Talk:List of wars of succession

Livonian War
I notice that the Livonian War (1558–1583) is sometimes regarded as a war of succession. First of all: succession was not a factor in the conflict until the death of Sigismund II Augustus of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1572, ending the Jagiellonian dynasty. Polish and Lithuanian aristocrats agreed to make the Commonwealth an elective monarchy. Although they could not initially agree upon a candidate, with some Lithuanians supporting the Russian tsar's son Feodor, in the end the nobility united behind Henry, who soon became Henry III of France and abandoned his Polish–Lithuanian throne. This did not bring any new belligerents to the conflict (France did not intervene), nor significantly changed the course of the conflict. Henry's kingship wasn't even hereditary. He was a president in all but name.

The second Polish–Lithuanian royal election was held in 1575–6. Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor was proclaimed as King and Grand Duke, but this was contested. The crisis was resolved without Habsburg military intervention, however, and did not significantly change the course of the conflict in Livonia. It did spark the Danzig rebellion, but that had nothing to do with the Livonian War as such. It would have if the Russians and Livonians had supported the Danzig rebels, but I don't see any evidence that they did; they were only supported by Habsburgers and Danes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

1379–1385 Ghent Revolt
I ran into the 1972 book England, France and Christendom by John Joseph Norman Palmer, who claimed that the nl:Gentse Opstand (1379-1385) was a war of succession: 'Even while Louis still lived Richard II contemplated using his sovereign power as 'king of France' to depose him and assume the title count of Flanders himself. The struggle for Flanders might very aptly be termed the 'War of the Burgundian Succession'. No other source uses this name though, except Marc Haegeman (1988), who criticises it (translated from Dutch): 'Palmer therefore calls the subsequent struggle in Flanders the « War of the Burgundian Succession ». That England indeed decided to intervene for political reasons seems pretty solid to us, but whether this was with the intention of preventing the Burgundian succession, as Palmer claims, is less certain.' Even Palmer himself admits this characterisation might not cut it: 'Though this explains why England was prepared to intervene, it also makes it difficult to understand why she waited until 1382 to do so. Perhaps the problem has been misleadingly formulated.' Perhaps so, by Palmer himself? The cause of the 1379 conflict was economic between Bruges and Ghent, it then turned into a (pro-Roman) Flemish popular uprising against the (pro-Avignon) pro-French count Louis of Male, who had the (pro-Avignon) French king intervene, and not until 1382 the (pro-Roman) pro-Flemish English intervention began, framed as "Despenser's Crusade", but according to Palmer, we should regard everything in the light of the 1384 childless death of Louis of Male, which meant that Philip the Bold of Burgundy inherited Flanders, rather than Richard II of England, who contemplated proclaiming himself Count of Flanders. Right. I'm not buying it. This war may have been many things, but it wasn't a war of succession. I'm excluding it from the list. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

686–687 Frankish war
The 686–687 Frankish war, with Neustrian mayor Berchar invading Austrasia but being defeated at the Battle of Tertry, does not seem to have been a war of succession. Theuderic III was the nominal Frankish king of both Neustria (and Burgundy) and Austrasia throughout this time (679–691), and Berchar's predecessor Waratto (died 686) had concluded peace with Austrasia in 681, where Pepin of Herstal had been the undisputed mayor since 680. Whatever reason or pretext Berchar may have given for invading Austrasia in 686, there doesn't seem to be a dynastic one, but rather personal gain/greed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Some wars listed by (Appendix) Kokkonen & Sundell 2017
(Appendix) Kokkonen & Sundell 2017 is a very valuable scholarly secondary source, which makes a good effort to distinguish wars of succession (labelled as 'Yes') from wars not caused by succession crises (labelled as 'No'). However, I think their conclusions are sometimes incorrect. The mere fact that a war or revolt starts after a monarch's death doesn't mean that the instigating belligerents are claiming the throne for themselves; they might just be opportunistic in exploiting the royal court's temporary weakness. In some cases, there appears to be no armed conflict at all, save for a few assassinations, which I don't count as a 'war'; both sides need to put up a fight to constitute a war. Therefore, I do not count:
 * Revolt of the governor of Syria, Janbirdi, upon the death of Selim I (1520). It's just a princely revolt / war of independence.
 * The nobility revolt against the new king of Portugal, and his new regulations (1481). It's just a bunch of assassinations.
 * Guerilla rebellion in the Caucasus (1725). Just an opportunistic revolt by a conquered population when its conquerors' emperor has died.
 * Civil disorder in Sweden (1290–1318). I have not found evidence that the revolt of Erik and Valdemar Magnusson started right upon the death of Magnus III of Sweden. Regent Torkel Knutsson appears to have had all the time and means in the world to go on several crusades against the Novgorodians from 1292 to 1300. I only see conflict between the brothers from 1304 onwards. In order for this to be a war of succession, we need evidence of armed conflict as a result of an explicit claim to the throne in opposition to Birger, King of Sweden in or shortly after 1290, at which time Eric and Valdemar would have been about 6 years old. I don't buy it. This is just a princely revolt. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Northumberland's insurrection (1553), after the death of king Edward VI of England and Ireland. After having Edward change the succession in his will just before he died, Northumberland proclaimed Lady Jane Grey the new queen, and marched his army on Framlingham Castle, but Mary Tudor had gathered so much political and military support that Northumberland decided to surrender without a fight. – To be consistent with what I said above, this doesn't constitute a war because there was no battle. At most, we've got a bloodless coup d'état that failed after a few days. I'm removing it from the list. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Wyatt's rebellion (January–July 1554, with planning starting as early as November 1553) may actually be a better candidate than Northumberland's insurrection in that it involved actual battles. It opposed the marriage of recently acceded Mary I of England with Philip II of Spain, in Nolan 2008's words 'the most powerful Catholic prince in Europe'. He framed this conflict as 'the crisis of her reign,' namely 'the royal marriage and succession', but perhaps he meant 'crises', plural, because succession comes up again later when arguing that Mary's 1558 death as well as Henry II of France's 1558 death indirectly led to the French Wars of Religion and Dutch Revolt soon thereafter. Either way, the Wyatt rebellion did not explicitly state that Mary's overthrow was its goal, nor was it uniformly anti-Catholic, but it did generally evolve in that direction and forwarded Protestant Elizabeth I as a replacement candidate for the throne, possibly with Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon as her Protestant husband (who had previously tried to get married to Mary). It's a tough call. The rebellion started shortly after the contested accession of Mary in July 1553, she had not fully consolidated her power yet, because Parliament's and some nobility's support apparently depended on her partner choice; the fact that he was a Catholic and non-English man is what many ended up disapproving of, and some decided to rebel against. Arguments can be made for classifying it either or both as a minor war of religion and a minor war of succession. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Princely rebellions and imposters
Today, 13 April 2022, I created a separate article for Princely rebellion. As I already mentioned below in my 19 November 2019 note ('What does not count?'), princely rebellions/revolts should not count as wars of succession, because they are not caused by succession crises; they can be launched at any time as a war of choice against a well-established reigning monarch. Primary sources and literature often do not make a clear distinction between them (one may talk about 'princely rebellions' in the midst of a succession crisis, another about 'succession struggles' in a time devoid of actual succession crises), so we should be careful not to blindly follow the terminology of a source. Below are some of my thoughts from two days ago about the need for a separate article, and what we should do with imposters when classifying wars by type. Unfortunately I have not resolved this latter question yet, but I'm open to suggestions for RS. The same goes for the subjective and potentially biased use of terms such as 'usurpation' and 'coup', which imply illegitimacy; as Wikipedians, we've got a duty not to take sides per WP:NPOV and should therefore avoid such language. Countless Wikipedia articles about wars of succession, princely rebellions and similar conflicts that I've seen in the past few years are full of such subjective words which implicitly or explicitly take sides; we should rectify that, because Wikipedia should remain neutral. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Raja Kecil 1718 is an interesting but highly dubious case. He claims to have been miraculously born during or just after the assassination of his alleged father, sultan Mahmud II of Johor, in 1699. After 19 years, he united disparate groups disgruntled with the new sultan of the Bendahara clan to attack and conquer Johor, becoming the new sultan, but then strangely establishing co-rule with the Bendahara sultan that he had deposed. All of this reeks of opportunism and illegitimacy, although theoretically speaking his justification was a war of succession.

Imposters can and have triggered wars of succession, but we should be mindful of our criteria: the war should be a direct result of a succession crisis, and not a war of choice by a rebel (usually by a prince (typically not the crown prince) of the ruling dynasty, or of a recently dethroned dynasty; these are known as 'princely rebellions/revolts') with an army against a well-established ruler who has already been sitting on the throne virtually unopposed for some years.

E.g. the Fourth Macedonian War may therefore be disqualified as a war of succession. Regardless whether we believe that Andriscus was "Philip", a long-lost son of the previous king Perseus of Macedon who was dethroned in 168 BCE and died in 166 BCE, the fact that Andriscus waited for more than 10 years to make an initial attempt at claiming the Macedonian throne by force around 154/153 BCE makes it rather dubious. There was no ongoing succession crisis around that time either – in fact, the kingship had been abolished and replaced by four client republics of the Roman Republic, so there were no dynasties anymore – so this war disrupted peace and the essentially unchallenged political order (despite lingering anti-Roman resentment and pro-Antigonid sympathy amongst the Macedonian/Greek population, which Andriscus successfully exploited to gather support and build an army).

As Wikipedians, we are not required to believe or reject the pretensions of possible imposters. I.e. we cannot disqualify a conflict as a 'war of succession' on the basis of our perceived illegitimacy of the pretender who started it – which is often a minefield of subjectivity, further hindered by the biases that our sources may have in favour or against the claims, identity, character and actions of candidates. But even if we accept the claim of Andriscus to royalty for the sake of argument, that means we're dealing with a princely rebellion, a war of choice in a period devoid of succession crises. Both Andriscus' and Raja Kecil's revolts should therefore, in my view, be excluded from wars of succession on the basis of historical context.

Although some authors may not be as strict and will (in my view ambiguously) classify such conflicts as 'succession disputes/struggles/conflicts', I don't think we can fairly call them 'wars of succession'. If we did, any armed conflict in which one party laid vague claims some throne or another, regardless of whether that throne currently is, or recently was, or very soon will be (e.g. the monarch is gravely ill and hasn't designated an heir yet) vacant, could pass for a war of succession. Most scholars seem to be this strict, although few seem to have made this explicit distinction between wars of succession brought about by an ongoing or imminent succession crisis on the one hand, and princely revolts of choice on the other. I'll try to find more literature on this soon, to prevent the proliferation of wars that don't really belong here. There is already a Category:Rebellious princes that makes this distinction, and that is worth exploring further. I do realise that bringing in stricter criteria of (dis)qualification could exclude a lot of wars that I've listed, or used as examples in the theoretical and historical sections. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The category mentioned above has been split into Category:Rebel princes and Category:Princely rebellions. The latter is for all these dynastic conflicts that were not wars of succession in the strict sense, but challenges by princes to well-established monarchs. (Not necessarily to dethrone that monarch, but sometimes to get a larger share of the heritage, or to retrieve possessions that were allegedly unjustifiably taken away, or somesuch). Such conflicts may fall under the denominator of princely rebellion. NLeeuw (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Conventions for the list of wars of succession
As the most prolific editor of this article, I have developed and used, and propose to maintain, the following conventions in order to best document the subject of this article in a clear, consistent, evidence-based and encyclopaedic manner, especially the list of wars. Since many of these wars are not explicitly named 'war of succession' (in English or other languages), with some not even having been explicitly named at all yet, it is important to give evidence that a particular armed conflict was, in fact, a war of succession and not something else. Wikipedians who would like to contribute, can conveniently use these conventions when considering what is needed for the inclusion of a war of succession in the list.


 * What should be mentioned?
 * 1) Name of the war. See Historiographical names and Provisional names for more information.
 * 2)  Start and end year between brackets (indicating the historical duration of the war). If a year is uncertain, use ' c. '.
 * 3) Cause of the succession dispute (monarch's death, deposition (and imprisonment), ousting or other form of incapacitation, or in direct anticipation of monarch's death (e.g. old age or serious illness)). This is done in the following manner: [preposition] the [incapacitation] of [title of monarch] [name of monarch] of [state or dynasty the monarch ruled], e.g. War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), after the death of king Charles II of Spain. If the exact cause cannot be found, yet there is clear evidence that it was a war of succession, the names of the belligerent claimants should be mentioned, e.g. War of the Northumbrian succession (865–867), between king Osberht and king Ælla of Northumbria. In some cases the cause of the war may be difficult to describe and not fit the notation above; try to be concise and to the point, e.g. Later Three Kingdoms of Korea (892–936), began when two rebel leaders, claiming to be heirs of the former kings of Baekje and Goguryeo, revolted against the reign of queen Jinseong of Silla.
 * 4) A reputable source is required, unless a Wikipedia article on that war already exists and is linked to.
 * 5) Historicity contested: in rare cases, sources claim that a war of succession took place, but historians doubt whether the narrative is legendary, mythological or otherwise fictional instead of historical. This should be stated up front to alert the reader, e.g.: (historicity contested) War of David against Ish-bosheth (c. 1007–1005 BCE), after the death of king Saul of the united Kingdom of Israel. It is disputed whether this event actually occurred as narrated in the Hebrew Bible. In other cases, the surviving sources do not provide conclusive evidence that a war of succession took place; this may be indicated in the following manner: (historicity contested) A war of succession in the Gupta Empire after the death of emperor Kumaragupta I (c. 455), out of which Skandagupta emerged victorious. Historical sources do not make clear whether the events described constituted a war of succession, and whether it even took place as narrated.


 * What does not count?
 * 1) Wars following disputed presidential or other head-of-state or gubernatorial elections. However, when a state is – at times – an elective monarchy, in which the eventual choice of monarch is disputed on hereditary grounds leading to a war, it may be included (e.g. Danzig rebellion (1575–1577), due to the disputed 1576 Polish–Lithuanian royal election).
 * 2) Turf wars / wars of conquest for economic gain; the war must be about (de jure or de facto, e.g. the shogunate) supreme hereditary office in a state, or subdivision of that state (e.g. a duchy within the Holy Roman Empire). E.g. the War of the Reunions was caused by the French king's dissatisfaction about the peace terms at the end of the War of Devolution (which was a war of succession), but the dissatisfaction was about the territorial changes resulting from the previous war, not about any claim to a throne, thus the War of the Reunions was not a war of succession.
 * 3) Rebellion from princes or governors without a claim to succession as a result of an incapacitated monarch. This includes wars of independence (also confusingly known as wars of secession, which some sources erroneously call wars of succession), as well as Roman and Byzantine etc. usurpers (usually from the army without ties to the current dynasty) trying to claim the throne when there has been a 'healthy' ruling monarch for years. Note that it can be difficult to judge whether a monarch was 'incapacitated' or not; a prince in the line of succession may try to seize the throne early, without the monarch being dead or near death, seriously ill, imprisoned, ousted etc., in order to outmove other potential claimants (especially the crown prince) or to simply to ascend to the throne before the current monarch's reign is over (impatient crown princes). Historians may or may not label such a scenario as a 'war of succession'.
 * 4) Succession disputes that did not result in war (i.e. military violence). E.g. if one claimant assassinates another claimant or has them assassinated, which then 'resolves' the dispute, it is not a 'war'.


 * Writing and naming conventions:
 * 1) Historiographical names: Follow reputable historiography wherever available. Give the most commonly used name(s) (3 names at most). E.g. Revolutions of Tunis or the Muradid War of Succession (1675–1705), after the death of bey Murad II of Tunis.
 * 2) Provisional names: If no historian appears to have named the war, but the historicity of the war can be demonstrated through reputable sources, a provisional name should be given to it, written in lowercase letters (except for the first word, geographical and personal names). The default naming is '[state/dynasty adjective] war of succession' with lowercase 'w' and 's', e.g. Tepanec war of succession (1426–1428), after the death of king Tezozomoc of Azcapotzalco. An alternate provisional naming is 'War of the [state/dynasty adjective] succession'. Provisional naming is done to avoid original research, and to give an indication of the geographical/political situation of the yet unnamed war. Although not recommended, it is allowed to deviate from the default naming if it more understandably frames a conflict. Do not create redlinks to such wars. For further information, see Linking conventions.
 * 3) Spelling and dating: Use British English, date-month-year, the Gregorian calendar and BCE/CE in this article for consistency.
 * 4) Where to list: List the war in the appropriate continent and periodisation subsection. Wars of succession in transcontinental states are mentioned under the continents where their capital city was located. E.g. the Ottoman Interregnum (1402–1413) occurred when the Ottoman Empire's capital was located in Edirne, which is geographically part of Europe, hence it is listed in Late Medieval Europe subsection.
 * 5) Asterisks: Put an asterisk ( * ) in front of the war. For a series of wars of succession, mention all wars in that series under the war series with a double **. Example:
 * The Javanese Wars of Succession (1677–1755), between local pretenders and candidates of the Dutch East India Company
 * First Javanese War of Succession (1677–1707)
 * Second Javanese War of Succession (1719–1722)
 * Third Javanese War of Succession (1749–1755)
 * A proxy war of a larger war of succession may be included if the two main belligerents support opposing claimants in the larger war. This is indicated by listing the proxy war under the larger war with a double **. Example:
 * Toluid Civil War (1260–1264), after the death of great khan Möngke Khan of the Mongol Empire
 * Berke–Hulagu war (1262), a proxy war of the Toluid Civil War


 * Linking conventions:
 * 1) Existing articles: If a Wikipedia article about this war already exists, link to it (using the name that best indicates it was a war of succession)
 * 2) Existing sections: If there is no Wikipedia article about this war yet, consider writing it, or link to (a section of) an existing article which already gives much details about the war, such as the most important battle of the war (e.g. War of the Moha succession (1212–1213)), or the subsection of the biography of one of the primary claimants (e.g. Persian war of succession (404–401 BCE).
 * 3) Non-existent articles: Do not create redlinks to provisionally named wars (see Provisional names); only link to them when a Wikipedian (you or someone else) has written an article about the war (e.g. War of Qi's succession (643–642 BCE), after the death of Duke Huan of Qi).
 * 4) Interlanguage links: If an article about a war does exist in another language Wikipedia, you can provide a link to it, e.g., after the death of duke Henry I the Great of Burgundy.

If you'd like to change or add to these conventions, feel free to discuss below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)