I'm not an expert here but my understanding is that most generational wealth is gone by the third generation anyway. Even if you outlawed inheritance entirely it seems like it wouldn't make a huge marginal difference?
https://qz.com/301150/this-is-the-proof-that-the-1-have-been...
In Europe I have heard it is more common, although perhaps not a norm, to practice a meritocratic form of primogeniture. One child, who is not necessarily the eldest son but who is seen as the best steward, is chosen to receive most of the fortune, and is trained how to maintain it. Other children may receive much smaller amounts.
The fortune is much more likely to persist if not divided, preventing the liquidation of large holdings and more importantly managing expectations among the gaggle of heirs about how much they'll get.
Sure there's data from before, but society hasn't been "at scale" for very long. It sure seems like the recently emerged mega-economies have a few star powers, ever consolidating their hold.
Squeezing out other wealthy families isn't helping the total distribution, if that is the case. Companies keep getting bigger and bigger & the ultra rich get ultra-richer. Families could keep falling like flies, but wealth could still be ever more owned by ultra-wealthy.
Inheritance in a republic is disgraceful.