Let's have a monarchy thread!
Who did monarchy best?
Medieval Hungary probably, but then again I'm biased.
>>1424829
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
>>1424874
And also ended up beheaded, that's a pretty shameful display if you ask me.
>>1424904
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.
>>1424904
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.
>>1424905
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.
>>1424912
Sounds impractical. So there was no feudalism, everyone had the same rank, and the king had to mircomanage everything?
>>1424932
>there was no feudalism
I wonder how did you arrive at this conclusion?
>>1424937
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.
>>1424940
>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.
>>1424949
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.
>>1424949
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
>>1424829
Sun King.
>>1424961
What about the many cases where regional dukes had more power than the king and there was either a power balance or struggle?
>>1424969
De facto power isn't the same thing as de jure hierarchy.
>>1424969
Then the king is only nominally the top dog
>>1424961
The peasants were still subservient to their local rulers, but the nobility answered only to the king.
>>1424829
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.
>>1424961
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.
>>1425031
Those aren't real monarchies.
>>1425065
Kys.
Would European monarchy have been possible without Christianity? How often was the divine right of rulers invoked to justify monarchy?
>>1425077
>Would European monarchy have been possible without Christianity?
Pretty sure Roman empire was older than Christianity.
>>1425076
>a high level of discourse is expected
>>1425077
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.
>>1424829
>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.
>>1425077
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."
>>1425091
Bait harder, French nigger.
>>1425099
This entire post is bullshit.
>>1425104
>Muh Christianity.
>>1425091
That ship has sailed, /his/ is just shitposting central.
>>1425091
>Post significant monarchies.
>"Those aren't real monarchies."
You're the one dumbing the discourse down, bub.
>>1425111
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.
>>1425117
>national identity having anything to do with being a monarchy
Back to /pol/
>>1425117
>Monarchy.
>National identity.
Looks like someone needs to study *actual* history.
>>1425117
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.
>>1425134
>https://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.
>>1425136
Even if that was true, which it isn't, it wouldn't have anything to do with anything. Learn to read.
>>1425143
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.
>>1425143
>*actual* history
*tips koolaid*
>>1425177
preach!
Jesus Christ guys, let's get back on topic.
Marcus Aurelius desu
>>1425095
>elective monarchy
imho the best form of government on the earth
>>1425334
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.
>>1424874
>none of that parliamentary aristocrat puppet bullshit
Tell that to the Duke of Aquitaine
>>1425719
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.
>>1424829
>Who did monarchy best?
edward the longshanks
>>1426125
>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.
>>1424874
More absolute than elsewhere, but not totally. French parlement is what blocked Louis XVI's efforts at reform and ultimately triggered the French Revolution.
>>1426342
Was the Revolution against Louis's reforms or against Parliament?
>>1425136
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
>>1426855
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.
>>1425102
Where do you come from, imbecile ?
>>1426342
Louis XV has abolished parliament though, culminating a thousand years of work. Then Louis XVI reestablished it, like a fat stupid fucking idiot.
>>1427488
So it sounds to me the whole Revolution was one big misunderstanding. Is that right?
