Kings, like their kingdoms, have changed throughout the ages.

Either with
fluctuation of their power, their justification or means of gaining power, and
keeping said power. Examining how kings in different times and cultures
justified their power hold will be gone over and how kings changed over time
as well. The first culture to be examined is Ancient Mesopotamia.
It makes the most sense to start with the earliest kingdom to examine as
Mesopotamia, or Babylon to be more precise, was formed sometime around
1800 B.C. It was under a man named Hammurabi who made it an empire. He
claimed to be sent by Marduk, the head god of their religion, to bring order
and righteousness to the region. What was just stated is basically his
justification of power was through chosen by divinity and that if someone
was against him it would be against the gods will.
This power through religion did help justify his power to the masses however
the law of Hammurabi also states that if a king was incompetent or evil then
the gods themselves would strike him down. The Code of Hammurabi shows
a strict punishment to those who broke the law and to kings who held power
being only concerned for themselves. Combined with the fact that the
Hammurabi code was decreed to be unchangeable by Hammurabi himself,
kings in that kingdom and culture would have to abide by it unless unrest
and even revolt could take place. Saying that, the code of Hammurabi did
have set guide for kings on how to act. So, while it provides justification for
their power, it also has a set of guidelines to follow.

Due to having the Code of Hammurabi, it helped keep the king in check to an
extent. The code was very much an eye for an eye mentality. It also provided
well over two hundred specific laws and punishments to try and ensure there
was no confusion, misinterpretations, or situations where the law didnt
cover. Yet the code of Hammurabi was quite patriarch or male dominated as
women suffered either harsher punishments for the same crimes, received
less compensation to male counterparts, and overall had less rights then
men. This of course reflected into their culture of being a patriarchy society.
After all, there is no mention of a woman gaining power only that of a man
being king.
The next culture to be gone over is a bit different in how their king power
was justified. India of 300 BC kings held their power through the
Arthashastra. India is a Hindu dominated society even back then and this is
reflected through Arthashastra being used by kings to justify their power as
the Arthashastra is a sacred script to Hinduism. Its like the code of
Hammurabi as both were used to justify their power yet the key difference
was that kings of Babylon justified their power from divine beings while
Indian kings did not.
Hindu kings also had a set of guidelines or guide on ruling their subjects and
kingdom. That being how they act would reflect upon the people and the
kingdoms well-being. As stated in the Arthashastra, if the king is energetic so
will his people, and this meant if a king was rightful and good then his

kingdom would prosper and his subjects pleased. However, if he was reckless
then the kingdom would fall. Like the code of Hammurabi in that matter.

Unlike the two previously mentioned, Chinese dynasties didnt have any
religious or divine justification for their power. Theirs was based upon
philosopher teachings such as Confucius Analects. It is most like the Hindu
text Arthashastra in terms of guidelines but without any religious aspect in it.
Like code of Hammurabi and Ashashastra, Confucius teachings had the same
teachings of a good leader will stay in power. However, those who used it
poorly or were cruel would be removed. This is also shows that it doesnt
matter if someone was the son of the current ruler, if the ruler was removed
the son wouldnt take his place unless he was competent. Sounding like a
broken record here but the three cultures mentioned and the teachings,
codes, text, etc. all have more or less the same teachings concerning good
and bad rulers. The next culture however is finally at least different in the
justification of kings power and ruler ship.
The culture of early medieval kingdoms was quite different from all three
mentioned before. First off is that while there was some religious aspect to
the ruling kings, it wasnt prominent like in India or Babylon culture. Nor was
there teachings like that of Confucius to guide the kings either. It was mostly
up to the king to determine how he should rule his kingdom and subjects.

Thats not to say the king had nothing to keep his power in check as will be
explained.
As shown in the life of Charlemagne, he had to frequently travel across his
kingdom to ensure loyalty from his nobles. In this period the king did rule but
the nobles had significant power and influence. They provided the king with
troops and money while he united them and looked at the larger picture. If
the nobles become too agitated they could very well revolt and try to wrest
control from the king or even secede from the kingdom. Just a last quick note
is that power was transferred from father to son in a hereditary rule as while
the three other cultures mentioned did have dynasties of varying degrees,
the son could very well be removed if shown to be a poor ruler.
Now that each culture and their kings power base has been gone over, the
next topic is how power bases of kings changed over time through history.
The first will be the kingship changing form from Mesopotamia to early
medieval age.
First off is that kingship from the era of Babylon was that they justified their
power through divinity. Early kings claimed that they were chosen by god(s)
to help reinforce their rule. In the east, Asia, it was the teachings of various
philosophers that justified their rule. Only in the early medieval age did this
divinity faded away or at the least become less prominent then before. In
that period, kingship power was still considerable however due to the less
imperialistic and poor central administration of that period of kings, nobles

had a significant part of the monarchy as they provided troops, taxes, etc. in
return for land. This decrease in kingship power was also attributed in the
Catholic world as the result of the churchs authority and influence.
In the readings, each culture showed how those kingdoms, dynasties, or
whatever term they referred to themselves, of justifying their rule. For
Babylon and India both had rule through divinity via religious texts that their
cultures revered to explain their rule and law. For the Chinese, they had
teachings from philosophers which influenced their culture and kings or
emperors how to act and their right to rule. All three cultures had influence
from either religion or philosophy which reflects in their culture. The only
culture to not have that was the fourth one from early medieval age. That
one didnt justify their power through religion or philosophy rather just
strength of will. Quite an interesting difference between these four, the
readings of them, and their rulers base of power. It also shows how the
balance of power was shifting quite noticeably with kingship power
weakening and nobility growing in political strength.
Is todays age, power is dictated by those who have a strong economy and
military power. The US is such an example as being a major force in not just
the global economy but also having the ability to project its significant
military power. Yet its quite harder to have large war with the rise of the UN
and emphasis placed on keeping peace between nations, particularly those
with nuclear capabilities. But what about the power leaders have today
compared to past rulers?

What has assuredly changed is how countries operated in going from a single
ruler either monarchy or dictatorship to democracy. Throughout history has
shown the lower class wanting