The global scope and thematic layout of this book do not allow digressions: most academic debates are left aside or relegated to the footnotes. My previous publications offer extended discussions of models and concepts commonly used in the history of courts and elites. The rationale for my comparative approach, explained briefly in the Introduction, has been defended at some length in earlier publications.

Bringing together results of specialised literature in many areas, I chose to use the relevant local terms at least once in the text. The glossary lists these terms with short explanations. Comparison relies on general concepts, but cannot be precise and verifiable if it fails to specify the local variants. At the same time, the use of these regional terms introduces the problem of transliteration conventions. While I have consistently tried to adopt accepted systems of transliteration, I lack the language expertise of the specialist and hence cannot myself control the results. Precision in this respect, surely, is not the key ambition of this book.

Chronology throughout the book is given in CE dates: CE and BCE are added only in unclear cases. Other calendars are never used, nor is the connection between dynastic rule and the calendar, common in many areas, considered here. Three years are given in parentheses the first time any ruler is mentioned in the text: birth, start of rule, end of rule. The year for the end of rule is marked with an asterisk (*) in cases where it did not coincide with death, usually with an endnote explaining the circumstances (abdication, dethronement).

Paramount dynastic rulers were mostly men. This book discusses women in power and close to power at length, but it uses ‘ruler’, ‘prince’, or ‘king’ in general statements where princesses and queens are implicitly included.