Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

True, but often the last King institutes a Republic.

While I know it's more of a poke than a serious comment, that's blatantly wrong.
1789 => From Absolute to Constitutionnal Monarchy, by ourselves.
1792 => From Constitutionnal Monarchy to Republic, by ourselves.
1799 => From Republic to Military Dictatorship, by ourselves.
1804 => From Dictatorship to Empire, by ourselves.
1814/1815 => From Empire to Absolute Monarchy, imposed by foreign powers.
1830 => From Absolute to Constitutionnal Monarchy, by ourselves.
1848 => From Constitutionnal Monarchy to Republic, by ourselves.
1852 => From Republic to Empire
1871 => From Empire to Republic. The government change is imposed by Prussia, but they mostly want to get rid of Napoléon III and don't care about what we get next. So struggle between Monarchists, Conservatives Republicans, Radical Republicans and Socialo-anarchists (Paris Commune). The Monarchists screw up, despite being a majority, and we end up with a conservative republic in the hands of landlords and bankers.
1940 => From Republic to dictatorial, nazi-lapdog Vichy, imposed by the IIIrd Reich
1944 => From Vichy to Republic
1958 => From Republic to Republic (wtf?)

May have forgotten one or two there, aswell as all the coup attempts, or missed expectations (republicans led the 1830 Revolution but put another king in power).
In fact, it can be argued that there was more governmental changes because we kicked other people's ass than because we've got ours kicked.

I think the point being made was that France changes its Constitution when it is threatened, i.e. the Fifth Republic resulted from WWII, rather than it being a case of change always being imposed.

[Cute Wolf]

Instead of whining about it on a games forum, just run some longships up on the beach and sort it out the old fashioned way. Sheesh.

Does Norway posses no parliament? Can the King not be overruled by a vote? Can you not send a petition to the government reminding them that the beaches are sacrosanct under the law? We too see such corruption in the Senate and the House of Representatives, yay, even in the Presidency in the United States. That is what our November elections are for-to vote the old crooks out and the new crooks in. Much less sanguine than a guillotine, although less decisive I'm sure.

I suspect the beaches are guarded by huscarls, and norse war clerics partrol the shore with their maces....

you need more viking raiders to create some republics... and remember, the huscarls had high attack, insane defense, and AP, so pumping out armoured sergeants won't help, it's time to fought them with ol sword staff militia...

[HoreTore]

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

Yes, we all know modern Russia is a constitutional monarchy.

EDIT: And just what is the difference between having a king and a tyranny...? A tyranny usually whacks people they don't like for whatever reason, if any. Every king in history with the power to do so have killed the people they don't like for whatever reason, if any....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, we all know modern Russia is a constitutional monarchy.

EDIT: And just what is the difference between having a king and a tyranny...? A tyranny usually whacks people they don't like for whatever reason, if any. Every king in history with the power to do so have killed the people they don't like for whatever reason, if any....

A Tyrrany is constitutionally illegal, and maintaind primarily through violence. A King rules through the force of law and tradition, as well as repriscosity.

Russia is currently in the "Tyranny" faze.

[HoreTore]

A Tyrrany is constitutionally illegal, and maintaind primarily through violence. A King rules through the force of law and tradition, as well as repriscosity.

Russia is currently in the "Tyranny" faze.

Just how is Medvedevs rule unconstitutional...?

And I dare say that most kings with actual power have been ruling as they have seen fit, rewarding and killing as they please.

EDIT: Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

I can think of a lot of Kings who would fit that description...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

Ah, but when republics are overthrown by single-rulers emerging from within, standard procedure is to have a lot of people killed, after which servitude ensues or freedom is restored.

Most bloody of all are monarchs replacing other monarchs -the more common way for a monarch to lose position, or head, or both. Which is still a mere triviality compared to what the population suffers in this sort of transition of power.

None of this, however, is called tyranny or terror, but is strangely accepted as normal, as either collateral damage to internal power-struggle or foreign war.


Compared to all of this, the handful of people that have ever lost their heads in transitions to republics are negligable.

A monarchy - a position with intrinsic power and wealth - is a source of instability. It is a coveted position, but limited to one. Naturally, power struggle ensues, as is shown by Europe's long, bloody history. A history of strife and warfare which has only come to an end owing to the triumph of French republican and democratic values throughout the continent.

~~-~~ Liberté ~-~ Egalité ~-~ Fraternité ~~-~~

This peacefulness came about in three ways:

After the French Revolution a scared alliance between the high nobility and the monarchs was forged. Both ever since 1789 living in mortal fear for their lives and position, internal aristocratic peace was made. A monarch did not need to fear his mighty lords any longer, the populations at last spared from bloody wars of replacement or succession.

A sacred, or scared, alliance between monarchs was forged. The common way for a monarch was to lose his head to a foreign monarch. Since the Restauration, monarchs have covered one another. Sadly, this has strenghtened their position, but happily, it has protected populations from dynastic wars.

Thirdly, democracies are far less likely to wage war externally. The monarch seeks to enlarge his holdings. The democracy knows no gain from enlargement, for it means merely an enlargment of more equals, not a larger base to draw plunder and position from.

~~+~~ Liberté ~+~ Egalité ~+~ Fraternité ~+~

It was not the French democracy that started the wars. It were the foreign monarchies who send their slave hordes to fight liberty. The free peoples willing to fight for liberty or die, the slave hordes commanded by the Prussian autocrats, Austrian Habsburgs, Russian despots, paid for by the British lords, suffered defeat after defeat after defeat, until indeed, all free men of arms were dead and there was none left to fight.


Still this was not the end!
The genie of liberty was out of the bottle. France could never again be returned to servitude. Generation after generation would either be free or would die fighting on the barricades.

Abroad, their countries having been set ablaze, their tyrants humiliated, the populace inspired by the unspeakable glory of the free French, most of the foreign slave peoples the past two centuries discovered that they too longed for freedom, the march of democracy, liberty and equality continued, as it does to this day.







HoreTore, Andres, Kralizec - fight the tyranny! Demand what is yours: to be adressed as a citizen, not as a subject.
The lowest French peasant is the subject of none. The most talented Norwegian must suffer the humiliation of a jetset family of Paris Hiltons adressing him as his superiors. Adressing his children their inferiors.

Do not suffer this! Fight it. End it. Take what is yours! Aux armes, citoyens européens!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just how is Medvedevs rule unconstitutional...?

He's a puppet, Putin rules, everyone knows this. Putin is a Tyrant.

And I dare say that most kings with actual power have been ruling as they have seen fit, rewarding and killing as they please.

EDIT: Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

I can think of a lot of Kings who would fit that description...

well, obviously a King who rules against law is a tyrant, I would have thought that was obvious. However, Plato was making an ideaological point... the crucial distinction between King and Tyrant is their attitude to the Law.

Remember I said the Law was Sacred and sacrosanct?

[Louis VI the Fat]

There is something else: in public discourse cause and result regarding the stability of monarchies are usually reversed.

A monarchy does not create stability. Rather, the remaining monarchies owe their continued existence to their stable states.

I think the point being made was that France changes its Constitution when it is threatened, i.e. the Fifth Republic resulted from WWII, rather than it being a case of change always being imposed.

Not to nitpick, but the Vème, the current Republic, was instated owing to the instability of the short-lived post-war IVème Republic, and another lost war, Algeria.

The point remains unaffected by that. As to that: how would it be otherwise? One does not change a Republic on a whim, it takes extraordinary circumstances: revolution, external or internal threat or the like.

[Strike For The South]

This King fellow has got it pretty good. Where do I apply?

[Louis VI the Fat]

This King fellow has got it pretty good. Where do I apply?

Anywhere were there is an eligable princess.

Once you manage to have sex with her, the masses will worship you, throw money at you and grant you your every wish. Their children will angrily claim to bemused outsiders that it is an ancient tradition in their country to worship the House of Texas.


Failing to find a European princess, you could try the Pacific and impress the natives by claiming to be the returned God of their mythology. They will worship you too. Although the weather will be nicer, the perks for Pacific gods are not as great as those of Euro monarchs.

[Strike For The South]

Anywhere were there is an eligable princess.

Learn how to spell you uncouth harlot!

Once you manage to have sex with her, the masses will worship you, throw money at you and grant you your every wish. Their children will angrily claim to bemused outsiders that it is an ancient tradition in their country to worship the House of Texas.


Failing to find a European princess, you could try the Pacific and impress the natives by claiming to be the returned God of their mythology. They will worship you too. Although the weather will be nicer, the perks for Pacific gods are not as great as those of Euro monarchs.

I've always had a thing for the English and the Sweedish Princesses.

How do I go about shagging one of these royals?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Louis explains how you become king.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, but when republics are overthrown by single-rulers emerging from within, standard procedure is to have a lot of people killed, after which servitude ensues or freedom is restored.

Most bloody of all are monarchs replacing other monarchs -the more common way for a monarch to lose position, or head, or both. Which is still a mere triviality compared to what the population suffers in this sort of transition of power.

None of this, however, is called tyranny or terror, but is strangely accepted as normal, as either collateral damage to internal power-struggle or foreign war.


Compared to all of this, the handful of people that have ever lost their heads in transitions to republics are negligable.

A monarchy - a position with intrinsic power and wealth - is a source of instability. It is a coveted position, but limited to one. Naturally, power struggle ensues, as is shown by Europe's long, bloody history. A history of strife and warfare which has only come to an end owing to the triumph of French republican and democratic values throughout the continent.

~~-~~ Liberté ~-~ Egalité ~-~ Fraternité ~~-~~

This peacefulness came about in three ways:

After the French Revolution a scared alliance between the high nobility and the monarchs was forged. Both ever since 1789 living in mortal fear for their lives and position, internal aristocratic peace was made. A monarch did not need to fear his mighty lords any longer, the populations at last spared from bloody wars of replacement or succession.

A sacred, or scared, alliance between monarchs was forged. The common way for a monarch was to lose his head to a foreign monarch. Since the Restauration, monarchs have covered one another. Sadly, this has strenghtened their position, but happily, it has protected populations from dynastic wars.

Thirdly, democracies are far less likely to wage war externally. The monarch seeks to enlarge his holdings. The democracy knows no gain from enlargement, for it means merely an enlargment of more equals, not a larger base to draw plunder and position from.

~~+~~ Liberté ~+~ Egalité ~+~ Fraternité ~+~

It was not the French democracy that started the wars. It were the foreign monarchies who send their slave hordes to fight liberty. The free peoples willing to fight for liberty or die, the slave hordes commanded by the Prussian autocrats, Austrian Habsburgs, Russian despots, paid for by the British lords, suffered defeat after defeat after defeat, until indeed, all free men of arms were dead and there was none left to fight.


Still this was not the end!
The genie of liberty was out of the bottle. France could never again be returned to servitude. Generation after generation would either be free or would die fighting on the barricades.

Abroad, their countries having been set ablaze, their tyrants humiliated, the populace inspired by the unspeakable glory of the free French, most of the foreign slave peoples the past two centuries discovered that they too longed for freedom, the march of democracy, liberty and equality continued, as it does to this day.







HoreTore, Andres, Kralizec - fight the tyranny! Demand what is yours: to be adressed as a citizen, not as a subject.
The lowest French peasant is the subject of none. The most talented Norwegian must suffer the humiliation of a jetset family of Paris Hiltons adressing him as his superiors. Adressing his children their inferiors.

Do not suffer this! Fight it. End it. Take what is yours! Aux armes, citoyens européens!

Oh nonsense, the French Terror was about 100% worse than the overthrow of any monarch by another monarch, because it involved killing all the nobility and priests, rather than just the dodgiest ones.

Also nonsense that democracies are less violent or expansive, I refer you to ancient Athens, or modern Israel.

Third nonsense, France used conscript armies who died in droves, his Britanic Majesty used volunteers.

Monarchies are stable so long as the monarch is not insane, because the politicians vy with eaqch other, not against the King.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis explains how you become king.

By Divine Right?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh nonsense, the French Terror was about 100% worse than the overthrow of any monarch by another monarch, because it involved killing all the nobility and priests, rather than just the dodgiest ones.

Actually, the Terror barely scratched the aristocracy in comparative terms. It was much more about killing other revolutionaries and assorted undesirable peasant types. Far more of the idealists who started the whole thing off lost their heads than nobles. Rather typical of bloody revolutions, where the real enemy is the fellow who is like oneself, but not quite so pure.

[Banquo's Ghost]

By Divine Right?

No, by some farcical aquatic ceremony involving a bint lobbing a scimitar in one's general direction. Hmm, perhaps that is Divine Right, in a nutshell.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, the Terror barely scratched the aristocracy in comparative terms. It was much more about killing other revolutionaries and assorted undesirable peasant types. Far more of the idealists who started the whole thing off lost their heads than nobles. Rather typical of bloody revolutions, where the real enemy is the fellow who is like oneself, but not quite so pure.

I stand corrected, but I submit that the aristocracy suffred more (and more unfairly) than during a mere dynastic squablle. Russia was even worse.

[Pannonian]

Not to nitpick, but the Vème, the current Republic, was instated owing to the instability of the short-lived post-war IVème Republic, and another lost war, Algeria.

The point remains unaffected by that. As to that: how would it be otherwise? One does not change a Republic on a whim, it takes extraordinary circumstances: revolution, external or internal threat or the like.

How significant was the attempted Legion coup in French history as taught?

[al Roumi]

Third nonsense, France used conscript armies who died in droves, his Britanic Majesty used volunteers.

Hmmm. Did you wear rose tinted glasses when studying British history? Heard of press gangs for the Royal Navy?

Monarchies are stable so long as the monarch is not insane, because the politicians vy with eaqch other, not against the King.

Only in a constitutional Monarchy -or one with no overly focussed centre of power, as was the case with the French government before 1789.

Edit:

And what is there to stop other members of the aristocracy (or foreign Kings) vying with their "equal", the King?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm. Did you wear rose tinted glasses when studying British history? Heard of press gangs for the Royal Navy?

Strictly illegal practice, and far less prevelant that you would think anyway.

The French used conscript sailors and soldiers.

[HoreTore]

Oh nonsense, the French Terror was about 100% worse than the overthrow of any monarch by another monarch, because it involved killing all the nobility and priests, rather than just the dodgiest ones.

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre says hello.

I've always had a thing for the English and the Sweedish Princesses.

How do I go about shagging one of these royals?

England only has princes, unfortunately...

But one of the swedes, Madeleine, has been single for a month now. And she's hiding in New York!! All vulnerable and in need of some lovin'.... Go get her, cowboy!

She's not the Crown princess unfortunately, so you won't be regent. But you will be both prince of Sweden and the Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland.

Russia was even worse.

Indeed - the crimes and massacres committed by Nicholas II was worse even than those committed by the French Kings. Gunning down hundreds of people in silent prayer outside his palace? What he got was too good for him.

As for Putin; while I don't like him either, there is no doubt that he has an overwhleming support from the Russian people. And that's what the constitution requires, in a nutshell.

[al Roumi]

Strictly illegal practice, and far less prevelant that you would think anyway.

The French used conscript sailors and soldiers.

Well, conscription in the republic was an extension of the "spontaneous" Paris rentamobs of Sans-culottes, self mobilising for the defense of their new rights/interests. Where there was great opposition to conscription, broadly speaking among the peasantry - particularily in Vendee, Britany and around Lyon, it was because the conscripts did not identify with what was very much an urban, petty-bourgeois cause.

That's not to say conscription was all A-OK, but there were many volunteers among the Republican armies -as there were among the National guards.


Anyway, there are statictics around that demonstrate that a democracy is most unlikely to wage war with another democracy, and is indeed more peaceful than a non-democracy. Most of the reasoning behind the enlightenment's disgust with Monarchy was due to the belligerence and excess of their ruling "Tyrants".

"Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few Militarized Interstate Disputes causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, and that democracies have few civil wars."

Wikipedia, sources:
Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch (2001). "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816-1992" ([dead link]). American Political Science Review 95: 33–48. http://www.worldbank.org/research/co...pers/peace.htm. Ray, James Lee (2003). A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in International Relations Theory, edited by Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman. MIT Press.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for Putin; while I don't like him either, there is no doubt that he has an overwhleming support from the Russian people. And that's what the constitution requires, in a nutshell.

I thought all dictators were to be shot?

Popular will is not an acceptable excuse for illegal breach of the Nations's Constitution.

[HoreTore]

I thought all dictators were to be shot?

A dictator is one who has seized power, not someone the population has voted into office. Putin remains where he is because an overwhelming majority of the Russian people want him there - and if such a man had existed in our countries, he would've been in the same position.

Popular will is not an acceptable excuse for illegal breach of the Nations's Constitution.

A constitution is nothing more than a nation's popular will, to be changed as the popular will changes. And I have no respect for term limits, so I don't really care if Putin has violated that. You want him to renounce all official position? I'm sure he can do that and still have just as much influence over Russian politics as he has now. Judging by the political talking heads in our societies, maybe even more?

And I do believe I have stated numerous times that I would happily see Mr. Putin shot for the crimes he has committed.

EDIT: Oh, and another point on Nicholas II - guess who invented the Protocols of the Elders of Zion....?

[Beskar]

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh nonsense, the French Terror was about 100% worse than the overthrow of any monarch by another monarch, because it involved killing all the nobility and priests, rather than just the dodgiest ones.

Also nonsense that democracies are less violent or expansive, I refer you to ancient Athens, or modern Israel.

Third nonsense, France used conscript armies who died in droves, his Britanic Majesty used volunteers.

Monarchies are stable so long as the monarch is not insane, because the politicians vy with eaqch other, not against the King.

Nonsense alright, but I'm afraid that label is best applied to all of the four statements above.


1 - No, there was no policy of killing all nobility and priests. Neither did they even constitute even a lajority of victims. 80-85 percent of victims of the Terror were not from the first and second estate.

2 - It has been shown above by alh_p that democracies are indeed more peaceful.

3 - French troops were bled dry. Albeit not by the English, who craftely managed to evade open confrontation for a quarter of a century. His Britannic Majesty paid other countries to fight. Call it lend-lease to Russia.
The infinite slave hordes of the Eastern despots and the central European autocracies, together with Russian snow, eventually consumed the French and allied forces. Even at Waterloo, by the standards of previous years but a small skirmish, eighty percent of the anti-democratic forces were not British.

4 - But if politicians vie with one another, then what difference does the mental state of the king make? Might as well raise a mule to the throne if the person of the king is of no consequence. If the person of the king however is of consequence, then it follows that the king does have an influence on political affairs. (For better or for worse)

[drone]

So, who farted?

[Haudegen]

The infinite slave hordes of the Eastern despots and the central European autocracies, together with Russian snow, eventually consumed the French and allied forces. Even at Waterloo, by the standards of previous years but a small skirmish, eighty percent of the anti-democratic forces were not British.

I agree with you in general but I don´t think the French at Waterloo (or any other battle after 1804) were exactly pro-democratic

I´ve always wondered how the French manage to combine their love for Napoleon with their democratic ideals and traditions.

[al Roumi]

I agree with you in general but I don´t think the French at Waterloo (or any other battle after 1804) were exactly pro-democratic

I´ve always wondered how the French manage to combine their love for Napoleon with their democratic ideals and traditions.

Good question, my guess is that the answer is very similar to a similar question: How do the British manage to combine their love for their Monarchy with their democratic ideals and traditions?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree with you in general but I don´t think the French at Waterloo (or any other battle after 1804) were exactly pro-democratic

I´ve always wondered how the French manage to combine their love for Napoleon with their democratic ideals and traditions.

Victor Hugo struggled with this too. What's more, Hugo's father was a general in Bonaparte's army, his mother was a staunch royalist, and a Catholic to boot. Victor himself, a liberal.

In the end, Hugo managed to reconcile himself, his evolving love for his parents, and his politics, in a manner which is too long to repeat here. Let me sum it up in the words of Napoléon himself: 'Imagination rules the world'.


Napoléon is the glory, the accomplishments, the greatness.

The dream, l'esprit. The imagination as everything. If you look upon the stars, who notices the mud and merde surrounding your feet? Which, indeed, could serve as the very motto of the Révolution, of Paris, and of France alike.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you go to the Invalides, beneath the dôme there's the grave of Napoléon. In the surrounding gallery are marbles depicting his accomplishments. The one below is one of his greatest, and most enduring. It is Napoléon the lawgiver, rivalling Solomon and Justinian. I took the picture myself, a long time ago in what by now is a previous life, so a bit blurry: