Let's have a monarchy thread!

Let's have a monarchy thread!

Who did monarchy best?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Medieval Hungary probably, but then again I'm biased.

The French

Clearly France.

>all the kings were actually French
>all the same line from 888 to 1830, and without interruption from 987 to 1792
>each king the direct successor of the previous one by the exact same rules of succession
>absolute monarchy, none of that parliamentary aristocrat puppet bullshit
>also happens to be the most powerful dynasty in history

How so?
I like the medieval form of monarchy better than absolute monarchy.

And also ended up beheaded, that's a pretty shameful display if you ask me.

What I like about Hungarian feudalism is that all nobility ranks answered directly to the king and only to the king instead of the hierarchical baron -> count -> duke bullshit like in many western countries.

Philip Augustus (12th to 13th century) was an absolute king, and so were his successors. Absolute means not bound by any laws, and thus not subordinate to the will of aristocrats or their parliaments.

Why, that's a perfect ending. Glorious and in style. Much better than being relegated to an untalented family of impotent useless actors like the British monarchy.

Sounds impractical. So there was no feudalism, everyone had the same rank, and the king had to mircomanage everything?

>there was no feudalism

I wonder how did you arrive at this conclusion?

The basic element of feudalism is that each vassal answers do his liege. You just said that wasn't the case and everyone only answered to the king.

>The basic element of feudalism is that each vassal answers do his liege.

But that WAS the case since the liege was the king. Furthermore, king was the only person with an authority to ennoble people, but I guess that was the same case in many other countries.

It's not really feudalism if there's only one level in the hierarchy.

>king was the only person with an authority to ennoble people
That's the case everywhere.

Feudalism implies several layers of lieges, not this three layer system.

In most other feudal countries it goes
>peasant>baron>count>duke>prince>king>emperor

Sun King.

What about the many cases where regional dukes had more power than the king and there was either a power balance or struggle?

De facto power isn't the same thing as de jure hierarchy.

Then the king is only nominally the top dog

The peasants were still subservient to their local rulers, but the nobility answered only to the king.

The ones whose style of rule became memes passed down from generations to generation and copied by other civilizations & successor states.

Ergo
>Chinese Emperors
>Roman Emperors
>Persian Shahashahs or just plain Shahs
>Central Asian Khans.
>Indian Rajas
>Muslim Caliphs.
>Turkic Sultan.

Everything else are just kinglets and princes and derivations of the above.

No it doesn't, feudalism implies fief for fealty and serfdom, not whether a baron answers to a count or to a king. If anything that's just cutting out the middle man.

Those aren't real monarchies.

Kys.

Would European monarchy have been possible without Christianity? How often was the divine right of rulers invoked to justify monarchy?

>Would European monarchy have been possible without Christianity?

Pretty sure Roman empire was older than Christianity.

>a high level of discourse is expected

I don't think Christianity played that much of a role, that is to say another religion could have played the same part. It's more of a specific blend of Germanic customs and Roman heritage that created Western monarchy and feudalism in France and then spread elsewhere.

>Who did monarchy the best
Poland. It's sad that serious elective monarchy didn't come into vogue anywhere else but there and the memely memean memepire.

Yes.
Literally who were the following
>Roman Emperors
Justification: Muh Imperium.
>Greek Basileus
Justification: Muh Recognized Authority.
>Celtic Vergobret (or Verrix)
Justification: Elected by a peer of Kings to be ruler over your asses,
>Germanic King
The European Feudal System literally grew out of Germanic tribal organizations of protection scheme states, with the Germanic King being the provider of protection and giver of lands, and the freemen having the responsibility to call out their king. That said, the freemen are still free and can call out Kings for running roughshod over rights.

Divine Right -ironically enough- was a 1500s-1700s thing. So much for the medieval ages being "dark."

Bait harder, French nigger.

This entire post is bullshit.

>Muh Christianity.

That ship has sailed, Veeky Forums is just shitposting central.

...

>Post significant monarchies.
>"Those aren't real monarchies."
You're the one dumbing the discourse down, bub.

You're an idiot.

>A monarchy is a form of government in which a group, usually a family called the dynasty, embodies the country's national identity

What you posted are nothing but giant multinational universal empires in late stages of degeneracy, they have no such thing as national identities.

>national identity having anything to do with being a monarchy

Back to /pol/

>Monarchy.
>National identity.
Looks like someone needs to study *actual* history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

Looks like someone needs to never post anything again.

Good. So all of Europe's Kingdoms & Principalities are not monarchies due to intermarriage and even rule of people who are essentially foreigners (i.e. Norman Kings of Sicily, England).

You're an idiot.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
>A monarchy is a form of government in which a group, usually a family called the dynasty, embodies the country's national identity and one of its members, called the monarch, exercises a role of sovereignty. The actual power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolical (crowned republic) to partial and restricted (constitutional monarchy) to completely despotic (absolute monarchy). Traditionally and in most cases, the monarch's post is inherited and lasts until death or abdication, but there are also elective monarchies where the monarch is elected.[1]
>[1] Stuart Berg Flexure and Lenore Carry Hack, editors, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Ed., Random House, New York (1993)
>Dictionary.

Looks like someone needs to study *actual* history.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, it wouldn't have anything to do with anything. Learn to read.

Yeah, I'm sure that hidden WEWUZ SJW history where words have different meanings that you made up inside your head because you get triggered by dictionary definitions is a wondrous place, but I don't really care.

>*actual* history

*tips koolaid*

Either you're b8ing by this point or you're actually dumb. Either way, good day.

preach!

Jesus Christ guys, let's get back on topic.

Marcus Aurelius desu

>elective monarchy

imho the best form of government on the earth

And yet
>HOLY
>ROMAN
>EMPIRE.

Pre-Suleiman Ottomans

>no marrying ottoman woman to prevent legitimacy issues
>upon ascending, the new sultan has all his brothers killed to prevent throne wars
>all princes are sent off to govern a big city once they come of age so they are pretty competent when they take the throne

May seem brutal, but it was effective.

>none of that parliamentary aristocrat puppet bullshit

Tell that to the Duke of Aquitaine

wut?

Prussia under Frederick II

5
GOOD
EMPERORS

Has any other state attempted to emulate the circumstances of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty? I know that it was mere chance due to Nerva being elderly, Trajan and Hadrian being homos, and Antoninus losing all his children, but you'd think that people would have recognized that everything went to hell when Marcus Aurelius did not smother his little shit of a son.

>Who did monarchy best?
edward the longshanks

>Has any other state attempted to emulate the circumstances of the only period in Roman imperial history when it wasn't quite as much of an unstable chaotic piece of shit as the rest of the time?

I think a better alternative would be not emulating Rome at all.

More absolute than elsewhere, but not totally. French parlement is what blocked Louis XVI's efforts at reform and ultimately triggered the French Revolution.

Was the Revolution against Louis's reforms or against Parliament?

He also said that having a baron answer to the king is contradictory to feudalism, I guess only France was a real monarchy according to him lmao

Parlement was dissolved by the Revolution, they wanted Louis's reforms. Louis got beheaded because he was against republicanism. The reforms in question he tried to pass didn't have to do with republicanism though, they had to do with massively bettering the condition of the Third Estate, which parlement didn't want.

Where do you come from, imbecile ?

Louis XV has abolished parliament though, culminating a thousand years of work. Then Louis XVI reestablished it, like a fat stupid fucking idiot.

So it sounds to me the whole Revolution was one big misunderstanding. Is that right?