What was the casus belli European monarchs told their subjects when declaring war on revolutionary France?
>Hey! We should invade France because it would totally suck if all of you learned how corrupt and unnecessary monarchs like me are!
Hey... you know... like some people... LIKED having a monarch.
Imagine that.
Some people like something different than you.
>>955282
>some people
Vast majority of people actually. OP is a low IQ whiggish retard.
>>955349
More like they were disgusted with the French disrupting a natural order of the world.
>>955349
Because French ideas fucked up the western world for now upwards of 200 years.
>>955375
>fucked up
How so?
>>955362
So basically what was stated in the OP.
>>955392
Because people took it too far.
>>955395
Monarchs are not inherently corrupt or useless. Usually quite the opposite
>>955323
>getting paid to fight in war means liking monarchs
300 years from now people will say we enjoyed the feeling of shit drying in our anal hair because we used toilet paper instead of enema hydro dildos
>>955413
Fuck off whigtard
>>955400
It's a pretty shitty system, senpai. Hereditary rule is retarded. Either you are forced to have weak rulers or you weed out the weak with civil wars and assassinations. Furthermore there is no reason the monarch has to respect the rights of the people beyond the restrictions forced upon him by self serving lords or in rare cases a constitution. In the case of a constitution the better it is the less useful the monarch is.
>>955397
>freedom
That has become a meme word.
>You are FREE to be the subjects of the king!
>You are FREE from the possibility of sinning since we removed your freedom to sin!
>>955413
>enema hydro dildos
One day. One day.
>>955413
It's called a bidet you savage.
>>955453
Bidets are unsanitary and messy compared to the sleek enema hydra dildos of the future. Bidets don't even have thermal imaging and laser guidance.
You haven't experienced a cleaned derrier until you have experienced the MOAB enema hydro dildo. It's like the largest conventional bomb you can imagine going off in your anus, but instead of destruction you get cleanliness.
>its another "napoleon fanboys get incredibly butthurt and kill themselves" thread
>>955271
>something divine right to rule something something God something something Long Live the King!
You know like all the other rallying cries.
Almost completely unrelated but I read this speech by the first Shang Emperor and I thought it was quite memorable. He was gathering support to overthrow the previous dynasty:
The king said, "Come, ye multitudes of the people, listen all to my words. It is not I, the little child [a humble name used by kings], who dare to undertake what may seem to be a rebellious enterprise; but for the many crimes of the sovereign of Hsiâ [Xia], Heaven has given the charge to destroy him. Now, ye multitudes, you are saying, 'Our prince does not compassionate us, but (is calling us) away from our husbandry to attack and punish the ruler of Hsiâ.' I have indeed heard these words of you all; but the sovereign of Hsiâ is an offender, and, as I fear God [shangdi], I dare not but punish him. Now you are saying, 'What are the crimes of Hsiâ to us?' The king of Hsiâ does nothing but exhaust the strength of his people, and exercise oppression in the cities of Hsiâ. His people have all become idle in his service, and will not assist him. They are saying, 'When will this sun expire? We will all perish with thee.' Such is the course of the sovereign of Hsiâ, and now I must go and punish him. Assist, I pray you, me, the one man, to carry out the punishment appointed by Heaven. I will greatly reward you. On no account disbelieve me; — I will not eat my words. If you do not obey the words which I have spoken to you, I will put your children with you to death; — you shall find no forgiveness."
>>955271
To answer your question, OP, some German States had privileges in the Alsace, French Republic took them away - casus belli
tl;dr
>muh privilege
>muh balance of power
>>955521
>something divine right to rule something something God something something Long Live the King!
Thanks for the first good response.
>>955323
>Vast majority of people actually.
Then why didn't they overpower revolutionaries?
>>955614
>I would be more free as a serf under an absolute monarch than as a citizen of a liberal monarchy complete with inalienable rights
What is this redcoat talk?
>>955619
What revolutionaries? France was the only place where the revolution actually succeeded.
>>955614
>The Monarchs has good reason to respect their people and treat them well.
And yet they don't, because hereditary rule is fucking retarded and obviously so.
>>955614
>I would be more free under a king than in today's society
Depends on who you are and where you lived.
>>955627
Then why did the vast majority of neighbour nations that liked having a king had problem with French not liking to have a king?
>>955634
It was already answered. Royal families had ties to the French royals, for example Marie Antoinette was Maria Theresa's daughter.
>>955271
I'd take a monarch over corrupt and unnecessary oligarchs any day. The people of Europe were fully aware of the French Reign of Terror, they needed no inspiration to oppose the barbarians that took over France.
Democracy BTFO by Monarchism > http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/p/myths.html
>>955659
>Mad Monarchist
I love that blog
>>955659
>democracy
>corrupt and unnecessary oligarchs any day
You're talking about a republic, you fucking stupid peasant. No wonder you want a smart, perfect ruler to govern you.
If we had a true democracy, a direct democracy, we wouldn't need leaders or representatives much like the Athenian democracy where rich, land-owning citizens could only vote.
>>955659
>French Reign of Terror, they needed no inspiration to oppose the barbarians
These guys were cool tho.
>tfw you will never purge counter-revolutionary scum
>>955282
no, people disliked CHANGE. There was a huge difference.
And if you liked having a monarch (aka you were scared of change), why did you give a shit if other people didn't have monarchs?
>>955397
I can't believe people genuinely believe this shit.
citizens of the western world are more free and prosperous than any people have ever been in the history of humanity.
Yet retards think giving a single dude completely control is better than a government poised to internal struggled to prevent said government from oppressing the masses.
Must be European. Only your culture is so backwards it'd think dictatorships trump literally any other form of government.
>>955614
name one monarchy that was more free than any modern state. Including regions under the control of ISIS.
If you aren't going to lie, you'll only get North Korea. Literally the modern Chinese are more free than the freest monarchy in history.
>>955679
Only because of technology we are now richer. Do you genuinely think that a 15th century democracy would be more prosperous than a 15th century monarchy?
>>955271
They just paid them to do it
>>955685
Austria Hungary.
Judea vs Rome
Slave vs master morality
The English war effort was almost entirely funded by the Rothschild
>>955687
The italian city states were fairly prosperous
>>955708
They were republics, but they sure as fuck weren't democracies.
>>955695
Literaly everyone except Austrians and to an extent Hungarians was opressed and kept divided because the ruling family was scared of people rebelling from their shit rule.
>>955737
No we weren't. If you look at things like gun laws, taxation, freedom of business etc we were certainly more free than people in the modern successor states. I won't even bring up the communist republing that popped up after WW2.
c-c-can't we just get along and make a constitutional monarchy?
>Why yes I believe that republicanism is the only form of government that deserves respect
>>955271
Austria had its royal family linked with the French ones
Other monarchies had no real motives, but they didnt like the idea of revolution so much so they just tagged along
They probably thought that since they were all together allied against a lone country in a state of civil war, they could only win
But they didnt
>>955282
They were allied with the monarchy. If monarchy is under attack from france you invade. They were being /b/ros.
>modern day monarchists
I will never understand this meme.
>>955751
>gun laws
Majority of countries lacked means to actually enforce any regulations here until 30's. You could've ban guns but it didn't stop anybody from having one hidden in their house.
>taxation
Out of neighbouring nations only Italy had higher income tax.
>freedom of business
Again, it's not even comparable with Russia or Germany.
>>955874
I like it as a link to muh past and it add diversity rather than another bland republic
>>955887
And in general it's largely redundant.
I mean Sweden, of all countries is a monarchy, does it make it less insane than let's say Canada? They're both insane.
>>955896
I'm Swedish and I like it, What is wrong with it?
>>955874
I want to believe modern monarchists are just trolling
Someone post that screen cap of Yang Wenli in LOGH discussing monarchies and republics
IIRC, a shitty republic is better than a shitty monarchy, but a good monarchy will always be better than a good republic.
>>955902
How's political asylum Ahmet?
>>955902
The monarchy? Nothing, they're figurehead and Scandinavian modest approach to monarchies doesn't make them moneysink. Many presidents earn more than your monarchs.
Does it matter in any way when it comes to politics? Nope.
>>955271
It varied between each kingdom/empire but ultimately, no matter how it was spun it came down to this:
>If we don't unite and stop Napoleon now, chaos and ruin will befall any land the French set their sights on.
It wasn't hard to villainize Bonaparte and the French in general after seeing the horrors of the revolution and the republic that followed. And then to have all that blood spilled in the name of "liberty" only to have a new tyrant place himself upon a throne, was enough to convince on lookers that Nappy was nothing more than an ambitious warmonger.
At least with the established monarchies(from their POV), there was a comfort both the nobility and commoners could take in an order they were familiar with. Chaos and anarchy promised bad news for every level of society and to be labeled an "anarchist" back then was similar to how we view terrorists today.
Especially for the German states. The prospect of stopping another 30 Years War is motivation enough for Prussia and Austria to fight to put a Bourbon back in charge of France.
Bonaparte and Hitler are commonly used as references to one another because of the similarities in their rise to power, the way they reforged their broken nations into military powerhouses, and the fear each man instilled in the established orders of rival nations.
>>955874
Mostly Europeans trying to rationalize why on paper they are ruled by their version of the Baldwins.
>>955884
It's also worth nothing that Austria-Hungary in the late 19th century was involved in tariff wars with other major powers, leading the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to claim that Austria-Hungary had completely abandoned the principle of free trade during that period.
It's also worth noting that Austria-Hungary had a gigantic drafted military.
Oh, and it's also worth noting that Austria-Hungary relative lack of government intervention had much to do with the successive political/constitutional crises and ethnic troubles consuming all the government's attention and generally reducing their ability to intervene.
>>955349
they were kungz n shit and he wasn't - so no casus belli was needed since he wasn't even one of them and wasn't recognized as a rightful ruler.
>>955782
they did... before the revolution fully raged on.
it was when the middle class/merchants were alone and mostly wanting change without a full fledge revolution.
the king accepted and satisfied most of their needs if not all but in the end it wasn't enough to keep the weakened king and monarchy on power for too long
>>955271
because 'divine right'
if they were able to kill the monarchy appointed by god then clearly they are devil worshippers
also english wanna kill french bastards
>>956005
So they were sending slave warriors to kill freed slaves such that their own slaves wouldn't get any ideas.
>>955874
>CURRENT YEAR
>>955999
Moving the goalposts this hard.
>>956117
yeah... that's pretty much how most one-sided/asymmetrical wars work actually.
it's usually the consolidated side throwing money at the problems to disappear and the serfs getting some crumbs to kill those they should be supporting in the first place
>>955796
>implying there's a single neo-reactionary monarchistard who isn't an irrelevant philosopher or some fat edgy teenager
>>956149
We're not """neo""" reactionaries, we're just reactionaries.
>>956158
No one cares about the internal divisions in your retarded 'movement.
>>956172
Sincerely hoping you're not a marxist because that would be an apex of irony.
>how corrupt and unnecessary monarchs like me are!
Hello, Republicuck
I feel that a monarch should have more power than what a lot of European monarchs have today
>>956178
I'm not.
>>956211
Stay mad either way.
>>955282
>non french like something different
>attack france because they too like something different
sounds like they were scared shitless more so than your shitty excuse.
>>956217
>stay mad either way
>because i'm mad in the end
FTFY
>>956130
>moving the goalposts
I would say the draft is at least as important an issue as gun rights and it's rather hard to discuss freedom of business without mentioning military spending and the punitive tariffs that were in vogue back then, especially since Austria is now a pacifist country and protectionism is widely obsolete.
>>955912
>If we don't unite and stop Napoleon now, chaos and ruin will befall any land the French set their sights on.
Napoleon was a petty artillery officer when the war started
>>955949
>Ameriblobs genuinely convinced their oligarchic mafia clans are preferable to a monarch
>>955666
Doesn't that make Athens an oligarchy
>>956235
>implying they aren't
>implying oligarchies aren't better at pacifying the proles and preventing succession disputes
>>955679
No we're not. We live in a time of some of the least work and economic freedom in history. People in medieval Catholic Europe had more time off from work in a year than we do. Townspeople also didn't rely on wage labor to survive
>>956235
>one person ruling is better than a small group of people ruling
One person is a pretty small group of people. Also heredity is a shitty way of determining governing skill.
Is this stockholm syndrome or something?
>>956269
Oh so that's why you dumb fucktards had a bloody civil war.
>>956311
Good thing civil wars never happen in monarchies.
>wait
>>956322
You came up with idea of republics being more pacifying and stable, not me. Your country's history proves you wrong.
>>956338
>he's not a republican
>>956349
>[current year]
>>956338
>240 years
>one civil war
>implying this is bad
>implying the Netherlands hasn't gone 435 years
>implying England hasn't gone 327
>implying Venice didn't do like 1100
>implying Switzerland hasn't been the most stable country on the planet for literally the entire modern era
>implying this isn't literally the single most autistic ideology I can even think of
Now that I think about it, somebody give me an ideology that's more autistic than neo-reactionary.
Say what you will, but at least the communists and the fascists had their ear close enough to the ground to at least recognize that the state needed to change to meet new needs.
>>956372
Fascism is literally just the first generation of monarchy.
>>956372
Neoractionaries are not monarchists. Overwhelming majority of them are republican fascists, so another group of children of the French revolution.
>>956372
Switzerland was a fucking warzone that had a violent coup like every 2 years, until the mid 1800s. You are historically illiterate.
Also Netherlands is a monarchy.
>>956291
Wait, do you think monarchies in European countries actually run the country?
>>956494
I'm not a fascist and I'm not a neoreactionary either. Neoreactionaries are alt-righters and they support people like Trump, a literal populist which is the polar opposite of monarchism.
>>956494
YOU mentioned the Netherlands you moron.
>>955271
All these slave mentality monarch cucks in this thread.
Shouldn't you guys go out and beg your boss to be allowed to work the weekends as well? You sure love serving your betters.
>>956517
>Dutch monarchy
>relevant to the history of the Netherlands
There's a reason it was the Dutch and English who came to dominate the modern era, and not the Russians or the Spanish.
>>956528
>Netherlands
Monarchy
>England
Monarchy
>>956496
>monarchies are the best form of governance!
>oh, wait, but i'm not talking about actual monarchies. I'm talking about republics that are monarchies merely in name. THOSE kind of monarchies prove that monarchies are superior.
>>955271
Revolutionary France was the one declaring wars.
>>956686
A coalition was formed to topple the new French government and reinstate the monarchy. France didn't start it.
>>956584
Those kind of monarchies are superior because you have a national figurehead/icon that isn't a politician.
>>955271
>when they declared war on Revolutionary France
Honestly, you can't say it wasn't Revolutionary France's fault. The Austrians didn't really want to fight them, the Prussians certainly didn't want to fight them. The three powers pretty much accidentally fucked up their way into war, with the Germans saying some provocative things and Jacques-Pierre Brisseau taking that as a good sign to take the revolution on the march.
>>956695
Britain, Prussia and Austria figured if they applied just enough pressure the Republic would destroy itself. Putting the Bourbons back on the throne was not really the desired outcome so much as it was to destroy France's status as a great power.
This backfired immensely.
>>956717
>monarchy is superior to all other forms of government when it isn't actually a monarchy
>my government is better than yours because I am technically ruled by my country's equivalent of the Kardashians.
>>956791
I'm Austrian
>tfw you will march under le tricolore and smash an army of bootlicking, treacherous monarchists
>>955896
Canada is a monarchy fampai.
>>955392
With the enlightenment came the guillotine.
>>956876
Yes, and?
Here's the best form of monarchy and perhaps the smartest way of government ever designed that is applicable.
>>956840
And them your buddies will behead you because you weren't radical enough lel
>>955737
>Austrians and Hungarians were the only "non oppressed" people of the Austrian Hungarian Empire
Wew lad
>>955679
Top zozzle.
>>957084
He's probably American, give him a break.
>>955614
Oh boy. It's one of *those* threads.
>Muh glorious autocrats.
>I have no idea what living in a truly unfree society is like and will proceed to romanticize oppression.
>>955905
>IIRC, a shitty republic is better than a shitty monarchy, but a good monarchy will always be better than a good republic.
I think this anon has it. It's true, one truly enlightened absolute ruler can accomplish far more good then when you have to push every change through committee after committee. BUT, how often do you get a genuinely good ruler, in any system? On average, democracies better protect their citizens from harm, even if they don't normally have the same capacity for lightning advancement and experimentation. On average, democracies are better.
>thinking monarchy is inherently tyrannical
>thinking republics are inherently liberal
I'd much rather live in Austria-Hungary than in republican Germany with democratically elected Hitler.
>>956235
>This person is legitimately arguing that "because my daddy was ruler" is a better reason than "because I was chosen by popular vote to represent the people's interests"
>>956583
only technically monarchies. Monarchies purely because they negotiated and devolved their way out of the prospect of bloody revolution, not monarchies because "muh leader groomed from birth to lead, knowing what is best for the country" the way the absolutists in this thread are saying justifies a monarchy.
>>956751
This. It wasn't because fuck republics, it was because this was an opportunity to fuck France.
If "fuck republics" was the reason, why had the great powers of Europe tolerated the Dutch Republic for 200 years at that point? (In b4 Dutch """Republic""".)
>>956840
>>957310
>This person is legitimately arguing that "because my husband was presideny" is a better reason than anything
>>957351
Except she won't *automatically* win because her husband is president. She will only win if she can convince enough people that that gives here some sort of credibility or experience. (Or, y'know, being a Senator and Secretary of State does so.) If the people do chose unwisely, they have only themselves to blame. Can the same be said if they get a bad king?
>>957371
>enough people
AKA delegates she bought
There's barely anything democratic about Amerishittia
>>957346
Because France had been the most powerful european country for centuries
When an irrelevant little country goes full retard, everyonelook at it and laugh, but when a strong and very influencial one does, fear arises
>>957380
Because winning the primary automatically means you win the general election. Also, "Amerishittia"? Too funny, senpai.
>>957380
>Amerishittia
>yuropoor can't even make good wordplay for banter
>>957466
>Trump winning the popular vote
>his party trying their best to rig the game and nominate someone else
Nice "democracy" you have there DeShawn
>>957502
Sure is. How's mass immigration going for you Achmed? At least our immigrants assimilate to our fucking culture and not the other way around.
>>957237
>oppression
Meme words
>>957301
A-H (meaning the Austrian empire after the 1860s) was imo the perfect balance of conservatism and liberalism. The Ausgleich itself was terrible, but that's unrelated. In any case,
>recucklicans
>>956023
And then again in 1815, and in 1830. The French can't make up their damn minds.
>>955397
Thsi quote is retarded. It tries to twist Tocqueville's words as if he hated democracy, while Tocqueville actually admired the American system and that sentence was just a warning.
>>955685
You were allowed to own firearms under monarchies, and didn't get arrested for insulting muslims. Check mate, yurocuck
>>956311
There was only one civil war in the United States, the American Civil War. But if you count Bleeding Kansas, then it's 2. Meanwhile, there's a shit ton of wars of successions in monarchies once something happens that isn't natural, like no heir or multiple contenders for the throne. Then they also have their own forms of political maneuvering or buying favors in order to ensure they either get the throne or maintain their status. Of course, this all happened in the past but denying that it has occurred would be ridiculous.
>>957552
It's true. Immigrants always arrive to the United States but then there are the moments when they arrived in large waves. When they arrive in large waves, it's usually from specific regions or countries. A lot of Germans, Russians, etc, have arrived and we see their marks but they have assimilated to society. Even the Mexicans, although it is taking longer because Mexico is right next door, are gradually joining the society. From what I've been seeing, most mexicans born here have English as their first language.
>>960522
>hasn't occurred
Fuck one reason I hate typing on a phone.
>>956840
And then Napoleon declares himself emperor, and the Bourbons start to rule you right after.
>>955400
I agree with the intent of your message, just not with "usually" part
>>955349
Uhh...
Yeah, they were. Like, that was explicitly the plan of the French Government. The French Declared war on Austria, not the other way around. Austria's allies joined in. Then, in one of the series of victories and defeats, the French thought they were going to win out overall (After the occupation of the Austrian Netherlands) and got a little hyped on their own rhetoric, declaring that they would topple the old order of Europe.
France Declared war to bring back the Emigres, and because Brissot wanted to. It worked for a bit, and France used that to say it was actually a war to topple European Feudalism.
>>955666
>If we had a true democracy, a direct democracy,
In the United States of America, the most directly democratic land on Earth, the average voter on election day, has to vote for their Congressman, maybe a Senator, a governor, their local state representative for the lower house, their local state representative for the higher house, several state judges, a select few propositions sent to the people for approval, amendments to the state constitution, the local mayor, and the local legislative board. And that is a minimum. Some places such as my home state allow us to vote in any number of government positions such as tax collector, state attorney, and other normally bureaucratic appointments. I assure you, not a single person in the whole of the nation at any given moment gives enough shits to have full 100% knowledge of everything on the ballot. Most people don't even bother filling out the whole ballot. In any given city approximately 20% of the population controls the local taxation of the whole population.
>>959341
Tocqueville was a republican but hardly a democracy advocate.
>>961695
Kinda interesting that only 140 posts in the first anon mentions that its france that declared war not the other way round.
Really says a lot about /his/
>>964372
>America
>most directly democratic
Lay off the PCP Jamal
>>955659
>I would rather be ruled by a lion than by a pack of rats.
--Arthur Schopenhauer
A pack of rats is what every democratic government devolves into
>>964430
The fact that /his/ understand history?
>The War of the First Coalition (1792–1797) was the first attempt by the European monarchies to defeat Revolutionary France.
>>955679
Democracies are infinitely more difficult to purge of corruption than monarchies
>>964430
Because it's bullshit
France was the first to officially declare war, but Austria started the shit by invading the Eastern part of France and threatning to level Paris if they refused to obey them
That would be like saying that Britain started the Falklands War just because they officially declared war first
>>956583
Those monarchs have less real power than the fucking president of the United States. When was the last time you heard the fucking monarch of England actually refusing royal assent. Literally 1708.
>>964451
>>I would rather be ruled by a lion than by a pack of rats.
Isn't that from Volatire, though? Or even, isn't that actually a proverb?
>>964478
They invaded after france declared war on them and tried to march into the austrian netherlands.
>>964451
Yep. Moreover a lot of rats would prefer to be ruled by a fellow rat even if he's incompetent, rather than a competent lion.
A good ruler shouldn't give a shit about what his subjects want, only about what they need.
Think of a family where a bunch of children just want to eat as many sweets as possible and father denies them that treat, knowing they might become fat and diabetic. In a democratic society the children basically outvote the father. In a socialist revolution the kids kill the father, eat all the sweets, burn down the house and then kill each other.
And obviously there's gonna be SOME abusive fathers who will forcefeed his kids sweets even if they don't want, or deny them food altogether, but such parents are a tiny minority compared to normal parents.
1792:
>01/02: France demands that all armed emigrants in neighbouring states should be expelled or threatens with war
>03/15: Girondists (the french pro-war faction) are forming a new government
>03/18: defensive pact between austria and prussia in case of war with france
>france declares said defensive pact as 'agression'
>04/20: france declares war on austria
>april: french attacks against Namur, Mons, Tournai and Furnes in austrian netherlands (belgium) fail
>04/28: french troops conquer bistum basel
>05/15: french troops try to advance into savoy, declaring war on sardinia
>06/20: storm of the tuillerien
>07/28: after all french attacks are repulsed, the austrians now plan their own campaign from belgium
>08/10: french monarchy falls, begin of the republic
>08/19: prussian invasion begins; FRench Revolutionary Wars start
1793:
>02/01: First Coalition founded
>>964577
This is a simplistic analogy that supposes that monarchs will most of the time have the best interest of the people at heart as well as the talent to see it through. This is consistently not the case.
A hereditary monarchy means you get a very limited pool of talent despite every possible advantage of education and birth. If we go by your argument that most people are not extreme you still have someone who by all accounts is normal. But have you ever considered the implication of a totally decent normal person having the most difficult job on the planet?
If you espouse an absolute monarch position, this one normal dude has to make decisions affecting his kingdom and subjects while being exposed to the influence of any number of ass kissers, incompetents or power hungry nobles. If one had the will such as Federick the Great then yes maybe it would be nice but again, your own arguement of normality means you'll always get someone woefully unprepared for the rigors of rulership and at best as many geniuses as madmen ascending the throne.
If you endorse a system of checks and balances of government to mitigate the power of mad kings... well you just made an oligarchy anyways.
>>955271
because revolutionaries were disgusting evil scum;
literally all the rural areas supported the monarchy everywhere because if the old Systems ended so does their entire way of life because old fashioned rural society can't exist in the world revolutionaries are planning
also huge majority of Europe were poor illiterate strongly religious peasants (except maybe in places like south england and lowlands)
>>964677
Rural people 4 life, even today they're the only ones with conservative values while the scum lives in the cities.
>>964623
absloute monarchy is a shit system on too many levels doomed to fail,
centralization caused by greed was the ultimate downfall of the traditional world,
thats why indoeuropean peoples before that period were all managed as the religious, subsidiary aristocratic tribal monarchies:
the lowest unit was the extended family (all people of the same surname, consists of multiple families, who have their representative for the local assembly - something like pater familias, who after dying leaves the position of rule to his son) - when that basic unti started to fall apart into smaller families it was a sign of breakdown of their world
more of those made a clan who held the local assembly - which functioned alongside the ruler
more clans made a tribe which had its prince with a higher assembly
and the prince perhaps answered to a larger ruler
army and police werent even neccessary cause the system provided those roles were filled
absolutism means scrapping thousands of years of slowly developed history formed gradually for society to function perfectly in trash for greed
Why don't more monarchists advocate for a system similar to the early Roman Empire, where the emperor would regularly adopt whoever he figured would be a good successor? Seems ideal.
>>964772
Because it's fucking stupid?
The roman empire is the absolute shittiest example of good "monarchies"
It was really an oligarchy for the most of it.
>>956218
You realize France DECLARED war right?
>>964797
He doesn't because revolucucks genuinely believe 18th century propaganda.
>>964809
>austria and prussia ally and menace revolutionary France
>g-guys they totally didn't start the fight I swear
[PERFIDIOUS AUSTRIAN INTENSIFIES]
>>964937
I bet you also believe Poland started WW2
>>964946
Just because it's an offensive defence doesn't mean it's not a defence.
>>964869
Maybe the numerous succession civil wars, invasions, persecutions, and rebellions?
Have you studied Roman History?
>>964465
Completely untrue. Monarchies require corruption to even function. Since under a true monarchy no legal means exist for anyone to redress their grievances they must turn to corruption in order to get anything done.
The path of the Emperor will be littered by the blood of the corrupted monarchs.
>>955815
Can't make this shit up m8
>>955271
>implying history was like eu4
>muh no CB -2 stability
>>968047
Why do monarchies even need a CB in EU4? In reality their subjects are literal slaves.
>>968380
Not really, there is no reason a monarch would be retarded, besides incest ofc. Most of them were average, but could have/did get help from their ministers, they didn't rule alone.
There were great monarchs and shit ones. I wouldn't say it was a bad way to rule, but neither that it was a good one.
desu senpai the best system would probably be constant revolution. As soon as something doesn't work, destroy it and replace it.
>>968787
>Not really, there is no reason a monarch would be retarded,
Yes there is. The reason is that you are drawing from a pool of just a handful of individuals instead of millions.
I just don't understand modern day monarchists.
>>968369
the nobility, clergy, bourgeois, free peasants.
>>969866
>you don't need to convince the slaves to die, just the slave owners
Makes sense desu.
>>955413
>300 years from now people will say we enjoyed the feeling of shit drying in our anal hair because we used toilet paper instead of enema hydro dildos
Best thing I've read on 4chan in ages. Gonna save this quote
>>968369
Why do Republics need CBs in EU4? They're subjects chose them to be in charge, surely they've already submitted.
>>969856
Let's say you have a bad monarch. He can still seek advice from his ministers and councilmen.
What if you have a bad republic? How do you replace its entire core of thousands of corrupt and incapable individuals?
>>970546
>b-but monarchy can still be good if you take the power out of the hands of the monarchs
Fucking monarchists.
>>970574
That's not what I said though.
Monarchs are accountable for their mistakes to their citizens.
Bureaucrats in modern republics are not. Someone said something terrible? Replace him.
Someone led to the death of thousands/huge waste of national ressources? Replace him.
Not to mention how easy it is to buy out a significant enough number of them to impact the nation. How would you corrupt a king when he has nothing to fear from his country if he truly cares about it and does good?
>>970615
>some positions in republics aren't elected and therefore monarchies where no one is elected are superior
A monarchy is no different from a republic except the terms are for life, positions of power are given to one's children regardless of their competence, senators are wealthiest elite of the country, and the president is the king. If anything the bureaucrats are more accountable in a democracy because politicians are more than willing to throw a a half way guilty bureaucrat under the buss if it helps their reelection prospects.
