post-rebellion apologetics', in an effort to downplay the seriousness of dynastic conflicts to the harmony within the royal family, the impact on the political and socio-economic stability of the empire, and to minimise or deflect the blame away from the main players in order to exonerate them. In attempts to restore the sense of quasi-infallibility of the emperor, and the princely loyalty to him, blame is placed on the bad or malicious influences of advisers and allies around the princes and the emperor. It was, after all, only ever other people who deceived and manipulated the 'young and impressionable' prince, led him astray, and forced him to reluctantly rebel against his own father, the wise and mighty emperor who represented the cosmic order. On the other hand, the ill advice of unfaithful courtiers are to be held responsible for the emperor's failure to prevent the rebellion, with the emperor's inexperience or 'simple nature' (in the case of Akbar) providing further mitigating circumstances.[16]
Even linguistically, the official chronicles took care to avoid controversial words like fitna ("internal/civil war", "intra-Muslim war/strife"), preferring instead mukhalafat ("opposition"), fasad ("mischief/corruption"), and shorish ("rebellion/revolt"), and thus be lenient in their criticism of princely-imperial conflicts.[5] No such care was taken when describing noble-led rebellions, however, such as the 1626 failed rebellion by nobleman Mahabat Khan, which is frequently labelled a fitna and other more incendiary and powerfully negative terms of condemnation in order to stress how completely unacceptable such heretical disobedience to the emperor supposedly was. By contrast, princely rebellions were tacitly permitted as a justifiable option of last resort in certain situations.[17]
Empire of Trebizond
1284–1285: rebellions against John II of Trebizond, whose early reign was unstable, having gained the throne after his brother emperor George of Trebizond was betrayed and overthrown in 1280, the 1281 Papadopoulos revolt against John II, and the Siege of Trebizond (1282) by David VI of Georgia while John was getting married in Constantinople.
1284: unsuccessful rebellion by John's brother, the former emperor George.
1284–1285: successful rebellion by John's half-sister, Theodora of Trebizond (enthroned with the help of David VI of Georgia), who reigned as empress for several months, while John probably took refuge in Tripolis. John II managed to reassert his reign some time in 1285.
1459, 1465–1468, 1471–1473: rebellion of Adolf, Duke of Guelders against his father Arnold, Duke of Guelders. The war ended with Arnold selling his ducal rights to duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, who imprisoned Adolf and conquered Guelders in March 1473.
Lithuanian Civil War (1381–1384): broke out when Algirdas' brother Kęstutis rebelled against Algirdas' son Jogaila and claimed the throne for himself while Jogaila was besieging Algirdas' other son Andrei at Polotsk. Jogaila and Andrei were half-brothers, already fighting a war over the succession of their father Algirdas since 1377; Kęstutis had initially recognised Jogaila, and had supported him in his conflict against Andrei.
^The monarch doesn't have to be widely popular at the start of the princely rebellion, but their legitimacy needs to be broadly recognised. If their legitimacy is commonly questioned if they recently began their reign, however, the situation is commonly described as a succession crisis in which the monarch has acceded to the throne, or is trying to, without broad support. If a prince starts a war against this newly acceded/acceding monarch, it is more aptly described as a 'war of succession' than as a 'princely rebellion', because the word 'rebellion' implies that the current monarch enjoys broadly supported legitimacy and the prince does not (yet), and because the war is motivated by challenging the acceding monarch's very right to rule itself rather than securing the prince's interests during the remainder of that monarch's rule.
^ abFaruqui (2012) decided 'not to count the conflict between Aurangzeb and his brothers (1657–9) as a rebellion. This is an arguable choice since the conflict started out as a rebellion against Shah Jahan but then morphed into a succession struggle once Shah Jahan had been forced to abdicate his throne in the summer of 1658.' He regarded it as a 'war of succession', while noting that S. M. Azizuddin Husain (2002) did characterise it as a 'rebellion'.[10]
^David-Chapy, Aubrée (2022). Anne de France: Gouverner au féminin à la Renaissance (in French). Paris: Humensis. p. 21. ISBN9782379332784. Retrieved 6 December 2022. Bien qu'issu d'une lignée relativement fidèle au pouvoir royal, Pierre participe néanmoins, comme ses frères, à la guerre du Bien public, rébellion princière dirigée contre Louis XI en 1465. ("Although he came from a line that was relatively loyal to the royal power, Pierre, like his brothers, took part in the War of the Public Good, a princely rebellion against Louis XI in 1465.")