ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- While the Medieval Period remains exciting and interesting, inspiring many fantasy franchises, there are also plenty of misconceptions still prevalent when it comes to Medieval Monarchism and the Medieval Era in general. Many still believe that Medieval Kings had absolute power and actively abused it with no one to stop them, but as I will explain in this video...This view could not be further from the truth.
Patreon: / lavader
Twitter: / lavader_
Buy Me A Coffee: www.buymeacoff...
------------------
Sources Used:
"Missing Monarchy" by Jeb Smith (Main Source)
"Europe and the Middle Ages" by Edward Peters
"Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"Those Terrible Middle Ages" by Regine Pernoud
"A Source Book of Medieval History" by Frederick Austin Ogg
"Kingship And Law In The Middle Ages" by Fritz Kern
"Fiefs and Vassals" by Susan Reynolds
------------------
Tags:
Monarchy, Monarchism, King, Kingship, Kingdom, Medieval, Medieval Period, Middle Ages, Feudalism, Aristocracy, Europe, Lavader
I'm so glad i live in democracy, where I am ruled by rich bankers.....
That's an oligarchy with a democratic republic facade.
That's Russia.
@@russki_dabb872 that's everywhere........
@@mayachico9766 Wrong...
@@russki_dabb872 Right
Everyone who played Crusader Kings will understand that the king doesn't rule alone. He has to maintain relationships with both nobles and commoners.
Depends on their opinion of you
@@jasonssavitt5297 yeah what I mean
My former 100 opinion best friend vassal who proceeds to hate my 18 year old son and join the pretender faction against him once he ascends to the throne: “Nothing personal, kid.”
@@suspectnutriaJohn VI of Byzantium vibes
@@suspectnutria LMAOOO
Whenever I argue this point my favorite example is that of King John of England who I regard as the most tyrannical any medieval King ever got, and how he was constantly stymied and halted by his own people and vassals, indeed, the Magna Carta is just a list of things that John isn't allowed to do.
Meanwhile the Byzantine emperors be like: "Shit oh shit oh shit the people are rioting shit oh shit I'm going to lose my eye privileges."
@@onemoreminute0543
My Byzantine History isn't quite so strong, I have more of a focus on France and the HRE.
@@semi-useful5178 It's fascinating, especially concerning this topic. There was a HUGE element of populism involved in the acclamation of new emperors.
There's a reason why it was arguably the state with the most frequent depositions in medieval Europe.
@@onemoreminute0543
I should probably look more into it. Every story I look into over there is a banger, probably once I give up trying to read the Liber lograeth and finish with my studies of persia that are fueling my schizoid neopagan arc
@@semi-useful5178 I need to look more into Persia myself. Fascinating history. But yeah, Byz history is chock full of populist moments in the political system:
Michael V: "I'm going to overthrow my adoptive mother and aunt to-" *gets foiled by the populace who love his adoptive mother and aunt*
Andronikos I: "I'll use a mobs hatred of western influence to gain power and institute a terror state-" *proceeds to do just that only to then get torn to pieces by said mob*
Alexios III: "Hey guys, could you pay this special tax so we can dissuade the German emperor from invading-" *is forced to back down and raise the money via other means*
Notice how our kings, whose existence protected us from the deprivations of the aristocratic elites, are gone, but not the aristocratic nobility, whose unabated pursuit of wealth has ruined the common man since time immemorial, continue to exist and torment us to this day.
"The king is dead, but somehow the Aristocrat who know how to dance and enjoy themselves lives on, like a king"
The aristocratic nobility does not exist. The bourgeoisie does, and they are not the same.
Its the manegerial class nowadays.
I mean, the nobility was killed off in WW1. Now we have different nobles, and the politicians are supposed to be the kings.
@@AlefeLucas They are not the same per se, but they fill the same social slot. Our eltis are much worse because they are merchant and not warriors, but they still elits.
Anyone who studies the medieval period will find that many common ideas around it are erroneous. Considering that monarchy is such an ancient system, it's a wonder that so few question how a system commonly thought of as tyrannical, primitive, and nepotistic could exist for so long.
People back then were deeply religious once society at large becomes secular monarchy becomes functionally impossible.
@@majorian4897 Yeah, it gets replaced with dictatorship
And the current Secular state isnt lasting much longer. Idiot leaders helping Islamist didnt help@@majorian4897
It's almost like monarchy is a wastebasket term for a whole bunch of different systems of government.
It existed for so long because Feudalism, as an economic system, is not as progressive as Capitalism which gave way to more rapid developments. Just like why humanity spent about 190k years in the stone age at minimum and then reached space in the last 1k
I mean people back then call bad monarchs "charles the fat" "peppin the short" and plain old "john the bad"
Chuck and Pepin's bynames weren't in reference to their rule. Pepin wasn't a bad monarch by any measure either.
@@lettucearsebiscuits8375what I mean is monarchs back then are so far from totalitarian rulers that people get away with giving them stupid nicknames
@@sittichokyoonuan3231 They're not stupid nicknames, it's just what separates them from other people who share their name. Some bynames are invented by chroniclers years/centuries after their death, and sometimes, depending on their opinion of the ruler, they'd give them cool ones.
Peppin was a really competent and powerful monarch. The nickname might be a mis translation for the word Younger or Humble
"Baldwin the Broke"
By our modern definition, literacy was low in medieval times. By the medieval definition, literacy today is nearly absent. To be literate then you had to read and write Latin and Greek and possibly your native language.
BREAKING NEWS: Greeks are the only literate people on earth! (Disclaimer: And those who speak and write latin or greek)
@@Hypogeal-Foundation to be clear. It's Latin AND Greek.
Was it medieval Greek or Ancient Greek
Pretty sure Latin was enough. Greek was if you were particularly learned.
To be fair though, Latin isn't relevant today. Being literate meant reading and writing in Latin because that was the lingua franca. Today's lingua franca is English. English is the new Latin.
I always thought it weird that people with a materialistic worldview attribute peace and prosperity to democracy and not to technological advancement and massive generation of material wealth.
do you expect consistency from that kind of people?
I dont think people generally make that connection automatically because the two aren't really connected. People just associate them because modernity is associated with prosperity and technological progress.
@@stateofflorida5082because it is. Technological advancement hurts traditional sources of power
Because democracy gaves way to more progressive economic bases than feudalism like Capitalism or Socialism, which are both better than Feudalism with non-ceremonial Monarchies
@@Fernybun development of ships opened new markets which owners of said ships developed significantly better than landed nobility. Newly formed Bourgeoisie invested in advancement of cities which led to positive loop of them getting richer and more powerful. They invest in optics, mechanics and other things which lead to industrial revolution. With newly found power Bourgeoisie started to take over now "dusty" positions of power which were held by nobility and clergy. Thats how democracy was born. This is extremely simplified but you see how development of technology defeats feudalism.
Peasants weren't necessarily illiterate.
"Literacy" at the time meant being able to understand Latin, not your regional tongue. But people were taught to read and write in their native tongues, of course.
Which is why Luther's bible was so popular. The problem was people mostly didn't know Latin, but could read German well.
@@kotzpennerto one degree or another a resident of say Wittenberg absolutely, but the peasant farmer outside of the city, or in a village not far from it. Not so much. You don’t spend too much time reading you’re working in a field sun up to sundown with only a few breaks to eat and some leisure or keeping warm in the winter. Everyday is back breaking and shit shoveling work.
@@akessel92trainA medieval peasant had plenty of leisure time. Apart from everyday breaks, the church had a ridiculous amount of mandatory holidays, such that in some years a peasant would only work for about 150 days in total.
@@edgarbergmann6581That's not really accurate. Taking care of harvests, animals etc. isn't a business to be set on some fixed days. Yes, there were many holidays, but they didn't divide their time into work and leisure as much as we do anyway.
@@robinrehlinghaus1944 According to medieval sources they had breaks for every meal and also a break in the afternoon for napping. Besides also resting after sundown. In modern estimations that would about 8 hours of work everyday, which is still significant, but not abnormal or particularly worse than work hours today. There were great agricultural revolutions in the medieval era and the peasants didn't have to work as much as in some ancient societies. Also, there are many recorded instances in medieval history where people only worked for about half the year. In most years people would have at least 100 days off.
middle ages is when blue/gray filter on >90%
Don't forget everyone looking absolutely miserable for no reason
also rain, dirty streets, and peasants getting various diseases.
@@kotzpenner That was true in 1346 though
@@kotzpennerand everyone hates color
The illusion of dictatorial absolute monarchs tends to stem from people from who just want their “God of le workers” in power who just hate tradition and history.
Now days the God of progress
@user-lm9ij9ge1x The god of progress is from the enlightenment. Certainly nothing recent. Progressivism on the other hand...
It's funny how this and the witch hunts were both things backdated from the early modern period.
Also the period of dictatorial monarchs mostly ended after late antiquity and came back during the 16th and 17th centuries. Most medieval monarchies were fairly decentralized and monarchs had to deal with powerful nobles.
@@folkeklarstrom3668 To be fair, one could debate just how absolute the rulers in antiquity were themselves.
The Roman emperors basically had to uphold the facade of a Republic due to the Augustan settlement and so were still seen as being accountable to the people. They were called the Princeps 'the first citizen', not Rex ('king')
Maybe one day in the future, people will look at our modern democracies and think that they were backward and oppressive as well.
We can only wish and pray
& unlike the people in democracies at feudalism, they'll actually be *right* .
I think they will think your wrong. Did you ever learn about the civil rights movement?
@@ezrafaulk3076 Nah, democracy is better. I don't want to kiss the feet of a monarch.
@@coolman3074 A monarch can't make you do that; plus, democracy gives leaders the tools to remove the sword from over their *own* heads & put it above *ours* instead; that's why they *inevitably* devolve into authoritarian regimes, as a good look at history will show you.
To add to this.
Most kings weren't able to tax their peassents directly until absolutist state structures were created to allow them to do it.
Or in other worlds, medival kings were so powerless compared to any modern state they couldn't even charge taxes.
That’s more of a function of technological limitation than it is lack of desire. Modern technology lends itself to totalitarian rule is the reality.
Bureaucracy made it possible.
That would explain why the U.S. Government tried that "what was it is called" before the actual actual Constitution.
@@jackalenterprisesofohio aeticles of confederation?
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding aahh that's what that was, Jeeze, I can't I forgot.
Bro is describing my crusader kings campaign
It is impossible for most people to understand that a person who lived in the Middle Ages had more freedom and property than today.
Holy ... that's actually true. I can't believe I haven't thought that yet, as I know for a fact we work longer hours than most peasants did.
the only advantage we have over them is better consumer technology, and even THAT is used against us.
@@Kervath The peasants worked less time(only half a year) because they had to wait to harvest their crops. When they did had to work their Job was pretty harder than ours considering many of them were serfs without many rights and had to work in their subsistence crops and also in the ones of their lords.They also had less life expectancy and less access to different goods.
By having to beg for permission to marry and by being tied to the land? Stop cherry picking
@@andysierra1618 In serfdom you had to work according to land you owned/sowed, and sons/hired helpers could help peasants in their 'free labour' duties. It wasn't inconceivably harsh, at least for the vast majority of history and lands in Europe. Another myth like this video attempts to tackle. I won't comment on the rest of your post, yeah, technology happened and we have doctors now?
after 927, the kings of england stopped being the Kings of the saxons, angles, mercia etc but King of the English (this is when the country united)
Yes
Foreshadowing.
AYO!!!
🤨
We're coming back, baby
Thomas Jefferson: "The Medieval Era is bad!"
"Said the slave owning aristocrat."
Funny how monarchists make the exact same arguments as commies the moment it benefits them
My post got hidden. I was trying to say you just made a point the breadtubers like to use.
@@KingBuilder525It doesn't make it any less relevant though.
Well many medieval ruler's owned slave's, not exactly in western christian Europe, but it was quite common in 10-11th century central and eastern Europe, well just Google Prague slavery where bohemian dukes enslaved pagan neighbors, and later the polish ruler's did the same etc..... And those ruler's was already christianized and the slaves they sold was sold to Umayyad Spain (saqaliba slave trade) .
@@holextv5595Poland as a whole country didnt exist till 14th century so what enslaving are u talking about?? Piast dynasty Kings ruled over multiple slavic tribes on land that is known now as Poland. Who would they try to enslave when Piasts accepted catholicism at the end of 10th century. What u talk about sound more like stuff that could happen in extremely decentralized Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth
Funny thing is that Roman (byzantine) Empire was an exception to this where Emperor (due to centralised tax system, army and position of constantinople) actually ruled as absolute monarch
I mean the word autocracy and the official title of ERE emperors, "Autokrator", sounds similar for a reason.
Even in their case the emperors usually had to consult with the church and court officials to get anything done
They didn't, actually. This is a misconception spread by the Enlightenment.
The Byzantines actually carried on the pseudo-republicanism of the classical Roman empire and still referred to their state as a republic ('politeia')
The emperors did not have absolute say in state business as they were still seen as being theoretically accountable to the people and represented their interests. This is why there was such a high rate of deposition and usurpation. Because of populism playing a role in politics.
To a classical Roman and medieval Byzantine, republicanism was not seen as having to be 'democratic' the way we do today. In fact, republicanism and monarchism were seen as compatible until about the 19th century.
But they were always assassinated or blinded.They always had to watch over their backs .There were few exceptions of course.
@@abdirahmanbadal781 yeah, watch their back due to plots and coups that are breaking away from the system of laws and governance the Romans had set up. In any other medieval kingdom, having that much coup attempts happens at the end of a dynasty.
The Roman Empire worked that way because it wasn't a traditional monarchy, but more like an extremely long-lasting military dictatorship. This was even more true in earlier eras, when the fiction of the Republic still existing was widely believed, and the idea of monarchy was despised - yet ironically the Emperor held more power than Rome's Kings ever had.
Ah, finally, more pro-monarchy videos, just what I needed
Recently was reading "Southern Traditions at bay" and that book was shocking to me to find out that even America had feudal system based societies especially in the south.
The feudal system in the south existed since it's colonial era to the end of the american civil war. The southern plantation owners were so traditionalists and aristocratic that wealthy southerners were viewed as neo-Lord's or Nobles. There society was so similar to England that once a english poet was surprised how similar it was.
I just read his description of the plantation system and I must admit, on paper, it sounds almost perfect. Small semi-autonomous agrarian zones just as Jefferson intended. More or less.
@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR. almost perfect, except for that small problem of enslaved human labor. (Although that was just the US, they didn’t have that in Britain)
@@MerkhVision Of course, it would use Jefferson's free yeomanry as the basis of labor, not slaves. Slavery would only be used as punishment for a crime, see 13th Amendment. Use them on Reform Farms, not prison, which will only make them worse.
Yes, the video here got Jefferson about 100% wrong.
That isn't true. Southern planters weren't see as neo-lords or nobles. They were just see as wealthy equals to poor white Southern citizens. There's a reason why Southerners rallied to the cause of the DEMOCRATIC Party, and why Jeffersonians railed against Federalist elitism. (There actually was a British-style aristocratic class in the PRE-Revolutionary South, but the American Revolution kicked them out in favor of planters and yeomanry.)
Firstly, Southern Planters compromised a bigger part of the population than Western European nobles. Yes, if you look at slave ownership rates in raw terms, you get around 6-10% of the white population owning slaves. (This is actually quite high still, around the size of Europe's most expansive nobilities like in Spain, Hungary, and of course Poland-Lithuania.) But, if you look at slave-owning FAMILIES, it actually goes up to 30% of the white population belonging to them. Granted most of these slave-owners owned 1 or a few slaves at most, but it shows that the South had slave-ownership rates more akin to Ancient Athens than late Republic Rome.
Secondly, most antebellum planters were NOT old money. In fact, they generally were new money like Andrew Jackson, more so than many New Engllish mercantile/capitalist elites. They got their lands from buying up the best, most fertile lands in the initial westward expansion post-American-Revolution. Anyone who bought land and slaves could be a planter.
Thirdly, the American planter class made no effort to disenfranchise poorer whites. In fact, it was the opposite. American planters generally campaigned to expand suffrage for poorer whites both within and outside the South. You can say that this is an attempt to politically decimate their Northern Federalist opponents. (And, it was successful.) It was the Jacksonian Democrats, including Southern planters, who pushed for even giving propertyless white factory workers the right to vote and giving birth to the inner-city machine vote.
The most similar system to the Antebellum South is not a feudal monarchy or even the British landed gentry. Rather, it was Ancient Athens or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where a hereditary citizenry ruled over an underclass of slaves/serfs. The difference is that the Antebellum South's citizen class comprised a majority of the population and white immigrants were given a path of naturalization. (There were plenty of Irish Catholics who integrated into the South and served in Southern units. Even Sicilians were treated as equal white citizens. Nativism didn't really take root in the South until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.) It was a slave-society, not ruled by a feudal hierarchy but by a citizen caste of equals. The planters were like the magnates, legally equal but using their excess wealth and land ownership to have a disproportionate amount of power. Both the planters and magnates used the support of poorer citizens to promote their interests as well. Ancient Athens, for its part, did have actual nobles, but they were legal equals and fulfilled a similar role.
For traditionalism, you can argue that both the North and South were 'traditionalist' for differing traditions. Northern Yankees were traditionalist for puritan Protestant values, Southerners were traditionalist for agrarian, decentralizing values against a powerful central state. At the same time, both sides would promote radical change to suit their ends. Basically, there was no linear spectrum of 'tradition vs progress'. It was two conflicting worldview points that wanted to conserve and change differing parts of American society.
I'm a libertarian, and it's crazy to see how much medieval society has in common with how, in my opinion, a libertarian society should be like
I believe i'll start wearing the titles of 'monarchist' and 'reactionary' with pride now
You can't have modern technology and avoid the bureaucracy anymore. Any king would have an army of administrators to enact their will. You can't keep modern science and go back to a chief who's duty was only looking out for the safety and cohesion of the people's. We can't forget.
@@partydean17 Estonia proved us that technology can supplement the army of bureaucrats to the point administration can be done through pushing a button
No, the medieval bashing started with the Renaissance, intensified by the Protestant Revolution - their common target is the Catholic Church, everything else is instrumental for that.
Renaissance was more responsible for other misconceptions, but this one about kings is very much a US initiative.
No Renaissance bashing of medieval kings was that they didn't have power. The myth/critism of them haveing too much power is American.
From my understanding, "The Renaissance" as we understand it today is more a construct of "The Enlightenment" used to bolster modernism than anything else. There isn't any gross gap separating medieval and early modern arts, science, and philosophy. Classical nostalgia certainly led to some denigration of the work of previous centuries, but I think a lot of that was based on the Italian desire to catch and take center stage again after lagging behind. Most philosophical was thoroughly Christian.
@@copperlemon1 it was a much slower pace of change compared with our standards, for sure (2 centuries instead of 2 decades)! But it was there.
The neoplatonism from Greek neopagans that move to Italy in the late 1300's were in clear opposition to the traditional Christian thinking and culture.
The arts didn't have a mere technical development, but a change in focus, themes and cultural hierarchy - that's clearer when compared with the Barroque period.
The intellectual "independence" from the Church was even starker: during the Middle Ages there was no high level intellectual life outside the schools linked to the Church, basically all great philosophers were members of the clergy, the Church was the main supporter of cultural and intellectual life. The Renaissance was a transitory period in which the princes and kings gathered their own intelectual circle, outside Church's authority. By the XVIII century the main patron institution was already the state under the king.
"Contemplation of the first causes", gave room to ever more practical disciplines, the focus change from God to man, more and more "man alone".
However the "medieval bashing" habit started with the neopagans from the late XIV/early XVcentury, like Gemistos Plethon, that have an enormous influence in the education of the next generations.
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Absurd. Americanism is just a continuation and intensification of the English anti-monarchial tradition, which itself goes back at least to the English civil war, arguably further. Certainly though, the concept that the King is not actually sovereign began with the English Civil War and subsequent glorious revolution, and the ideology of these revolutions was a combination of pragmatic English political history and protestant anti-authority ideology. Prior the English Civil War, the concept that the English king could not levy taxes without consent was a very well established and respected precedent. It was crazy Puritan extremists who created the ideology that Parliament was actually the true sovereign as a quasi-religious moral principle. This principle was inherited by American revolutionaries.
You make a feudal kingdom sound libertarian in an odd way and I'm a libertarian. Living in a feudal kingdom sounds like a decent chill place to live. This was a very educational video. I didn't know anything about medieval monarchism until now.
Same.
Personally the only problems with historically accurate medieval life is the health care and the food
If we lived in a world where priests and nuns have the god given power to magically heal diseases and purify the water and land
And also have access to spices,
Then i would rather live in medieval times +
I won't miss the internet if i didn't get to know ot in the first place, right?
That's the same reality of modernity. If you wish, there's a modern political philosopher named Curtis Yarvin who goes into depths on this.
Steam is the prime example of what you get when you have a good, benevolent king.
Glazing
real
He is right tho
@@PKDeviluke25 How. Who is steam.
@@hmmm3210steam is an online game selling platform. People online thank "Lord Gaben", so I think that's what he meant when saying that steam is what you get when you have a good king.
Honey wake up, new Lavader video.
Hey, there's this guy called Sacred Kingship who makes videos are Monarchy from a Biblical perspective. It'd be great if you two could collaborate.
On Charlemagne's Realm: "All the different people of the empire continue to live according to their native laws. Charlemagne had no intention of abolishing this diversity. There was virtually no public taxation, and Charlemagne depended for revenue on the proceeds of his own land."
Virtually no public taxation and local rule. Holy based Batman.
Local rule by brutal aristocracy
@@nazalostizsrbije Well, okay that's fair. But in modern times I stand by my Localist beliefs.
@@crusader2112 of course. Mass centralisation and nationalism (for example French nationalism which led to near extinction of regional identities) led to many tragedies, as unavoidable as it is
@@nazalostizsrbije Aristocrats were not necessarily brutal and your perspective is a hefty generalisation. Peasants also didn't need to go to war - their liege equipped a men for them - their taxes were smaller than today and they had more holidays than we do ( roughly a third of the year), and they ate food that you nowadays find in top-class markets ( pigs for exampled fed on truffles - it was normal to guide pigs into forests in summer and autumn since they could find a lot of food by themselves and didn't need to be fed ). Often, aristocrats cared for their peasants ( as dictated by law ) simply because they needed them. I had a history lecture in uni about that topic but maybe you know better.
@@chrismath149 we are in youtube comments of course people generalise. My point is that it is stupid to idealise feudalism due to decentralisation. It is hard to deny we have far greater freedoms today than then, not to mention prosperity. In any functional society taxes go to necessary things like public roads, healthcare, education and others, many of which haven't been a thing for more than 200 years
A king was more a “steward of the realm, acting on the authority of Jesus the Christ”
100 percent. And it’s this reality which made the kings governance work. Modern day leaders lead on their own authority, medieval kings knew the authority was not theirs, but in their keeping for the true King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Could you guys recommend essays, videos or books on this specific subject matter?
Most Medieval Monarchs were absolutely Based ngl.
Our "greatest" medieval ruler literally blinded his dad
@@nazalostizsrbije Ou Greatest Medieval Ruler Built Castles, Expanded the Territory to the Largest extend it had ever been, and wrote Books about the hunt with Falcons.
Our greatest medieval ruler.. beat the Hungarians?
@@skeletor-1892 Which Country ?
@@Bannermann Any balkanic one. Pick whichever.
they were not tyrants, but neither were they particularly effective. Monarchs need to spend their life keeping their underlings in check, and when they exercise real power you have to hope that they are doing their job correctly, because unless they are removed by a coup, you are stuck with them for life. Monarchy works when you can't efficiently control your territory and need decentralised power, it's also a form of power based on family connections, not merit. It was a product of its time that got replaced as all things eventually are. If the future becomes more violent and communication scarce, we might as well see the rise of a new warrior aristocracy and monarchy, but our times are not the proper times for such things. I know everyone would love an impartial mediator and protector of the people, but humans will always be humans, and power will always corrupt them. May it be a king, a president or a pope, it will never be good enough.
the video was about medieval kings, not monarchs. most of this is addressed in the video. also, "coup" is a modern concept that only makes sense in reference to modern heads of state. a medieval king was not a head of state that could be deposed by a coup. his power was far more tenuous, as if he was bad enough to be worth deposing, he must have done something to annul the oaths of fealty his relatives and his vassals would have sworn to him.
finally, if you think modern political systems are "forms of power based on merit," that's just comical. feudalism "a form of power based on family connections, not merit"? I wasn't aware the two were mutually exclusive. how does one's family acquire these "family connections" without "merit"? and where do you think American politicians come from? "merit" in the modern American political sense means being able to convince a political party and donors to support you. often, the barrier to entry into American politics has been the need for family connections in the first place lol. and beyond that, individual merit is hardly the deciding factor. even if you're running for the presidency, party politics matter more than your individual characteristics. you don't even need to be particularly sane. the best guy ever can lose if he runs with the wrong party.
but to the extent that individual merit dictates success in this system, it also dictates success in feudalism, arguably even more. yes, kingship and nobility are inherited from father to son. but where do you think it came from? people weren't just randomly born kings. at some point, a house became royal. before that, at some point, it became noble. before that, at some point, it established chieftaincy, a kind of primitive hegemony over a kinship clan. and before that, at some point, it established dominance over other tribes. at every step of the process, this bloodline needed to assert dominance of one sort or another. either the kind of dominance that requires military talent, or the kind that requires diplomatic talent, or perhaps (though less commonly) the kind that requires economic innovation. and this required the bloodline itself to have the talent.
in modern American politics, you yourself don't need much talent. what really matters is the political party, the nameless employees who actually do the work. you're supported by this huge system that will make or break your campaign. that's why politicians are consistently shown to have barely above average IQs, on average. they aren't better than you or me. if you're here, in this comments section on this video, it probably means you're smarter than the average politician. to become a sovereign or even just a nobleman in any prior period required far more talent, because you reached that position by actually leading. your leadership skills determined whether you could lead your family to dominate your tribe, or lead your tribe to dominate your clan, or lead your petty kingdom to conquer its neighbors, or lead your noble house to a military victory over other noble houses and be acclaimed king. see what I mean? you generally didn't gain power over other men off the talents of other people, you gained it through military or diplomatic efforts that required your leadership. as a tribe's efforts are directed by its leader, that tribe can't become a royal house over a kinship clan without being directed to do so by its leader.
and as it happens, most of the abilities relevant for leadership are highly heritable traits. intelligence most of all, but among others as well. there isn't any absolute guarantee that Genghis Khan's sons were smarter than the average Mongolian, but it was a very, very reasonable bet, certainly at least slightly better than just allowing anyone with an interest in politics to fight for donor dollars. and a noble house's bloodline of course isn't pure; it needs to marry outside to sustain itself. but it's marrying the scions of _other_ noble houses, for the most part. if they managed to dominate a kingdom or even just a county, it's a reasonable bet their children are much better leaders than a person selected at random from the general population. lots of people want to deny this, and get all offended at any suggestion that some people might be born more suitable for leadership than others, but when forced to gamble with their own money (so to speak), they will bet on breeding just like everybody else.
all things considered, the notion of passing power down along with one's genes seems pretty reasonable, so it's unsurprising that so many societies have independently adopted such a system. evidently it's not the only system people can adopt, but we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, as if it's easy to quantify all the pros and cons and compare them unfavorably with liberal democracy. we owe it to our ancestors, who literally gave us life, largely fueled by feudalism, to at least give sincere consideration to the advantages and disadvantages, instead of just writing feudalism off as something we must have abandoned with good reason or else we'd still have it. sometimes people replace one flawed system of government with an even more flawed system. we should seriously entertain that possibility, considering the circumstances in which feudalism was usurped by absolutism, whose excesses brought about representative democracy. no one ever voted to replace feudalism with representative democracy. the latter only came about long after feudalism had already been killed by rampant centralization of power. so we can't take the mere circumstances of history as dispositive. perhaps liberal democracy is just a necessary detour on the way from absolute monarchism back to feudalism, this time with more guardrails to prevent the centralization of power that destroyed it last time. it's hard to imagine how that would look, but humans are notoriously bad at predicting large-scale social movements. microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer famously laughed at the idea that people would want to use smartphones. those who laugh at neofeudalism may eventually end up just as embarrassed as Steve is now.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol what I want to say is that every age has its own rules and ways of government. No form of government is inherently better than any other, it all depends on context. Monarchy won't fix the problems of our age because it isn't something for our age, but nor will it whatever idea of government a person has. No earthly power can be as perfect as people want, and there will always be a reason to complain. As an Italian I have my own issues with monarchy and nobility, for how competent might our past rulers have been, ultimately all they did was fracture our country for centuries and leave it open to foreign domination, and when we got united they sold us to Mussolini out of fear of communism. Nobility had become a stale, inefficient system, dedicated only to maintain the status quo. If I have a ruler, I want it to be on the people's behalf, democracy isn't perfect, it will never be, but at least I get to choose instead of being told what to do by some highborn that can shoot me if I disobey.
@ToxicallyMasculinelol a society based on merit over inheritance is better than the other way around c:
@@jacopoarmini7889 Wrong. There is a perfect system of government. One we're already making the tools to build.
Artificial Superintelligence Autocracy baby. All the benefits of Monarchy with none of the downsides!
A king is more a servant of the people, than those that place themselves above them, for no king, has ever sought the destruction of their own nation and by extension, the people themselves, should a king truly become an amoral tyrant/dictator then their power can be held in check, challenge and even removed by either the church, the nobility and their own family,
Kings have as much need of their people as the people need a king,
An absolute monarchist response --
=1st=:
it is disingenuous, when it comes to Monarchy, to start from the Middle Ages.
It's true, that many people love high fantasy with a medieval setting and appearance, but much of the discussion that matters as far as Monarchy matters doesn't start within and only belong to the Middle Ages.
You also have to consider antiquity: Lavader attributes that aspect to Roman Law, but the honest truth about the modern state and monarchy is it goes back further to the ancient philosophers: Plato and Aristotle.
And further back than the Philosophers, Homer and Hesiod and Herodotus.
The whole idea of Monarchy originates there from the Illiad & the Greek etymology: "Let there be one ruler, one king" -- if you overlook this, you miss a lot of details & if you only focus on royalty of the Middle Ages and not this context, you could easily fall into the error that Homer talked about: where you have the state of -many- kings and not -one- king.
If you want to understand the case for absolute monarchy, which Lavader attributes to the Renaissance, you also have to understand this.
=2nd=:
Right away, we have the distinction between a king and a monarch:
This is appropriate, for you can have a State with multiple kings and thereby no monarchy, and you can have a kind of monarch but not exactly a king (perhaps you could have another title like emperor, pope, or even dictators are in a way, arguably).
=3rd=:
The origin of this criticism of Absolute Monarchy in relation to the Middle Ages goes back to Alexis de Tocqueville's criticism of the Ancien Regime: this is where it really originates from, De Jouvenel & Medievalist historians owe their narrative back to Tocqueville's criticisms.
=4th=:
Lavader talks about a popular sovereign such as "king of the franks" and the difference between this and the king of a domain... but the context of this conversation is why it's important not to start with the Middle Ages, but to understand the context from the Philosophers.
About the glory of the political community -not- being under the sway of the King and in a way having lieu of self-goverance, that the King was in a way -elected- by popularity, and was a one among equals: -this is Aristotle's idea of kingship-.
Thomas Hobbes counter-acted this ideal in Aristotle by putting a new spin on popular sovereignty that Aristotle condemned.
=5th:=
We all know absolute monarchists were critical of Aristotle from Jean Bodin to Thomas Hobbes: they disagreed with his idea of limited king as one among equals with the estates and mixed constitution or composite state.
The reason Alexis de Tocqueville & De Jouvenel criticize Absolute Monarchy from the standpoint of decentralization has -everything- to do with Aristotle's City: the City's virtue is a plurality and concord of heads, not as a unity.
The unitary views of sovereignty was a throwback in some respects to Plato's Republic: the diversity of laws and estates and appeals to the estates-general was Aristotle's City on a map: when people point to the border gore maps of the Holy Roman Empire and myriad estates -- that is an appeal to Aristotle's Politics and Aristotle's City.
Aristotle even criticized Plato on ground of "atomization", a talking point we here attributed to Hobbes' Leviathan. but really it goes back to Aristotle: the corporatist views of Aristotle focused on the plurality of estates and their heads as opposed to the City being a unitary being itself: which is what Hobbes' Leviathan accomplished, the State was a corporation of One Person & the ideal of Monarchy: but to Aristotle too much unity was a bad thing and monarchy itself was inappropriate for political rule, but proper for economic rule only.
For this reason right libertarians and constitutional monarchists idealize monarchy as a solely private estate and not ruling the political bodies: because Aristotle deemed this ideal, that a monarch should mind his own business, and let the estates govern themselves because that was proper for monarchy and for the constitutional / political rule.
=6th:=
Aristotle's views on Monarchy were criticized for good reason:
If the monarch has no business governing the political State, you can see why absolute monarchists felt disappointed since their ideal was a state ruled by a monarch and not simply one among the estates: to justify this bid that the monarch has a right to govern the estates themselves, they appealed to the idea that was found in Plato's Statesmen, that political & economical were no different: just as a king knows how to govern his own estate, the king perfectly knows how to govern the political state.
The opposing view of constitutional monarchists marginalizes the idea of monarchy to a private estate, sees monarchy as bad for political goverance, and denies the rule of a wise man (Aristotle's food argument & water argument in Politics: 1st, albeit a wiseman can outwit an assembly, an assembly can bring more food to the table; 2nd, one droplet of water corrupts more easily than an ocean of water: so the rule of a wise man or philosopher king is denied).
=7th:=
Yes, it's true that the Romans and Roman Law had influence on absolutism: the Roman legal maxim that the Prince was absolved and the Canonical saying that the Pope couldn't bind his own hands were major influences: but that's because the ideal of the pre-eminent monarchy -wasn't- in kings, but in the emperors and popes -- which is another reason -why- starting with Medieval kingship is disingenuous to the idea of monarchy, and then you have to tackle which kingships in the Medieval period: obviously some kings had more prestige and pre-eminence than others, and the French kings were probably the most outstanding kings of that era.
=8th=
That the King didn't levy taxes or levy armies in general is also disingenuous: the Kings could levy taxes through the Estates and customarily did have import taxes thrown upon them each succession by custom and royal prerogative. And the Kings were definitely important when it came to declarations of war.
It is a misconception that absolute monarchy is all about without the estates: rather, the case is that if anyone was to summon the estates and begin collecting taxes with the estates, it was the king who could do that.
=9th:=
It's true that absolute monarchy did believe sovereignty had the power to change and amend laws: but this is ultimately a discussion of which laws: the absolute sovereign, according to Jean Bodin, is subject to the laws of God and Nature (including the fundamental laws, which as seen as natural to the form of State): the others laws and human laws -- the sovereign monarch was not subject to: his relation to the State was not as another composite part, the view of the State in this view is not as a mixed constitution or composite, but derived from the simple unity of sovereignty: everything owed itself to unity, whereas the opposing view of Aristotle attributed it to plurality of estates and heads having a concord and mutual agreement: but the view of unity attributed every bond of the state to an indivisible power, and the monarch in this respect was the archstone:
Just as you take away the unity in building the Tower of Babylon, the whole operation collapses, there is confusion and disarray; so also, there can be no concord or virtue of plurality in the city without it being fundamentally a unity:
To reflect this idea, the absolute monarchist notion of the City is predicated on a most simple unity as opposed to the Aristotle's mixed constitution or compositeness of the whole: before there can be any concord of heads of estates to make laws, they must have a binding power and unity: Sovereignty.
It was Plato's ideal that the State must be a unity; and Aristotle's ideal that the State's virtue is a plurality.
The State is absolute because it is simple and that simplicity mirrors Majesty and the infinite Majesty of God Almighty: it is a common saying, that the ideal of Monarchy is in Heaven as it is on Earth.
This is why decentralization / centralization is a common topic, and why the Middle Ages appeals to the diversity of laws and customs and the map of the Holy Roman Empire is always depicted as a cluster, border gore -- the Medieval historians and contemporaries are appealing to Aristotle's view, and it is true that the Middle Ages was the age of Aristotle: but whether this is ideal for monarchy is up for debate and that is why it is misleading to start with the Middle Ages and Middle Ages onlyist.
=10:=
It is true when you look at the modern state and modern political ideologies and totalitarianism, it is a throwback to Plato's Republic, but it shouldn't only be seen in that light: obviously, De Jouvenel talked about this idea, and De Jouvenel understood this -- in his book in the footnotes, De Jouvenel even applauded Karl Popper for his book Open Society and its Enemies (I'm paraphrasing that title name) and its criticism of Plato's influence on totalitarianism. But De Jouvenel also marked out how it wasn't all aligned with Plato's ideals, such as with respect to the rule of law and other aspects -- and this is true with absolute monarchy as well; for although absolute monarchy has in common that unitary view of state espoused in Plato's Republic, and the idea that political and economical are fundamentally no different in Plato's Statesmen, and his Royal Weaver that brings together the elementary field and is himself divided from the mixture in simplicity -- also criticized Plato in numerous ways, just fundamentally more disagreement was had with Aristotle.
Perfect response to the video.
Thomas Hobbes Quote on Mixed Constitutionalsim:
>"The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth."
>"The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men."
Jean Bodin Quote on the Unity of Sovereignty:
>"No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government."
>"Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together."
>"For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend"
>"Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens"
Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.
Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.
Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible
Aristotle Politics:
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State.
Curious, how is it disingenuous to begin and end in the general area that he is talking about, the middle-ages, the medieval period, not the ages beforehand or after when he made it very clear that he was referring to that specific period? He mostly brings up what came after it as a comparison to what people of today generally conceive, doesn't he?
Is this not then like having someone talking about what it was like in practice to live underneath the rule of Stalin, and then complaining that he doesn't really bring up much about how he came to power when he is talking about what it was specifically under him and him alone?
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009
That's exactly the criticism: he doesn't begin with the general area of monarchy, but a particular time period. Which means you leave out the bigger picture.
The reason why it's an issue from the absolute monarchist standpoint when it comes to saying -- "back in the Middle Ages, it wasn't what you see now" is that idea is fairly well established -- it's not novel or something cutting edge among historians -- it goes back to Alexis de Tocqueville's criticism of the Ancien Regime.
& the clutch of Alexis de Tocqueville's criticism of the Ancien Regime & absolute monarchy is basically "that's not the Medieval way of doing things" which in this perspective was tantamount to saying, "this is not Aristotle's way of doing things" -- and if you don't allow us to go back to the root of why we consider the Tocquevillist clutch on the Middle Ages as a criticism of absolute monarchy to begin with, then it's simply null and we can't get to the root of the issue with why we'd disagree with the Medievalist narrative.
@@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009
The narrative Lavader is giving us... isn't new or cutting edge.
Alexis de Tocqueville said it long, long, long ago:
>"The old European constitution was better preserved in Germany than France"
>"Whenever I discovered in the old legislation of Germany"
>"Royalty had nothing in common with medieval royalty"
These quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville set the footing for exactly everything you see Lavader saying now & it is fairly common and that's where De Jouvenel and contemporary historians on this topic get their inspiration from.
The ideal type of monarchy is the traditional Catholic corporatist municipalist one, as in it the king reigns and governs, but is limited by assemblies, courts, professional associations and municipalities, constituted by representatives of intermediate bodies, of the natural groups that make up the Community, which are responsible for the administration of State affairs.
So like now you have the president, but the president is kept in check by political parties, banks, international organizations and private firms.
funny baltic man singlehandly converting generations into monarchist
XD
He's from the balkans, which is in southern europe, not the baltics, which are in northern europe.
Long live the King!
@@arturnicaciodeandrade9861 th-cam.com/video/r_5Slnkzekc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=m9Nz5IAFANQvYt6W
Really before the Absolutists like Louis XIV, the Monarchy wasn't all powerful by any means. That scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the socialist peasants, ironically, perfectly encapsulates this!
*anarchosyndicalist peasants.
Great video. Kingship is a very ancient system that goes back to our oldest days as tribes. As communities of relatives and family. Naturally, kings are leaders of related people. Not just or only some tract of land and river.
If European feudalism wasn't tyrannical, then how come did almost every castle have a torture room?
Why does guatanamo bay or any number of other black sites exist where you can guarantee they are torturing people there was even a scandal regarding this
Because butt itchy and had to scratch it with something
torture rooms are still here , just hidden underground were our benevolent government uses them as " advanced interrogation tactics "
If American democracy isn’t tyrannical then why do police stations have interrogation rooms and why does the CIA and FBI torture people
I had known some of this already, but I didn’t realise that kings were quite that powerless. So much fiction has done a great disservice to history. But then again, I doubt Alan Rickman would be as enjoyable to watch in Robin Hood, if he wasn’t presented as a complete tyrant.
John was to be fair the absolute worst King in the Medieval period, however nearly his entire reign is marked by him being constantly at war with his own vassals and people. He even nearly got a crusade called against him personally.
@semi-useful5178 I figured his own people would be against him as much. It seems that modern dictators are able to control people through propaganda, in a way kings couldn't.
@@semi-useful5178 But he was more an incompetent ruler then a tyrraniccal one. Though, I guess, incompetence as a leader is in itself a sin.
Well...Ducy of Moscov had something to say 😆
The medieval kings truly depended on the good will of the nobility. Decentralization was the norm under the feudal system.
They were an anarchosyndicalist commune. They took it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
Why does the medieval kings sound like Anarcho-Monarchism
Maybe it always was
Because that is what it was. But not a 1 to 1 comparison.
@ryandilavore5495 because anarcho-monarchism grew out of medievalism, it is directly inspired by medieval kingship.
Its more of a minarchy than anarco-monarchism.
It kind of,especially when you have serval lord with their own territory,armed forces and strong hold
The truth is Redditors and Twitch streamers eat and live better than 99.9% of medieval kings lived. That’s a fact jack
Yes but that has more to do with tech than anything else.
17:20 you are greatly oversimplifying the topic to the point of misrepresentation. A short google search for "medieval serfs" would reveal that these people could not simply pack up and leave. What you are talking about is likely a very specific group of people in very specific circumstance, outside of the norm.
cry about it egghead
Lavader: yo can i copy your homework
Pax tube: yeah sure just change it up a bit so it dosent look to obvious
Well tbf Pax’s video was more on the general history of the medieval period, not specifically the monarchy.
Both are good videos tho
@@GLASSMOSCOWANDBEIJING true
pax tube 🤢
pax tube's video on waifus 🔥
@@agellidmalik woudnt know havent watched his waifu video
1:02 It's pronounced Tomas even thought it's spelled Thomas.
"not sure about that it has an implementation problem, how do you form a monarchy in a place without one especially an area with no history of it"
The same way you could form a republic where democratic ideas have no history, by pursuing those ideals and form the foundation for a future monarchy so later on it can transform more organically by the people and the follower of such ideals. My country (Colombia) has no monarchy history after their independence, but I'm still a monarchist as this hierarchical form of power would be much better than the two party system dance that has been going on for decades.
Personally, the most right and legalistic way for a monarchy to form in this specific context, would be for each department (the first administrative division) to each be governed by a 'king', either elected or appointed by those who follow the ideas of monarchy and ideally who is a good Christian, and because they wouldn't be bothered by democracy trappings so they can use those resources, time and effort to properly build up and govern their department. Eventually from those 32 departments, they would vote for a king among them to be seated in the capital district to be the proper king of the nation after a period of interregnum where it is shown a better way. Basically something akin to the HRE or Polish Lithuania Commonwealth in the form of an elect king.
That's how I would tackle that issue, there can be other ways to approach it and where the administrative legality of the monarchy can start to be worked on, etc. but it's not something impossible to accomplish even if the beginning may be rocky and doubtful, like all ideas and systems, the start is the hardest part, but things get easier.
hopefully the one whom this message is directed to can read it, TH-cam is so sucky at times when commenting.
King has the power to manage Diplomacy and have a standing army less than 42% of the total of all the Militias and Standing armies within his kingdom. (The King may be impeached by the Provincial Councils) The Kings salary is triple the median income, the Kingdoms treasury is the King's fund, the Kingdom may only generate income for the treasury through tarrifs and Bussiness taxes (8% Limit, there will be no personal taxes) , during wartime bussinesses may be taxed a maximum of 25% of revenue (Centralized banking isn't compatible, every town will have its own bank and treasury, and the Provincial Councils can have Bussiness tax of 10% and Salary Tax 4%)
A 'duodecimviri' (12 men) of 'Logothetes' will decide Kingdom Laws. (They are Democratically elected and can stay as a 'Logothetes' for 2 years, and their salary will be limited to the Median Salary of the Kingdom)
Provinces will be led by a Council, the 'Provincial Council' will have 3 members (2 Magistrates and 1 Military Officer, salaries are tied to the Median salary of their province). The members of the Provicial Council will be decided by the Dictatorial Mayors. A member of a provincial council may stay as a member for 10 years but a vote of confidence will be held halfway through their 'reign' by the Dictatorial Mayors, if it fails then they are to be ousted from the Council and a new leader will be voted in.
The Officer will lead a Standing army (35K Limit) and oversee its funding (The Funding is to be reviewed by the Mayors for overspending+ the Officer has access to 20% of the PROVINCIAL treasury during peacetime and 50% during wartime , 1 Magistrate will manage the Provincial Militia during peace-time (May be replaced by an Officer at wartime by the Mayors), and the last Magistrate is to manage Finances of Provincial Departments.
Towns/Villages will elect a leader for life (Dictatorial Mayor), the leader HAS to organize a militia with at least 15% of the population participating (If quota is not met then the Provincial council may oust him and new elections may be held). He also oversees financing of departments and the Local Militia (8K Limit), a vote of confidence is to be held every 12 years and if it fails he is to be ousted by the council.
The Mayor's Salary is dependent on the Median salary of his Town/village. The Local Treasury is to be filled by a 5% Bussiness tax and an 8% Salary tax maximum.
++++++++++++++
Nations in africa and south america need such a thing as Cartels and Terrorist Organization terrorize the local populace, a local militia would prevent raids and a provincial militia or a Provincial Standing Army will counterattack on any known bases, they could request the assistance of the Royal Army.
++++++++++++++
As Thomas Hobbes in leviathan, the king provided a single focal point of accountability. Where does accountability rest in the UK now?
17:39 this actually explains why in medieval fantasies, each town is basically it's own thing, and each town had it's own laws and Personality
Can't believe I almost suffered a heart attack at 19:35, that was the scariest moment of my life
It’s my Birthday and a video on Medieval history from Lavader is like a gift😄 🎉
happy birthday
@@MR_ponki thanks
@@jbstarkiller4626 happy (late) birthday.
@@Nordbon1523 thanks👍🏻
For much of the medieval era, we had greater freedoms than we do today. When people balk at me for saying this, i ask them what new freedoms we have today? "Voting rights"
Voting is what got us here, mob rule has always lead to tyranny.
You are legitimately insane if you think you were more free in medieval Europe than today. You couldn't go where you wanted to, you couldn't speak out against your lord, you couldn't worship who you wanted to, you couldn't even express the idea that God couldn't exist, you couldn't imply your social betters were wrong. Actual insanity you believe this.
@@zacheltringham8524 I agree that the church was tyrannical and doctrinal religion as a state force should never return. Though we see a lot of parallels to that today, cancel culture and hate speech laws for example. We are also taxed a lot more than was ever the case historically, even among slaves. We also have less self governance within our own families, the state effectively rules your family now and indoctrinates your children. As for your statement about not having freedom of movement, it would depend on whether you were a thrall or a freeman and if you'd signed contractual agreements. It's much more nuanced than "no peasant had freedom of movement" when in reality one was often able to choose their lord.
I'd advise looking into how Feudal systems worked, you'll realizedthere's a bias in modern academia to bash the past in order to legitimize the present.
@@zacheltringham8524
he is probably ok with said resttrictins and opwudl liek them imposed upon others.
@himpim642 Probably. The funny thing about monarchists is that, in their ideal system, they aren't the peasant who has to live in poverty his whole life. He's the mighty lord who rules over people, they're all pathetic honestly.
@zacheltringham8524 I believe in self governing villages and lifelong leaders. Mind you, peasants had a lot more freedoms than people would imagine, you're thinking of thralls who didn't have freedom of movement. As a peasant, yes, I'd live in such a system. To your statement about tyranny of thought, that was mostly the doing of the church and not the actual lords or kings, I would do away with the dogmatic religious elements personally.
I'd ask what freedoms we have today that we didn't yesteryear minus the tyranny of clergy.
Thanks for making the difference between the Middle Ages and the Age of Absolutism.
But I would like to add some details.
The terms "monarch" and "king" should only be used for the Middle Ages, especially the High Middle Ages. The king drew his power from the economy of the land, because he was the sole owner of the land, the means of production and the serfs. Feudalism was the way he transferred his power along the hierarchy of vassals, but he remained the nominal owner of everything in that geographical area and this ownership could only be passed by heredity. The concept of "kingdom" had nothing to do with the concept of "state". As the owner of everything, his only obligation to the people was to make sure that the economy flourished, like in a modern business enterprise or crime syndicate. He fulfilled this duty by means of "authority", the kind of power that the ancient Romans called "auctoritas". The ultimate expression of his auctoritas was his judicial power. He was the supreme judge of his land and his subjects. I repeat, his ultimate goal was not political, but economical. He was authoritative only insofar as he guaranteed economic growth and let his wealth trickle down the hierarchy to all his subjects.
This system had its heyday in the 11th century, for example with the Capetians of France, the Normans of England, the kings of Jerusalem and other minor nobles like the Hauteville of Sicily or the margraves of Tuscany. But in the 12th century the situation began to change with the rebirth of republicanism, with the increasing power of the Italian communes, of the maritime republics, of the free Imperial cities and of the trade leagues. The authority of monarchs began to be perceived as authoritarian and tyrannical. At first they demanded legal egalitarianism, equal opportunities to produce wealth. This spread of republican ideology was strictly correlated with the enormous economic growth of the 12th-13th centuries, that simply couldn't be restrained by the nobles' monopoly anymore. This is the period when monarchs were compelled to grant constitutional privileges, like the Magna Charta in England or the Peace of Constance in Lombardy.
Another great video. Next one I wanna see is him talking on his stance on General Franco, as I've seen him post some positive stuff about him before, and I wanna see the arguement for Francos case.
You and paxtube clearing up the middle ages bad name
Do not lump pax with this chad here, he is not like lavader
(Fucking traditional Christian somehow loving anime waifu looking ass)
@@JazzzxD421 Nah, this is just more "my authoritarian leader didn't rule alone so he isn't authoritian" bs. Not too different from what MLs do. Just as unintelligent. But admittedly more interesting than MLs.
@@DigitalFire5000 Did you even watch the video? The king could not even change the law at will unlike republican states who can when they wish
a community of monarchists acting like they are the protectors of the people
cry about it commie like if you dont like it then why don't you go and fuck off like a good lil tankie
Keeping coping commie, your system is absolute d*gshit and has killed more people than any other system
Honestly, is this not the case for every historical period before the second world war?
No.
The Mount and blade series (especially Mount and Blade Warband) displays this perfectly.
Top 3 best games ever by far
To the people in the comments claiming modern democracy to be "worse" than monarchy, or kingship: Remember that you can ONLY say these things BECAUSE you live in said democracy. It isn't perfect, certainly, but it is without a doubt better, freer and more just than any other form of government discovered so far. To quote Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst of all governmental systems, except all the others we've invented so far!" That sums it up very well
Democracy and freedom may not be synonyms, but it's no coincidence that some of the most free places on Earth are democracies (Or Republics, if you want to be a pedantic Libertarian who doesn't know what the 'Liberal' part of 'Liberal Democracy' means)
@@atomictendencies6488 well, they kind of ARE synonyms. BecUe if you’re not free to vote whoever you want, it’s not a democracy anymore
@@cheeseboi9951 True
8:04 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this decentralization of power precisely one of the reasons why the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem dissolved? Many of the lords of the kingdom They refused to follow the King's orders and could not mount an organized defense/offense campaign large enough to defend the kingdom
Is that or am I mixing up data?
The medieval kingdom of Jerusalem was fairly centralised when compared to its European counterparts, thanks to Baldwin I keeping as much land as possible. But making a centralised state like its Muslim neighbours would have been a disaster, the decentralisation gives incentives to every nobles to fortify its place and allows a quick response in the furthest part of the kingdom to the capital. If the kingdom fell was because the land way to the Holy Land failed to be secured by the Byzantine, and by the time the sea route became reliable Hattin had already happened, so the borders of the kingdom were no longer so defensible.
The events you described mostly happened in the very late kingdom, and by that time the odds were pretty much unsurmountable, though Louis IX may have had a chance with the seventh crusade.
@@alcibiades---7 then I did remember part of the facts wrong, thanks
There is a definite need for a proper constitutionally monarchical state for exactly this reason. Decentralization is important, but there are objective problems that can only be addressed at a unified level. Common defense and foreign relations being the most pertinent and essential.
Hegel, in 'The German Constitution' lamented the excessive particularism of Germany and how the inability to mount a common defense against Napoleon was a sign that Germany had not yet a proper constitution. There is a balance, but not being able to raise an army to defend the whole is a decisive mark of the ill health of excessive private interest and particularism.
(I had this crazy Idea)
Dynastic Federalism Governance Structure
Executive Branch
Leader: The Monarch serves as the head of state and executive leader, overseeing national affairs and representing the unity of the nation/states.
Role: The Monarch holds significant authority within the governance system, influencing key policies and decisions while embodying the dynastic aspect of leadership.
Legislative Branch
Federal Senate:
Composition: Comprised of provincially elected senators, with each province allowed to send a maximum of 2 senators.
Term Length: Senators serve 2-year terms, with the possibility of one re-election.
Function: The Senate represents the people of the provinces, proposing laws and initiating policy discussions.
Federal Legislative Court:
Role: This body receives proposed laws from the Federal Senate and is responsible for passing legislation.
Significance: Acts as the primary law-making authority, ensuring that proposed laws align with the constitutional framework.
State Legislative Structure:
State Senate: Composed of senators elected from each province to represent state interests.
State Legislative Court: Comprised of judges from each province, responsible for state-level legislation and legal interpretations.
Term Length for Judges: Judges serve 3-year terms with no possibility of re-election, ensuring independence and reducing corruption.
Provincial Legislative Structure:
Provincial Senate: Consists of senators elected from each county within the province.
Provincial Legislative Court: Handles legislation at the provincial level, ensuring alignment with both state and federal laws.
Term Length for Judges: Judges serve 3-year terms with no possibility of re-election.
County Legislative Structure:
County Senate: Composed of senators elected from every settlement with more than 10,000 inhabitants, representing local interests.
County Legislative Court: Oversees legislation and legal decisions at the county level.
Term Length for Judges: Judges serve 3-year terms with no possibility of re-election.
Barony (Settlement) Legislative Structure:
Local Senate: Proposes budget increases for local agencies and new public works projects.
Local Electorate: Composed of citizens who vote on proposed local initiatives, ensuring community involvement in governance.
Note: Baronies do not have their own legislature; the Local Senate proposes changes to the budget of Barony agencies, taxes, public works, etc.
Judiciary Branch
Mediation Court:
Purpose: Resolves conflicts between federal, provincial, or local entities. Cases that cannot be agreed upon are forwarded for mediation by a neutral third party.
Trial Courts:
Function: Handle initial cases, including criminal and civil matters.
Appellate Courts:
Role: Review decisions made by trial courts, ensuring legal consistency and justice.
Supreme Court:
Authority: The highest court in the land, responsible for interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutionality.
Special Function: Every four years, assesses whether the Monarch or any hereditary vassal has become tyrannical. If deemed tyrannical, the Supreme Court can call upon the Royal Army to address the situation.
Additional Features
Royal Army: This military force is tasked with maintaining order and enforcing decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding tyranny.
Governance at Various Levels
Counties: Led by a Hereditary Countship, ensuring local governance is aligned with dynastic principles.
Provinces: Governed by a Hereditary Dukeship, reflecting the larger administrative structure.
States: Managed by a Hereditary Governorship, maintaining a connection to the overarching monarchy.
Settlements: Governed as Baronships, providing localized leadership under the same dynastic logic.
Considerations and Implications
Balance of Power: The system is designed to balance the power of the Monarch with that of the elected legislative and judicial branches, promoting accountability and representation.
Conflict Resolution: The Mediation Court serves as an essential mechanism for resolving disputes, potentially reducing tensions between different levels of government and local entities.
Term Limits: Differing terms for Federal Senators, State Senators, Provincial Senators, County Senators, and Local Senators encourage fresh ideas while providing stability in governance. Judges across all levels serve 3-year terms with no re-election to minimize corruption.
Tyranny Prevention: The provision for the Supreme Court to handle issues of tyranny is a significant safeguard, ensuring that the monarchy does not become oppressive.
Flexibility in Representation: With no limit on the number of senators and a maximum of two per state at the federal level, the system allows for diverse representation while managing the potential for an overly large legislative body.
This comprehensive governance structure for Dynastic Federalism combines elements of tradition and modernity, allowing for a unique blend of monarchical authority, democratic representation, and federal organization. It aims to ensure stability, accountability, and effective governance across multiple levels of society.
Looks good but I'm no expert👍
I’d be careful about using anything from Jeb Smith. He wrote a trash Lost Causer book about the American Civil War and Missing Monarchy is absolutely laden with simplistic and reductive logic. The entire book hinges on the tiresome trend among some historians to discount entirely monarchs as some sort of distant irrelevancy in medieval government, alla the late Geoffrey Elton's legendary work on Tudor government around Thomas Cromwell. Essentially: structure over the individual (even the individual who creates it) and overarching broad historical movement over personalities. The best refutation to this mode of historiographical travel was given by Elton's then brilliant student now the inimitable British constitutional historian David Starkey: "At what point did Cromwell explain to Henry VIII that he had become redundant? Presumably a moment or two before he had his head chopped off by a deliberately unskilled executioner." So too did it apply, perhaps even more pointedly considering the profoundly personal nature of power in the Middle Ages, with Nogaret/Flotte and Philip IV, or Burnell and Edward I, or Della Vigne/Amalfitano and Frederick II, or Glanville and Henry II. The work of WL Warren, Doris Stenton, Nicholas Vincent, and Emily Amt show this conclusively on the Henry II side, along with Joseph Strayer's defining work on Philip IV-again, to name but a handful. Frankly, it's like saying-after soaking in the incomparable wealth of Robert Caro's seminal series on LBJ-that he (LBJ) was just a passerby on legislation. Bonkers.
one can legitimately argue that we live in more tyrannical times than what was even possible in the middle ages
with a big difference is that people nowadays are given drugs and constant distractions to numb them into tolerating the intolerable
That's the kind of monarchy I find as the best society. Middle Ages were the best time period in European history, and their end was a disaster for human race.
Well watching Empire Builders shows unbiased account on monarchy in general. Most of the news are mostly isolated in political infighting while their realm management is stable.
I always laugh when people say “abolish all monarchies, they’re corrupt” and I’m just like “yeah. Because capitalism and democracy have worked so much better. I’d rather have a royal family and their advisors and other noble families to blame than thousands of politicians and billionaires with their ‘hands in the pot’”
I question the quality of your sense of humor.
(Now, in actual response.)
Yet I'd rather have those politicians over hereditary Monarchy. In spite of everything.
I left out the billionaires part on purpose. I don't like them either way and they exist in both systems.
Just because it didn't necessarily work out better (even though it did for all the complaining right along beside you I would certainly do.), doesn't mean that going to those systems is automatically the best idea.
I mean, after all, if we go down that route of thinking, perhaps totaltarian communism is the alternative we should move to?
You don't like that, do you though?
Criticism is always going to exist no matter what the system. If anything that's good.
What did people say in response to you, I have to wonder? You haven't said so. If they didn't have much to say, fair enough, perhaps many don't give too much thought to it. But I do have to wonder how many also just didn't bother countering you when it seemed that you wouldn't listen given your attitude.
I tend to find the truly wise and intelligent don't laugh at others like that, for any reason, but especially not for not knowing better. They don't dismiss, they aim to educate.
Before you respond to me, be aware I have a lot of knowledge, and simply saying my opinion is bad won't make me think it is bad, I will need a superior argument against what I say and think to change my mind to believe you. Bring sufficient ammunition, and be aware I've heard many common talking points, so I'd prefer to hear things I haven't heard before, so dig deep for unusual stuff. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time, let alone mine.
While the “Jeffersonian doctrine” is true, it doesn’t take away from the fact that 1- Jefferson quote ST Bellarmine , a Catholic Saint who oversaw Galileo’s first trial. 2- He had a book from Juan De Mariana, another Catholic Priest who said, “If the King turns into a tyrant the people can overthrow him,” this is true since Catholics don’t believe nor hold the “Devine Rights of Kings” since this was started by Lutherans to bypass the Pope in Rome.
Laws were costumary
Different from today arbitrary legislators.
I'm pretty young about 16 and I learned about this stuff in school. I don't think that it's about people not being taught the right things but rather not having the motivation to learn and just stick to what movies and shows portray instead.
Medieval monarchy? Witch one?
no, no witch, christian.
MONARCHISHIM IS BACK IN FASHION BABY !!
not sure about that it has an implementation problem, how do you form a monarchy in a place without one especially an area with no history of it
@@Tonk1963Then make one baby! Self proclaim yourself if idk
@@Tonk1963 damn, TH-cam keeps censoring my response
@@Tonk1963 tl;dr HRE or PLC, elective monarchy. can't go in depth because youtube doesn't let me.
@@Tonk1963 Too many think of monarchism as restorationism. It's constraining for no reason, there are also restorationists who follow dynasties formed by usurpers. It's not the 19th century, we don't really have the luxury of existing in a world where borrowing a Prince from Germany or something could just work for foreign recognition.
My nation narrative for independence was anti-western colonizer, but as Muslim majority population, people here pretend Islam never spread with colonization, of course they cannot deny it due to fact, but they love to use word "conquest" and "liberation" which is hilarious hypocritical.
How much did these medieval descendants pay you to make this video? Sounds like Elitist propaganda to me 👌🏽 😂
People who promote the myth of the "absolute medieval monarch" usually either directly or indirectly want to centralize more power and sovereignty into the hands of the state.
And ironically a lot of self-professed anarchists admire and base their ideology off the medieval ages but hate the king part that actually makes that type of system sustainable.
From a logical standpoint bieng a tyrant would be a bad idea anyway, it usually ends in rebellion. Kings were powerful but still had to navigate political waters
That's cool and all but did the church not have overwhelming power over a majority of southern Europe?(Including kings) You had the centralized power of Rome, then Rome dwindled, things became decentralized until the church reestablished centralized power. And later States would break away from the church in their own way. (England, France, America)
Someone please clarify if I have the wrong idea. This video doesn't mention any dates and broader events to contextualize his statements...
Everything we were taught about the Medieval Era is wrong.
That's because the true history was controlled by a select few, and they write the history. I'm sure you think Napoleon's wars was just because he wanted to conquer the whole of europe
@@Jykobe491Honestly that IS the case for me.
What was his supposed true reason then?
Also told my History teacher to add Psychological Effect mentions in the Hours to make us know how a Tyranny and any Tragedy happened.
so basically, chess is lore inaccurate after all
It's better a monarch!
Everyone should also read “On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth” by Bertrand de Jouvenel
It goes into extreme depth on this same topics. It also goes in to the way the medieval system was born, and how is was murdered in the early modern period
8:47
Regarding the point about legislation. You're grossly oversimplifiyingof medieval monarchical government as it was quite different and varied widely depending on which monarchy you're talking about and what time period you're speaking of. The HRE was quite a strong realm until the mid 13th Century where the end of the Staufer dynasty precipitated an interregnum whose end result liquidated the crown of its powers. The HRE couldn't really be thought of as "feudal" as even describing as that is an anachronism.
Post-Carolingian France did have legal de-jure powers, but it was in such a weak position thanks to the Carolingians dividing up their lands and fighting each other giving lands to aristocrats for their support. They ended up deposed in France like Merovingians. The House of Capet retook its power under Philippe II where they fought the English and expanded their Crownlands. Institutions like the Estates-General and the Parliament didn't really become a thing until much later and largely were a rubber stamp for their respective monarchs, a tool they used to augment their power to show they had public support behind them.
Within Norman Sicily, the feudal system which replaced the system of the Langobards brought order and stability and the organization was quite centralized for the period being one of the richest Kingdoms in Europe during the High Middle Ages. Within England, the Norman system helped to re-organize the Kingdom giving it a much more solid foundation and better administrative institutions allowing it to punch above its weight and match France which dwarfed England in terms of wealth, population and resources.
Kings at times did initiate legislation and policies on their own initiative but like with most things, how they were implemented and how legislation was done depended on the time, the person in charge, the institutions, and the particular realm you're talking about.
Expectation: The king has absolute hyper centralized power and can point at someone and have them killed.
Reality: There are a bunch of counts and barons more or less chanting "states rights" over and over.
4th view. Everyone get Anarcho-Capitalism out in the community posts.
Bankers hate nobles
Great background lecture while playing Manor Lords
Incomplete - not wrong. These things happened so long ago in comparison with a human lifetime and so many records of it are either lost or distorted. The picture we have of life as it was then is just a shadow of the truth. But a blurry image is not the same as a lie.
"All the information I gathered comes from this ONE book that isnt even a peer reviewed journal" not only would this presentation receive an F in a college history class but it wouldnt even pass a Highschool history class. Have you ever heard of credible sources or having multiple sources? Do you even have any primary sources? You believe all this is true simply because you read it in 1 book which obviously has bias. Real historians even on the undergrad level have to cite secondary scholary sources(peer reviewed by other professors) they also need PRIMARY sources or actual sources from the time period in question. You're obviously a completely untrained historian and dont even understand the Highschool basics of academic research. Jeb Smith isn't even a historian dude...
Thomas Jefferson was much more educated than Jeb Smith.
jesus christ why the hell are you cooping this much
Most medieval stereotypes come from the renaissance onwards, not the middle ages, as a whole
Tbf, any time before the very modern day was pretty not good, because, you know….. modern medicine
Modern medicine is a good thing, but that doesn't mean we should look down on our ancestors or discard everything from the past.
@@crusader2112 absolutely not, we should have respect for past but still, even up to the 50’s and 60’s weren’t very good due to the limited medicine, terrible environment, poor regulation on infrastructure, etc.
@@user-qh3yr4xb1n I agree some regulations are necessary, but I'd caution against over using them. Large companies don't mind regulations and actually lobby for them. To keep smaller competition down. That's why you also need some incentives sometimes instead of regulations.
@@crusader2112 I meant like lead in paint and poor water quality lol
@@user-qh3yr4xb1n Okay yeah, that makes sense. I was referring to about too much red tape and the Fed butting into too much.
Well now I’m even more sad about our clearly tyrannical system of government…
Well yeah of course the old days sucked. But not cause of the monarchy, I mean a democracy will also suck if living to the age of 40 is considered to be long
It's a fascinating concept that laws were considered fixed, perfect, and unchanging (and the number of laws was much smaller than today). Even the king couldn't just make up new laws without undermining his own credibility. That would be such a refreshing concept in today's world.
Shalom to everyone who knows who started the revolutions to replace monarchy with dEmOcRaCy
Democracy is basically, rule by the rich and powerful and laws made by the rich and powerful,
Back then THE LAW was holding people accountable, now most countries are ruled by criminals, hell trump is straight up honest to god a felon, a criminal, and yet people still vote for him,
✡️🤥
We need to bring this system back. That means we need to abolish legislative assemblies.
Can you talk about absolutism?
This is very eye-opening for me, and also more reasons why I hate the US and their propaganda.
In his World-Systems Analysis, Wallerstein says that what makes an "absolute" monarch absolute is that there is no legal mechanism that can constrain the monarch. If we think of "power" in terms of the ability to get one's decisions enacted in the world, then a modern prime minister has more power than an absolute monarch. Absolutism is all about the lack of legal constraint on the absolutist monarch. Anyway, thanks for this video. It was cool to learn something about pre-absolutist monarchies.
Monarchy is the default institution of human civilization. And when observing anacyclosis (which we are right now approaching the mob-rule phase) it’s clear to see that a monarch or absolute ruler always emerges from the chaos created by this cycle of collapse.
However, I understand that this channel is a monarchist channel, so therefore a natural bias will be present, though I’d appreciate if you would also highlight that it isn’t black and white. Monarchs are human, people just like us. They are not gods (though they come close) so we should hold them under the same scrutiny as we hold ourselves. That scrutiny I’m speaking of is that all of us are inherently selfish and evil. No, we all dont do evil things, but we are equally capable of doing both good and bad. Hearing you romanticize a period in history that was stained in blood and disease. A period in history where power hungry dynasties stained their hands in innocent blood (recruiting the small folk) to usurp thrones and conquer kingdoms. The law was not prioritized during that time, power was. Power has always been prioritized since the beginning of civilization, I think we must acknowledge that to move forward as a civilization.
I am a monarchist just like most of you guys, however I’m under the strong impression that you believe that monarchs can do no wrong. They have committed atrocities just as populist dictators have, maybe not on the same scale but they have. The European monarchs initiated the trans-Atlantic slave trade for crying out loud! All im saying is this topic should be approached objectively.
This videos are still informative and are edited well! Keep it up!
I mean, he did specifically highlight a quote saying that a king not honoring his part of an oath of fealty, essentially being unlawful in his rule, is a situation which justifies a rebellion to restore the rebels' rights. That implies there being kings unfit and that there was something done about them.
In terms of government styles, monarchies are the extreme on both good and bad axis. A tyrant will make the kingdom hell while a benevolent ruler will make the best kingdom to live in.
Oligarchies are next in, being limited in power to a group they can be both good and bad to a less extent. It is much easier to have a small group of highly educated rulers than to educate the entire populace. The oligarchs must also agree on things generally for them to get done.
Democracy is right in the middle and depends largely on the state of mind of the general population. Democracies fail because, to be blunt, most people aren’t that smart.
I don't know why but i think fredda is gonna at some point give a response video
Fredda trying to not give people clout for 0.1 milliseconds:
the decentralization and fragmentation of this period allowed the commercial development for the west to surpass the consolidated, centralized, and often much more despotic regimes of the east
Your best work so far, Lavader, bravo.
Idk, they taught us in Bulgaria that our Tsars were great and glorious especially the ones that were the most authoritarian.