Are absolute monarchy and theocracy only irrational and senseless because we look at it with our own biases?

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,314
#31
Yes. If he does not protect the realm, he is not a monarch This is akin to a country without a border. It cannot be.
Same goes for providing safety. If he does not secure peace within, he has bandits running around usurping his power. He is not the sovereign. It cannot be.
And if he does not collect income, how will he manage? There will b others more powerful than him.
History prooves you wrong. Many Monarchs have acting in fashion like this. Saying "It canot be" is just closing your eyes and wishing teh problems away.

Monarchs like everyone else will behave badly. How does the system deal with it.,
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,774
Las Vegas, NV USA
#33
^
This is the work of a late 19th century crazy king. He spent a lot of money, but today it draws tourists who spend money. (Ludwig II of Bavaria)

 
Last edited:
Jan 2019
198
Montreal, QC
#34
Chinese and Byzantine absolutism are left in the past, while Islamic theocracy is still very much alive today. We no longer have to worry about emperors riding rough-shod over their subjects, but we do have to be concerned about the fact women are still being stoned to death for being raped, that gays are being hurled off of roofs, that Christians are still being killed for daring to worship Christ.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,577
Sydney
#35
To trust a single person , surrounded by dubious advisors and protected by large armed forces to do good is a good example of optimism

It could work , but then again it might go very bad for very long
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,359
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#36
To trust a single person , surrounded by dubious advisors and protected by large armed forces to do good is a good example of optimism

It could work , but then again it might go very bad for very long
Some elected African and South American presidents have been very reluctant to leave office for way too long as well though. Democracy can't be upheld if the powerful decide to not play by its rules anymore at some point. The Russian system looks like a democracy but when you look at the end result of Putin's long rule, is it all that different than the rule of an oligarch? When you look at the kings in history, most were't bad because they have to work for the wellbeing of their country for them to have a good life too. Peasent revolts, assassinations, revolutions, you name it. Sure, some were bad, didn't care about their people or were to detached from reality, were poorly advised or simply didn't know how to handle things. So it certainly is a risk that can go very wrong when it goes wrong. But if we looked at some sort of statistic, what would it show?
 

Similar History Discussions