A king might be accepted in theory, but to rule effectively he had to keep his nobles in check. In medieval Europe, powerful lords often commanded private armies and rivaled royal authority. Successful monarchs knew how to tame them—through patronage, marriage alliances, or outright force.

William the Conqueror after 1066 redistributed vast English lands to his Norman followers, but cleverly scattered their holdings across different shires. This prevented any one noble from building a territorial power base large enough to threaten him.

Similarly, Ivan the Terrible of Russia broke the power of the boyars (the aristocracy) by establishing the oprichnina—a separate territory under his direct rule and policed by his fearsome oprichniki. Though brutal, it centralised power firmly in the tsar’s hands.

Contrast this with the fate of the French Valois kings before Louis XI. They allowed the dukes of Burgundy to amass immense territories and independent armies, which nearly shattered France during the Hundred Years’ War.

  Maintain a Capable Bureaucracy

Personal charisma could only go so far. To govern a kingdom—especially a large one—kings needed efficient administrations to collect taxes, enforce laws, and manage justice. Weak kings who neglected this often saw their realms slip into chaos.

Frederick the Great of Prussia was a master at using bureaucracy to transform his small kingdom into a major European power. He reformed tax systems, codified laws, and appointed capable officials based on merit rather than noble birth.

Meanwhile in England, Henry II laid the foundations of common law by sending royal judges on circuit and standardising procedures. This strengthened royal justice over feudal courts, enhancing the crown’s authority.

Even outside Europe, we see parallels. Akbar the Great of Mughal India introduced a professional bureaucracy and fair taxation (the zabt system), winning loyalty from diverse subjects and creating a prosperous, stable empire. shutdown123