Talk:Diarchy

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Yeah, makes sense because they mean the same thing.

What? — LlywelynII 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mongol diarchy may be worth mentioning. In example Shang-du and Beijing capitals during the rule of Khubulai Khan in the Yuan Dynasty(Correct me if I'm wrong).--Oniroi 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's diarchy, so why is the monarchy portal here? Diarchies aren't necessarily "monarchies but with two leaders" the President of France is not a monarch nor are San Marino's Captains Regent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.110.25 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The president of France is ex officio a joint monarch. San Marino's captains regents aren't monarchs but they hold executive power. The portal should remain here since some→many diarchies are exactly "monarchies but with two leaders". — LlywelynII 05:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually argue that any diarchal ruler, by consequence of being a diarchal ruler, is inherently therefore not a monarch. Monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is embodied in a single individual, while diarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is embodied in two individuals; these two things are mutually exclusive.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is entirely unsupported by the words' definitions in reliable dictionaries. — LlywelynII 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. See also Talk:Duumvirate for the commentary there. — LlywelynII 01:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is very reasonable but also completely unsupported by Merriam–Webster, who omit it, and the OED, which has an entirely separate botanical definition for that term. These people are called corulers, duumvirs, or by specific terms (Sparta's 'kings', Rome's 'consuls', &c.). — LlywelynII 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the late 18th century, two mamluks called Murad Bey and Ibrahim Bey formed a de facto duumvirate in Ottomon Egypt until Napoleon's invasion. someone could add the section in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Bey_(Mamluk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_Bey

(BountyFlamor (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

was not a diarchy at any stage. The editor presumably intended the Republic's consuls. — LlywelynII 02:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be added 23th king: Sauromaces II (pages 24-26.) and 25th king: Mithridates/Mihrdat III (page 27.).--Lasha-george (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the entities ruling the country of