The Ancient Ceremony That Chose a Ruler
The process of selecting an emperor in ancient civilizations was far from a simple political transition—it was often a deeply ritualized affair that blended religion, astronomy, and mysticism. In the Byzantine Empire, for example, the coronation of a new ruler followed a strict ceremonial process that involved multiple layers of approval. Senior court officials, including the magister officiorum and the comes excubitorum, played a crucial role in nominating a candidate, but their choice had to be ratified by the Senate, the military, and ultimately, the people of Constantinople in a grand public acclamation at the Hippodrome. This ensured that the emperor’s legitimacy was not only political but also sacred, as the entire society had a role in his ascension.
Once chosen, the new emperor was dressed in elaborate regalia, including a white tunic with gold embroidery, a gem-encrusted belt, and crimson imperial buskins. The patriarch of Constantinople presided over the religious aspects of the coronation, anointing the emperor and placing the diadem upon his head. Some emperors, particularly in moments of contested succession, were even raised on a shield in a symbolic military gesture of approval. This ritual, which combined political, military, and religious elements, underscored the emperor’s divine right to rule—an essential concept in maintaining stability in an empire where legitimacy was often challenged.
How Divine Signs and Omens Played a Role
Throughout history, rulers have sought divine validation to justify their reigns, but few civilizations took this as seriously as ancient Mesopotamians and Byzantines. In Mesopotamian culture, celestial events—particularly lunar and solar eclipses—were seen as ominous warnings from the gods, often interpreted as harbingers of a king’s impending doom. When such an omen appeared, scholars and exorcists advised the king to perform the Substitute King Ritual, a complex ceremony in which a temporary monarch was enthroned to absorb the ill fate, allowing the real king to evade divine wrath. The substitute, often a condemned criminal, enjoyed royal privileges for a time—before being executed once the danger had passed.
Similarly, the Byzantine Empire relied on divine signs to justify imperial accessions. Coronation rituals incorporated religious elements, such as the patriarch anointing the emperor, reinforcing the belief that the ruler was chosen by God. Public acclamation, often held in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, further cemented the emperor’s legitimacy, as the people’s approval was seen as an extension of divine will. Even the act of raising an emperor on a shield, a practice borrowed from Germanic traditions, was viewed as a symbolic endorsement from above. Whether through ritual sacrifice or elaborate religious ceremonies, divine signs played a crucial role in determining who would sit on the throne.
The Test of Strength, Skill, or Intelligence—A Challenge for the Throne
Throughout history, the selection of a ruler often relied on lineage, political maneuvering, or military conquest. Yet in some cultures, prospective leaders had to prove their worth through rigorous trials of strength, skill, or intelligence—sometimes all three. These challenges were not merely symbolic; they were designed to demonstrate a ruler’s ability to lead, strategize, and endure hardship.
In ancient civilizations such as the Mongol Empire, leadership often depended on demonstrating superior horsemanship and combat skills. Genghis Khan himself rose to power not only through political acumen but by proving his battlefield prowess. Similarly, some African kingdoms required their future kings to undergo physical endurance tests, ensuring they could withstand the demands of leadership. In India’s Kshatriya warrior tradition, princes trained in archery, swordsmanship, and strategy from a young age, with some even participating in public competitions to showcase their abilities.
Intellectual trials were equally significant. In the Byzantine Empire, while emperors were typically chosen by political consensus rather than direct competition, the ability to outmaneuver rivals in courtly intrigue was a vital skill. A weak or indecisive emperor risked being overthrown by a more cunning contender. In some cases, rulers were tested through theological debates, legal reasoning, or even philosophical discourse, proving their capability to govern wisely.
These trials served a dual purpose: they legitimized rulers in the eyes of their people and ensured that only the most capable individuals ascended to power. While dynastic succession became the norm in many societies, the idea that a leader should prove their worth through personal merit never fully disappeared. Even today, political debates and leadership challenges echo these ancient traditions, reminding us that strength, skill, and intelligence remain central to effective governance.
When Rulers Were Chosen by Lottery or Random Selection
The idea of selecting a ruler by chance might seem absurd today, but in certain historical periods, randomness was seen as a tool of fairness—or even divine will. One of the most well-documented cases of this practice comes from ancient Athens, where a system called sortition was used to appoint public officials. The Athenians believed that elections favored the wealthy and powerful, whereas selection by lottery ensured that all eligible citizens had an equal chance of governing. Beginning in 487 BCE, this method was used to choose magistrates, members of the Boule (Council of 500), and jurors for the city’s courts. The goal? To prevent corruption, limit the influence of political elites, and promote civic participation.
But Athens wasn’t the only place where randomness played a role in leadership. Ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, particularly in Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, practiced a bizarre variation of this concept with the Substitute King Ritual. Unlike Athenian democracy, this was not a system of governance but a desperate attempt to outwit fate. When omens—especially solar or lunar eclipses—foretold the death of a king, a temporary ruler was chosen, often a condemned criminal or a political enemy. This substitute was dressed in royal garments, given the trappings of power, and allowed to rule in name for a period ranging from three to one hundred days. The real king, meanwhile, went into hiding, adopting a new identity to escape the predicted disaster. Once the ritual ended, the substitute king was executed, believed to have absorbed the ill fate meant for the true monarch.
These two approaches—Athenian sortition and the Mesopotamian substitute king—reveal how different cultures viewed power and fate. While Athens used randomness to ensure fairness and prevent tyranny, Mesopotamian rulers saw it as a way to cheat destiny itself. Both methods, however, reflect a deep human desire to control the unpredictable forces that shape leadership.
The Role of Priests and Mystics in the Selection Process
Throughout history, the selection of rulers was rarely a purely political decision—it often carried profound religious and mystical significance. In ancient Mesopotamia, priests and mystics played an integral role in determining who would sit on the throne, particularly through the Substitute King Ritual. This elaborate ceremony was performed when celestial omens, such as solar and lunar eclipses, foretold danger to the reigning monarch. The king’s scholars, including exorcists and scribes, would analyze these omens and advise whether the ritual should be enacted. Their influence was so great that even though the king had the theoretical authority to refuse, social and religious expectations often left him little choice.
Once the decision was made, priests would oversee the entire process. They conducted exorcistic rites to symbolically transfer the ominous signs from the real king to a temporary substitute—often a condemned criminal or political adversary—who would be ceremonially enthroned. During this period, the true ruler would go into hiding under a new identity while the substitute king resided in the palace, enjoying royal privileges but holding no actual power. The ritual could last anywhere from a few days to several months, depending on further celestial observations.
At the end of the ritual, the substitute king and queen were executed, their deaths believed to neutralize the predicted disaster. The real king would then undergo purification rites, likely involving cleansing rituals and divine offerings to restore his legitimacy. This extraordinary practice highlights the immense power of religious figures in ancient governance—priests and mystics were not merely spiritual guides but key political actors who shaped the fate of empires. Their interpretations of divine will could determine whether a ruler maintained his throne or faced an orchestrated disappearance.
How This Ritual Changed the Course of History
The Substitute King Ritual was more than just a ceremonial precaution against bad omens—it shaped the very nature of Mesopotamian kingship. By temporarily replacing the king with a stand-in during times of celestial uncertainty, this ritual fundamentally altered the way rulers interacted with their advisors, the priesthood, and even their own subjects. It introduced an unprecedented mechanism of power delegation, albeit temporary, that had lasting implications for governance and political strategy.
One of the most significant consequences was the increased influence of scholars, exorcists, and religious figures in royal decision-making. Since these experts were responsible for interpreting omens and recommending the ritual, they effectively wielded control over when and how the king would temporarily relinquish power. This dynamic became particularly evident during the reign of Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BCE), who is believed to have undergone the ritual multiple times. Some historians suggest that the frequent use of this practice during his rule may have been a way for his advisors to regulate his movements and limit his autonomy.
The psychological impact on kings cannot be overlooked either. The ritual forced rulers to confront their own mortality in a deeply symbolic way. By watching a substitute take their place—only to be executed at the ritual’s conclusion—Mesopotamian monarchs were reminded that their rule was not just a matter of earthly power but also of divine favor. This reinforced the idea that kingship was a precarious position, subject to the whims of the gods and the interpretations of religious experts.
Additionally, the ritual had broader societal implications. It demonstrated the interconnectedness of political leadership, religious interpretation, and astronomical phenomena. In a world where celestial events were believed to signal divine displeasure, the ability to symbolically transfer impending doom onto a substitute provided a structured way to manage existential threats. This practice reflected a sophisticated approach to crisis management, one that balanced theological concerns with political pragmatism.
Ultimately, the Substitute King Ritual was not merely an archaic superstition—it was a mechanism that revealed the deep anxieties of ancient rulers and the complex interplay between religion and power. By institutionalizing a method for temporarily displacing the king in response to omens, this ritual influenced how monarchs perceived their own legitimacy and vulnerability. It also set a precedent for later political strategies, where symbolic acts of abdication, exile, or even staged deaths would be used to navigate moments of crisis.
Other Unusual Methods Used to Pick Emperors
History has no shortage of unconventional ways to decide who gets to wear the crown. While some rulers inherited power through dynastic succession, others were chosen through rituals, omens, or sheer randomness. One of the most fascinating examples is the Substitute King Ritual of ancient Mesopotamia. Practiced in Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, this ritual allowed a temporary stand-in—often a condemned criminal—to take the throne when celestial omens predicted the king’s death. The real monarch would go into hiding, and once the ritual ended, the substitute was executed, supposedly absorbing the ill fate meant for the ruler. This practice, documented during the reign of Esarhaddon, was both a religious safeguard and a potential tool for political manipulation by court scholars.
The Byzantine Empire also had its own peculiar selection methods. Military acclamation was one such practice, where soldiers would physically lift their chosen emperor onto a shield and declare him ruler. This method, borrowed from Germanic traditions, was common until the reign of Phocas (602–610 CE). Another approach involved election by senior officials and the Senate, as seen in 491 CE when Empress Ariadne selected Anastasius I, a choice that had to be approved by the palace guards and the people of Constantinople.
Public acclamation played a critical role too. New emperors were often crowned in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, where they had to receive the approval of the masses. The patriarch of Constantinople would place the diadem on the emperor’s head, solidifying his legitimacy. In times of crisis, however, succession could turn chaotic. During the Nika Riots of 532 CE, rival factions attempted to install their own candidates, leading to violent confrontations before Emperor Justinian I ultimately retained power.
These methods highlight a central truth about imperial rule: legitimacy wasn’t just about bloodlines or military might—it was about perception. Whether through religious rituals, military support, or public approval, emperors had to be seen as divinely chosen or popularly accepted to maintain their grip on power.
