Monarchy seems almost universal before the modern age. I've heard a bit about the European concept of Divine Right. I've also heard of the Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven.
In my undergrad poli sci classes, we were exposed to Hobbes' idea of a monarch, which didn't seem so rosy but better than alternatives.
And I guess in some high school history class, we probably spent 1 lecture on enlightened despotism.
I've been reading Pierre Bryant's from Cyrus to Alexander, and he spends a decent chunk of the book describing the nature of the Persian monarch. It seems like the Persian monarch of antiquity is almost a superhero: the most handsom, strongest, tallest, and militarily capable person in the Empire who works to defeat evil and uphold goodness and truth.
I'm not sure if this question counts as a "poll" question, violating the rules of the subreddit, but I'd be very intersted in hearing about the different concepts of monarchy and the trappings of monarchy in different areas of the globe across time. I could always break it out to many questions.
One thing I find compelling about the Chinese Imperial system is the balance of power (if working "correctly", with much uprightness and proper ritual) between the Emperor/Empress and his/her officials. The Officials were, in theory, the smartest citizens; the most well trained in ethics and civics; the best society had to offer. They acted through memorials (editorial style statements) to the throne as the guides to policy. The emperor, again if working correctly, would be the wise and benevolent rubber stamper. If the emperor was brilliant, he or she might engage in the policy discussions, but if not, his role could comfortably retreat, allowing the officials to essentially reign.
The problems in any system of absolute monarchy are obvious, and Imperial China was not immune. One particular problem was a monarch who was un-involved, but left irresponsible officials at the top of the hierarchy. The other was the ascension of Eunuchs in the Ming and Qing dynasties.
This is a perfectly legitimate historiography questions about conceptions of kingship. Since you are interested it seems in Persian conceptions of kingship and the ideal of the king as the perfect hunter, horseman, and spearman who destroys evil in the empire, I might suggest you read Margaret Cool Root's The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art and if you can get your hands on it Bruce Lincoln's Happiness for Mankind. Both of these books deal extensively with the rhetoric and iconography of Achaemenid kingship, including the religious dimension of Achaemenian kingship. Unfortunately, there is very little written in english on the Sassanians; good starting points might be Parvaneh Pourshariati's The Decline and Fall of The Sasanian Empire, although this should be read cautiously, and Joel Thomas Walker's The Legend of Mar Qardagh. The last book deserves a special comment; it's actually a translation of and commentary on a Christian hagiography but the commentary and translation talk about how the hagiography reflects the Iranian princely ideal.