|
Weren't most of the pre-Romanization Germanic kings elected?A Buttery Pastry posted:the American president has far more political and cultural power than other current heads of government. I think this is true of western states but there are plenty of countries it's not true of. For instance China and Burkina Faso.
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:An elective monarch was like “the chairman of the board” for the ruling class, or dominant faction of the ruling class, so they could steer the state in the direction the people that placed them there wanted. When there was internal conflict, like with Perikles, or… most of Polish history… you can see the limitations. Weka posted:Weren't most of the pre-Romanization Germanic kings elected? Should be mentioned that the fact that the Danish kings were kings of Norway, which was a hereditary monarchy, really limited the number of viable candidates. Weka posted:I think this is true of western states but there are plenty of countries it's not true of. For instance China and Burkina Faso.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
The same is true pretty much everywhere, even in Homer. Without a state monopoly on violence, one rich, armed, guy saying he's in charge of all of the other equally well armed, equally wealthy, guys does not work without their consent. Tribal kingship is elective everywhere it occurs, and feudal kingship requires the consent of the governed. Absolute kingship arrives, late, around the same time as liberalism, more or less. Romantics liked to describe the power and prestige of the Pharaoh in absolute terms, the idea of the God-King, but an actual look at Egyptian history shows that the power of the monarch fluctuated constantly and new dynasties would be placed on the throne if the national (ruling class) interest was truly threatened, in one of Egypt's cyclical crises. The intermediate periods, foreign invasions, foreign dynasties, and partitions of Egypt were all the result of weak monarchs, not the foibles of all-powerful kings. Essentially, "L'État, c'est moi" could not occur prior to the existence of the state, so we have to think of monarchies as representatives of non-state interests, which were inherently non unitary, and therefore expressed electorally, more or less. CN CREW-VESSEL has issued a correction as of 22:20 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 22:16
|
|
|
It's also a lot easier to deal with wrangling feuding noble families when you're a few dozen tribes across a valley or two instead of basically all of Central Europe
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:The same is true pretty much everywhere, even in Homer. Thanks for this, it confirms some things I've hazily half learned. So what you are saying is to get a good monarchy, we must destroy the state. Anarcho-monarchism it is.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:It's also a lot easier to deal with wrangling feuding noble families when you're a few dozen tribes across a valley or two instead of basically all of Central Europe when it gets to that point that's where you break out the secret blackmail societies
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2024 14:05
|
|
