(urth) Resurrections

[David Stockhoff]

200 autarchs could rule an average of 5 years each over 1000 years. If 
20 of these autarchs ruled an average of 20 years, the remaining 180 
would each have to rule for about 3+1/3 years to maintain the average. 
It's possible. In such a system, the individuality of each autarch, all 
but the greatest, would be inconsequential and utterly lost. Which is 
exactly what has happened in imperial dynasties. England's monarch, by 
contrast, was much more robust even at its weakest.

If we know only 3 names from the past 1000 years, perhaps that is why. 
If only these 3 ruled for 50 each and the remainder for still only about 
4 years on average, that makes 200 in total. It's then slightly more 
plausible.

But is this important?


Jeff Wilson wrote:
> On 8/1/2010 1:36 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
>> Some autarchs may have ruled for only a week.
>
> That's not unusual for popes or kings either. John-Paul I reigned a 
> month, Jane Grey for 9 days, and IIRC the Hawaiian Kamehameha dynasty 
> ended with the last couple of heirs reigning for less than a day 
> apiece. These rates can't be sustained with anything like stability, 
> and are more than compensated for by the Victorias and Henrys, who 
> come to the throne young and live on into vigorous old age.
>
> Appian-Severian-Valeria cover a minimum of eight decades, I'd say, and 
> Ymar could easily have been one of the child-Autarchs as well as 
> reigning long enough to be credited with his various deeds and 
> commands, even if he didn't actually do or complete all of them. This 
> leaves about nine hundred years for all but one of the hundreds the 
> Old Autarch spoke of, surely they can do better than that? In the 900 
> years following the Norman Conquest there were only 45 English monarchs.
>