When Power Gathers, It Breaks
Moments that appear to unite power often reveal how fragile it becomes when gathered in one place.
Anyone who has seen Game of Thrones will recall the “Red Wedding,” a scene in which rival nobles are invited to a wedding feast under a promise of safety, only to be killed in a coordinated attack. In a matter of minutes, the leadership of an entire faction is eliminated.
The scene is memorable not for its violence, but for what it reveals:
large gatherings do not just display power, they expose it.
David Bradley as Walder Frey in Game of Thrones, whose portrayal of the Red Wedding dramatized the deadly risks of concentrated power. Photo: Miguel Discart & Kiri Karma, Comic Con Brussels 2025. CC BY-SA 2.0.
Erfurt, 1184
In 1184, a royal assembly convened in Erfurt under Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, then King of Germany. The purpose was to resolve a violent dispute among regional nobles.
The setting conveyed order. Leading lords gathered under royal authority, signaling that conflict would give way to settlement. Instead, the structure itself failed.
The meeting took place in a hall built over a large latrine pit. The timber floor, not designed to bear such weight, collapsed. Contemporary accounts indicate that around 60 nobles died, with some estimates higher. Many fell into the pit below and suffocated or drowned.
The deaths were not incidental. A large portion of those killed were the nobles directly involved in the dispute, along with their retainers.
What followed mattered more than the accident itself.
Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor survived. Several royal-aligned figures also escaped, positioned away from the point of collapse. The factional leadership gathered to negotiate was suddenly gone.
The effect was immediate. The dispute lost its principal actors. Local networks fractured. Succession questions created openings for royal arbitration. Authority consolidated not through decree, but through absence.
Edinburgh, 1440
In 1440, at Edinburgh Castle, a political gathering was arranged under very different circumstances, yet produced a similar structural outcome.
William Douglas, the 16-year-old 6th Earl of Douglas, and his younger brother David were invited to dine with the young King James II. The Douglas family had become one of the most powerful noble houses in Scotland, effectively rivaling royal authority.
The invitation implied reconciliation and promised order.
During the meal, a black bull’s head, a traditional symbol of death, was placed before the brothers. They were seized, given a brief show trial, and executed immediately outside the castle.
Unlike Erfurt, this was deliberate.
Yet the political effect closely mirrors the earlier disaster:
- The leadership of a dominant faction was removed in a single event
- The Douglas power base was abruptly weakened
- The crown and its allies regained room to maneuver
The difference lies in method:
- Erfurt: structure failed
- Edinburgh: trust was exploited
In both cases, concentration made elimination possible.
Commentary: Modern View
Both events reveal a durable principle of political life. Power appears strongest when it gathers, yet that is precisely when it becomes most exposed.
At Erfurt, no one intended the outcome, yet dozens of nobles died and a conflict ended instantly. At Edinburgh Castle, the outcome was engineered, but it relied on the same condition: leaders assembled in one place. In each case, dispersed authority proved resilient, but concentrated authority proved fragile.
Modern systems have learned from this vulnerability. Authority is now distributed across institutions, succession is clearly defined, and precautions are taken to ensure that not all leadership is ever present in a single room, a principle reflected even in events such as the State of the Union Address. The structure has changed, but the underlying lesson has not.
When leaders gather under one roof, they place authority at risk, and time and again, history chooses that moment to act.
Further Reading