Why Did Monarchies Disappear?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 дек 2022
- Where did the monarchy go? We were ruled by kings, queens, emperors, and empresses but today almost every monarchy disappeared. This video answers what happened to monarchies. And why don't modern monarchies have any power? We will also talk a bit about the rise of democracy.
Join Patreon: / historyscope
Credits
- Research: Mrs Scope
- Animation: Petra Lilla Marjai
- Audio: Seb. Soto
Social Media
- Discord: / discord
- Reddit: / historyscope
- Twitter: / scopehistory
- Instagram: / officialhistoryscope
- Facebook: / averythingchannel
Sources - Websites
- www.britannica.com/place/Fran...
- face2faceafrica.com/article/a....
- www.macrotrends.net/countries...
pressbooks.nscc.ca/worldhisto...
pressbooks.nscc.ca/worldhisto...
www.degruyter.com/document/do...
www.history.com/topics/russia...
www.history.com/this-day-in-h...
www.britannica.com/summary/Ru...
www.britannica.com/biography/...
www.historyhit.com/puyi-last-...
Sources - Books
F. Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and The Last Man. The Free Press. New York
J. J. Rousseau (2004) The Social Contract. Penguin Books. London
W. Doyle (2019) The French Revolution. Oxford University Press. Oxford
A Brief History Of Spain (2019) J. Black. Robinson. Cornwall
Blood and Iron (2022) K. Hoyer. The History Press. Cheltenham
K. Ghattas (2020) Black Wave. Wildfire. Headline. London
Smith, S. A. (2002) The Russian Revolution - A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Oxford
Sources - Journal Articles
Franz Michael (1955). State and Society in Nineteenth-Century China. World Politics, 7, pp 419-433 doi:10.2307/2009000
Funnily enough today some autocracies have in practice become monarchies. North Korea is famous with its absolute Kim family dynasty in charge, while in Turkmenistan the first president had his own son become the leader
Assads too. These hereditary dictatorships are monarchies without the tinsel.
Don't forget a autocratic leader can choose a person they see fit to rule after him and doesn't have to be blood related.
Yeah I think the number of monarchies is being underestimated some here. President for life is a king. There are many.
A list -
Openly Monarchic - Brunei, Eswatini, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Vatican / Holy See
Monarchy by stealth - UAE
Constitutional Monarchies - UK, Former British Colonies, Tonga, Thailand, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Morocco (apparently), Monaco, Malaysia, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Lesotho (Apparently), Kuwait, Jordan, Japan, Denmark, Bhutan, Belgium,
Countries that refuse title of monarchy but are under an indefinite rule of one- Afganistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, CAR, Chad, China, DRC, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Western Sahara (Disputed), Yemen
@@TheRatOnFire_The countries in the last category aren't monarchies. Just because they're authoritarian, doesn't mean they're monarchies. Monarchies aren't authoritarian dictatorships. There's a difference.
"If you and your family go hungry, see how long YOU remain a law-abiding citizen."
I think that's a quote we should all keep in mind...
I will keep using that quote every time it's relevant... which is probably going to be a lot.
France supported America's revolution against the British king.
Then America inspired France to overthrow their own king.
France helped inspire Haiti to be the first ever successful slave revolt.
law is made by the government, which is literally on the opposite side of the citizen
@@XiJingPing_Bryant the government is a neutral entity.
Ask yourself who is using economic power to influence the government.
(The capital owners)
@Brian Lee The government is the representation on the citizens
Fun thing about constitutional monarchies. Even though the monarchs of those countries who is constitutional the monarchs can have influence on the country’s politics.
For example: before ww1, Sweden had a debate over rearmament where the parliament did not want to lay the budget on the military. The people however wanted it, so around 50,000 people marched in Stockholm and went to the king, Gustav V, and he came in support of the people. The government resigned in protest and the king appointed a new prime minister. This he could do by the laws of the time, but by 1917 the king would return this responsibility to back to the parliament. Later in ww2, when the Germans wanted transit rights for their troops through Sweden. The parliament was going to refuse, however the King said that he would abdicate if this wasn’t accepted, so the parliament yielded. And even during the pandemic of 2020, where the current King, Carl XVI Gustaf, said in an interview that he weren’t happy about the government’s responses to the pandemic. I am not joking the government issued new restrictions immediately after this, Swedish citizens could not go to bars and restaurants by 20:00 in the evening.
Another example, when Germany invaded Norway the germans demanded that the King appointed a pro-german prime minister (Vidkun Quisling) but the King refused but if the Norwegian government wanted otherwise he would abdicate. The government sided with him and declared war on Germany the next day.
So the point is, a monarch in a constitutional monarchy can have influence over politics even if they don’t have power officially. However, in my point of view, these monarchs must be very consequential and careful over when they do this, otherwise the entire monarchy can be jeopardized.
Monarchies are such a dumbass idea
Constitutional Monarchs are still Heads of State, a representative of the nation
@@Donderu Yes they are, but that dosen't mean that they say something in public that can have political consequences. Just as Presidents or individual ministers do.
Thailand had a riot wear both the Priminster and his Rival wear responsible people died. King who has no Power Ordered the People to Drag the Leaders to him. They got DRAGGED! He ordered them KNEAL and Apogise both Proud Men that thought a king a Relic... They Kneeled and Apologized. Both sides of the Crowd united under One King.
Its said the queen when alive could declare war or consolidate power at will , is it true I mean everyone works for the monarchy right so they don’t do anything unless they want to, but is it true I’m not sure if it is?
Your takes on feudalism are interestingly accurate. Most people simplify it to the point where it looks like a centralised monarchy while in fact feudalism was the opposite.
If it were a centralized monarchy it wouldn t be so bad. It would still be bad just not THIS bad.
True! The 'feudal pyramid' that gets thrown around is just not an accurate description of how feudal societies worked. Absolute, centralized dictatorships are VERY modern. The king with absolute authority given by divine right is, in Europe at least, a post-renaissance development
Most people simplify... Really? Who are those people?! I never knew a single person like that.
"Feudalism" is indeed a myth. What we today call "feudalism" was actually medieval land law pecularities. And these pecularities were definitely not systematic or centralized.
@@abdolpix4581 «...а myth. What we today call "feudalism" was actually medieval land law peculiarities» That is true, but there is a more general notion used as a term expressing the type of production system. The literal applicability of this term to societies other than the ones of Western Europe can be considered questionable.
I think Morroco is an interesting example of a semi-constitutional monarchy. The King still has noticeable political power unlike the modern European monarchs, but has to respect his limits and democractic rule as well. At least that's how I understand it.
Morocco isn’t really democratic, the king has complete control pertaining the military, foreign policy and religion. He also can appoint and dismiss prime ministers who are voted in if he wishes
@@vaktus3380 I find it interesting nonetheless and certainly an improvement over the Middle East monarchies. Being able to shut off the prime minister is certainly the biggest issue.
@@vaktus3380 Military and Foreign Policy matters are generally beyond the average citizen tbh, and it isn't usually an important issue unless these matters are seriously mismanaged or the country is very warlike. Religion is pretty sketchy though, but then again religion is pretty sketchy in the first place.
@@SahrawiSundae because if you are European and young you will tend to be non-religious, it is the fashionable thing to do to show how superior you are, to the benighted believers. Of course, doing things like that tend to backfire in the long run.
@@vaktus3380 the king have to chose a pm from the winning party as of the 2012 constitution morocco is a semi constitution where the king have 5 ministeries under him and the pm 15
If Marx was proven right by the wave of revolutions then he was also proven wrong by the wave of democratization that kept communism on the fringes in most places...that and also the part where every attempt of communism has either imploded, stagnated (while being just as sabotaged as democracies that do better), or reformed towards social democracy.
The one place Marx did not ever expect to become Communist Was Russia, he expected it in Germany or the UK or even America, Russia never in a thousand years.
He called the American Civil War the first revolution, because it was the industrial Union fighting the landlords of the Confederacy, slavery never entered the question. For the next fifty years he would hale any war, rebellion or revolution as the start of the Communis World revolution.
the only places that became communist were always absolute monarchies with authoritarian rule. marx was a dumbass to believe there would be global communism
You are aware that socialism and communism were and still are incredibly popular. The only reason why it hasn't risen to prominence in a major western country is because western intelligence agencies crushed any and all opposition to capitalism world wide. Forgot to mention that part. Also they helped prop up infamously bad dictators and puppet governments.
The chad Reagan also did a lot to end communism.
@@ElectrostatiCrow communism didn't need help ending itself
India is a democracy where each political party is monarchy. Each political party has a key family & the leaders can be selected only from the key families - Example- Gandhi Family, Shiv Sena, NCP, Jegan Reddy, DMK etc., So, in essence Monarchy still exists in many democracies. India is an apt example as it is the most populated democracy
More like aristocracy
@@oakwhelieI think the term we are looking for is plutocracy
Oligarchic Republic
Ireland is a republic but we do have a number of political dynasties.
But instead of being able to blame a monarch (i.e the government) now we just blame each other because we're the ones who voted for them. Democracy is a scam to shift the blame for societal problems from the elites to the common folk.
Fun fact, the King of England has less personal money and is a net positive to the Treasury bottom line because one of his ancestors in the 17th or 18th century went bankrupt, signed the rents from all his lands over to Parliament, and received an allowance instead. The practice continues to this day. The rents have increased faster then the allowance, meaning money goes into the UK Treasury for having a king. But the titles to the land continue to pass from monarch to monarch, so if Charles III is ever deposed and becomes Charles Windsor, he'd be the richest land lord in the new British Republic.
Interesting fun fact but minor correction The King Of Britain and the Commonwealth Realms not just King of England
And why would the king be entitled to keep the Crown Estate if they were deposed? Also another fun fact very relevant to current events, the monarch doesn't have to pay inheritance tax, nor most other taxes for that matter along with some of the royal family, though they do pay some voluntarily.
Idk, to me it seems kind of backwards to celebrate that they only keep a fraction of the revenue if their estate when this was obtained throughout centuries of oppression and violence in the first place.
@Jose King would keep the Dutchy Of Lancaster (the estate) is because it is private company owned by reigning monach think of it like a shop passed down to a son or daughter. The only way this wouldn't be case is 1 Britain goes full on Russian (mean killing children which thank now that is dark as hell to type). 2 the government's of commwealth all agree to seize all the land from the Duchy Of Lancaster as the are land across the commwealth that part of it. Also includes some countries not in the commwealth so they would also need to join the collaborative effort. 3 they try force which ever monach they just kicked off throne to to also step down as CEO over the last revue system they would have. Translation it would be very VERY difficult hence why monachs some times keep there estates such as even after losing there monachy based titles like Greek Royal family still own parts of Hellenic Royal Estate. As for inheritance tax yes I do agree that is load of crap like massive crap unfortunately I am in now way powerful enough here Britain to make a different (unless I become Prime Minister next I mean we are going through them like tissue). Now as for how Duchy Of Lancaster claimed its land while yes some destructive acts others wore simply bought. Hope this helps explain it little I am not trying change your opinion by any means not every person need to be a monachist it just little insite that is all
@@Jose-gc8rl oppression in England lol there was no such thing there, there is a reason thier monarchy lasted that long
@@malopephasha5341 how many Irish perished in the great famine again? How many revolution were slaughtered on the street? How many peoples in concentration camps enjoyed saluting her majesty when contemplating on cannibalism?
The monarchy didn't "last that long" the house of Windsor is the newest one in all of Europe, sprouting in ww1. You want to know what happened to all the others families that ruled England? Parliament killing kings and queens is what they most famously known for since the 1600s, its a constant struggle of power.
28:22 I want to add one thing to this part about Atatürk. It might be misunderstood in this part that he made himself the president, but no, an election was held and he was chosen.
Edit: I also want to add that women were allowed to vote and to be elected since the first ever election held in Turkey.
i feel like learning about history scope guy is a story into and of itself. when i started watching his vids a few years back, i didn’t know his name or where he came from or basically anything about him other than that he made videos about history that were super interesting. i love getting to know him as time progresses; it feels like character development or something
A monarchy and a democracy are not mutually exclusive, a monarchy is valid as long as the head of state is a monarch, but just because the prime minister of a country is elected does not make the monarchy disappear. While true that the monarch in most constitutional monarchies does not exert any political influence, they are still monarchs. A lot of countries that have constitutional monarchs are proud of the fact that they manage to have both a democratic government, while also having a direct connection to their country’s past. It’s not fair to disregard the monarchy just because it also happens to be a democracy.
exactly, good point
Interestingly, Liechtenstein is one two European countries where the monarch does have ruling power and has the final say in government policy. BUT...the changes that expanded the prince's power also reinforced the institution and practice of direct democracy. Referendums are very common in this country so even when the prince has more power than any other monarch in Europe, power still belongs to the people.
Maybe this is my american bias showing, but I've always seen having a monarchy as something that should be a source of shame. After all even in ceremonial monarchies where the governments are genuinely democratic, the monarch and their family still receive an incredible amount of money and support from the state simply because of which hole they came out of.
with this in mind, downplaying and dismissing the monarch in these countries is meant as a way of saying "sure this is technically shameful but you are so far removed from the problem that your country shouldn't be judged for it"
in other words it's meant to celebrate how far these countries have come in their efforts to overcome the monarchic barbarity of their past.
Another interesting thing about the lists of Absolute vs Constitutional Monarchies is that the Absolute Monarchies are land powers and the Constitutional Monarchies are naval powers.
Why, do you think?
I'd guess it's either that counties that build navies usually have few threats
It could also be that navies are expensive and so cooperation with the nobility is more necessary.
@@thebenevolentsun6575 The harder it is to send your army to go put down an upstart the more power has to be decentralized.
@@falconJB What does that have to do with naval powers Vs land powers
@@thebenevolentsun6575 Land powers tend to build Empires where you can simply march an army to any part of relatively easily.
I do feel like if some monarchies had stayed especially within the middle east. The political and social situation in some nations could be vastly different at the moment
Especially iraq,iran and Afghanistan
@@ShubhamMishrabro yes!
For the better
they have oil
Western Liberal ideals are not fit for some societies. Just a fact
Yes. With this huge snowstorm I need this video. Thank you for the upload!!
When you ask "What happened to the Monarchy?" I can simply answer nothing happened. Countries that are constitutional monarchies are not pretending to have a monarch they literally do. The monarchy in many many countries still holds significant influence and is culturally intertwined with their country. For example, the monarch of England isn't just the Monarch of england, They are also the Head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Papua new guinea. Which means that they still hold influence. And although in name they do not have power of politics it has been proven in the past that they can heavily influence politics. And although monarch's may be above the law they cannot simply do whatever they want.
technically speaking, they can do what they want
@@davidohaegbulam9988 No, they cannot. Monarchs doing whatever they want has seen some interesting events happen with france, russia, germany, austria-hungary, china and a lot more
18:12 uh… despite some interregnums, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did have a monarch, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, the last of whom was Stanislaus II Augustus, deposed by Russia, Austria and Prussia in 1795
Yeah, I don't know what he's talking about.
The treaty of Versailles was very strict on the Austrian empire. In the end Austria still wanted to be part of Germany fearing they would be conquered by someone larger if they weren't. They were not allowed by the allies
It was also because Austrians ARE Germans in all but name.
@@vetarlittorf1807 the Roman empire mixed alot of European liniage. There is a little German all over the place 😅
They are still, by international treaty and domestic law, banned from joining Germany (or the other way around). Not that we'd want them.
Wow I'm really liking channel and it's unique way of explaining things! It feels so much personal yet professional at the same time. Will surely support this channel when I have some money to spend😅
Nice and thorough explanation, History Scope!
This talk about monarchs leads me to think of the current monarch of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. I know you're Dutch and that you've done research on Indonesia yourself (as it was Dutch's colonial territory) but I think it would interest some people to know about this region called Yogyakarta. Especially as it is a rare vassal state of a republic that is still headed by a monarch.
The Yogyakarta Sultanate was established in 1755 by a civil war that divided the Kingdom of Mataram into two smaller kingdoms, namely Kasultanan Yogyakarta (Yogyakarta Sultanate) and Kasunanan Surakarta (Surakarta Sunnanate? Dunno the proper English term). Both were and are essentially vassal states in day one of their establishment. They were under VOC (Dutch East Indian Company) until 1799 when the company went bankrupt and then the Dutch Colonial Empire took them as their direct vassals.
When Indonesia gained independence with Japan's surrender to the allied force, every monarch spread all over Indonesia faced a dilema: to join the Republic of Indonesia, to continue rulling under the Dutch, or to proclaim their own independence. The Yogyakarta Sultanate, unlike other monarchs, took the initiative to provide full support to the establishment of the Indonesian Republic and declared themselves to be the first kingdom under Indonesia's rule, followed by Surakarta. Of course with the condition that the well being of the kingdom itself is secured under the new Republic. The one who made this bold decission was none other than the famous Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwana IX, or King HB IX for short.
After declaring independence, Indonesia faced hard times when they had to go to wars everywhere in their region to maintain their independence. At some point in 1946-1949, Yogyakarta became the temporary capital of Indonesia as Jakarta was occupied by NICA, a Dutch government organisation to take over control in Indonesia. At that time, King HB IX gave his utmost support financially and politically. Financially, every expense from the cost of troops up to the wages of civil servants including the president was taken from the palace's treasury. Politically, he helped in negotiations and such, as he still held high political power with his title as a king as well as the support of the people.
A little bit of story for King HB IX's services:
As the Dutch left and the Republic gained more stability, King HB IX still involving himself in the state's affairs. He was entrusted with high positions such as State Minister, Minister of Defense, and Vice Prime Minister. In the end of his carrier, he even became the Vice President of the country under Soeharto, the famous dictator who overthrew Soekarno's regime by a coup. Even in the transition of power from Soekarno to Soeharto, King HB IX proved his worth by venturing to other countries to convince their leader that the Republic still stand tall and the recent events were nothing to be worried about, as the international leaders were reportedly warry of Soeharto and trusted King HB IX more, whom they were more familiar with.
As one of the first "independent" country (note that the Indonesian monarchs were essentially ruling independent state after Japan lost the war) to swear allegiance to Indonesia and considering everything they have done to the country, Yogyakarta got and still maintain the title of special region, where the monarch still got power over its territory. Even though they are no longer a country and now a province, the monarch still pretty much hold most of the power a vassal state could have. The king and queen still hold political power nationally, he can make regional rules, the regional leaders in his territory still submit to him, the royal family are still strong financially, and the title of nobility is still valued in some extent, although obviously not regarded as high as it was. I personally think that it was a very brilliant move, since this position as a special region may give more power than a constitutional monarchy, especially because the territory of Yogyakarta were not that large anyway (less than Brunei).
The current monarch of Yogyakarta is Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwana X, son of King HB IX. However, the way the son rules is "different" from his predecessor, thus, complains are filed for virtually every decision and statement he make. Even more so since 2015, when he name his daughter as his successor, violating the tradition of male Sultans. Mostly, complains are about the inhumane minimum regional wage(around $130 at the time this was written), the restlessness caused by gangsters, hotels and tourism development that doesn't consider the public nor environment, the increasing property prices, evictions, traffics, and the royal family's wealth that increase over time because of all those problems mentioned above. Hope the city gets better, as I live here too 🙂
Note:
Both Yogyakarta and Surakarta formerly got the title as special regions. However, an anti monarchy movement in Surakarta, a few months after the kingdom got its title, made the Indonesian government revoke the title. Now, Surakarta was just a national heritage, who functions as merely keeping the tradition alive. The territory is divided into some regencies. Solo City, the place where the palace stands is headed by a mayor who held much more political power as the palace, chaired by Susuhunan Pakubuwana XIII, no longer held any power.
i ain't reading allat
Semoga kehidupan....
Jadi lebih baaaiiiiiikkk... ! __Goku_
Om, minum dulu om!
3:10 they didn't model themselves after the ottomans. They started centralization before the ottomans became a juggernaut .
Yeah.
Your videos are some of the best in depth explanation of complex topics ive ever seen.
I especialy love how you go in depth into the background and context behind why such systems existed in the first place and how they came to be.
This is in my opinion how history should be taught. And you do it great justice in your videos. Kudos to you man! Youve earned a new subscriber from me!
This has been a really informative and interesting video. Thank you!
A really well made and amazing video once more.
As for the European monarchies, I think at least none of them stil stay in power by 'the grace of god', except the UK. All other monarchies have dropped that notion by now, as far as I know. Though I could be wrong there.
I believe that is part of the formal oath that is used to invest a new king, Sort of like when you are sworn in court to "tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God." is.
I never commented on this channel before but I have been a fan for about one year and I really am glad you finally uploaded! Video is very interesting 💪
France history is quite interesting because, in one century they went from a monarchy to a democracy, then to an empire, then an absolute monarchy again, then a constitutional monarchy, then a democracy again, then a empire again, then, at last, a democracy
*Absolute Monarchy - Consitiutional Monarchy - Republican Oligarchy/Dictatorship - Empire - Constitutional Monarchy - More Liberal Constitutional Monarchy - Republic - Empire - Republic.
FIFY
Monarchies can still be democratic
This is a great video. It does a wonderful job explaining monarchies and their relation to nobles.
31:23 I live in the UK, and it is not against the law to protest against the monarchy. People have been arrested for that, but that's usually because they've been too violent.
Nah i remember it being in the news when old lizzy died some anti monarchy protesters were being rounded up and jailed
And I only exist because Britain partitioned my ancestors country and would’ve denied me political rights within my own lifetime because the wrong priest sprinkled oil over my head.
@@MCKevin289 Irish?
@@JohnSmith-sl2qc
Yup, well American Irish lol. My great grandfather was born in Derry and his parents brought him over while he was a baby after they partitioned the North of Ireland.
@@Ruisealthey weren’t arrested just because they were protesting the monarchy, they got arrested due to another law that states no vulgar language is to be allowed on protest signs, which they did
If they were protesting just because they didn’t like the british monarchy, there’d have been A LOT more people arrested
~0:30 The map on the left should be at least a tad more purple, I notice that the Ethiopian Empire is marked yellow. Portuguese Angola might be yellow too, but I'm not sure how big it was at the time, so it might just be blending into the Kingdom of Kongo to its north.
It's a complex subject but you you explained it very well in a shorter time than I could've imagined was possible. This video should be shown in schools.
Love your videos, intuitive, educational and yet very entertaining.
This video is amazing and I love how much work you clearly put into it! I kinda wish Spain could have been mentioned a bit more but it’s still a quality video ❤
I think Monarchies died when the older established order of Central and Eastern Europe was destroyed after WW1, with the end of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian Empires. Had they continued on , they perhaps may have been able to show that monarchies could function and thrive as the government leaders in countries, as was seen irl in Germany.
14:42 Lol, just thought about sir Humphrey when you said “It’s still around today…” and here he was in the bottom right corner 😂
This was so worth the wait. Explained in a super easy to understand way without being condescending
Wow, that was amazing! Super Fast History Crunch that wasn't boring at all! Fantastic.
Hey
This is an excellent video and presented very coherently. Thanks!
Wonderful video, amazingly informative and detailed 💙💜🧡
I actually knew all this but have never seen such a good explanation
I love looking into history, and I found this quite fascinating....thank you very much
This video made the topic more interesting easily digestible. I didn't need to know abt monarchy and honestly couldnt care less before this vid but man did I learn a lot. Thank you! Subbed 😊
Always brightens my day when History Scope uploads!
It should be noted that in the constitutional monarchies like the UK, it's not that the king has no power... it's that he chooses not to use it. He actually has quite a bit of power, but (continuing with the example of the UK) the monarchs haven't really used it since the early 1700s. For example, King Charles can actually veto any law passed by parliament... but... doesn't. Since the 1700s, the monarchs have traditionally chosen to defer to parliament. Interestingly, most of the countries (especially in Europe, or formerly ruled by Europeans) where they no longer have a monarchy, like Germany and France, the monarch was replaced with an elected President - who also usually has quite a bit of power but generally doesn't use it (President Hindenburg of Weimar Germany is an example of one who did use it quite a bit, ruling by decree during the political chaos of the late 1920s and early 1930s).
On the subject of nobles and how their children would need to find something to do... I'm actually descended from one of the old French dukes (extremely powerful, high-ranking nobles who were somewhat autonomous, and occasionally tried to break away from the king)... one of my distant ancestors in the 1600s was something like the 15th son of a duke. As the 15th son, he stood to inherit nothing, so he chose to move to Quebec and run a manor, and have lots of kids of his own, and those kids had kids, and so on. Eventually some of them moved to the US in the early 1900s, and that's where I come from (well, half of me... the other half is mostly German peasantry).
when you listed the conditions the communist manifesto described as prerequisites for communist revolution, the thought, "huh, sounds kinda like modern america," floated to my mind.
Never voice your opinion again
@@hjuy4049 you must be a ton of fun at parties.
I will now make an extra effort to voice absolutely any opinion i have, specifically to spite your insulting comment.
@@THarSul your opinion is bad, if you said it at a party everyone would be silent because of how bad it is, but they wouldn't say anything because they don't wanna hurt your feelings
@@hjuy4049 lol, how cute, you think i care what you think.
If lashing out like this is how you get your rocks off, would you mind doing it somewhere else?
I dont like it when people involve me in their kinks.
18th century payment in livers: :D
21st century payment in livers: *D:*
Chinese history and political thought is interesting because they were among the first to really spell out in writing how the state apparatus itself supercedes both soveriegn and nobility. It's fascinating to see how much of their rhetoric around the role of the Emperor places him as a privilaged benifactor and facilitator od the divinely mandated state rather than its owner. In writings generals and soldiers, bureoucrats and commoners would often declar their duty and allegience to their office/state rather than their lord or emperor.
Technically Germany was a semi constitutional monarchy, meaning the king/emperor still have some power in the country and the constitution act as a check
nazis are bad rtard
dude what is with your profile pic?
@@bastian182 yeah…
It is both sad and funny how there are less than 400k people on this world who subscribed to your channel... I often read historic books and such things but a really good youtube video (some kind of a documentary) can explain it even better.
Yo! Hope you've been good! Thanks for the video- we missed you.
As a Moroccan I am proud that we kept the monachry system trough the country and I think Moroccan r too
Why would you be proud? You like being a slave?
Well done Morocco!
Its pretty insane that something as recent as WW1 is one of the primary reasons why Monarchs no longer are the main form of government. Also i’ve been doing tons of research on the French Revolution but this video really put how important it was to the world in proper context for me. It was the second huge domino after the american revolution that eventually changed humanity
Love Your Channel!
This is one of my new favourite videos when it comes to explaining many details that set up the world we live in today. My mind was blown and had to pause like 6 times
23:33 "if everybody get to decide your political system will become a mess of infighting and they wont be able to achieve anything"
Literally what is happening right now in democracies around the world
Yeah it is true about infighting being of politics, but better than having a Tyrant(in most cases due to some democracies choosing tyrants).
Democracy exist so the king doesn't have absolute power and anyone can have (more)free will.
@@zeropsaft It's not black and white, different governments exist for different situations. An extremely poor nation would collapse under a democratic government due to the sheer inefficiency of having power rotate every few years, on top of having short term policies that won't last.
Developing nations don't have the luxury that developed nations like the USA does. If you're in a developing country with lack of food and water, "free will" is less important than literally not starving to death.
The trade of between a democracy and an autocracy is economic progress and efficiency. You can't force every country to have a democratic government because it simply doesn't work in some situations
I wish I had this video 20-something years ago when I was in highschool. What you taught in 16 minutes (I watch at double speed) the education system in my country couldn't do in a whole semester.
X2
This is amazing video thanks so much
Many thanks: I found that a most interesting - and enlightening point of view.
Living in a country that broke away from a monarchy hundreds of years ago, I’ve always been kinda fascinated by them, & the reason why some countries still have them. I probably learned all this a couple decades ago in school, but I didn’t care enough to remember it lol This video just popped up in my recommends, & I hit that subscribe button like halfway through watching it…gonna go binge past vids for a few hours now!
wow, incredible. all this time i've had a total opposite conception about what "absolute monarchy" meant, i thought it referred to feudal kingdoms, now everything seems to make sense about why france, prussia and the ottomans were so successful.
also it bugged me how bismark was shown in 12:17 as an emotionally insecure figure. I am no prussian fanboy but i believe that bismark's policies were highly important to the pax britannica to exist in europe between 1815 and 1871, as he was very careful in his diplomatic plays(making the triple entente, trying to mantain allied with UK and russia, organizing the berlin conference...)(although always seeking german benefit) and many of these achievements were later reverted thanks to Wilhelm II's warmongering ambitions, breaking apart all of these and setting up the stage for ww1 to take place(giving full guarantee to A-H of germany joining a war against serbia, forcing bismark to abdicate)
just wanted to point it out as nobody had, that's why i think wilhelm II should be in that picture instead of Bismark. please correct me if im wrong
Fantastic video!
Great video!
Loved the video, and your dedication to even go to Germany to record a part that potentially could have gotten you arrested.
Btw for Patreon, I feel a shoutout for €25 is a bit weak… I mean getting drawn as a character sounds much cooler for me than merely reading my name. Influence over the next video would suit €25 better imo.
the kings come pre guillotined here lol
This was very informative
The idea that monarchies can't be monarchies is absurd. Monarchy is just having a monarch as head of state, a monarchy doesn't need to be an autocracy or a feudal state.
The UK and the Commonwealth are still monarchies, also are the low countries, the Scandinavian countries, Lichtenstein, Morocco, some city states of Europe, and a few others like Japan. Unless, of course, you mean ABSOLUTE monarchy, which your map would be right.
You also say that countries like Sweden, with a constitutional monarchy that is relatively or completely unimportant, that they are "democracies pretending to be monarchies". This is like saying that vehicles pretend to be cars: democracy is NOT mutually exclusive with monarchy. Democratic monarchies have existed and still exist today with the [constitutional] monarchies with parliamentary representative democracy. What you probably meant to say however, would be "some of these are basically republics pretending to be monarchies". For example, Sweden is effectively a "crowned republic"; i.e. a republic in practice, but officially a monarchy albeit useless, pointless or neglegable, as many parliamentarians in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in the Kingdom of England were calling for.
Also, the Russian Empire and the German Reich ended up as semi-constitutional monarchies before they were either taken over by foreign powers (Entante) or radicals (USSR/peasantry) and made a republic. You could say, that those absolute monarchies that didn't become enough constitutional/presidential in time got replaced either by foreign powers and forced into becoming a constitutional [parliamentary (representative democratic) or presidential] republic (German Reich as an outcome of WW1), or by their own disenfranchised people because the monarch reverted the state into an absolute monarchy (autocracy) and so got rebuilt as totalitarian and/or socialist republics (Russian Empire toward the end of WW1).
Yay a history scope video. It's a christmas miracle!!
your channel is very content, thank you very much, I just started college majoring in government
Amazing video.
Why is the UK not marked as a monarchy in the map at the start?
It's been a republic with a crown serving it since the Dutch Invasion of 1688, with a brief exception in Scotland in 1745.
12:59 The countries that had absolute monarchies became constitutional some time. For example, England was once absolute until King John signed the Magna Carta, which started the Parliament of England.
That was a feudal monarchy attempting to become an absolute monarchy
According to the map, in the 18th century, the Khanates of Central Asia were constitutional monarchies. However, those kingdoms dated back to the 10th century, so they should be absolute. Also, at that time, America didn't have any countries; they were all colonies. However, the French colony of Louisiana was missing, and the British portion of Canada. They still included the 13 colonies, Florida, the Caribbean, New Spain, Brazil, Peru, and New Granada. The Ottomans ruled North Africa and you can see tons of other African kingdoms. Greenland and Iceland are both part of Denmark, as well as Norway. The major kingdoms of the 18th century include Britain, France, the HRE, Spain, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Poland-Lithuania, the Italian states, Russia, Korea, Japan, China, the Indian kingdoms, Persia, and Southeast Asia.
I like constitutional monarchy system because the monarch represents the unity of the nation, upholds culture and heritage, ensures stability, presides over events of national significance, represents the nation abroad when undertaking official visits overseas, and is the supreme commander of the armed forces. I like a head of state that is independent and not political, but still holds influence over the country. The Prime Minister and Parliament deals with politics and running the government.
Very good video, learned a lot. Thx
Fun fact in indonesia there's a province that has special autonomy where it has an absolute monarchy. So it is just a monarchy inside a republic.
Ga' bakalan awet.
1:34 The 15th-century map is wrong: Russia didn't expand as far as the Pacific, all of America wasn't colonized, and the Ottomans were just rising.
28:00 WWI ended in 1918, Greece abolished it's monarchy in 1922 but reinstated the monarchy in 1935 up until 1974.
Ireland technically skipped the who centralization process from feudility to republicanism, all because the English Monarchy kept us as a backwater because they could not care less about us, and so, no Monarchy in Ireland, to the point, its actually illegal (unless explicity given permission by Dáil Éireann) to have a title, like Lord or Baron within our constituition, our High Kingship entirely ruined by the greed of Anglo-Saxons
Don't you mean the Scottish Monarchy?
So basically, most humans tend to want to have power for themselves. In the past, few effectively acquired most of it, then those who didn't, wanted it, until everyone has some.
This was fantastic
I've honestly learn a lot. I should really prevent my prejudicial resentment towards all nobility from narrowing my view.
Fire of learning did an interesting video about the collapse of civilisation and it’s rebirth, and in it he used the title of president as a replacement of king, after all, it’s just a word, the meaning can stay the same but the word can change, and it’s similar to what’s happening in N.Korea and other presidential dictatorships like Turkmenistan.
@@snuurferalangur4357 they really aren't
With access to history, using language to describe something by historical context is fine. Is your power hereditary to a dynastic or familial lineage? That's Monarchism, and the simplest root meaning of Monarchism. It doesn't need to garb the coat of a thousand year legacy, or use the same legislature, even when its informal use is in describing a traditional Monarchy with an Aristocracy (or Dukes and Kings).
The de facto Monarch of Turkmenistan may be no King, but he is President.
@@JohnSmith-sl2qc let’s see a king rules for all their life a president that is one of the many differences I’m not going to waste my time pointing out other differences.
So if you compare an absolute monarch to a traditional dictator, it's the same thing.
Note to 12.30 Denmark had an absolut Monarchy from 1660-1849 that graudally changed to a Constitutional Monarchy.
On paper Queen Margrethe II has more "power" over Denmark than the laws of Belarus officially gives Alexander Lukashenko. If you read the nations laws without knowing anything about them, you would assume Denmark was ruled by a Monarch dictator and Belarus a free democracy. Just like you would assume Denmark with its tax fonded State Religion would be more religious than USA.
like these characters art style well done vid
Can you do a video on the Start of the Second World War? I would like to see your take on it.
Isn't the UK and your native country the Netherlands still technically monarchies? Or did you mean, why don't ABSOLUTE monarchies exist? Because the map at 0:16 features absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Oman but not constitutional monarchies like the UK and your native country the Netherlands. Also, just because Sweden and Japan are democracies, doesn't mean they're aren't monarchies. One more thing I want to point out is at 18:17, the event is known as the American Revolution, not the US Revolution, and they were angry at Great Britain, not Texas.
P.S. I do like your cool animation! It's better and faster than your previous animations in your pervious videos.
I think he’s joking about Texas but you’re right his definition of a monarchy is somewhat plastic
I don't think he knows the definition of a monarchy and he uses the word "democracy" when he often means republic. It's not a great video to be frank
woah. i was just rewatching some of your videos. looks like best timing for this one too
Thank you!
I learned so much that i did not know.
Had a pretty big blank space on this period of europe.
1st of all, the king was not killed by the common people of France. That's a myth. The whole revolution got started because the nobles didn't want to accept the proposals by the king to pay more in order to deal with the debt. Then later on it was the upper class revolutionaries (it almost always is) that grabbed the king who barely put up a fight and then had him beheaded. That act didn't just send some nobles into outrage. Contrary to your false characterization, the vast majority of the common people, particularly outside of Paris, were outraged by the act, most of whom would have preferred a more limited constitutional monarchy like in Britain. From the Reign of Terror onward, France descended into multiple varying regional civil wars. Although since none became centralized, they were one by one stomped out. The French Republic's idiotic wars with europe also then forced the countryside to rally somewhat in more unity against threats as well.
2nd, scientific rationalism didn't start in the Enlightenment. Ironically enough, that's a myth perpetuated by certain enlightenment era thinkers to prop themselves up and denigrate those who came before them. Church officials, monks at the heads of monasteries, and Christians throughout Europe found no fundamental contradiction between God ordering the universe and they themselves trying to understand how that physical world functioned. The Catholic Church was in favor of this view. Believing that if God is the ultimate cause, exploring the world/universe would naturally bring one closer to understanding God's nature, despite how impossible the task would be. The goal and the endeavor itself was the admirable mission to undertake.
3rd, the Poland-lithuanian Commonwealth did have Monarchs.
The Netherlands was called an elective monarchy or crowned republic, so was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth [that the video mischaracterized] and the US has sometimes been accused of being an elective monarchy. The gossip about Poland's kings would be worthy of its own video, which should include the nobility's Liberum Veto that doomed the state. As far as the US is concerned, our founders read Locke, Hobbes and the French Philosophes. In addition they looked at the Roman and Athenian Republics as well as the Netherlands, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Holy Roman Empire and Switzerland as models. From the HRE we got the Electoral College, and from the HRE and Switzerland we got sovereign constituent states. There is speculation that the Haudenosaunee Confederation may have been part of the mix.
My state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reacted to the abolition by the Crown of our colonial parliament and town meeting local governments in 1774 by the towns raising, arming and drilling their militias. In October of 1774, the parliament rejected the Crown's attempted dissolution and went into rebellion as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. The revolutionary congress took all power formerly held by the Crown and assumed governance of every part of the state not literally under a British boot. The town meetings refused dissolution and continued meeting and sending delegates to what was, in effect, a revolutionary, proto-democratic, republican regime. That regime is still in power under the constitution that it presented to and was ratified by the town meetings in 1780. It's said to be the oldest written constitution in continuous effect [though amended].
I love history, and found this video quite entertaining and informative. If I have given you some hints for other videos, you are welcome.
What an informative video!
I do find that your colour-blob maps abit hard to decipher tbh, i hope im the only one who thinks so?
Excellent and amusing video which summaries immense changes into 30 minutes. I suppose historians will nit-pick it but let’s forget about them.
King: dang adding more people makes it more complex
Advisor: Let's just hire more people to take care of it...
King: Great Idea!
Hired People: dang, adding more people makes it more complex
Advisor: Let's just hire more people to take care of it...
Hired People: Great Idea!
This videos got a number of errors in it. You totally misrepresent Russia throughout the whole video. Russia never stopped being feudal and it’s absolutism developed separately from the rest of Europe. Later you said the Russian revolution proved the theory of Marxism correct. This is totally false. Russia was the last place Marx thought would develop communism precisely because it did not go through a change away from feudalism or any of the steps after it at all. The development of communist socialism in Russia flies completely in the face of Marxist theory. Going back you mentioned China a few times as an example. Again Chinese absolutism is completely different and can’t be compared to Europe. Also the last place Marx would have thought communism would develop for the same reasons.
On the French Revolution you described it as the farmers of France rising up and killing the monarch. This is also simply inaccurate. The French Revolution was a function of Parisian politics and reactionary revolts then erupted throughout France in favor of the monarch. Napoleon came to prominence when he played a key roll in putting down the revolts then he went on to become monarch again…
This is a smaller one but with the WWI before and after maps Germany doesn’t have the Prussian exclave and it’s shown as part of former Russia. It’s also implausible to call the Vatican an absolute monarchy.
I think the video is largely on track but gets some important details wrong that miss the nuance of the development of Democracy. It wasn’t just a straightforward process that all the people loved because the king sucked.
Pope wasnt king but monarch and rule absolute in Vatican.King always monarch but monarch cant be always king btw
Video is great, the map torture is even better
So good. Eye opening especially the Pope part.
Instead it has been widely replaced with nepotism.
Centralized government originated in Ancient Egypt actually
It’s a Eurocentric history up until he reaches decolonisation period ….so I’ll roll with it. But yes, you’re probably right
Thanks very much
Realy good and usefull video, but some maps had realy stupid mistakes. But in general pretty decent video.