Why were people so infatuated with kings before the Enlightenment? Even the many noble and peasant revolts that happened still held the monarchy as sa...


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Why were people so infatuated with kings before the Enlightenment? Even the many noble and peasant revolts that happened still held the monarchy as sacrosanct. Why were they so rigid in their thinking?

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because that’s all the knew. They grew up their whole lives with the idea that there has to be a king and that God himself has anointed the king. Can’t really blame uneducated peasants for not being able to come up with liberal democracy.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      There weren't a whole lot of peasant revolts, and even the noble ones rarely wanted to actually depose the king; that would have been sacrilege. You two can't understand it because you're either atheists, or have been heavily influenced by secularism, but a king is—ideally—supposed to possess a quality of semi-divinity that sets him apart from other men, and makes him fit to act as God's viceroy on this Earth.

      It's true that not every king met this criteria, but enough did that it didn't sufficiently damage the mystique of the monarchy. That is, until the unfortunate events of the last 350 years or so.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody swallowed that BS, the state of communication before the printing press ment people were low IQ and found it better to follow orders

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Like I said, you're a spiritually dead person, so you can't understand how normal people thought for all of human history until very recently. It's one thing to disagree with their worldview, but another thing entirely to arrogantly insist that they actually thought like you just because you're too lazy to read about history. Embarrassing stuff. I guess that's why they wrote all of those theological works at the time, because nobody believed in them, clearly.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            People who cant read or write(90% of the population) arnt thinking about creating republics-they are concentrating on surviving.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        imagine falling for propaganda from the middle ages?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Never in ten thousand years could you offer even a single argument that would begin to challenge anything I wrote. At best, you could mindlessly repeat the unfalsifiable dogma that matter is the only reality.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            check out that grandiose narcissism
            probably rich parents

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but if you're a yeoman in England, you are a skilled tradie with probably a humble bit of land or income. Pay your tax and you are a free man. The system isn't too bad for the "middle class" at this point. Also you can just leave the country.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Also you can just leave the country.
        Free to leave, but not free to entry any other country

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure pilgrims went to Holland before America.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    They actually had to risk their life on the battlefield to keep their status for some period of the time.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      But it's not like they were alone. There were lots of other nobles, knights, men-at-arms, yeomen, mercenaries, and militia fighting upon the battlefield as well. Seems odd that the vast majority of them didn't think it odd that only a select few got to be involved in the governing process.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >only a select few got to be involved in the governing process.
        It was ever thus.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Humanity was made to need a leader.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's the natural state of mankind

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      False. The natural state of mankind is communal hunter-gatherers.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The natural state of mankind is communal hunter-gatherers.
        Except it's not since natural selection have made chiefs and kings survive while communal societies haven't

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          And then natural selection eliminated monarchies in favor of republics.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Republics which are led by elites and only pretending to be inclusive of the whole population

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Opinions are not facts

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not an argument

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't matter, still republics.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Doesn't matter, still republics.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Simping for them made dying in wars more enjoyable

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    is that actually true, OP? or are you posing it as a question to hide the fact that you are making shit up? did peasants even know who the king was?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      His name was on the coins

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        did peasants even have money?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          If they sold a goat they did

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's natural, like an instinct

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seems more natural to want to have power for yourself

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No. The overwhelming majority of the population will never have any serious participation in government. Even if any democracies actually existed today, one man's vote would mean nothing whatsoever. All democracy does is increase the number of rulers you have. Unless you are a king, you will never have any power, and most men were quite wise to this reality until recently. Because why would they want they power? Only the most rapacious fools do.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Because why would they want they power? Only the most rapacious fools do.
          Well I'd rather be amongst the rapacious fools in power than let a rapacious fool rule over me unopposed.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is a good working system, thats why. When you read your old greeks you will find that even then they argued FOR kings more often than not because their reign often was less violent, less turbulent and more peacefull than a republic. Even rome, most of its expansion was in republic times since it was a great way for a politician to get honor.
    Or look at what the countries got that replaced their kings with communism. They just got more violence and suffering.

    The average peasant wants security and to be left alone mostly. Monarchy provided that.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      So it could be said then that monarchy is good for peace, and republicanism is good for war.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is some human desire to idolize other humans

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *