>>95850387
This is well attested in multiple places, as far back as oral traditions.
Arguably the best sources on this are Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah and Xenophon in Anabasis.
Long story short: the essential building block of any society that consists of more than 10 people is this:
>Key People / Groups are incentivized for the current social structure to exist and succeed
>The people who compose the group recognizes it as legitimate (called 'asibiyya' or group feeling)
>The leader inspires sufficient loyalty, respect, fear, or any combo of the above that the power players in point one don't try to become leader
Even in the most primitive societies, failure consistently comes down to:
>The group disintegrating because it's less rewarding to be in the group than outside of it
>The group disintegrating because no one in the group recognizes the authority of the leader / the regime's ability to do its job
>The group survives, but the leader is replaced by someone who shares wealth better, is more competent / ruthless, easier to manipulate, or generally just less obnoxious to be ruled by
So anon >>95801372 is exaggerating a little but not by much.
Fun fact, Ibn Khaldun cites stiffing one's own soldiers on pay as one of the classic 'retard leader who is about to be very replaceable' indicators.
One would think that would be high on the list of things not to do as a leader but it happens all the time across history.