Genghis being an autist as always.

You didn't refute my counter argument Major Sweden.

St. Brice's was against foreigners in the English lands, not the king's own people, Smedley. The "awful" monarchs of Germany were only because there was no single powerful monarch or an organized aristocracy.

+1 PE

Edited 5/31/2016 21:20:37

You let them in your lands and take taxes from them, they are settlers yes, but they are your folk.

Yes and what happened when the monarchs (who killed over 11 million in the span of thirty years in the 1600s) were replaced with a centralized monarchy? WW1.

A well-regulated monarchy with some restrictions seems to be the best form of government. Democracy is plagued with lobbyists and huge corporations that can sway the peoples' vote on a whim. The majority of the population is not educated enough to vote. A monarch and a group of aristocrats, voted in by highly educated, property owning individuals, would defend personal liberty more than a democratic form of government.

An aristocracy would eliminate corruption in the government. If already wealthy people held power, they would not be enticed by lobbyists or bribes, they stand to gain nothing from betraying their people just to get a little extra money.

A monarch would be educated their whole life on how to rule, and royal family would ideally being (genetically) intelligent and fit to rule. A monarchy also has the benefit of knowing who is next in line for power, so power struggles are limited.

And Smedley you're wrong, and beginning to sound retarded. Kings have been historically better rulers than non-monarch dictators. There are a few bad examples as with any form of government. No system is perfect but a monarchy is the best system for preserving personal libert.

WW1 happened because of English and French greed. Also not seeing a citation for the 11 million figure. Also +1 Nitr01

Edited 5/31/2016 21:45:58

Stop being dumb, the monarchs or history weren't benevolent rulers as you like to paint them. They waged war, taxed heavily, and gave handouts to their friends.

Now what is the verdict on kings by someone who lived in a time filled with them?

“kings are carnivorous, rapacious, a brigand, a destroyer, solitary, hated by all, a pest to all…”

Edited 6/1/2016 00:31:45

Stop being retards

Wow MGSB, we're like, in sync <3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

The estimate is between eight million and eleven million for this war ,started by the monarchs of Germany.

''They waged war, taxed heavily, and gave handouts to their friends.''

Sounds like some presidents I know....Also sounds like Churchill. But you'll just continue with your cherry picking.

Fuck monarchy. Monarchy caused the Great Famine here in Ireland.

Kek cherrypicking wars again I see. Wars have nothing to do with system of governance.

Lol now you're blaming a form of governance for the individual actions of some people. Well if we're going to be that retarded then republics are responsible for the 9 million German civilian casualties following ww2.

^ wars. no hundreds of years of oppression under a monarchy.

lol no citation.

Kek, I see you can't find the connection between monarchs constantly fighting and them being rich monarchs ,who have never had to fight, or actually work, so they dedicate their careers to destroying and fighting.

>implying monarchs didn't fight with their men
>Who are Richard the Lionheart and Emperor Maximillian of Mexico
>Who are countless others I can't think of because I don't waste time studying individuals.

Is this the right time to say "this is khancer"?

The vast majority of monarchs either piggy backed off of real generals, or stayed back and let them do as they want. Either way, they would not take lives with their hands the majority of the time.