Message from @Norik
Discord ID: 675813580712575002
I agree that saying their for everything is gay af.
Good times create weak men etc
A prince ought to be educated in the history of warfare and be raised to hunt
To know what it takes to lure and kill your enemies and to learn the lay of the land
How valleys slope and forests conceal
Everyone should. It is just extra important for rulers to.
So that he may know how to lead a battle when the time comes
Reminder that the mongols were raised hunting mice and herding on horseback
And conquered half the world’s population in an afternoon with six horses and a banana
Anyway not a question
<:scowl:267481153777172481>
K
If a monarch makes an elected parliament to represent the people will that inevitably spiral into further loss of a monarch’s power or can a monarch’s power remain if a parliament exists?
Now there’s a good question
It’s hard to say
There’s not a large enough sample size to determine a clear trend
The British monarchy was pretty solid for centuries even with a separate legislature
Though of course their system has Lords n shiet
The king was still pretty powerful until after the war
And that was largely due to the complacency and weakness of the sitting monarch, rather than a systemic failure
I think that the system can exist for long periods when things are going good or ok but when hardship hits people tend to blame the system instead of the actual causes.
The parliament and House of Lords were fine because Britain was doing well.
But when they stopped doing as well the kings powers were taken.
it's almost as if the system of government is secondary to a strong culture and society
<:blobwoke:473997738904780840>
Eh
Both reinforce eachother
As far as I can tell any sort of federal assembly is a bad idea in the longterm
If you have a parliament, the one thing it can agree on always is empowering parliament. Even one moment of monarchical weakness and you end up with a figurehead
And once parliament is in charge I think we can observe in history there's always been a drive to expand the franchise
If anything have regional parliament or better yet make large cities republican enclaves
I like large cities being mini republics, buy I'd also like to point out the necessity of Parliaments, of which all medieval monarchs had a form, for feudal tax collection. You're gonna have to find another way for people to consent to tax and your government.
They consent by not moving
Parliaments did exist in Britain and France exactly for the purpose of being able to vetos taxations and so they did
And it was a mess
I'd go so far as to say that if the French monarchy didn't have a parliament at all that the French revolution wouldn't have happened
Yo <@578804170342137867> why was Apollo banned?
He says he's sorry and won't post anything like whatever it was again
@ThunderFuck He spammed the channels with rubbish.
Nesselblatt, I'm talking feudal Parliaments, not early modern ones. The French Assembly was of course a disaster, but i think its important to reflect on monarchy before this period, and how they worked. Powerful monarchs expanded the roles of their Parliaments so they could expand their tax collection, and weak monarch minimised the role of their Parliaments so they could secure their hold on the throne. If you have a noble title, if you represent a wealthy city, you should negotiate with the ruler as to the taxes you give to said ruler.
Of course the monarch should be powerful in and of themselves, but absolutism is a modernist occurrence, and it was that centralisation of power which led to the revolution. Power should be dispersed throughout the estates, and not just legally like some liberal separation of powers BS, but by the actual reality of power held, and they will hold eachother in check, and in the aim of furthering their own interests (the clergy, nobility, bourgeois and commoners) they will progress the general interest of the civilisation.