Absolute Monarchy never existed

I don't see why people like to pretend that it existed even though the concept is demonstrably false. Monarchs are not AI Singletons. No individual human can rule a country of millions alone. They lack both the processing power and the bandwidth to take in information and disseminate appropriate responses. Especially not in an era where it takes a week for news to go from the frontier to the capital and another week for the response to be sent out. Moreover they are not knowledgeable in all fields. As such, what an "monarch" (even an "absolute" monarch) does is delegates. Certain individuals become ministers and generals who handle finance, defense, public works, foreign affairs, etc. Individuals which by necessity have power and can defy their monarch to certain degrees, including removing him.

In reality "absolute monarchy" is simply a small coalition government.

Absolute monarchy is a monarchy that is not restrained by the law. It's not a claim that monarchs are superhumans who are able to perform every aspect of governance personally.

You discovered america

Absolute Monarchy only existed with Louis "L'État, c'est moi" XIV but it doomed the French Monarchy.

Louis XIV and XV are by far the worst monarchs, Louis XVI saved himself by becoming a martyr tho.

You don't seem to understand what absolute monarchy means.

"Absolute" means "absolved from the law", like said. The kings of France were in fact absolute monarchs since Philip Augustus. What distinguishes Louis XIV is that he had thoroughly broken the material power of the nobility, but there wasn't any sort of legal change.

What's "Absolute monarchy"? Either you have one ruler, or you don't. I'm getting the feeling that this is like the term "Direct democracy"; when democracy has eroded and become an oligarchy, you start calling true democracies "Direct democracy" to distinguish them from the decadent oligarchies that you still call democracies.

No, direct democracy is opposed to representative democracy. If the laws are made primarily by a parliament rather than the people, that's a representative and not a direct democracy.

>The kings of France were in fact absolute monarchs since Philip Augustus.

Nope


The kings were limited by the canon laws(religious laws) of the Church,the "coutumes"(tribal laws) of the various provinces, and most important and sacred laws aka the "lois fondemantales" (Consitution of the French kingdom)


The only king who managed to who freed himself from the parliements(coutumes) was Louis XIV.

No. Direct democracy is referendums and representative democracy is the form of government most developed countries use where you elect representatives such as members of parliament, presidents, senators etc to run the country.

>Absolute Monarchy never existed
roman and oriental emperors?

Bullshit, Philip Augustus was already recognised including by the parliaments as not being subjected to any law. He no longer even bothered to have his son crowned before his death as his predecessors had, because by then they were completely accepted to be kings by the grace of God, subjected only to God and to no human law or contract.

Nothing changed with Louis XIV in that regard despite him being the boogeyman of your history classes.

>Bullshit, Philip Augustus was already recognised including by the parliaments


Being butthurt will not change the reality

I will use an example :

When Henry IV wanted to have the crown he converted back to Catholicism cause the "loi fondamentales" only permited a Catholic to obtain the crown, if the French Kings were absolute monarch, Henry IV woudln't have need to convert back to Catholicism.

Anyway, contrary to the modern time, the people weren't cucks, if a king behaved like a tyrant he would be overthrowed and killed.

Those aren't human laws, they're God's laws. The king is king by the grace of God, if he isn't Christian he's denying his own kingship, that's a problem of logic not law.

>if a king behaved like a tyrant he would be overthrowed and killed
Except that never happened, not once.

>Except that never happened, not once.
Hello there good sir!

They're talking about France.

>Those aren't human laws, they're God's laws.

Nope

In the case of France, these laws are a part of the "lois fondamentales" aka Consitution of the French kingdom.

>Except that never happened, not once.

It happenned a lot :
Dionysus I
Tarquin the Proud
Caesar
Julian the Apostate
Louis XVI(He paid for the tyranny of Louis XIV tho)
Robespierre
Mary Stuart
and so on

The guy was talking about monarchs in general being overthrown.

No they weren't read the thread, not just the post you replied to. Two anons are having a discussion about when absolute monarchy started in France and you've interjected yourself into the conversation.

Charles I of England wasn't an absolute monarch anyway.

>Anyway, contrary to the modern time, the people weren't cucks, if a king behaved like a tyrant he would be overthrowed and killed.
>if a king
>a king

No but Charles was a tyrant who tried to rule as an absolute monarch.

Oh for fuck sake stop being autistic and read the chain of posts to see the context of the specific post you replied to. You don't sound new so I shouldn't have to tell you this.

And yes I agree Charles I was trying to be an absolute monarch which was part of the reason for his downfall.

You're the one sperging out about this. He literally was referring to all absolute monarchs in that last sentence hence his use of general and non-specific terms. You must be very bored.

Just chilling following a couple of threads on Veeky Forums while playing vidya.

English kings are the farthest possible thing from absolute monarchs.

>In the case of France, these laws are a part of the "lois fondamentales" aka Consitution of the French kingdom.
France didn't have a constitution. What you call "lois fondamentales" is just what became recognised as the divine rules of the monarchy, none of which restrict the king in any way other than in his ability to destroy the realm and monarchy itself. In effect the only restrictions on the king were that he couldn't change the divine order of royal succession which belongs to God alone (for example he can't abdicate or disown his son), and he can't dismember the realm of France. And even those rules were more of a custom and just part of a general sense of what it meant to be king of France rather than actual rules.

>It happenned a lot :
>lists a bunch of random people none of which were kings of France, except Louis XVI was was the farthest thing from a tyrant

Seriously go spew the Republican revisionism that you obviously got brainwashed into at a French state school somewhere else.

Emperor Julian was killed in battle with the Persians; he wasn't overthrown, retard. Moreover, it was only in Antioch that he found himself unpopular, and not for being a tyrant (one reason he was disliked was his ascetic lifestyle, which clashed with the popular view of an Emperor).

>Robespierre
>Caesar
>tyrants
Lol

The Apostate was killed by a Christian.

>Robespierre
He killed everyone he disagreed with

>Caesar
He didn't' listen to the Senate and was basically a proto-emperor

No he wasn't. That's a legend fabricated later. Julian is recorded by contemporary sources to have died in battle against the Persians

>taking hagiographies as historical fact

What a fucking tool

/thread

t. butthurt bagan cause his sweet emperor was killed by a based christian crusader

>Robespierre
>everyone who disagreed with him deserved to be killed
ftfy

Oreibasius of Pergamun - the personal physician of Julian - wrote that the Emperor was injured during a Sassanid raid, when a Lakhmid auxiliary thrust his spear and plunged it into Julian's liver and intestines. While not immediately fatal, it became infected and led to complications, which the aformentioned Orisabius relates in detail. No other contemporary chronicler details this: the only person who related that Julian had died at the hands of a Christian was Libanius the orator to the Antiochenes one year later. And even then, Libanius would later change his story and once again say that Julian had died after being wounded by Persians.