Ask

I I would replace the real life king, I'd choose Holy Roman Emperor during Saint Louis' time at the french throne. We could make so much happen together without all the infighting stirred by Frederick II
If not, I'd probably choose to be a French king of the capetian dynasty

Pharaoh Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty New Kingdom Egypt (~1479–1458 BCE).

She was the first female pharaoh (full deal, not regent), she reshaped governance away from strength of arms and ad-hoc decision-making toward merit-driven bureaucracy, and through this prioritized commerce over conquest, drastically enriching Egypt in the process by building up massive trading networks. She was responsible for some of the greatest monumental construction of the New Kingdom era. (Tragically these monuments were systematically erased by her successor, Thutmose III, because he was butt-hurt that a woman had ruled over men—but he did keep her trading networks even as he moved back toward the conquest model.)

Oh and she wore men's clothing. Fake beard and all. To cement her legitimacy as pharaoh.

As an alternative I might choose Zenobia of the Palmyrene Empire (267-272 CE). She broke free from the Roman Empire in a big "fuck you" battle to carve out one of her own, conquered Egypt, ousting the Roman provost in the process, setting it up as a client state, and by 271 she controlled Syria, Palestine, Arabia Petraea, and parts of Mesopotamia (and thus the trade routes of Asia Minor). All the while she was pitching Palmyria as a safe haven for scholars of all kinds.

She was such a problem that she became THE major enemy of Rome and they committed an enormous number of troops to take her out. She finally lost, and was caught while fleeing to Persia, ending her reign. She'd spent only five years ruling Palmyria, but they were an extraordinarily productive half-decade that had lasting impact in the region as people realize you could, in fact, stand up to Rome.

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

Part of me is tempted to go for Mansa Musa, just so I would be the richest person who ever lived. But at the same time, there's another part of me that says I should just become the king of America circa 1490.

Especially if I keep my present day knowledge, I'm pretty sure I could fabricate gunpowder and we would definitely throw a special celebration for when Christopher Columbus arrives.

The Pitcairn Islands. It's the least affected by diplomatic tugs of war.

Does pre-history count? Because whatever ruler that created Göbekli Tepe probably kicked 12 kinds of ass.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

I'm tempted to go medieval England but I don't speak the language so I'll give that a pass. I reckon over queen Victoria's time, I speak the language, hygiene wasn't too bad and there were interesting things happening. Plus the clothes are cool.

I'm taking my chances on the future. King of England 2400. Hopefully by then the royal family is basically a national pet.

Well, get to technically eliminates me from the question because I wouldn't want that kind of life at all.

However, it's still a fun game to play, so I'm going to pretend I want it.

I want somewhere fairly mild in climate, but not totally without some variation. The question suggests that it shouldn't be a current nation, and I think it's a more enjoyable thing if I'm not taking over a country that's not a monarchy.

So, I'm thinking Siam towards the end of its existence under that name. Since it's me, not a copy of me that doesn't know what I know, I could probably keep a similar balance between the surrounding interests as already happened, assuming that whatever method of transfer wouldn't be negated by the fact that I'm a foreigner, and that the people would give me at least the same level of support at the beginning as existing kings had.

Ideally, I would get total support in the beginning and only have to worry about messing up, rather than just inheriting the usual mixed opinions about monarchies in general.

It's always amazed me how Siam, and eventually Thailand, managed to keep as stable as they did on average. Somehow, even during early European colonization/imperialism, they kept afloat as their own nation.

So, if I'm gonna be king somewhere in the past, the combination of having at least a partial idea of how things happened and the benefits of the position there makes it the best choice I can think of.