Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong 

I'm so glad i live in democracy, where I am ruled by rich bankers.....

Everyone who played Crusader Kings will understand that the king doesn't rule alone. He has to maintain relationships with both nobles and commoners.

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.

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.

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.

I mean people back then call bad monarchs "charles the fat" "peppin the short" and plain old "john the bad"

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.

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.

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.

middle ages is when blue/gray filter on >90%

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.

Maybe one day in the future, people will look at our modern democracies and think that they were backward and oppressive as well.

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.

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.

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)

Foreshadowing.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Medieval Era is bad!" "Said the slave owning aristocrat."

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

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'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

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.

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.

Steam is the prime example of what you get when you have a good, benevolent 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.

A king was more a “steward of the realm, acting on the authority of Jesus the Christ”

Most Medieval Monarchs were absolutely Based ngl.

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.

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.

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.

funny baltic man singlehandly converting generations into monarchist

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!

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?

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.

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

The truth is Redditors and Twitch streamers eat and live better than 99.9% of medieval kings lived. That’s a fact jack

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.

Lavader: yo can i copy your homework Pax tube: yeah sure just change it up a bit so it dosent look to obvious

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.

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😄 🎉

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.

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

a community of monarchists acting like they are the protectors of the people

Honestly, is this not the case for every historical period before the second world war?

The Mount and blade series (especially Mount and Blade Warband) displays this perfectly.

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

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?

(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.

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’”

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?

MONARCHISHIM IS BACK IN FASHION BABY !!

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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

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.