Monarchy saves the world

[Cronos Impera]

Yes Wizard, a monarchy is as good as the person who embodies it.
Kralizec, democracy died out with Athens MM years ago. The current political system is based on the roman (client-patron) system. This implies that citizens don't play an active role in society, but they transfer their power to the political parties, as in Ancient Rome.
Deomocracy is that political system proposed by Thomas Morus in "Utopia", the falanstere project and the soviet system before Lenin took power and overthrew the soviets.That was democracy.
Monarchy-Despotism. Let's separate those ideeas a little. Despotism/tyrany appears when a warlord overthrows the previous goverment and starts to rule autocraticly and without legitemacy so he often tries to wipe out his opposition.( Hittler, Alexandru Lapusneanul, Stalin,and nearly every dictatorthat walked the Earth).
Monarchy is the political system where one person exerts his full influence over a number of subjects supported by tradition and lineage. The monarch acts like a balance, moderating all political life. He can promote development, liberalism and teritorial expansionism.
Well Antiochus, think about that. Before the Meji era, Japan was ruled by a shogun. a military despot. The start of the Meji era ( Monarchy) inaugurated a series of reforms that transformed Japan into the third economical power after the EU and USA.
It is tough choosing the right monarch, but once the right one has been chosen, all things really start to move.

[AntiochusIII]

Yes Wizard, a monarchy is as good as the person who embodies it.
Kralizec, democracy died out with Athens MM years ago. The current political system is based on the roman (client-patron) system. This implies that citizens don't play an active role in society, but they transfer their power to the political parties, as in Ancient Rome.
Deomocracy is that political system proposed by Thomas Morus in "Utopia", the falanstere project and the soviet system before Lenin took power and overthrew the soviets.That was democracy.
Monarchy-Despotism. Let's separate those ideeas a little. Despotism/tyrany appears when a warlord overthrows the previous goverment and starts to rule autocraticly and without legitemacy so he often tries to wipe out his opposition.( Hittler, Alexandru Lapusneanul, Stalin,and nearly every dictatorthat walked the Earth).
Monarchy is the political system where one person exerts his full influence over a number of subjects supported by tradition and lineage. The monarch acts like a balance, moderating all political life. He can promote development, liberalism and teritorial expansionism.
Well Antiochus, think about that. Before the Meji era, Japan was ruled by a shogun. a military despot. The start of the Meji era ( Monarchy) inaugurated a series of reforms that transformed Japan into the third economical power after the EU and USA.
It is tough choosing the right monarch, but once the right one has been chosen, all things really start to move.

False.

The Romans never had anything like modern political parties. The closest they ever came to that were the factions of the Republic, based around, still, individuals with king-like powers over their subjects competing with each other with mobs on the streets and occasionally armies. The strongmen, the corrupted senators, the demagogues, and the generals. None expressed any ideological positions as their cases for leadership. This is far from the modern political party. True, it is still a body of men; true, it's purpose is to take power; but no, it was not Romans. The modern political parties--at least, the really significant ones--are tied, at least theoretically, and in their birth, to the ideologies they professed.

Everyone recognize that what we call as "Democracy" today is a Democratic Republic. You don't express any point by reiterating that, sadly.

You support monarchy by lineage. That is foolish. Again, what in the world allow one dumbarse to think that since his daddy was king he has a legitimate right to oppress everyone else? None; absolutely none. Neither the "Divine Rights of Kings" of the Medieval Age, the natural and quite frankly violently cruel "The Strong Rules," or the "Monarch as justified by Hobbes (the evil necessity that is better than the even worse state of nature" are really grounded on firm arguments. They are dreams and propaganda and the iron mail of the fist and the chain upon the masses under their rule. Nothing more.

What was an ancient king, a king with absolute power you are supporting? A despot, that is. Any attempt to define between them is either propaganda or futility.

Tradition--what is tradition? How does tradition come into being? Traditions are intertwined with the conditions of society. If tradition obstructs society, then tradition will die off. If the traditional women's role is to serve and be subservient, then in a modern society the tradition must go. You are committing the old argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy here. Just because it was there; just because daddy was king, doesn't mean it's right or fair. What is is not the same as what should be.

And your example, Japan, displays your further lack of knowledge on history. The so-called Meiji monarchy is never a true monarchy in the sense you are demanding. Power lies with the prime ministers, the generals, the officials, the ones who were once revolutionaries, rebels, and became leaders, rulers, and commanders--these are the people who truly drove Japan forward; who commanded Japan's armies in her ruthless expansion. Not Emperor Meiji. He was little more than a symbol. The extend of power of Hirohito himself was disputed even today--it seems unlikely that he had any more power than what the military was willing to relinquish to him and obey.

You say it's tough choosing the "right" monarch. I'm skeptic that a monarch should even be chosen, but for it's own sake: tell me, how do choose the "right" monarch? What if those millions of the "weak" masses and thousands of the maniacs were chosen, instead of this hypothetical, mythological ubermensch that we are "supposed to choose"?

[Cronos Impera]

Antiochus, tradition is the main thing that gives you a sense of identity. When tradition is gone, your identity is gone with it and you're nothing but a drone eating, shiting and sleeping. Have you read Japan's former constitution? the first article " Japan is forever ruled by an imperial dinasty". Without Emperour Meji the revolution would have never succeded. It is the only revolution with support from people in high places. The prime ministers ware responsible in front of the Emperour. The Emperour's person was sacred and inviolable. The simple opinions of the Emperour ware commands. If there wasn't a powerful icon such as Emperour Meji, Japan might have been transformed into a Brittish colony.
When you imagine a monarchy you tend to think about "Les Miserables" and Louis XVI.Well, during Louis XVI France was expanding its economy despite the "American Independence War" and other european conflicts. He had to loan great sums of money to cover the expenditures from the bankers but he never paid them back.
The bankers ware quite angry with it and used the masses to start a revolution. What happened next? Years of terror and purges made by romantic revolutionary heroes that supported democracy against tirany, the Napoleonic wars and the end of France as a world power.
I can say Antiochus that you've been subjected to liberal propaganda......and that's fallacious too. Argumentum ad populum vs. Argumentum ad Antiquitatem.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Everyone recognize that what we call as "Democracy" today is a Democratic Republic. You don't express any point by reiterating that, sadly.

Constitutional monarchies are also democracies.

[Brenus]

“the end of France as a world power.” After Napoleon? Read the French history, properly, please… The III Republic was the longest regime in the French History (1870-1940), industrial revolution, education, separation between state and religion, etc… If you speak in term of expansion it is the time of the building of the 2nd Colonial Empire.

“Les Miserables" take place during the 2nd Empire (1848-1870), not during Louis the XVI reign. “Jacquou le Croquant” of Eugene Le Roy should be the reference for the situation of the peasantry under the king (Louis the XVIII, the Restauration).

“He had to loan great sums of money to cover the expenditures from the bankers but he never paid them back.” He couldn’t. The US having sign a separated peace with England, all the territories regained on the English in India and the one lost by Louis the XV (Canada for ex) couldn’t be retaken.
The Nobility obliged him to gather the Etats Genereaux in order to raise new taxes. In exchange the Nobles Reaction wanted the return of their privileges, taken by Louis the XIV.
What they missed was the emergence of the Bourgeoisie and the fact that the poor Nobles and the poor Clergy won’t vote for their Order but will go with the Tiers Etat.

“The bankers ware quite angry with it and used the masses to start a revolution”: Read above the passage about the Noble Reaction. THEY are the responsible for the Revolution, not the bankers…

“Years of terror and purges”, And the years of terrors, deportation and torture during the Religious Wars, followed by the Dragonnades of Louis the XIV, imposing exile to the French Huguenots are nothing… From 1667 to 1713, France was in war with most of Europe. 19 years of peace, thanks to the Sun King. Ok, we’ve got Versailles but…

“Well, during Louis XVI France was expanding its economy”: France declared bankruptcy in 1777.

[Watchman]

Monarchy and comparative de facto hereditary autocratic setups kinda suck. If only because the fellow at the top (usually a man, on occasion a woman) need not fulfill any particular entry requirements save suitable parents (and occasionally just enough political savvy and intrigue skillz to get past possible other candidates), and most of the time holds the office for life. Most monarchs and the like in history actually had pretty restricted powers - having to rely on or go through other power blocks like the nobility, clergy, the Estates, various governing councils etc. to get much anything done - but that didn't keep the really unsuitable ones from doing a whole lot of harm to their subjects. Nevermind now the really sovereign autocrats - l'etat c'est moi and all that - who seem to have had a habit of either nuking their realms themselves or passing on to some quite worthless descendant enough power to achieve it.

Basically, relying on a single individual for an extended period of time is a pretty bad idea all things considered. All the more so as his or her heirs may be God only knows what kinds of loons. In democracies and proto-suchs at least the people who call the shot can be changed if they prove to be dangerous, mad, incompetent or idiots, and normally need at least some merit to get into the post in the first place.

Not that monarchs were particularly necessary in any case. The Northern Italian city-states and their peers in the BeNeLux region prospered right fine without any such troublesome buggers already in the Middle Ages, and the Dutch went on to be a world-class power (the Italians got buggered by changes of circumstances beyond their control). Their neighbors took half a millenia to dig themselves up from the feudal morass, only to end up under all-powerful autocrats who spent quite excessive amounts of resources and energy on warfare, empty luxury or both and eventually proved to be intolerable enough to either get fired (or guillotined...) or turned into impotent figureheads.

[AntiochusIII]

Constitutional monarchies are also democracies.

Ah, my mistake. Nonetheless, I think that Democratic Republics are the ones that Cronos Impera seem to focus on. Especially considering he made the argument with the use of (arguably, not definitively, perhaps) the Constitutional Monarch of Japan.

Antiochus, tradition is the main thing that gives you a sense of identity. When tradition is gone, your identity is gone with it and you're nothing but a drone eating, shiting and sleeping. Have you read Japan's former constitution? the first article " Japan is forever ruled by an imperial dinasty". Without Emperour Meji the revolution would have never succeded. It is the only revolution with support from people in high places. The prime ministers ware responsible in front of the Emperour. The Emperour's person was sacred and inviolable. The simple opinions of the Emperour ware commands. If there wasn't a powerful icon such as Emperour Meji, Japan might have been transformed into a Brittish colony.
When you imagine a monarchy you tend to think about "Les Miserables" and Louis XVI.Well, during Louis XVI France was expanding its economy despite the "American Independence War" and other european conflicts. He had to loan great sums of money to cover the expenditures from the bankers but he never paid them back.
The bankers ware quite angry with it and used the masses to start a revolution. What happened next? Years of terror and purges made by romantic revolutionary heroes that supported democracy against tirany, the Napoleonic wars and the end of France as a world power.
I can say Antiochus that you've been subjected to liberal propaganda......and that's fallacious too. Argumentum ad populum vs. Argumentum ad Antiquitatem.

Not necessarily. Tradition is not the only thing that could give people identity. Tell me, just because this Afghan tribe insist that upholding (their oppressive version of) Sharia Law and oppressing women is significant to their tradition--and by your argument their identity--would it be right for them to keep their precious traditions? And why, I know perfectly well I'm alive while I'm not tied to any traditions. Why would I need to commit argumentum ad antiquitatem just to confirm my sensitive manhood?

Of your Japan, you still didn't get the point. Meiji served as nothing more than a symbol--it is arguable that he had more power than that but was still very limited. The Japanese have this notion that their revolution was also intended to serve to achieve equality and such; of course, the actual goings of the Meiji Restoration was different, but nonetheless those disgruntled with the traditional Tokugawa regime would still find other banners to hold. They might as well held themselves "the pantless ones" and raise the tricolour banner just for the heck of it.

And your assumption that Meiji was the only obstacle against British domination of Japan--any actual support?

During the reign of Louis XVI France did not expand its economy. Our French patron Brenus graciously pointed out that it was, in fact, bankrupt. And the bankers starting a revolution? That's false. No bankers in the traditional French society had any real power over the masses to truly oppose a well-supported King. The French revolution was sparked, maybe, by efforts from above, but it needed a completely disgruntled and disillusioned populace to carry through. A populace oppressed by your precious glorious monarchy. And the Sun King? He was one of the best France had to offer, perhaps, but he was still a megalomaniac who ended up ruining his country.

France as a world power was not because it had a particularly strong monarchy--its population and great resources were much more important in the schemes of things, not to mention Richelieu, who ruled over a weak monarch. And while it was at its zenith under Napolean, so was it's first great fall under him. A newer world power in France was owned to the Third Republic that came after the Second Empire, namely, the reign of Napolean III.

And where is it that I commit argumentum ad populum, or display a subjugation under "liberal propaganda?"

[Papewaio]

Monarchy is to Despot what Religion is to Cult.

Some things get nicer with age. Well nicer names as all their enemies are wiped out .

[The Wizard]

Yes Wizard, a monarchy is as good as the person who embodies it.

And as such it is an incompetent system that is only as good as the person that, by pure and unfair chance, has gotten in control of it.

Democracy and republicanism, however, with their methods of control, produce systems of sometimes lesser, but overall better governments which are far, far more reliable than putting an entire nation at the mercy of the intelligence and capability of a single man.

If, by chance, a monarch turns out to be a good man or woman, then that is good. But there lies the very problem: it is left over to chance. A modern state can simply not subside on that. The flaws of absolutist monarchism are simply too great.

[Cronos Impera]

But Antiochus, during the age of monarchs Afganistan had no Sharia law. Your democracy loving tribesmen created an Islamic republic and Afganistan returned to the Stone Age. But it was the power of the many.
Compare the ruins of Monarchic Afganistan with today's primitive shack....from heaven to hell.
A dictator has no other purpose than to exploit his subjects. A monarch is far more reasonable as he has strong ties with his subjects passed from generation to generation. He must be just, balanced and efficient as his sons/daughters will inherit his work. Monarchy thus has stronger ties with a country than despotism and oligarchy.
Remember monarchy saved the subservient peasantry from the cluthces of the nobility and without the political reforms made by monarchs our world would be an intolerant and violent place. Remember King Charles II Stuart and his religious tolerance projects....he was opposed by elected parlamentarians.
Monarchy is required to balance the relation between minority-majority.

[A.Saturnus]

I have no idea what Meiji meant for Japan and it could very well be that Afghanistan was better of under monarchy (though this can be attributed to the fact that it was wrecked by Soviets in between), but that is mute to the point that history is paved with hundreds of examples of cruel and unjust monarchs.
The last 60 years have been the best in Europe's troubled past and that can be attributed to democracy.

[Brenus]

“A monarch is far more reasonable as he has strong ties with his subjects passed from generation to generation.”
Did we read the same books? Because the “strong ties” and from “generation to generation” is the biggest propaganda never imagine. Nephew killing their uncle, brothers against brothers, cousin plotting against each other that is the reality of the Kingship. Richard most probably killed his nephew in the London Tower; Dagobert II surely killed his nephew and his uncle. Henri the III of France was assassinated, his successor (but different dynasty) as well, and both by monks (Jacques Clement and Ravaillac) during civil war for power and religion.
What strong ties are? The last bit attached to France is the Savoy, in 1860. And the Cathares were exterminated because they were protected by the Counts of Toulouse, rivals of the French King.
And what about the English Kings. Without the re-invention of the Salic law, they should have been the rightful Kings of France. The Mother of Edward III was Isabelle de France, daughter of Philippe IV le Bel… The fact he (Edward) probably saw himself as French… Philippe of Valois, the other claimant is the Nephew of Philippe IV Le Bel. So, in right, the Great son of Philip IV, Edward III was from the same line of blood. Philippe of Valois, becoming Philip VI stared a new dynasty (Valois).
The unification of France was made by wars and blood, not by generation of love and cuddling.

“A monarch is far more reasonable”: You mean like Nicolas II, Tsar Autocrat who order to shoot the crowd asking for bread, or Louis the XVI giving the plans of the French Army to his brother in Law, Emperor of Austria, or Richard II of England against the peasants (1381), or other peasants revolts in Germany, all of them crushed in blood by the loving Kings.
The link between a King and the population was more the same than between the farmer and the sheep. They provide the wool and I live in warm clothes.

And, closer to you, what about the Prince Vlad III Dracula, also known as Vlad Tepes? Nice monarch, was he?

[Watchman]

Remember monarchy saved the subservient peasantry from the cluthces of the nobility and without the political reforms made by monarchs our world would be an intolerant and violent place. Remember King Charles II Stuart and his religious tolerance projects....he was opposed by elected parlamentarians.
Monarchy is required to balance the relation between minority-majority.

The funny thing is, it's seriously questionable if moving from the feudal mess to centralized autocracy exactly improved the lot of the commoners. Often quite to the contrary; at least minor landowning aristocracy had an immediate and very direct contact to and dependency on their estates, and very practical pressing needs to maintain good working relationships with his subjects. Peasant revolts, after all, were not only dangerous to the minor aristocracy (who might well get lynched or bushwhacked before the uprising was squashed) but also depleted the ranks of the taxpaying farmers, cutting directly into the local lord's economic base. Ergo, the sane and sensible ones made a point of not being too oppressive except in dire necessity.

The further away the lord moves from the local level, however, the less he tends to care of such details; magnates owning great swathes of land rarely bothered to even visit their estates in person, and tended to be rather more prone to "peasant exploitation" directly or indirectly, partly as the damages possible revolts might cause would be readily exceeded by the extra income bleeding the commoners dry all over his holdings brought in. An autocratic monarch at the top of the state hierarchy is then about as far from the local level you can get...

Moreover, strongly centralized states tended to be both more ambitious than local feudal lordlings and by far better organized. What this meant they were much more prone of taxing the snot out of their subjects to finance wars, courtly luxury (generally regarded as essential for the maintenance of prestige) and various prestige projects - as well as in possession of far better adminstrative apparatuses to actually go about the business of inventorizing, assessing and gathering those taxes. Plus even better able to crush local popular uprisings with overwhelming military resources and organisation.

The Swedish "Great Power" period from the early 1600s to the Great Northern War a century later can perhaps be taken as a good example. Sweden was poor in both economy and demography; it compensated by developing one of the most efficient bureaucracies of the time to extract maximum possible value of both, both to finance campaigns and pay for mercenaries and to conscript populace into the military. This allowed it to emerge victorious from the Thirty Years' War, for a while reach the pipe dream of dominicum maris Balticum (ie. the overlordship of all or virtually all the important river outlets into the Baltic Sea and other vital coastal regions, and hence a stranglehold on all the sea trade in the region) and on several occasions come out the winner from a war with in pracice all of its neighbours at once. Along the line vast tracts of land were granted to assorted magnates as royal rewards for good service etc., and the peasantry very nearly reduced to de facto serfdom - although the commoners were able to garner enough support in the Estates (presumably the clergy and the burghers) to torpedo that particular law. All this incessant warring, however, pretty much bled the realm dry; by the death of Carolus XII, the last of the Great Power "warrior-kings", the state was having an acute shortage of adult manpower as well as being financially in ruins.

Perhaps not too surprisingly the Estates quickly reduced the monarch into a rubber-stamp figurehead for quite a while after this ruinous period of imperial ambitions.

Monarchy is required to balance the relation between minority-majority.

Bollocks. It works right well with parliaments and suchlike without the interference of any pesky royalty, if they happen to be so inclined.

But Antiochus, during the age of monarchs Afganistan had no Sharia law. Your democracy loving tribesmen created an Islamic republic and Afganistan returned to the Stone Age. But it was the power of the many.
Compare the ruins of Monarchic Afganistan with today's primitive shack....from heaven to hell.

I'll be damned if too many of the petty overlords of the region were particularly progressive legislators. I'm also willing to bet Sharia was the standard yardstick for quite a bit of the region's history (ie. since it first became Muslim-dominated) - that legal corpus is, after all, literally "Medieval" legislature and it would seem rather strange if patently "Medieval" overlords wouldn't lean on it to some degree.

The most progressive regime in the area was the Soviet-backed Communist one whose dismantling by the part reactionary and part otherwise rebellious mujaheddin both Iran and the US somewhat ironically supported...

Anyway, as for being a backwater ruin I'd say that's primarily thanks to about a decade of civil war and warlords followed by about another decade of bickering warlords. It'd be a bit of a miracle if you had anything else than a backwater ruin-field operating on subsistence agriculture and warlord economy after that. The Taliban may have been a bunch of hardcore reactionaries, but at least they stabilized things in their domains (and got just about all the remaining warlords to gang up against them, which can be considered a sort of further stabilizing influence...).

[Aenlic]

Actually it was a couple of hundred years of constant warfare, beginning with the monarchic British Empire which devastated Afghanistan - not democracy.

[Duke Malcolm]

Actually it was a couple of hundred years of constant warfare, beginning with the monarchic British Empire which devastated Afghanistan - not democracy.

Since Her Britannic Majesty's Governments were and are elected, it is not monarchic. Furthermore, since the Head of State is not elected and due to this, s/he is not biased (except in personal opinions, and since the Monarch has not ruled for centuries, this is barely reflective on British foreign policy) in the same regard as politicians.

[Aenlic]

Since Her Britannic Majesty's Governments were and are elected, it is not monarchic. Furthermore, since the Head of State is not elected and due to this, s/he is not biased (except in personal opinions, and since the Monarch has not ruled for centuries, this is barely reflective on British foreign policy) in the same regard as politicians.

Hush! I was trying to make a point about monarchies to a monarchist; and then you go and try to bring reason into an already absurd debate! Shame on you, Duke Malcolm!

[AntiochusIII]

But Antiochus, during the age of monarchs Afganistan had no Sharia law. Your democracy loving tribesmen created an Islamic republic and Afganistan returned to the Stone Age. But it was the power of the many.
Compare the ruins of Monarchic Afganistan with today's primitive shack....from heaven to hell.

Erm, as many pointed out. It seems you did not read Afghanistan's history in the least. That particular nation had never had the glorious Enlightenment ideologies (ahem, ahem) being implemented, or even widely recognized, as you claim it is. No democracy--never had. You're blaming the modern systems of government, the one where the people actually has a theoretical voice in the government (enforced occasionally by the popular demonstrations the French are so famous for), for the woes it never inflicted. And blaming Democracy for Hitler is equally as unfounded and, pardon me, ignorant.

I don't think your precious monarchy presided over any particularly vibrant Afghanistan kingdoms, anyway.

A dictator has no other purpose than to exploit his subjects. A monarch is far more reasonable as he has strong ties with his subjects passed from generation to generation. He must be just, balanced and efficient as his sons/daughters will inherit his work. Monarchy thus has stronger ties with a country than despotism and oligarchy.

Yeah right. A monarch in the centralized "Age of Monarchy" is a despot, a dictator. Don't try to sugar-coat it. Just ask the starving peasants of the 18th century if they want their monarch dead or not, and they'd either run away screaming or whisper on how much they want their Man dead and cold.

And the "sons and daughters inherit his work" is just about the best bull I've ever seen. You recognize that pattern where the sons and daughters of the exceedingly rich turn out to be exceedingly incompetent and arrogant, thinking themselves "superior" because of daddy's power and wealth and squander it? Well, it works with monarchs too. A lot. And even then, others pointed out that monarchies have this particularly nasty habit of having deadly serious civil wars and backstabbing (the Byzantines must be proud) everytime a king dies. No, it's either son againsts the other son, uncle against son, son against grandson, or all against all just for your precious "stabilizing" throne.

Remember monarchy saved the subservient peasantry from the cluthces of the nobility and without the political reforms made by monarchs our world would be an intolerant and violent place. Remember King Charles II Stuart and his religious tolerance projects....he was opposed by elected parlamentarians.

Erm...

Charles II was brought back by the people not because they were tired of democracy but they were tired of the Puritans and their crazy "moral laws." And he was much "moderated" by the fact that his father was put to death by the populace who hated him. In other words, he was forced to accept that the people had power after all and Parliament very much so. What do you think if this great Charles got to rule a completely subservient kingdom instead of a Parliamentary Britain? He'd probably be spending time cavorting with the pretty wenches or something.

By the way, are you one of those "subservient peasantry" you talked about?

Monarchy is required to balance the relation between minority-majority.

Really? You mean the balance between the oppressors under the crown and the oppressed? The modern system of government, the "Democracy," does much to alleviate that problem by being not truly Democracy anyway. And does a far better job of it. Guess what? The "Great" Medieval Kings did not protect Jews and Gypsies and whatever minority you might have in mind. In fact, they are the ones who instigate the people against the minorities time and again when they need to rob the Jews off their precious money. The bankers, that is.

[Cronos Impera]

First, the Cathars ware christian fundamentalists who believed women ware the spawn of Satan. They ware exterminated by the combined efforts of the Catholic Church and a few french acolytes ( During the Medieval Age the Church had a higher authority than the kings, in fact the Church controlled all European Politics). Ferdinand and Isabella waren't responsible for the Spanish Holocaust, it was Mr. T, Antiochus.Gypsies waren't subjects of any state.They ware a nomadic people who travlled from place to place, from kingdom to duchy so the monarchy had no authority over them. They ware victims of their own nomadic lifestyle. Even nowadays, in the Modern Age a great number of them embrace illiteracy and crime.
And Napoleon. Well for starters he reintroduced slavery and made the greatest military errors (The Invasion of Russia) who cost France more than a million soldiers. He comitted acts of genocide and helped France loose the possesions in America ( Louisiana). A splendid period for France indeed.
Secondly, the french Hughenots ware quite disloyal. They ware supported by Anglican England ( especially those from La Rochelle), despite the privilages granted for them by the king. When La Rochelle was besieged, english forces captured Ile de Re and France's independence was threatened. Richelieu and King Ludovic XIII had to crush the uprising for the sake of national unity.
Furthermore, Charles I made enemies of himself only half the country ( the wealthier south). That's why we call it a Civil War, not a Revolution. The King's trial was nothing more than a public spectacle, performed by Cromwell's supporters ( 26 parlimentarians). Cromwell's propaganda machine and the Hanover dinasty perpetuated the myth that Charles was hated by the majority of the population.

Monarhs encouraged progress and science. They welcomed alchemists, physicists, artists ( Leonardo DaVinci), travelers and traders. How many scientsits are sponsored now by democrats. Almost 0. Why, because people today are too shallow to think beyound their own box and choose to protect their own interests ( Build a villa, buy a sports car than support a foundation).
Today's system ( the Democratic Republic) implies the client-patron relation where the patron always gains the upper hand and the votes. Have you seen how hard it is to put wealty bourgeoisie behind bars, because their influience is too great?
And plus, the problems with a monarchy can be solved much more easily than a republic. In a monarchy you only have to remove the incompetent idiot from the throne while in a republic if an entire Parliment or political system protects incompetence you're hopeless and you can't do a thing. The simpler your political system is the more likely it is to become effective.

[AntiochusIII]

Jeez. This King-smooching is getting tiring.

First, the Cathars ware christian fundamentalists who believed women ware the spawn of Satan. They ware exterminated by the combined efforts of the Catholic Church and a few french acolytes ( During the Medieval Age the Church had a higher authority than the kings, in fact the Church controlled all European Politics). Ferdinand and Isabella waren't responsible for the Spanish Holocaust, it was Mr. T, Antiochus.Gypsies waren't subjects of any state.They ware a nomadic people who travlled from place to place, from kingdom to duchy so the monarchy had no authority over them. They ware victims of their own nomadic lifestyle. Even nowadays, in the Modern Age a great number of them embrace illiteracy and crime.

You are blaming the Gypsies for being victims of the kings and nobles and the populace looting them? How about Jews and the general habit of the lords turning them into scapegoats for their problems?

That's so totally screwed up. Oh wait, I offended the great Hapsburg for calling him/her a total idiot. To the Lions I am!?

And Napoleon. Well for starters he reintroduced slavery and made the greatest military errors (The Invasion of Russia) who cost France more than a million soldiers. He comitted acts of genocide and helped France loose the possesions in America ( Louisiana). A splendid period for France indeed.

Ask any Frenchman and he'll say that, whatever thousand mistakes Napolean made, the man presided over one of France's most tumultous and, for the vainglorious, mightiest periods, where she dominated Europe.

Heck, ask any British.

By the way, you pointed out his many mistakes. You realize he's a monarch of sorts too? So it's like: "I hate Napolean the guy sucks he fails France screw it up etc. etc." and then "the monarch is glorious he brought his nation to glory etc. etc." Well, Napolean is a monarch!

Secondly, the french Hughenots ware quite disloyal. They ware supported by Anglican England ( especially those from La Rochelle), despite the privilages granted for them by the king. When La Rochelle was besieged, english forces captured Ile de Re and France's independence was threatened. Richelieu and King Ludovic XIII had to crush the uprising for the sake of national unity.

Okay?

You are aware Richelieu basically provoked the Huguenots to active resistance, like, by removing the Edict of Nantes provocatively?

Again, blaming the victims for happening to standing in the way of the glorious monarch.

Furthermore, Charles I made enemies of himself only half the country ( the wealthier south). That's why we call it a Civil War, not a Revolution. The King's trial was nothing more than a public spectacle, performed by Cromwell's supporters ( 26 parlimentarians). Cromwell's propaganda machine and the Hanover dinasty perpetuated the myth that Charles was hated by the majority of the population.

Yeah...

Wow. Propaganda; conspiracy!? Charles was hated by the English populace. Oh wait, you claim it's just half, well: prove it. And then you claim the new dynasty is nasty against the old? So that monarchy isn't so good anymore?

Monarhs encouraged progress and science. They welcomed alchemists, physicists, artists ( Leonardo DaVinci), travelers and traders. How many scientsits are sponsored now by democrats. Almost 0. Why, because people today are too shallow to think beyound their own box and choose to protect their own interests ( Build a villa, buy a sports car than support a foundation).

Yeah...

You seem to miss the fact that the modern world clearly has more scientists and scholars than they were during the Age of the Monarchs. It just happen that modern scientists and scholars, and artists and inventors, are capable of supporting themselves by working alone or for companies, or maybe institutions like, omg, universities? And sponsorship is still going on even now by the filthy rich, just like the kings of old who happened to be filthy rich off the backs of the people and therefore capable of supporting a few "pets." Those filthy rich of old, your precious monarchs, didn't try to encourage "progress" like you claim to be at all. They're just paying the bright and the brains--which now works more or less freely--to decorate their courts. If it just happen that the bright turns out something classic? Well, all credit goes to the inventor.

You realize progress is going on, right? Faster than ever? I'm sure Impressionism isn't a Medici-sponsored movement or the artiste in Paris to need the filthy rich kings' patronage. Vincent van Gogh wasn't under the patronage of monarchs, for example.

Today's system ( the Democratic Republic) implies the client-patron relation where the patron always gains the upper hand and the votes. Have you seen how hard it is to put wealty bourgeoisie behind bars, because their influience is too great?

Have you seen how hard is it to put powerful kings behind bars, because their influence is too great?

It's like, impossible, man, except for a bloody coup just to bring a criminal-on-the-throne down.

And plus, the problems with a monarchy can be solved much more easily than a republic. In a monarchy you only have to remove the incompetent idiot from the throne while in a republic if an entire Parliment or political system protects incompetence you're hopeless and you can't do a thing. The simpler your political system is the more likely it is to become effective.

Erm, no.

The problems with a monarchy can be solved by disassembling the entire structure: a monarchy is not built on the moron on the top alone, but often a systematic societal hierarchy that is increasingly oppressive the lower you are on the food chain. A Republic, at least, most Republics, allow for the removal of the head of state by peaceful terms, and a counterbalance against an overly powerful executive. A monarch embodies the entire system, a holder of absolute power--at least, in your proposed monarchy of old, the ancien regime--and therefore bringing him or her down takes a lot of effort--often by blood, or just wait out until the moron dies--and the resulting transition of power often causes troubles and, in many cases, chaos and even civil wars. Remember the phrase: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Political systems can't be simple because the world isn't simple. Simplicity is a cop-out, an excuse.

Of course, the monarchy that is simple is the same as any other tyranny. The monarchy that is complex is either deliberately or forcibly complex to keep the status quo--often a very dystopian status quo--in place.

[Watchman]

First, the Cathars ware christian fundamentalists who believed women ware the spawn of Satan. They ware exterminated by the combined efforts of the Catholic Church and a few french acolytes ( During the Medieval Age the Church had a higher authority than the kings, in fact the Church controlled all European Politics).

Bollocks. The Cathars got stomped on because they went over the line of the Church's tolerance, ie. started threatening its authority - and the French crown went happily along because it saw a brilliant opportunity to cut the troublesome and powerful southern barons down to size.

As for the Church and its authority, it was fluctuating at best. At times the Popes were strong and could make temporal authorities bend knee if required (eg. the "Walk to Canossa"). At others the assorted kings, barons and even lower clergymen flat out ignored them (eg. William the Conqueror married a distant cousin of his despite politically moticated Papal claims of "consanguinity"); at others flatly disobeyed them (eg. when the Lithuanian pagans sent a delegate to complain to the Pope about the greed, rapacity and opportunism of the Teutonic Knights and the Pope bade the Order to behave themselves and not oppress the pagans for their own ends, not only did the Order pretty much tell him to sod off but the local bishop sided with them too - the Pope eventually had to send in some of his own troops to act as "peacekeepers", and they very nearly came to blows with the Order on several occasions); sometimes practically held them hostage (as the French kings during the Avignon period); waged war against them, as not a few Holy Roman Emperors and a few others did; maneuvered rubber-stamp yes-men into the office; invested their own anti-Popes when the original one's politics didn't suit them (the Emperors were busy here again); largely ignored Papal bulls (the way the rule of priestly celibacy gets reiterated time and again tells volumes of how closely it was observed in practice, and the bans on tournaments or use of crossbows against other Catholics by and large fell to deaf ears...); and otherwise disrespected and/or abused the exalted office when it suited them and they could get away with it, which was quite often.

Gypsies waren't subjects of any state.They ware a nomadic people who travlled from place to place, from kingdom to duchy so the monarchy had no authority over them.

Which is exactly why secular lords didn't much like them. They could give the serfs troublesome ideas, and unlike the freetowns and mining communities didn't even net you any financial compensation.

And Napoleon. Well for starters he reintroduced slavery and made the greatest military errors (The Invasion of Russia) who cost France more than a million soldiers. He comitted acts of genocide and helped France loose the possesions in America ( Louisiana). A splendid period for France indeed.

As already mentioned, Napoleon I was very much a monarch. Got himself crowned Emperor and all. Old school, too - took the office by sheer merit and savvy. The first kings and emperors of dynasties (if they don't manage to die without heirs or something, anyway) are often such dynamic and competent figures who work their way to top by good old-fashioned opportunism. Alas, as all too often demonstrated, their heirs tend to be their own creatures and not carbon copies of their forebears, and sooner or later along comes an idiot who at the very least gets the dynasty deposed if not outright killed and his realm ruined.

Mind you, the firsts of dynasties just may also happen to be feeble puppets installed by savvy kingmakers...

Secondly, the french Hughenots ware quite disloyal. They ware supported by Anglican England ( especially those from La Rochelle), despite the privilages granted for them by the king. When La Rochelle was besieged, english forces captured Ile de Re and France's independence was threatened. Richelieu and King Ludovic XIII had to crush the uprising for the sake of national unity.

Well duh. The French religious civil wars went on for around half a century or so, and were very brutal - and the Hugenots quite a few times found the treaties and quarantees they'd been given reneged upon. The Catholic counter-Reform ultras were hard at work too after all, and had all the same means of aquiring private armies, raising lynch mobs, influencing whoever sat on the throne etc. etc. as any other aristocrat. That the Huguenots sought support from foreign Protestants (who more often than not weren't going to give any unless they stood something to gain too...) only proves they had strategic sense and/or were desperate.
Anyway, Richelieu and the rest eventually managed to calm things down a bit by stripping both the Hugenots and the Catholic ultras of their fortresses (all the ones militarily vital to the kingdom were placed under royal control, and the rest demolished); bereft of their strong sanctuaries neither dared go to open war anymore.

Which of course didn't keep the Huguenots from being heavily persecuted later on.

Louis XIII's daddy, Henry IV the converted Huguenot ("Paris vaut bien une messe!"), tends to be generally regarded as a genuinely benign monarch though. Got murdered by a Catholic fanatic for it, too.

Furthermore, Charles I made enemies of himself only half the country ( the wealthier south). That's why we call it a Civil War, not a Revolution. The King's trial was nothing more than a public spectacle, performed by Cromwell's supporters ( 26 parlimentarians). Cromwell's propaganda machine and the Hanover dinasty perpetuated the myth that Charles was hated by the majority of the population.

Managing to goad the more prosperous half of your country into armed revolt against your royal personage, losing the resulting war (several times - the English Civil War was a series of conlicts) and eventually getting executed by the rebels does not speak of a very high degree of competence or ability to mobilize enough popular support, thankyouverymuch.

Which sort of also illustrates a problem of monarchs in general. If the guy on the throne is an intolerable bastard as far as you're concerned and won't or doesn't need to (ie. he has sufficient support in whatever representative body the system now happens to come with) listen to your complaints, you're left with about three choices - go elsewhere, grit your teeth and suffer, or rebel.

Democratic systems don't really quarantee much else except the option to change decision-makers. But boy, does that save us from countless revolts, civil and succession wars, and sundry distruptions as well as decades under one and same idiot apparently hellbent on ruining his country.

Monarhs encouraged progress and science. They welcomed alchemists, physicists, artists ( Leonardo DaVinci), travelers and traders. How many scientsits are sponsored now by democrats. Almost 0. Why, because people today are too shallow to think beyound their own box and choose to protect their own interests ( Build a villa, buy a sports car than support a foundation).

Which rock are you living under anyway ? Modern world has entirely managed to lose the brakes on this "progress and science" thing, and although various (and usually disagreeable) breeds of autocrats are still altogether too common they aren't calling the shots in too many of the trailblazer states. It's really a function of the economic system anyway, as capitalist competition has the overwhelming urge to constantly develop new things pretty much hardcoded in.

Democratically ruled systems, incidentally, would rather appear to be the best at both keeping it going and making use of it, particularly when it comes to actually making the populace in general benefit from it.

Today's system ( the Democratic Republic) implies the client-patron relation where the patron always gains the upper hand and the votes. Have you seen how hard it is to put wealty bourgeoisie behind bars, because their influience is too great?

I see you haven't the faintest idea of how common naked and unabashed patronism, nepotism, favouritism etc. etc. was back in the day sovereign monarchs were common.
Hint: it was the norm.
People only complain about bureaucracy because they don't know what was before it, and what will be without it. When it (ie. competent and efficient adminstration) was first introduced it was bloody revolutionary, and allowed those who quickly mastered it to do things no previous prince - even a straight out god-king of a major empire - could not even dream about.

And plus, the problems with a monarchy can be solved much more easily than a republic. In a monarchy you only have to remove the incompetent idiot from the throne while in a republic if an entire Parliment or political system protects incompetence you're hopeless and you can't do a thing. The simpler your political system is the more likely it is to become effective.

You seem to have forgotten the bit where removing a monarch-in-being tends to require an assasination, armed revolution, and/or something similarly drastic, risky and potentially destructive. And there's exactly zero quarantee of the guy who eventually takes his place being any better - indeed, the assorted succesful Communist revolutions alone should be all the evidence of this that is required. The lot of them just ended up under yet another tyrant, save with a bit different title and faux justification for his existence.

Besides, simple can't cope with complicated. And if there's something the world is, especially these days, it's complicated to the Nth degree.

Monarchy leads to Imperalism. Imperalism leads to colonialism.

Wrong order. Colonialism was first. Imperialism was the bit from late 1800s to around the World Wars which in record time managed to bugger impressively large parts of the world pretty thoroughly and for a long while. Quite a few of them never had time to properly gain or regain any sort of balance before the next round of major upheavals came in, and the next and next...

In Russia people are returning to favouring a Monarchy (preferably led by the Romanov family) as the most prosperous time for them was under the Monarchy (this is their reasoning not mine!). They have a believe that the Sainted Romanov's can save their Russia.

To be entirely honest, that's because they're idiots who always seem to look for a Strong Leader to deliver them from their problems instead of trying to do something about it themselves. The picture gets rounded out by avid fandom and romanticism of such Strong Leaders as Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and/or Stalin. Why the Hell they keep idolizing a spineless nincompoop like Nicholas II whose only merit to be noted in history is losing first the Great War and then both his life and empire in the Russian Revolution puzzles me even more.
Would you believe I've seen a Russian opera from the mid-1800s or so, set into Peter the Great's time, where one nobleman at one point laments to the heavens something along the lines "O Lord, let the light of wisdom shine on Russia" when frustrated at the general stupidity and pig-headedness around hom and then rounds it off two minutes later by... praying for the appereance of a Strong Leader To Set Things Right.

And I can quarantee it was in no way a satirical opera.

The scholars often blame serfdom (which wasn't abolished until around mid-1800s there, or for that matter in most of East and Central Europe) for this crazy lethargy and millenialistic hero-worship. The Soviets didn't exactly help, but they were really just continuing the old command-from-above-don't-even-try-to-think-yourself-you-stupid-peasant system in a bit new guise anyway.

Personally, I'm morbidly curious to see if Putin really steps down when his term ends or turns into the Strong Leader his fans in the Putin-jugends want... I mean, Musfarrah claimed he'd step down too. Didn't happen when the time came.