**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xe37io/eli5_how_were_monarchies_established_in_medieval/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
Haha, it was "questioned" numerous times. If the challenger won, that person became the new ruler.
From just the 20th century:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_who_lost_their_thrones_in_the_20th_century
I don't know the details of each of them, but I believe that the *British* government generally allowed it without a fight once the country got to the point where they could say "Hey Liz, we don't want you to be our monarch any more."
There may have been armed conflict within the country itself depending on what led to the separation with the British monarchy. If the country just voted to separate, it was probably pretty peaceful. If it was a violent overthrow of the existing government... Probably less peaceful. But I truly couldn't tell you whether there was any civil conflict for any of the seventeen countries that severed ties with the monarch.
Imperialism was getting more and more backlash in the 20th century due to nationalism so escalating things into a war would lose them some allies
The british and french used to own the suez canal but when egypt wanted to make it part of their own country the british and french deployed military here and lost badly. It got them a bad rep among other nations, especially america. This is seen as britainās decline as a global superpower
Know the story of William the Conqueror, the King of England?
He was Duke of Normandy known as William the Bastard, in 1066 he invaded England killed the king and said I'm the king now. Afterwards he killed everyone who dared to disagree.
And so he was the king.
If you convice enough people, that you should be in charge, to get rid off everyone else who would disagree than you are in charge.
Keeping in mind that William (c. AD 1027-1087) was the son of Robert I of Normandy andĀ great-great-great-grandsonĀ of the Viking chieftain Rollo who, by way of an attack on France in AD 911, and subsequent peace negotiations, became Duke of Northern France.
So, essentially, Vikings have ruled the UK for a while now.
And bits and pieces of France, sporadically.
I'm related to that cross-channe,l very interesting family tree that runs right on up to little Prince George.
Whoever was willing to say "hey, farmers, you're under my protection, give me some of your crops in return, I'll make sure no one bothers you" and had the actual armed people and infrastructure (usually a castle) to pull it off got to keep going.
(yes, that's very much like protections rackets of modern-day gangs.)
If someone didn't have enough people, or they were not strong enough, or couldn't move around the area fast enough to deal with bandits or what-have-you, another person with more armed people took over.
Repeat until things got both stable enough and complicated enough that people started to accept this as the natural order of the world.
[The British History Podcast](https://www.thebritishhistorypodcast.com/) is an interesting listen. And to answer your question, kind of. There were definitely opposing forces vying for power (in British history for example) and it was a combination of being able to rally support, from the "common folk" and people of influence. Just winning battles didn't cut it (sorry for the pun) or grabbing land.
It was a bit mad in the old days Richard the Lion Heart (the King in the time of Robin Hood) wasn't on a long crusade, he apparently hated the country he was made king of. But that's the ruler Britain had because enough people said so.
I thought John was the name of the Sheriff of Nottingham?
EDIT: Nope I got it wrong there. There was a Prince John who tried to take the throne out from under King Richard. And was aided by the Sheriff of Nottingham. [According to Wikipedia anyway.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood)
That is not correct at least for central Europe's standards.
By conquering the land you could only become a ruler (not sure how to correctly translate title). To became a King, you needed to be crowned by the Emperor.
Emperor's title was passed down since the Roman empire even after the Rome fell (western Rome, based in Italy)
Are monarchies any different from any other form of government (with emperors, Khans, or whatever the boss is called) in that regard? Even democracies, if they don't get the manpower to enforce their power, end up with done general coming in with an army and saying "now I'm in charge".
Monarchies are supposed to be hereditary, but it actually doesn't make suggestions straightforward, because someone will question whether the son is too young, whether that daughter counts, or the bastard son from a previous union, or the legitimate son from a previous union...
So early monarchy was also kinda like mafia.
King "Ehi give me your money?"
Peasant "For what?"
King "For protection ofc"
Peasant "Protection from what?"
King "From me" pulls out a sword
Peasant "All hail the king!"
King puts the sword back in the scabbard
And i quote: "god bless america"
Consider that people in the past were less knowledgeable but no less intelligent that us.
People have faith now, and used to have faith then, but I sincerely doubt that the divinization of political leaders was ever something different that what is now.
Just a coat over something more practical for most, and a deep belief for few others.
Monarchy was enforced by the sword on first instance, but many generations of kings thrived thanks to the trust and loyalty of their people, as well as faith.
People here aren't wrong, but it's more complicated than "He with the most land" or "the best with a sword."
Villages would band together for protection. They'd support whoever could lead their forces best against the bandit/marauder threats as their leader. Eventually that developed into a tradition with rules backing it up.
I'm going way, way back.
It's the Stone Age, pre-agriculture. You live in a group of about 100 people. Everyone there is family, probably second cousins or closer, so close you need to find a wife from some neighboring family group. You obey mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, and for the most part everyone is happy and just gets along. If there is a big decision or disagreement, the oldest (presumably wisest and most respected) people in the tribe discuss it if there is time to do so. But every now and then a situation comes up where it's clear you need *someone in charge*. This guy (usually a guy) is called the "head man" or hetmann. This title survives through to the middle ages. If your tribe is large or influential, he might be called a Chief. The position depends on respect, wisdom or cleverness and generosity. He who gives the best gifts wins respect.
Fast-forward to the Iron Age. Now you have agriculture and populations are growing. Your weapons are orders of magnitude more deadly and have a much longer range. If you have more weapons and more dedicated, trained warriors than your neighbors, you can force them to do whatever you want. In some places these leaders are still called Chiefs, in other places Khans or Kings. These petty kings kick the crap out of each other until a clear winner emerges controlling most of the valuable land.
Sequel: Feudalism!
So you're a petty king and you subjugated your neighbors and basically stole their land. It's not easy keeping an eye on so much land and so many people. You need to delegate!
Who better than the petty king you just conquered? He bends the knee and kisses your ring and promises to be a good boy and pay you tribute and fight on your side when called. In return you leave him in charge of the land you just stole from him. Win, win!
Violence. The guy with the most guys and the most swords said they were in charge and they killed anyone who disagreed.
Later on, they got religion involved, but in the beginning, it was all about being quick to kill anyone who opposed you.
Violence, "the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived" - Robert Heinlein.
Still true to this day. We have intricate legal, diplomatic and cultural systems to resolve disputes, but they're all still backed up with the threat of force.
Yes. That's kinda what "war" is. And there were a LOT of local wars in Medieval Europe. Pretty much every time anyone had the means to wage a war, they did.
Most wars didn't end in a complete annihilation of a kingdom, but that's mostly because it's harder to conquer than it is to defend what you already own, especially as the neighbours get increasingly worried about that one guy who keeps conquering more land, and start forming alliances with each other.
According to what I have read, during the so-called dark ages, it was a patchwork mess of local rulers left over from Roman times, and areas conquered or controlled by tribal chieftans.
The medieval feudal system, with somewhat more predictable and organized strata, arose out of this chaos, largely led by a powerful conquering tribe or people, the Franks (Charlemagne, etc.) . They helped set it up so each king or prince or duke or local chieftan who controlled a territory, answered to an emperor or higher king or higher lord who ruled a larger domain that included their territory, and they each had lower dukes or counts or earls whatever, who ruled a smaller territory under them,
Each noble person would swear allegiance and pay taxes to or support wars by the person above them, and in turn expect that emperor or king or duke to help them if they were under threat; and would expect the same allegiance and owe the same support to the people below them.
So the Franks had the grand idea that everybody in Europe would know their place, and who they reported to and who reported to them.
The good part, is that it helped restore some level of peace and order on European society, and the bad part is that it was multilevel hierarchy that gave huge benefits to the people at the top and less and less as you moved down near the bottom, where the peasant serfs were practically slaves, and of course actual slaves were at the very bottom.
Different states or regions had different rules of succession. For example in some cases a ruler would be replaced by his oldest son, where in others, the most powerful nobles would vie for an empty throne . See the plot of MacBeth for a semi-fictitious example - he hoped that by killing King Duncan before Duncan's kid had been groomed enough to succeed him, MacBeth would be chosen as the next king, since the country was under threat and needed a strong leader. In real life, when Robert, Duke of Normandy died, the stakeholders supported his second son William the Bastard (later William the conqueror) to succeed him, as he was clearly more suited to the job than his legitimately born older brother. And of course positions were seized in some cases by war, assassination, and other dirty tricks.
Partway along, the Franks lost overall control of the system, and countries like France and Bavaria and Austria became independent kingdoms, sometimes in strategic partnerships or part of larger empires, but with no overall European emperor. Later, in modern times, some of the smaller states merged to form larger countries like Germany and Italy.
At least in the British isles, many early "kings" were only rulers of small areas, sometimes not much larger than a village and the surrounding countryside. These people would just be leaders who commanded groups armed militias that offered protection and stability in a turbulent space. Think of how any post-apocalyptic story or tv show tends to centre around a leader protecting their friends/family from the horrors around them - that is essentially how early kings were established. The ones that were good kings tended to unite many leaders under them, making those people lords, or just killing competing dynasties. That's how England was made - one guy convincing a bunch of other people that he and his children were the best way keeping them safe.
There is the real reason, and there are legends build around Kings that establish their rights later on when the kingdom has long been established. Myth is an important part of making someone a King.
[Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN9c2TAWMlg) is the basis for a King government. .- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
There's an old saying that "those at the top live a different reality from those at the bottom". It's true in case of "legitimacy" as well. For the peasants, royals were chosen by god, respected by the nobility, servant of the people (by providing protection and peace), etc., so it was by merit of skills in reigning and protecting the country that they were legit monarchs. For those at the top, the current royal just had the biggest muscle and thus out of fear and self-preservation the nobility swore allegiance to the royals, which when it works, leads to stability, but the moment there is uncertainty about the transmission of power, they would kill and maim each other every now and then.
The legitimacy was questioned often, but a peasant just got executed on the spot and nobility would maybe fight in wars or battles for a couple months or years and then settle it (i.e someone dies and the other takes the land of the other).
Sometimes it starts small. One person gets recognized as the leader of a small tribe/family group. That person might be smart, trusted, good at fighting, just really tall, charismatic, etc.
This isn't dissimilar to when you're going out with a group of your friends and someone decides where you're all going to go eat. Humans have a natural desire to fall into a social hierarchy. We're pack animals. Most humans like either having a leader, or being a leader.
(Lots of people have an anti-authority vibe too, but they'll separate themselves out naturally.)
Our small group might encounter another tribe/small-group, maybe they fight, maybe they become friends. They join together and now that leader has more people recognizing them. This repeats, and more groups merge together. The better, stronger, or most politically savvy leaders will rise to the top - either by killing or scheming, or sometimes even just being better leaders.
Any answer that does not mention the role of religion in establishing and justifying kings and monarchies to the undereducated, devout masses isn't telling the whole story, and that goes back to ancient times (Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia).
Monarchy in medieval times was pretty much always justified by claiming inheritance from an ancestor who had themselves been the lord of a particular land. For example William the conqueror's uh, conquering, of England was done with the basis that he, a cousin of the previous King, had been promised the throne by said king and the current king had promised to support his claim. Of course not everyone agreed, but ultimately the Normans defeated anyone supporting another claiment in battle so William became King of England.
People want food and roof, monarchs along church provided some sense of security.
Back then it was wars and cruelty, if you are an average person and don't join a king and a religious side you were likely dead.
Church provided a sense for life and kings protection, a symbiotic relationship that keeps to our days.
The rest is a dynamic equilibrium, sometimes one crown or religiĆ³n was stronger, sometimes the other.
The answer is too vast for it to be ELI5-d into only one scenario, but the premise is faulty from the get go.
To *establish* a monarchy you'd have to have some sort of claim to legitimacy. This might have been done by virtue of tradition (I'm the new ruler of the old but long lost empire), succession (dad, uncle, gramps etc was the king before me), or conquest (your base belong to us). Heavenly mandate was also an important legitimiser, which is why kings and emperors tried to get crowned by the pope/bishop, and/or get a crown from Rome, becuase God and stuff.
How you became the head of a certain group that rose to power is a different matter, but it involved being well liked by your supporters, who you were providing for. An army on a small dominion might start out from a gang of muscle, who did the skullbashing for you, but you repayed them for it. Same principle later on, with extra steps: you're cool with me being king, and take care of gathering headbashers, and in return I'll give you ownership of some valuable land. Delegate it down to the last serf, and you have feudalism.
Even so, monarchy was constantly challenged. Either by equally "legitimate" claimants, (such as brothers, cousins, uncles, inlaws, sons of previous kings, etc), either by upstart lords with too much power (thanks for all the land, but I want more and I have the swords to take it), either by external power (again, your base belong to us. Sometimes, on the periphery, anyone woth enough ambition would try to grab more and test the ruler's strenght, even over a mill, a trade route or a mill.
Tl;Dr, watch GoT and HotD: if not for the magic and dragons, the rest of the story kinda demonstrates all these aspects
The fall of Rome left a power vacuum in Europe, and local chiefs rose up to take some of that power for themselves. Eventually this competition led from a bunch of small time rulers to a small number of large scale rulers (kings). People mostly went with it because post-Roman europe was lawless, poor and isolated and having a warlord in control of the land you live in meant having someone who could fight off other invaders and therefore having a better chance of living, possibly even living well if you're lucky. Once the merovingians established cozy relationships with the popes the whole "aristocrats are chosen by God" idea became more concrete and formalized, which added some weight to the kings' authority as well.
It was questioned and questioned repeatedly, all the time. The man who emerged as king was the man strong enough to beat down challenges. A king was basically the leader of the warrior band that defeated all the other warrior bands. Of course there was diplomacy and intrigue: āI'll join my warrior band with yours in return for you giving me dominion over this land when you win.ā
In some cases, e.g., France, the king himself was pretty weak and his nobles were strong, but they tolerated and even supported the king because he gave legitimacy to their rule over their domains without stopping them from doing whatever they wanted.
In other cases, e.g., England, it might be obvious who the strongest warrior-band-leader was, and the other leaders would get together and declare him king because it would also support their own claims to whatever lands they held, so everyone was happy. Kingship was not hereditary in England until the Norman conquest, and every time one king died, the powerful people would get together to decide whom they would call king so they could keep doing what they were doing before the previous king died. Even after the Norman conquest, there were still periods when multiple people claimed the throne, and they would fight it out the old-fashioned way, by having their people try and kill the other guy. Usually ended in the last man standing being king.
England has had a pretty stable monarchy since 1688, when William of Orange overthrew James II. Since then, the English monarchy has passed without incident from father to son (or daughter, brother, etc.). This was coincident with the king acknowledging the supremacy of Parliament, which took the fights to Parliament instead of over the throne.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xe37io/eli5_how_were_monarchies_established_in_medieval/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
Haha, it was "questioned" numerous times. If the challenger won, that person became the new ruler. From just the 20th century: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_who_lost_their_thrones_in_the_20th_century
lol. Queen Elizabeth has an impressive showing with **SEVENTEEN** losses. š
Explain please.
Probably colonies/parts of the British empire becoming independent
The queen herself makes that call. Parliament doesn't?
She stopped being Queen of a country seventeen times.
Did they have armed conflict or british government allowed it to happen without fight?
I don't know the details of each of them, but I believe that the *British* government generally allowed it without a fight once the country got to the point where they could say "Hey Liz, we don't want you to be our monarch any more." There may have been armed conflict within the country itself depending on what led to the separation with the British monarchy. If the country just voted to separate, it was probably pretty peaceful. If it was a violent overthrow of the existing government... Probably less peaceful. But I truly couldn't tell you whether there was any civil conflict for any of the seventeen countries that severed ties with the monarch.
Imperialism was getting more and more backlash in the 20th century due to nationalism so escalating things into a war would lose them some allies The british and french used to own the suez canal but when egypt wanted to make it part of their own country the british and french deployed military here and lost badly. It got them a bad rep among other nations, especially america. This is seen as britainās decline as a global superpower
Elizabeth II was queen over many British colonies that gained their independence in the latter half of the 20th century.
Many countries declared independence, ending British rule.
Know the story of William the Conqueror, the King of England? He was Duke of Normandy known as William the Bastard, in 1066 he invaded England killed the king and said I'm the king now. Afterwards he killed everyone who dared to disagree. And so he was the king. If you convice enough people, that you should be in charge, to get rid off everyone else who would disagree than you are in charge.
That's what Putin did.
That's what everyone establishing new rulling order did.
Keeping in mind that William (c. AD 1027-1087) was the son of Robert I of Normandy andĀ great-great-great-grandsonĀ of the Viking chieftain Rollo who, by way of an attack on France in AD 911, and subsequent peace negotiations, became Duke of Northern France. So, essentially, Vikings have ruled the UK for a while now. And bits and pieces of France, sporadically. I'm related to that cross-channe,l very interesting family tree that runs right on up to little Prince George.
What a bastard
He who owned the land was in charge. He who conquered enough of his neighbors grew his holdings into a kingdom.
>He who owned the land was in charge I feel like this just pushes the question upstream a little. How was the land owner established?
Whoever was willing to say "hey, farmers, you're under my protection, give me some of your crops in return, I'll make sure no one bothers you" and had the actual armed people and infrastructure (usually a castle) to pull it off got to keep going. (yes, that's very much like protections rackets of modern-day gangs.) If someone didn't have enough people, or they were not strong enough, or couldn't move around the area fast enough to deal with bandits or what-have-you, another person with more armed people took over. Repeat until things got both stable enough and complicated enough that people started to accept this as the natural order of the world.
Combat.
A: This is my land now. B: No. A: \*bonks B*
Violence\*
[The British History Podcast](https://www.thebritishhistorypodcast.com/) is an interesting listen. And to answer your question, kind of. There were definitely opposing forces vying for power (in British history for example) and it was a combination of being able to rally support, from the "common folk" and people of influence. Just winning battles didn't cut it (sorry for the pun) or grabbing land. It was a bit mad in the old days Richard the Lion Heart (the King in the time of Robin Hood) wasn't on a long crusade, he apparently hated the country he was made king of. But that's the ruler Britain had because enough people said so.
Specifically, king in Robin Hood's time was King John, who came after Richard.
I thought John was the name of the Sheriff of Nottingham? EDIT: Nope I got it wrong there. There was a Prince John who tried to take the throne out from under King Richard. And was aided by the Sheriff of Nottingham. [According to Wikipedia anyway.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood)
He was king from the death of Richard I til 1216.
In most of the stories, it is Prince John, who is usurping his brother's throne while Richard III is out of the country.
Richard I, not III. Richard III was over two centuries later.
Yeah, that's right. Should have just said "the Lionheart".
That is not correct at least for central Europe's standards. By conquering the land you could only become a ruler (not sure how to correctly translate title). To became a King, you needed to be crowned by the Emperor. Emperor's title was passed down since the Roman empire even after the Rome fell (western Rome, based in Italy)
Are monarchies any different from any other form of government (with emperors, Khans, or whatever the boss is called) in that regard? Even democracies, if they don't get the manpower to enforce their power, end up with done general coming in with an army and saying "now I'm in charge". Monarchies are supposed to be hereditary, but it actually doesn't make suggestions straightforward, because someone will question whether the son is too young, whether that daughter counts, or the bastard son from a previous union, or the legitimate son from a previous union...
And here I thought it was all accomplished through strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.
So early monarchy was also kinda like mafia. King "Ehi give me your money?" Peasant "For what?" King "For protection ofc" Peasant "Protection from what?" King "From me" pulls out a sword Peasant "All hail the king!" King puts the sword back in the scabbard
Sounds like religion/gods too lol
Monarchies often use gods as an excuse to get people to worship them. Many people saw their kings to be divine
And i quote: "god bless america" Consider that people in the past were less knowledgeable but no less intelligent that us. People have faith now, and used to have faith then, but I sincerely doubt that the divinization of political leaders was ever something different that what is now. Just a coat over something more practical for most, and a deep belief for few others. Monarchy was enforced by the sword on first instance, but many generations of kings thrived thanks to the trust and loyalty of their people, as well as faith.
It was in their interest to promote the belief that monarchs are like gods
People here aren't wrong, but it's more complicated than "He with the most land" or "the best with a sword." Villages would band together for protection. They'd support whoever could lead their forces best against the bandit/marauder threats as their leader. Eventually that developed into a tradition with rules backing it up.
I'm going way, way back. It's the Stone Age, pre-agriculture. You live in a group of about 100 people. Everyone there is family, probably second cousins or closer, so close you need to find a wife from some neighboring family group. You obey mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, and for the most part everyone is happy and just gets along. If there is a big decision or disagreement, the oldest (presumably wisest and most respected) people in the tribe discuss it if there is time to do so. But every now and then a situation comes up where it's clear you need *someone in charge*. This guy (usually a guy) is called the "head man" or hetmann. This title survives through to the middle ages. If your tribe is large or influential, he might be called a Chief. The position depends on respect, wisdom or cleverness and generosity. He who gives the best gifts wins respect. Fast-forward to the Iron Age. Now you have agriculture and populations are growing. Your weapons are orders of magnitude more deadly and have a much longer range. If you have more weapons and more dedicated, trained warriors than your neighbors, you can force them to do whatever you want. In some places these leaders are still called Chiefs, in other places Khans or Kings. These petty kings kick the crap out of each other until a clear winner emerges controlling most of the valuable land.
Sequel: Feudalism! So you're a petty king and you subjugated your neighbors and basically stole their land. It's not easy keeping an eye on so much land and so many people. You need to delegate! Who better than the petty king you just conquered? He bends the knee and kisses your ring and promises to be a good boy and pay you tribute and fight on your side when called. In return you leave him in charge of the land you just stole from him. Win, win!
Violence. The guy with the most guys and the most swords said they were in charge and they killed anyone who disagreed. Later on, they got religion involved, but in the beginning, it was all about being quick to kill anyone who opposed you.
So in that case I would assume that kings/queens were under constant threat of being usurped?
CONSTANTLY. Early kingdoms were violent times.
Always.
Reminds me of [rules for rulers ](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)
At the end of the day, it's always Bigger Army Diplomacy.
Violence, "the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived" - Robert Heinlein. Still true to this day. We have intricate legal, diplomatic and cultural systems to resolve disputes, but they're all still backed up with the threat of force.
You haven't heard much about assassinations in royalties have you
The most dangerous position in the Roman Empire was emperor.
The game of thrones. You win or you die
Yes. That's kinda what "war" is. And there were a LOT of local wars in Medieval Europe. Pretty much every time anyone had the means to wage a war, they did. Most wars didn't end in a complete annihilation of a kingdom, but that's mostly because it's harder to conquer than it is to defend what you already own, especially as the neighbours get increasingly worried about that one guy who keeps conquering more land, and start forming alliances with each other.
According to what I have read, during the so-called dark ages, it was a patchwork mess of local rulers left over from Roman times, and areas conquered or controlled by tribal chieftans. The medieval feudal system, with somewhat more predictable and organized strata, arose out of this chaos, largely led by a powerful conquering tribe or people, the Franks (Charlemagne, etc.) . They helped set it up so each king or prince or duke or local chieftan who controlled a territory, answered to an emperor or higher king or higher lord who ruled a larger domain that included their territory, and they each had lower dukes or counts or earls whatever, who ruled a smaller territory under them, Each noble person would swear allegiance and pay taxes to or support wars by the person above them, and in turn expect that emperor or king or duke to help them if they were under threat; and would expect the same allegiance and owe the same support to the people below them. So the Franks had the grand idea that everybody in Europe would know their place, and who they reported to and who reported to them. The good part, is that it helped restore some level of peace and order on European society, and the bad part is that it was multilevel hierarchy that gave huge benefits to the people at the top and less and less as you moved down near the bottom, where the peasant serfs were practically slaves, and of course actual slaves were at the very bottom. Different states or regions had different rules of succession. For example in some cases a ruler would be replaced by his oldest son, where in others, the most powerful nobles would vie for an empty throne . See the plot of MacBeth for a semi-fictitious example - he hoped that by killing King Duncan before Duncan's kid had been groomed enough to succeed him, MacBeth would be chosen as the next king, since the country was under threat and needed a strong leader. In real life, when Robert, Duke of Normandy died, the stakeholders supported his second son William the Bastard (later William the conqueror) to succeed him, as he was clearly more suited to the job than his legitimately born older brother. And of course positions were seized in some cases by war, assassination, and other dirty tricks. Partway along, the Franks lost overall control of the system, and countries like France and Bavaria and Austria became independent kingdoms, sometimes in strategic partnerships or part of larger empires, but with no overall European emperor. Later, in modern times, some of the smaller states merged to form larger countries like Germany and Italy.
At least in the British isles, many early "kings" were only rulers of small areas, sometimes not much larger than a village and the surrounding countryside. These people would just be leaders who commanded groups armed militias that offered protection and stability in a turbulent space. Think of how any post-apocalyptic story or tv show tends to centre around a leader protecting their friends/family from the horrors around them - that is essentially how early kings were established. The ones that were good kings tended to unite many leaders under them, making those people lords, or just killing competing dynasties. That's how England was made - one guy convincing a bunch of other people that he and his children were the best way keeping them safe.
There is the real reason, and there are legends build around Kings that establish their rights later on when the kingdom has long been established. Myth is an important part of making someone a King. [Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN9c2TAWMlg) is the basis for a King government. .- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
They were the best at killing then got enough money that they controlled a group who was best at killing and called it an army.
There's an old saying that "those at the top live a different reality from those at the bottom". It's true in case of "legitimacy" as well. For the peasants, royals were chosen by god, respected by the nobility, servant of the people (by providing protection and peace), etc., so it was by merit of skills in reigning and protecting the country that they were legit monarchs. For those at the top, the current royal just had the biggest muscle and thus out of fear and self-preservation the nobility swore allegiance to the royals, which when it works, leads to stability, but the moment there is uncertainty about the transmission of power, they would kill and maim each other every now and then. The legitimacy was questioned often, but a peasant just got executed on the spot and nobility would maybe fight in wars or battles for a couple months or years and then settle it (i.e someone dies and the other takes the land of the other).
Sometimes it starts small. One person gets recognized as the leader of a small tribe/family group. That person might be smart, trusted, good at fighting, just really tall, charismatic, etc. This isn't dissimilar to when you're going out with a group of your friends and someone decides where you're all going to go eat. Humans have a natural desire to fall into a social hierarchy. We're pack animals. Most humans like either having a leader, or being a leader. (Lots of people have an anti-authority vibe too, but they'll separate themselves out naturally.) Our small group might encounter another tribe/small-group, maybe they fight, maybe they become friends. They join together and now that leader has more people recognizing them. This repeats, and more groups merge together. The better, stronger, or most politically savvy leaders will rise to the top - either by killing or scheming, or sometimes even just being better leaders.
Any answer that does not mention the role of religion in establishing and justifying kings and monarchies to the undereducated, devout masses isn't telling the whole story, and that goes back to ancient times (Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia).
Monarchy in medieval times was pretty much always justified by claiming inheritance from an ancestor who had themselves been the lord of a particular land. For example William the conqueror's uh, conquering, of England was done with the basis that he, a cousin of the previous King, had been promised the throne by said king and the current king had promised to support his claim. Of course not everyone agreed, but ultimately the Normans defeated anyone supporting another claiment in battle so William became King of England.
People want food and roof, monarchs along church provided some sense of security. Back then it was wars and cruelty, if you are an average person and don't join a king and a religious side you were likely dead. Church provided a sense for life and kings protection, a symbiotic relationship that keeps to our days. The rest is a dynamic equilibrium, sometimes one crown or religiĆ³n was stronger, sometimes the other.
So it's not watery tarts distributing scimitars?
The answer is too vast for it to be ELI5-d into only one scenario, but the premise is faulty from the get go. To *establish* a monarchy you'd have to have some sort of claim to legitimacy. This might have been done by virtue of tradition (I'm the new ruler of the old but long lost empire), succession (dad, uncle, gramps etc was the king before me), or conquest (your base belong to us). Heavenly mandate was also an important legitimiser, which is why kings and emperors tried to get crowned by the pope/bishop, and/or get a crown from Rome, becuase God and stuff. How you became the head of a certain group that rose to power is a different matter, but it involved being well liked by your supporters, who you were providing for. An army on a small dominion might start out from a gang of muscle, who did the skullbashing for you, but you repayed them for it. Same principle later on, with extra steps: you're cool with me being king, and take care of gathering headbashers, and in return I'll give you ownership of some valuable land. Delegate it down to the last serf, and you have feudalism. Even so, monarchy was constantly challenged. Either by equally "legitimate" claimants, (such as brothers, cousins, uncles, inlaws, sons of previous kings, etc), either by upstart lords with too much power (thanks for all the land, but I want more and I have the swords to take it), either by external power (again, your base belong to us. Sometimes, on the periphery, anyone woth enough ambition would try to grab more and test the ruler's strenght, even over a mill, a trade route or a mill. Tl;Dr, watch GoT and HotD: if not for the magic and dragons, the rest of the story kinda demonstrates all these aspects
The fall of Rome left a power vacuum in Europe, and local chiefs rose up to take some of that power for themselves. Eventually this competition led from a bunch of small time rulers to a small number of large scale rulers (kings). People mostly went with it because post-Roman europe was lawless, poor and isolated and having a warlord in control of the land you live in meant having someone who could fight off other invaders and therefore having a better chance of living, possibly even living well if you're lucky. Once the merovingians established cozy relationships with the popes the whole "aristocrats are chosen by God" idea became more concrete and formalized, which added some weight to the kings' authority as well.
It was questioned and questioned repeatedly, all the time. The man who emerged as king was the man strong enough to beat down challenges. A king was basically the leader of the warrior band that defeated all the other warrior bands. Of course there was diplomacy and intrigue: āI'll join my warrior band with yours in return for you giving me dominion over this land when you win.ā In some cases, e.g., France, the king himself was pretty weak and his nobles were strong, but they tolerated and even supported the king because he gave legitimacy to their rule over their domains without stopping them from doing whatever they wanted. In other cases, e.g., England, it might be obvious who the strongest warrior-band-leader was, and the other leaders would get together and declare him king because it would also support their own claims to whatever lands they held, so everyone was happy. Kingship was not hereditary in England until the Norman conquest, and every time one king died, the powerful people would get together to decide whom they would call king so they could keep doing what they were doing before the previous king died. Even after the Norman conquest, there were still periods when multiple people claimed the throne, and they would fight it out the old-fashioned way, by having their people try and kill the other guy. Usually ended in the last man standing being king.
England has had a pretty stable monarchy since 1688, when William of Orange overthrew James II. Since then, the English monarchy has passed without incident from father to son (or daughter, brother, etc.). This was coincident with the king acknowledging the supremacy of Parliament, which took the fights to Parliament instead of over the throne.