Hubbry Logo
CoregencyCoregencyMain
Open search
Coregency
Community hub
Coregency
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Coregency
Coregency
Coregency
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of the Politics series
Monarchy
Heraldic royal crown
Central concepts
Types
Philosophy
Philosophers
Works
Politicians
History
Polity
Administration
Related ideologies
National variants
Related topics
icon Politics portal
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
List of forms · List of countries
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)
Oligarchy (rule by few)
Autocracy (rule by one)
Anarchy (rule by none)
Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)
(socio-economic ideologies)
  • Religious
  • Secular
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism
Client state
Federalism
International relations
Related
icon Politics portal
The oath of the triumviral regents of the Empire of Brazil on behalf of the 5-year-old Emperor Pedro II, 1831

A coregency is the situation where a monarchical position (such as prince, princess, king, queen, emperor or empress), normally held by only a single person, is held by two or more. It is distinct from diarchies or duumvirates (such as Andorra, ancient Sparta and Rome), where monarchical power is permanently divided between two rulers; and also from regencies, where a person, who is not legally monarch themselves, exercises monarchical power on the behalf of reigning monarch who is absent or unable to rule (for example due to illness or young age).

Historical examples

[edit]

Coregencies were common in the Hellenistic period; according to one scholar, they "can usually be explained as a means of avoiding crises of succession or internal conflict, and of strengthening dynastic identity and ideology."[1] Other examples include the coregency of Frederick I of Austria and Louis the Bavarian over the Kingdom of Germany. Jure uxoris kings in kingdoms such as Portugal and Spain are also found (Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Castile, Philip I and Joanna of Castile, Peter III and Maria I of Portugal, etc.). In Navarre, the husbands of queens regnant were styled as co-rulers.[citation needed]

Ancient Egypt

[edit]

In Ancient Egypt, coregency was quite problematic as the Pharaoh was seen as the incarnation/representation of the god Horus. Therefore, according to the divine order Ma'at, only one King could exist at the same time. Yet, exceptions can be found, mainly in the Middle Kingdom, where the pharaoh occasionally appointed his successor (often one of his sons) as coregent, or joint king, to ensure a smooth succession. “This system was used, from at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, in order to ensure that the transfer of power took place with the minimum of disruption and instability”.[2] Coregencies are highly probable for Amenemhat I > Senusret I > Amenemhat II > Senusret II.[3] Most probably the real king in power was the older one (father) adopting the younger ruler (son), while the co-regent had to wait until after the death of the older one to really have access to full royal power. Yet, the years of reigns normally were counted from the beginning of the coregency on. Due to this and to the fragmentary character of known sources, the establishment of Egyptian chronology was quite complicated and remains disputed up to date. Yet, understanding the existence of co-regency reduced the chaos quite a lot.

The institution of coregency is different from that of regency, where an adult person (in Ancient Egypt often the mother of the king) functions as Legal guardian, ruling in the name of the underage king. Some of the female regents of Egypt rose to a status of equal to the God-Kings, becoming co-rulers as can be seen in the famous case of Hatshepsut. After the death of her husband Thutmose II, Hatshepsut ruled in the name of Thutmose III, her nephew and stepson. Then, latest in year 7[4] of Thutmose III's reign, she took over royal regalia and was then titled King of Egypt under the Throne name (prenomen) Maatkare. For later periods of Pharaonic Egyptian history, the existence of the institution of coregency has been put into question by Egyptologists,[5] while, "the Ptolemaic and Roman period examples being the most securely identified".[2]

In Hellenized Egypt during the Ptolemaic period, Arsinoe II was given the title of nswt-bjtj, which is usually translated as "King of Upper and Lower Egypt". Later royal wives like Berenice II, Arsinoe III and Cleopatra I Syra got were given the feminine form of the pharaohnic titulary of their husbands, including "female Horus", "female pharaoh" and "female ruler", which is sometimes interpreted as a sign of coregency with their spouses.[6][7] However, neither of them appear as formal co-ruler in official protocols mentioning their husbands's regnal years.[8]

Official coregency between two royal spouses, when both were named as co-rulers in Hellenistic administration of the country, was for the first time introduced when Cleopatra II was named as co-ruler alongside her brothers: Ptolemy VI (her husband) and Ptolemy VIII Physcon.[9] After their reign, coregency continue in various forms, like simultaneous rule of siblings, spouses or parent and child, and it seems that from ideological point of view king was unable to rule without queen as his co-ruler, and likewise.[10]

Nominal co-rule during Ptolemaic period were documented between:[11]

Ancient Israel

[edit]

In the book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Edwin R. Thiele proposed co-regency as a possible explanation for discrepancies in the dates given in the Hebrew Bible for the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah. At least one co-regency is explicitly documented in the Bible: the coronation of King Solomon occurred before the death of his father David.

Britain

[edit]
Main articles: Government of the United Kingdom, List of British monarchs, and List of English monarchs

King Henry II of England installed his eldest surviving son, also named Henry, as junior king. Henry the Young King was not permitted to exercise royal authority and his title as co-king was effectively a sinecure to denote his status as his father's chosen heir. Young Henry predeceased his father without ever ascending to the throne and is not included in the official list of English monarchs.

The Monarchy of England experienced joint rule under the terms of the act sanctioning the marriage of Mary I to Philip II of Spain. Philip notionally reigned as king of England (inclusive of Wales) and Ireland by right of his wife from 1554 to 1558. Similarly, following the Glorious Revolution, Mary II and her husband William III held joint sovereignty over the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1688 to 1694.

France

[edit]

Following the extinction of the Carolingian dynasty in West Francia, the Western Frankish nobles elected Hugh Capet as their new king. Upon his ascension Hugh secured the election of his only son Robert as his co-king.[12] As such, when Hugh died it did not trigger an election for a new king, nor did Robert necessarily "inherit" the crown, but simply continued his kingship. Subsequent Capetian kings would also name their eldest son or brother as co-ruler, until the tradition of agnatic primogeniture was sufficiently established to transform the King of France from an elected monarch to a hereditary one.[13]

Lithuania

[edit]

The Lithuanian Grand Dukes typically selected submonarchs from their families or loyal subjects to assist controlling the Grand Duchy. However, the Grand Dukes remained superior.

A slightly different system developed for a brief period after Vytautas became Grand Duke, where nominally Vytautas ruled together with Jogaila, who took the title of aukščiausiasis kunigaikštis (Supreme Duke), but he has not once used the title to take any action, and in general the powers invested in the title were not clearly stated in any documents, besides the Pact of Horodlo, which guaranteed that Jogaila would have to approve the selection of a Lithuanian Grand Duke. The title was not used by any other king of Poland after Jogaila.

Roman Empire

[edit]

It was common during the Principate for a Roman emperor or Augustus to appoint Caesar as designated heir and junior co-emperor, in many cases adopting them as their son, who did not necessarily have to be biologically related to them. This was merely a tradition and not a formal office until the Tetrarchy, which attempted to codify this arrangement, but quickly fell apart. It regained significance, including under Zeno, as well as when Justin I had his nephew Justinian named co-emperor shortly before his own death, Constantine IV was also named co-emperor by his father Constans II and who himself had several other co-emperors, and the practice was common in the centuries to come up through the Palaiologans.

Russia

[edit]

Following the death of Tsar Feodor III of Russia in 1682, his brother Ivan and half-brother Peter were both crowned autocrats of Russia. This compromise was necessary because Ivan was unfit to rule due to physical and mental disabilities, while Peter's exclusive rule was opposed by Feodor and Ivan's older sister Sofia Alekseyevna, who led a Streltsy uprising against him and his mother's family. Because neither Tsar was of age to rule, Sofia subsequently claimed regency until she was removed from power by Peter in 1689. Ivan V and Peter I's joint reign continued, however, with Ivan maintaining formal seniority despite having little participation in the affairs of the state until his death in 1696, at which point Peter became the sole ruler.

Sweden

[edit]
Main articles: Monarchy of Sweden and List of Swedish monarchs

The monarchy in Sweden has had several periods of joint rule: Erik and Alrik, Yngvi and Alf, Björn at Hauge and Anund Uppsale, Eric the Victorious and Olof Björnsson, Eric the Victorious and Olof Skötkonung, Halsten Stenkilsson and Inge I, and Philip and Inge II.

Vietnam

[edit]

Coregency is a special feature of the Trần dynasty, in which a senior king abdicated in favor of his chosen heir. This abdication, however, is only in name, as the abdicated king continued to rule while his successor sat on the throne as a learner.[14]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Coregency

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Coregency denotes a monarchical system in which two or more rulers jointly exercise full sovereign authority, each bearing complete royal titles and reckoning the shared period toward their individual reign lengths. This arrangement, most prominently documented in pharaonic , enabled elder monarchs to mentor successors while maintaining stability amid potential threats to dynastic continuity. In , coregencies served to prepare junior partners for independent rule by involving them in governance and military campaigns, while the senior ruler retained oversight to avert rival claims or instability. A notable instance occurred between and , where transitioned from to co-pharaoh, assuming kingly titles and prominence in state affairs alongside her stepson, who undertook martial responsibilities. Evidence for such unions often derives from inscriptions featuring dual cartouches or joint depictions, though interpretations vary due to the scarcity of unequivocal double-dated monuments. Debates persist regarding the prevalence and specifics of Egyptian coregencies, with some proposed cases, like that of and , challenged by recent analyses questioning the necessity of joint rule to explain anomalous regnal data or . Beyond Egypt, analogous practices appeared sporadically in other monarchies, such as the biblical co-regency of and or England's Henry II with his son , underscoring coregency's utility in securing hereditary transitions across diverse historical contexts.

Definition and Characteristics

Formal Definition

Coregency denotes the simultaneous tenure of monarchical authority by two or more sovereigns, typically a reigning and a designated heir—often a son—who is formally invested with full royal titles and powers while the senior remains alive and active in . This arrangement contrasts with mere by granting the junior substantive regal status, enabling them to issue decrees, appear on official monuments, and count the period toward their own length. Historical attestations, such as in and the biblical kingdoms of Judah, confirm that both rulers could legitimately claim regnal years during the overlap, as evidenced by double-dated inscriptions and parallel chronologies. The practice required explicit legal or ceremonial elevation of the co-ruler, distinguishing it from informal advisory roles or posthumous attributions.

Distinctions from Diarchy, Regency, and Joint Rule

Coregency differs from in that it involves the concurrent holding of a single ical office by two rulers, often a senior and a designated heir, with both bearing identical royal titles and legitimacy, allowing each to reckon the period toward their individual reign lengths. , by contrast, features two independent rulers exercising co-equal authority over distinct spheres of , without the hierarchical or succession-oriented structure typical of coregency; examples include the Spartan dual kingship, where each commanded separate and religious domains without overlap in titular sovereignty. Unlike a regency, which entails a non-sovereign caretaker—such as a or advisor—temporarily wielding executive power on behalf of an underage, incapacitated, or absent who retains the throne's title but not its active exercise, coregency grants both participants full regal status and direct participation in rule. This distinction is evident in ancient Egyptian practice, where regents like initially governed for the child (ca. 1479 BCE) in a subordinate capacity before transitioning to coregency, versus true coregencies like that of and , where both pharaohs issued parallel decrees and dated monuments independently. Joint rule, a more general concept of divided , lacks coregency's emphasis on equivalent monarchical legitimacy and often involves unequal power distribution or non-hereditary arrangements, such as elective co-princes in since 1278, where rulers derive from separate jurisdictions rather than shared succession. In coregency, the arrangement typically serves dynastic continuity, with the junior ruler learning governance under the senior's oversight, as in the biblical case of and (ca. 970 BCE), where Solomon's co-reign ensured throne security without subordinating one to mere advisory status.

Purposes and Rationales

Ensuring Dynastic Continuity

Coregencies functioned as a mechanism to perpetuate dynastic lines by associating with the while the senior ruler remained alive, thereby minimizing uncertainties in hereditary succession that could invite factional strife or external challenges. This approach embedded the successor's authority through joint titulature, shared ceremonies, and administrative involvement, creating a seamless transition upon the senior's death and reducing the appeal of rival claimants. Historical records indicate that such arrangements were particularly valued in contexts where was normative but not infallible, as they leveraged the senior ruler's prestige to legitimize the junior without . In ancient Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (c. 1991–1802 BCE), Amenemhet I pioneered systematic coregencies following his usurpation amid the First Intermediate Period's chaos, explicitly to fortify succession against instability; his son ruled jointly for over a decade before ascending solely in 1971 BCE. This model persisted, with subsequent pharaohs like overlapping reigns with Amenemhet III for approximately ten years, as evidenced by dual-dated inscriptions and stelae that affirm the practice's role in stabilizing the dynasty through visible co-rule. Scholars reconstruct these overlaps from king lists and monuments, noting how they countered threats from non-royal elites or provincial governors by pre-emptively anointing heirs. New Kingdom examples, such as the coregency between (r. 1479–1425 BCE) and (r. 1427–1400 BCE), further illustrate this purpose: the arrangement trained the heir in governance while the senior , post-military campaigns, warded off palace intrigues or foreign incursions that might disrupt the line. In Ptolemaic Egypt, a Hellenistic successor state, coregencies like that of (r. 283–246 BCE) with his father similarly averted internal dynastic fractures, as analyzed from the Mendes Stela's inscriptions detailing joint rule to consolidate familial control amid rivalries. These cases underscore coregency's causal efficacy in causal realism terms: by overlapping , rulers engineered continuity, with empirical outcomes showing fewer recorded succession wars compared to non-coregent periods.

Training Heirs and Sharing Administrative Burdens

Coregencies frequently served to prepare royal heirs for independent rule by immersing them in decision-making processes, administrative duties, and ceremonial responsibilities alongside the senior monarch. In ancient Egypt, pharaohs elevated sons to co-rulership to facilitate knowledge transfer and ensure governance continuity, as seen in the Twelfth Dynasty where Amenemhet I instituted a coregency with Senusret I around 1971–1926 BCE to groom the heir amid potential instability. Similarly, in the Biblical kingdoms of Judah, coregencies such as Asa with Jehoshaphat (c. 870–848 BCE) allowed heirs to observe and participate in judicial, military, and diplomatic functions, mitigating risks of unprepared succession. This apprenticeship model reduced the likelihood of dynastic rupture, with the junior ruler often handling routine provincial oversight or military campaigns under paternal supervision. Sharing administrative burdens was another pragmatic rationale, particularly in expansive monarchies where a single ruler faced overwhelming demands from , taxation, and defense. Augustus elevated Tiberius to co-princeps status in 12–13 CE, granting him equal and tribunician powers to delegate oversight of frontier legions and provincial revenues across the Roman Empire's 4–5 million square kilometers, alleviating the founder's advanced age-related fatigue. In Egypt's New Kingdom, coregencies like that of with (c. 1390–1353 BCE) enabled the senior to offload flood management and temple endowments to the heir, sustaining administrative efficiency amid a exceeding 3 million. Such divisions preserved institutional , as the heir's involvement prevented bottlenecks in edict issuance and resource allocation, though outcomes varied based on the junior's aptitude—effective in stable dynasties but prone to factionalism if trust eroded. Biblical precedents, including David's coregency with (c. 970 BCE), involved delegating temple preparations and tribal alliances to the son, easing the aging king's load during his final years. Empirical patterns across these cases indicate coregencies enhanced heir competency through hands-on exposure, with smoother post-transition reigns in Egypt's Middle Kingdom compared to contested Biblical successions lacking such preparation. However, administrative sharing succeeded only when powers were clearly delineated, as ambiguous roles could foster rivalry rather than relief.

Operational Mechanisms

Coregencies are legally established through the unilateral decree of the senior monarch, who elevates the designated heir to co-sovereign status, granting them royal titles and authority without requiring parliamentary or constitutional approval in absolute monarchies. This mechanism operates on the principle of royal prerogative, where succession planning bypasses formal codification, relying instead on the reigning ruler's command to associate the junior partner, as evidenced in historical precedents lacking predefined legal statutes for such arrangements. In ancient Egyptian practice, royal authority directly conveyed office to the heir during co-regencies, with no standardized rules dictating the process beyond the pharaoh's decision to share kingship for transitional stability. Ceremonially, implementation typically features rituals affirming dual , such as or of the junior ruler, which symbolize divine endorsement and continuity, often documented through shared regnal dating on monuments or inscriptions. In the kingdoms of Judah and , biblical coregencies involved proclamations and associations that enabled the to exercise rule under the father's oversight, serving to the heir and safeguard dynastic claims against rivals. These ceremonies reinforced legitimacy by integrating the co-ruler into official protocols, including joint titulary and public displays of authority, though the senior retained precedence in . Empirical outcomes from such implementations, like extended dynastic in , indicate their role in minimizing disruptions.

Power Dynamics and Decision-Making

In coregencies, power dynamics were predominantly hierarchical, with the senior ruler retaining ultimate authority over strategic decisions such as military campaigns, foreign alliances, and religious appointments, while the junior co-ruler handled routine administration, provincial oversight, and ceremonial duties to facilitate and continuity. This structure minimized succession disputes by associating the heir with the throne during 's lifetime, but it often masked underlying tensions, as evidenced by post-coregency erasures of junior rulers' records in , where successors like defaced Hatshepsut's monuments after her death around 1458 BCE to reassert sole legitimacy. Decision-making processes emphasized consultation and joint issuance of decrees, yet empirical patterns from attested coregencies indicate the senior's dominance, with juniors rarely overriding policies; for example, in Middle Kingdom Egypt's coregency between and (c. 1971–1926 BCE), inscriptions and administrative texts show the son executing delegated tasks under paternal oversight, without independent veto power. In the biblical kingdoms of Judah, coregencies like that of and Jehoram (c. 853–848 BCE) synchronized regnal years for chronological alignment, but narrative accounts in 2 Kings portray the senior king directing core political and military choices, such as alliances against Aram, with the junior's input limited to advisory roles. Medieval European instances, though rarer than in antiquity, followed similar asymmetries, as in Carolingian co-rulerships where elder rulers like (d. 814 CE) partitioned authority among sons but reserved imperial oversight, leading to fraternal conflicts resolved by senior fiat or imperial assembly; power-sharing remained uneven, with juniors often confined to sub-kingdoms until the principal's death. Such dynamics empirically favored stability when the senior effectively mentored, but failures arose from ambiguous succession protocols, prompting later legal codifications in dynastic charters to clarify rights and inheritance precedence.

Historical Examples

Ancient Near East and Egypt

In , coregencies—joint reigns between a senior and a designated heir—emerged as a formalized mechanism during the Middle Kingdom, particularly in the Twelfth Dynasty (c. 1991–1802 BCE), to secure dynastic continuity amid political instability following assassination attempts and succession uncertainties. The earliest attested instance involved (r. c. 1991–1962 BCE) and his son (r. c. 1971–1926 BCE), overlapping for approximately 10 years around 1962 BCE, as evidenced by double-dated inscriptions like the Antef stela equating Amenemhat's Year 30 with Senusret's Year 10, alongside graffiti from Nubian expeditions portraying Senusret as protector. This pattern continued with and (r. c. 1918–1875 BCE), overlapping from Senusret's Year 44 to Amenemhat's Year 2 (c. 1929 BCE), supported by stelae such as Wepwawet-aa's and tomb texts depicting the junior ruler as a subordinate " Protector." Similar short overlaps marked subsequent Twelfth Dynasty pairs, including and (r. c. 1897–1878 BCE) for about two years (evidenced by the Hapu stela) and (r. c. 1878–1839 BCE) with (r. c. 1860–1814 BCE), though the latter's extent remains debated due to chronological discrepancies in altars and Kumma texts. The practice persisted into the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom, with the Eighteenth Dynasty providing some of the most documented cases. (r. c. 1479–1458 BCE) and (r. c. 1479–1425 BCE) co-ruled for 13–20 years starting around Thutmose's Year 7, as confirmed by ostraca, Deir el-Bahri reliefs recording Punt expeditions in her Year 9, and obelisk inscriptions from her Years 15–16, during which Hatshepsut initially dominated administration while Thutmose later led Syrian campaigns by his Years 22–23. then briefly overlapped with (r. c. 1427–1400 BCE) for about 2 years and 4 months before Amenhotep's Year 3, evidenced by scarabs, statue groups, and Amada temple texts mentioning only the senior pharaoh's ka in prayers. Debated overlaps include (r. c. 1390–1352 BCE) and (r. c. 1353–1336 BCE) for roughly 11 years around Amenhotep's Year 30, supported by (e.g., EA 27 dated to Year 12), tomb scenes like Huya's showing mutual depictions, and Luxor temple figures, though interpretations vary due to potential post-mortem alterations. 's short coregency with (c. 1335 BCE) lasted about 2 years, attested by Amarna stelae and Meryre II's tomb. In the Nineteenth Dynasty, coregencies remained brief but strategic for transition. (r. c. 1292–1290 BCE) overlapped with Sety I (r. c. 1290–1279 BCE) for less than a year after Ramesses' Year 2, per Medamud statues and Abydos stelae; Sety I then co-ruled with (r. c. 1279–1213 BCE) for 1–2 years early in Ramesses' reign, evidenced by Abydos temple inscriptions and stelae assigning Ramesses princely titles. Later periods, such as the Twenty-third Dynasty's Osorkon III (r. c. 787–759 BCE) and Takelot III (r. c. 764–757 BCE) overlap (Osorkon's Year 28 equating Takelot's Year 5 via Cachette statues), and Ptolemaic triune rule under Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII, and (170–164 BCE, per stelae), extended the tradition into Hellenistic times. Beyond , coregencies appear rare or undocumented in core Mesopotamian kingdoms like and , where kingship emphasized singular authority, with successions often marked by conquest or divine mandate rather than formal joint rule, as seen in Assyrian king lists and Babylonian chronicles lacking double-dated regnal overlaps. In the Hittite Empire (c. 1600–1178 BCE) of , no systematic coregency existed, though isolated scholarly proposals suggest brief overlaps, such as between Tudhaliya I/II and Arnuwanda I or a hypothetical Tudhaliya-father pairing, based on fragmentary annals and treaty texts, but these remain speculative without consensus on durations or legal implementation. Egyptian practices thus stand out for their evidentiary depth and institutionalization, likely influenced by pharaonic viewing the ruler as a divine conduit requiring uninterrupted continuity.

Biblical Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

In the divided kingdoms of and Judah following the death of around 931 BCE, coregencies served to facilitate dynastic transitions amid political instability and to reconcile biblical regnal synchronisms with external chronological anchors, such as Assyrian eponym lists. Biblical texts occasionally describe explicit overlaps where a successor ruled alongside the reigning king, as in the case of anointing as co-regent during his lifetime (1 Kings 1:32-40), ensuring continuity before 's death circa 970 BCE. Similar arrangements appear in Judah more frequently than in , reflecting Judah's longer-term adherence to Davidic lineage despite coups and assassinations in the northern kingdom. Edwin R. Thiele's reconstruction in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (1951, revised editions) posits coregencies as essential to harmonizing the Hebrew Bible's accession-year reckoning (Judah from Tishri, from ) with non-accession practices and fixed dates from Assyrian records, such as the fall of in 722 BCE under . Thiele identifies six coregencies in Judah and one in , totaling overlaps of approximately 25 years that prevent the summed reigns from exceeding the archaeologically anchored period from 931 BCE to Judah's fall in 586 BCE. These are inferred from textual discrepancies, such as Jehoshaphat's reign beginning in Asa's fourth year (1 Kings 15:8-24) yet extending beyond Asa's death, indicating a three-year co-rule circa 873-870 BCE. Explicit biblical attestations include Jehoram's accession as co-regent with in Jehoshaphat's fifth year relative to Israel's Jehoram (2 Kings 1:17; 3:1; 8:16), overlapping circa 853-848 BCE amid threats from and . In Israel, Jehoash (Joash) co-ruled with toward the end of Jeroboam's 41-year reign (2 Kings 14:23), circa 793-782 BCE, stabilizing the dynasty before the Assyrian incursions that ended the northern kingdom. Other inferred Judahite coregencies per Thiele encompass Amaziah and (Uzziah) overlapping circa 767-750 BCE (2 Kings 15:1-2), and Azariah circa 750-735 BCE (2 Kings 15:5,7), and and Jotham circa 735-732 BCE (2 Kings 15:38), each bridging gaps in synchronisms with Israelite kings like and .
CoregencyKingdomApproximate Dates (BCE)Biblical Evidence
with AsaJudah873-8701 Kings 15:8-24; 22:41-42 (synchronism discrepancy)
Jehoram with Judah853-8482 Kings 8:16 (explicit overlap)
(Uzziah) with AmaziahJudah767-7502 Kings 15:1-2 (age and reign mismatch)
with Judah750-7352 Kings 15:5,7 (continued rule despite affliction)
with Judah735-7322 Kings 15:38; 16:1 (brief transition)
with Judah729-7152 Kings 18:1-2 (aligned with Assyrian dates)
Jehoash with Israel793-7822 Kings 14:23 (extended influence)
Debates persist, with some scholars like Leslie McFall arguing Thiele overlooked an extended Hezekiah-Ahaz overlap (729/8-715 BCE) to fit Assyrian king lists under , while others question the necessity of coregencies altogether, favoring alternative reckoning methods without textual warrant. Empirical outcomes in Judah suggest coregencies bolstered Davidic survival longer than Israel's dynastic volatility, averting immediate fragmentation post-Solomon, though they did not prevent usurpations like Athaliah's coup (2 Kings 11). Archaeological correlates, such as Judahite seals and bullae naming co-ruling figures, provide indirect support but remain sparse due to limited epigraphic evidence from the period.

Classical Antiquity

In the , coregencies emerged as a mechanism to facilitate succession and administrative , particularly from the AD onward, when emperors elevated heirs to the title of while retaining personal authority. This practice contrasted with earlier republican traditions and informal adoptions, reflecting Hellenistic influences on imperial dynastic strategy. A prominent example occurred under (r. 161–180 AD), who, facing ongoing military campaigns along the frontier, proclaimed his son co-Augustus on November 27, 177 AD at the age of 15, granting him full imperial titles and responsibilities including command of the . This arrangement lasted until Marcus's death on March 17, 180 AD, during which Commodus participated in governance but deferred to his father's strategic decisions, as evidenced by joint consular listings and coinage depicting both rulers. Septimius Severus (r. 193–211 AD) similarly implemented coregency to consolidate his amid civil wars and provincial unrest. In 198 AD, he elevated his elder son (born Lucius Septimius Bassianus, r. 198–217 AD) to Augustus after victories in , associating him in rule while Severus commanded legions in Britain and . By 205 AD, younger son Geta (r. 209–211 AD) joined as co-Augustus, forming a documented in inscriptions and monuments where all three bore equal imperial epithets. Severus's rationale emphasized burden-sharing, as articulated in his deathbed advice to his sons—"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all else"—aimed at preventing factional strife, though it failed post-211 AD when murdered Geta. Earlier instances, such as the debated association of with from 12–14 AD, involved shared tribunician powers but lacked formal co-Augustan status, with numismatic evidence showing Tiberius not depicted as equal ruler during Augustus's lifetime. In Greek contexts, monarchic coregencies were scarce due to the prevalence of democracies and oligarchies; Sparta's dual kingship constituted rather than sequential coregency. Hellenistic successor states outside , like the , occasionally featured joint rule—e.g., (r. 305–281 BC) dispatched son Antiochus I (r. 281–261 BC) to govern eastern satrapies with viceregal authority circa 290 BC—but these were provisional delegations, not full titular coregencies, aimed at securing vast territories against revolt. Such arrangements empirically supported short-term stability but often unraveled upon the senior ruler's death due to untested junior authority.

Medieval and Early Modern Europe

In medieval Europe, coregency often manifested as associative kingship, wherein reigning monarchs crowned or associated their heirs during their lifetimes to secure dynastic continuity and train successors in governance. This practice, borrowed from Carolingian traditions and Byzantine influences, was employed across Frankish, English, and French realms to mitigate succession disputes amid feudal fragmentation. Emperors and kings retained primary authority, granting sons ceremonial roles or limited administrative duties, though tensions frequently arose from the junior ruler's lack of substantive power. A foundational example occurred in the Carolingian Empire when Charlemagne crowned his son Louis the Pious as co-emperor on September 11, 813, at Aachen, designating him heir to the entire realm while Charlemagne lived until 814. This act aimed to unify the empire under a single successor, averting partitions that had weakened prior Frankish divisions, though Louis later faced rebellions from siblings. In Angevin England, Henry II crowned his eldest surviving son, Henry the Young King, on June 14, 1170, at Westminster Abbey, performed by the Archbishop of York amid papal interdict concerns. The Young King, aged 15, received no lands or revenues, leading to his 1173 rebellion alongside brothers Richard and Geoffrey against their father's dominance; he died of dysentery in 1183 without ascending solely. French Capetians adopted similar mechanisms, with Philip II Augustus crowning his son Louis VIII on August 6, 1223, to affirm succession before Philip's death in 1223. This ensured smooth transition during the Albigensian Crusade's aftermath, bolstering Capetian legitimacy against baronial challenges. In the during the , Habsburg emperors routinely secured the election of heirs as Kings of the Romans, a preparatory title functioning as coregency. For instance, III had Leopold I elected in 1658, grooming him for imperial duties while retaining control until 1657. This electoral tradition, evolving from medieval precedents, minimized interregna but occasionally sparked princely opposition to Habsburg dynastic entrenchment. Overall, these coregencies empirically reduced immediate succession vacuums but often exacerbated familial rivalries, as evidenced by recurring revolts and partitions.

Asia and Other Regions

In Japan, during the , (574–622 CE) served as coregent to (r. 593–628 CE), managing administrative and diplomatic affairs, including the of 604 CE and the promotion of , while the empress retained symbolic authority amid clan rivalries. In Vietnam's (1225–1400 CE), coregency was institutionalized as a mechanism for dynastic stability, whereby a senior emperor nominally abdicated to a chosen heir but retained substantive power, often described as "two emperors, one court," to train successors and avert succession crises during Mongol invasions. This practice, exemplified by (r. 1226–1258 CE) yielding to while continuing to govern, contributed to the dynasty's resilience over nearly two centuries. In China, the Qing dynasty featured coregency in 1861 following Emperor Xianfeng's death on August 22, when and were designated coregents for the infant (r. 1861–1875 CE), enabling Cixi to dominate policy through palace coups and reforms until the emperor's majority in 1873. In the of ancient Persia (550–330 BCE), classical and eastern traditions document co-rulership arrangements alongside regencies, where kings designated heirs or kin to share authority for administrative continuity across vast satrapies, though evidence remains interpretive from royal inscriptions and Greek accounts. In , certain polities like (ca. 100 BCE–550 CE) evidenced oligarchic coregency among councils of three to seven elite lords, balancing military, ritual, and economic roles in a non-hereditary supreme rulership, as inferred from apartment compounds and architecture symbolizing collective governance.

Advantages and Empirical Outcomes

Stability and Succession Success Rates

Coregencies demonstrably enhanced succession success rates in several ancient monarchies by preemptively legitimizing heirs and mitigating disputes through shared rule, as evidenced by extended dynastic continuity in periods of regular implementation. In Egypt's 12th Dynasty (c. 1991–1802 BC), overlapping reigns—such as the 10-year coregency between and (c. 1971–1926 BC), confirmed by the Stela of Hapu—facilitated uninterrupted power transfers across seven rulers, sustaining internal stability and territorial expansion without documented succession conflicts. This era's success contrasted with preceding First Intermediate Period fragmentation, where absent coregencies correlated with rival claims and civil strife. In the New Kingdom (c. 1550–1070 BC), coregencies like that of and (c. 1479–1425 BC), supported by temple inscriptions and synchronisms, enabled smooth transitions during peak imperial power, with no recorded interregnums or usurpations at death points. Ptolemaic Egypt (305–30 BC) further illustrates this, as coregencies—exemplified by Ptolemy II's elevation of his son (285–246 BC), per the Mendes Stela—served as a strategic bulwark against fraternal rivalries, preserving dynastic integrity amid Hellenistic volatility. Scholarly examinations, drawing on epigraphic and astronomical data, affirm that such mechanisms reduced post-mortem challenges by embedding heirs in administrative and ritual roles, though evidentiary debates persist due to incomplete records. Biblical accounts of Judah's monarchies (c. 930–586 BC) reveal analogous patterns, with regnal overlaps—such as the 3-year coregency of and Jehoram (c. 873–848 BC)—reconciling chronological synchronisms in Kings and Chronicles, implying stabilized successions amid threats from and . These instances, corroborated by Assyrian annals for external validations, suggest coregencies yielded higher continuity rates than elective or contested accessions elsewhere in the , where unassociated heirs often sparked kin-based revolts. Overall, while comprehensive quantitative metrics across eras are elusive due to archival gaps, qualitative assessments from primary inscriptions indicate coregencies elevated successful handovers to near-universal efficacy in adopting dynasties, outperforming non-coregent systems prone to 20–50% disruption rates inferred from inter-dynastic breaks.

Evidence from Long-Term Dynastic Survival

In ancient Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (c. 1991–1802 BCE), the institutionalization of coregencies between senior pharaohs and their designated heirs facilitated extended periods of dynastic continuity, with the dynasty enduring approximately 189 years amid relative internal peace compared to preceding fragmented rule. Scholars attribute this stability to coregencies enabling the heir's gradual assumption of administrative and ritual duties, minimizing succession disputes that plagued earlier periods like the First Intermediate Period (c. 2181–2055 BCE). Evidence includes monumental inscriptions, such as the Stela of Hapu (discovered 1828), which document overlapping reigns like that of and , allowing seamless power transfer without recorded or usurpations during the dynasty's core phase. The Eighteenth Dynasty (c. 1550–1292 BCE) provides further empirical correlation, lasting about 258 years with multiple attested coregencies, including those of and III, and and , which scholars link to enhanced regime resilience against external threats and internal factionalism. These arrangements overlapped reigns by up to 10–12 years in documented cases, fostering heir legitimacy through joint military campaigns and temple dedications, as evidenced in reliefs and royal annals, thereby averting the rapid turnover seen in shorter-lived contemporaries like the Second Intermediate Period's rulers (c. 1650–1550 BCE). While debates persist over exact overlap durations due to incomplete records, the pattern aligns with coregencies serving as a causal mechanism for prolonging dynastic tenure by preempting power vacuums. In the Kingdom of Judah (c. 930–586 BCE), biblical chronologies reconciled via coregencies—such as those between Asa and (c. 873–869 BCE overlap) and Amaziah and (c. 796–767 BCE)—supported a dynasty spanning roughly 344 years, outlasting the northern Kingdom of Israel (c. 930–722 BCE, ~208 years) where fewer such arrangements are inferred. Edwin R. Thiele's analysis posits these overlaps resolved apparent reign-length discrepancies in Kings and Chronicles without inflating or compressing timelines, implying coregencies reduced lethal succession struggles, as Judah experienced no equivalent to Israel's multiple dynastic upheavals (e.g., Baasha's coup c. 909 BCE). This evidence underscores coregencies' role in empirical dynastic endurance, though causal attribution requires caution given confounding factors like geopolitical alliances.

Criticisms and Failures

Risks of Internal Conflict and Usurpation

Coregencies, intended to mitigate succession crises, frequently amplified risks of by creating dual centers of that fostered , resentment, and ambiguous power dynamics. When the senior ruler retained control, the junior partner often felt marginalized, prompting rebellions or plots; conversely, a dominant junior could usurp prerogatives, leading to posthumous retaliation or instability. from historical dynasties reveals elevated usurpation rates during such arrangements, as shared legitimacy diluted and invited factional intrigue among courtiers or members. In , the coregency between and (c. 1479–1458 BCE), lasting at least 13–22 years, exemplifies these perils. , initially for her stepson, progressively assumed full pharaonic titles and prerogatives, sidelining by preceding his name on monuments and leading major projects like the eighth pylon at . Upon her death around year 22 of her reign, , then militarily ascendant after campaigns in , systematically defaced her inscriptions and cartouches across temples, erasing her legacy in a calculated usurpation of historical memory that reflected underlying tensions from her dominance during their joint rule. Medieval European cases further illustrate usurpation risks, as in the under (r. 1154–1189). To preempt disputes, Henry crowned his eldest son, , as co-monarch in June 1170 at , granting him titular authority over , , and Anjou without substantive power. Frustrated by his father's retention of executive control and influenced by court factions, the Young King rebelled in 1173 alongside brothers and Geoffrey, backed by their mother and French king Louis VII; the ensuing ravaged Henry's domains, culminating in the Young King's death from in 1183 amid ongoing strife, which weakened the dynasty and invited baronial unrest. Such patterns persisted in Hellenistic and Byzantine contexts, where coregencies amid familial intermarriages often devolved into lethal intrigue; Ptolemaic Egypt's sibling co-rulerships, for instance, routinely escalated into murders and coups, as seen in the late dynasty's power struggles that fragmented authority and accelerated decline. In , associating sons or generals as co-emperors, while stabilizing short-term, correlated with 20 documented usurpers among 93 rulers, many exploiting co-rulership vacuums for palace revolts, as during the 11th-century Komnenian transitions. These outcomes underscore how coregencies, by blurring command hierarchies, heightened causal vulnerabilities to betrayal over solo reigns' clearer dominance.

Historical Cases of Breakdown

In , the coregency between and , beginning as a regency for the young Thutmose around 1479 BC, transitioned into Hatshepsut's assumption of full pharaonic powers, including adopting male regalia and titles, which effectively sidelined Thutmose III for over two decades. Following Hatshepsut's death circa 1458 BC, Thutmose III ordered the systematic defacement of her cartouches and monuments at key sites like and Deir el-Bahri, an act interpreted by Egyptologists as evidence of posthumous resentment or a strategic purge to consolidate his legitimacy and erase her unprecedented female rule. In Ptolemaic Egypt, the coregency of VIII Euergetes II and , formalized after VI's death in 145 BC, deteriorated amid familial rivalries, culminating in a in 132 BC. VIII's polygamous marriage to , his niece and 's daughter, alienated , who proclaimed her son Memphites as co-ruler; VIII responded by ordering Memphites' murder during a festival, prompting to seize , burn royal records, and force VIII's exile to until a fragile reconciliation in 130 BC. This episode exemplifies how Ptolemaic coregencies, reliant on marriages to reinforce dynastic unity, often amplified succession disputes and led to intra-family violence, contributing to the dynasty's instability. During the Angevin Empire, King Henry II of 's coronation of his eldest son, , as junior co-king on 14 June 1170 sought to preempt succession crises but instead precipitated the Revolt of 1173–1174. Frustrated by Henry's retention of effective authority and lands promised to his youngest son John, the Young King allied with brothers and Geoffrey, their mother —who provided financial and military support—and French King Louis VII, launching rebellions in , , and that devastated Henry's territories and required 18 months of campaigning to suppress, ending with the Young King's submission at Falais on 8 July 1174. This breakdown highlighted the risks of nominal coregencies without power-sharing, as the sons' expectations of autonomy clashed with Henry II's centralized control, foreshadowing further familial strife until his death in 1189.

Scholarly Debates and Evidence

Methodological Challenges in Identification

The identification of coregencies in ancient monarchies relies heavily on double-dated inscriptions that synchronize the regnal years of two rulers, yet such evidence is exceedingly rare and often contested beyond the . In the New Kingdom, for example, no double dates are universally accepted before the Third Intermediate Period, forcing scholars to infer overlaps from fragmentary data like the graffito linking Amenhotep III's year 30 to subsequent events. This scarcity leads to reliance on indirect indicators, such as overlapping dedications or scenes, which may reflect hierarchical succession or posthumous commemoration rather than genuine power-sharing. Without explicit textual linkage of regnal sequences— as seen in the unequivocal Twelfth Dynasty case of Amenemhat I's year 30 equating to Senwosret I's — claims of coregency risk overinterpretation. Iconographic and epigraphic evidence further complicates verification, as joint royal depictions on stelae, temples, or scarabs can denote ideological association without confirming contemporaneous rule. For instance, tomb scenes purportedly showing and together have been debated since the , with some viewing them as durbar memorials rather than proof of a decade-long coregency, highlighting where stylistic continuity substitutes for chronological fixpoints. Epithets like "Good God" or dual cartouches appear ambiguous, potentially signaling junior status or later usurpation rather than equal authority, as in the contested Thutmose III-Amenhotep II overlap lacking co-ruling administrative records. Scholarly disputes often stem from these interpretive gaps, with circumstantial data from ostraca or papyri (e.g., Quay texts) failing to distinguish coregency from sole reign extensions. Chronological methodologies exacerbate these issues, as reconstructions frequently posit coregencies to reconcile reign discrepancies, such as in the succession where Akhenaten's rule is squeezed between predecessors via assumed overlaps of 12 years with and shorter ones with or . This approach invites , particularly when king lists or biblical synchronisms (e.g., Assyrian or Judahite records) introduce telescoped timelines or artificial joint reigns to align narratives. Absent diplomatic attestations of junior rulers—rarely granted abroad— or clear administrative documents acknowledging divided authority, identification remains provisional, with many proposed coregencies, like Hatshepsut-Thutmose III, hinging on debated durations (e.g., 20+ years) unsupported by her isolated regnal dating. In non-Egyptian contexts, such as Mesopotamian or biblical monarchies, similar evidentiary voids persist, underscoring the need for multi-disciplinary caution against assuming institutional continuity from sparse artifacts.

Chronological and Archaeological Disputes

One prominent area of chronological dispute involves the reigns of the Hebrew as recorded in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, where apparent discrepancies in reign lengths and synchronisms necessitate positing coregencies to achieve internal consistency and alignment with external Assyrian records. For instance, the biblical data indicate overlaps such as the coregency of with Asa in Judah (c. 873–869 BC) and Jehoram with Jehoshaphat (c. 853–848 BC), which Edwin R. Thiele incorporated into his chronology to resolve conflicts like the of Ahaziah's accession in the 11th or 12th year of Joram of (2 Kings 8:25; 9:29). Thiele's model posits six coregencies in Judah and one in Israel, synchronizing events like Ahab's participation in the (853 BC) and Jehu's tribute to (841 BC) with Assyrian annals, but critics argue it overlooks additional overlaps, such as an extended coregency for with (), leading to mismatches in the timing of Tiglath-Pileser III's campaigns (c. 743–732 BC). Archaeological corroboration for these coregencies remains indirect and contested, relying on synchronisms with Mesopotamian king lists and records rather than direct inscriptions naming joint rulers. The Ostraca and Arad Seals provide regnal names but lack precise dating, while stratigraphic evidence from sites like Lachish ties Judean fortifications to assumed coregency periods under Uzziah-Jotham (c. 750–735 BC), yet chronologies and dates from destruction layers (e.g., 's fall in 722 BC) yield variances of up to 20 years depending on whether coregencies are extended or minimized. Scholars like Gershon Galil refine Thiele by adjusting overlaps based on these artifacts, but debates persist over scribal accession-year reckoning (Judah's Tishri-based vs. 's Nisan-based), with some proposing fewer coregencies to fit a compressed timeline closer to 931–722 BC for . In ancient Egyptian history, coregency disputes similarly underpin broader chronological frameworks, particularly in the 18th Dynasty, where evidence from double-dated stelae and scarab seals suggests but does not conclusively prove joint rules, affecting by decades. The proposed coregency between and (c. 1479–1458 BC or adjusted low chronology c. 1390–1350 BC) has been challenged by reexamination of inscriptions and tomb artifacts, which show no unambiguous overlap in regnal years and may reflect succession propaganda rather than shared authority, potentially shortening the dynasty by 2–3 years. Similarly, the Amenhotep III-Akhenaten coregency (c. 1353–1349 BC), inferred from the Kom el-Heitan stela and wine dockets, is contested due to ambiguous and erasures in records, with some analyses favoring a sole succession to align with lunar sightings and datings around 1390 BC for Amenhotep III's accession. Archaeological disputes in often hinge on the interpretation of material evidence amid sparse textual records, such as the Stela for Ptolemaic overlaps or Middle Kingdom double-cartouche stelae (e.g., Amenemhat I-Sesostris I, c. 1971–1926 BC), which confirm some coregencies but fuel debates over their duration and intent—ritual vs. substantive power-sharing. These variances propagate errors in high vs. low chronologies, influencing cross-cultural synchronisms like potential links to Hyksos expulsions or biblical sojourns, with peer-reviewed reassessments emphasizing that assumed coregencies may overestimate dynasty lengths by incorporating unverified overlaps from biased later king lists. Overall, both biblical and Egyptian cases highlight how coregency assumptions bridge textual gaps but invite scrutiny when archaeological anchors, such as radiocarbon from Thebes tombs or canons, yield alternative timelines without joint rule.

References

  1. https://www.academia.edu/8204701/The_Coregency_Conundrum
  2. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/beyond-moses-and-elijah-the-regency-coregency-continuum-as-a-model-for-mentored-succession-with-hatshepsut-of-egypt-and-vani-vilasa-of-india-as-case-studies/
  3. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/kings-and-queens-of-egypt
  4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0307513319885097
  5. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781487574918-005/html
  6. https://library.snls.org.sz/boundless/boundless/world-history/definition/co-regent/index.html
  7. https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/facts-2-chronicles-9/
  8. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004422155/BP000011.xml
  9. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004422155/BP000012.xml
  10. https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc40.pdf
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26948553
  12. https://www.dwworldhistory.com/post/ancient-egypt-the-12th-dynasty
  13. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2027&context=auss
  14. https://www.quora.com/Was-there-a-co-regency-of-Tiberius-and-Augustus-history-classical-Rome-Roman-empire-leaders-ancient-politics
  15. https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-testament/samuel-kings-chronicles-and-work/the-golden-age-of-the-monarchy-2-samuel-1-24-1-kings-1-11-1-chronicles-21-2/preparing-for-a-successor-to-israels-throne-1-kings-1-1-chronicles-22/
  16. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004442825/BP000010.xml?language=en
  17. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004442825/BP000010.xml
  18. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789004442825/BP000010.pdf
  19. https://www.academia.edu/9072195/The_Power_of_the_Elite_The_Officials_of_Hatshepsut_s_Regency_and_Coregency
  20. https://biblearchaeology.org/research/divided-kingdom/3295-evidence-for-inerrancy-from-an-unexpected-source-ot-chronology
  21. https://historyjournal.org.uk/2022/11/23/co-rulership-and-power-in-medieval-europe/
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1517493
  23. https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1974_thiele.pdf
  24. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2027&context=auss
  25. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/has-the-chronology-of-the-hebrew-kings-been-finally-settled/
  26. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/7/804
  27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435813
  28. https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/37789-reckoning-tiberius-s-reign-and-jesus-s-baptism-first-and-second-century-evidence-concerning-tiberius-s-fifteenth-year-luke-3-1.pdf
  29. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/history-matters/minor-monarchs
  30. https://kingscoronation.com/coronation-henry-ii-henry-young-king/
  31. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/louis-pious-0011094
  32. https://ianstone.london/2020/06/14/the-coronation-of-henry-the-young-king/
  33. https://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/joseph-ii-co-regent
  34. https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/shotoku-compiled-japanese-history-prince/
  35. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/cixis-coup
  36. https://permmedjournal.ru/0321-0391/article/view/681248
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Linda_Rosa_Manzanilla/publication/279614841_State_Formation_in_the_New_World/links/58a768f84585150402f2a1d9/State-Formation-in-the-New-World.pdf
  38. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004422155/BP000012.pdf
  39. https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/article/download/29557/21596/78021
  40. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/40330/excerpt/9780521840330_excerpt.pdf
  41. https://academic.oup.com/book/31836/chapter/267113901
  42. https://www.academia.edu/124040381/Rethinking_New_Kingdom_Coregencies_and_a_Case_Study_on_the_Amarna_Period_in_Dogaer_et_al_Current_Research_in_Egyptology_2023_92_115
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/monarchies-and-the-organization-of-power/8ECF691A957BB4B22F5B5D0CB50D1D90
  44. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/hatshepsut_01.shtml
  45. https://medievalwanderings.com/2020/10/10/the-troublesome-time-of-englands-dual-king-henrys/
  46. https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_englishrebels
  47. https://byzantium.gr/statrgn.html
  48. https://dangerouswomenproject.org/2016/10/01/hatshepsut/
  49. https://www.academia.edu/44336339/The_Civil_War_between_Ptolemy_VIII_and_Cleopatra_II_Possible_Causes_and_Key_Events
  50. http://www.ptolemaic.net/two-eagles/2a-concurrence.htm
  51. https://historicalragbag.com/2020/08/31/henry-the-young-king-part-one/
  52. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/06/geoffrey-prodigal-son-henry-ii/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.