Everything You Were Taught About Medieval Monarchy Is Wrong

"His subjects could just leave and settle elsewhere"

...and starve to death.

Leaving one's farm, house, crops, tools, stores of food and similar would be a major loss. They'd also be disconnected from the community they once knew and go into lands where they might speak a different dialect (or in the case of big kingdoms, their entire language), be treated with suspicion at best by locals and local lords and set out without any knowledge of where there might be work. On their aimless journeys with what few provisions they can carry, they might fall prey to Bandits. Indeed, banditry might be their only alternative to starving to death.

Leaving aside the fact that in the Middle Ages people "Knew their Place". People were born to a role (peasant, artisan, merchant, noble, king) and a desire to improve your lot or dissatisfaction with it was often seen as dangerous. Not just by Kings, Nobles and Priests, but by common folk as well. "Masterless men" who did not know their place were not to be trusted.

Also decentralization is crap. It only means that things work less efficiently. A merchant who sells their ware in towns A, B, C and D will have to navigate a convoluted mess of pointlessly different rules managing sales of common goods. Or when a dispute effects two towns.

This is why the creation of a national standard of laws is a good thing, from English Common Law to Napoleonic Law.

An extremely well done, comprehensive documentary on medieval power - should be common viewing in classrooms across the world! Historical myths must end, they serve no further purpose than to hold us back!

I'm reasonably sure that the British Empire was quite tyrannical. The whole reason the war for independence started was the exorbitant taxes the monarchy was demanding. If they weren't so greedy back then they might be much richer today and still in control of America

Great video. Wish more people saw it.

Never kill yourself ❤💛💚💙💜🤎🖤

Very good video! It's important to counter the propaganda that has painted the middle-ages and monarchy in the darkest tones while idealizing e.g. historic Delian league. Medieval monarchies weren't without fault, just as Catholicism wasn't, but the way how their modern picture has been created by lies, lies and more lies is appalling.

What about Christian Orthodoxy

As much as people harken to the Middle Ages as a violent period in human history, ironically the Renaissance eras was more brutal with more wars waged bent on total war rather than seasonal conquests. Also the video highlights Thomas Jefferson was the root of all this when it's actually the French revolutionaries (propaganda against the Ancien régime so to speak) and many of the presiding philosophers that precipitated it, of whom Jefferson was fond of like the ever-quoted Voltaire. The video had it in reverse for some odd reason.

No matter what, a system where genetic randomness decides who should rule is never good. If a god is supposed to be appointing leaders, what happened to rulers like Charles the mad, Charles II Habsburg, John Lackland, or Emperor Taisho? Monarchism is the flat earth theory of politics. Only system more backwards than monarchism would be any kind of anarchism.

For every great king or tyrant, there are probably hundreds of kings who did their jobs and died quietly after a long, peaceful tenure on the throne.

Society of Private Laws

Just play Crusader Kings, you will quickly learn that every vassal of yours is a bastard and wants your demise. Then play EU4 and try to deal with estates.

Truth is we only really learn about the “Great” and “Evil” kings.
The kings that just did a half decent job, reigned over a peaceful and prosperous era become a timy footnote to his demonicly possessed inbred heir that tried to turn the Kingdom pagan again. Because like now, the history care most about is the one with the flare for the dramatic.
There are hundreds of monarchs we know existed you’ve never even heard of. I mean most people only know of 3 King Louis’s but given the number you know there were far more.

How many good kings went unremembered because they rules over peaceful and boring times, which should be the goal.
But we remember the conquerers and the Nero’s, not the Henry the 3rd’s.

I never thought the version of monarchy i was thinking up for my world building accidentally turned out to be historically accurate.

The Renaissance and Enlightenment and its consequences have been a disaster for Western Civilization

F for kings who did not sit idle back in their seat but fought their own battles riskimg their own damn lives

If you say Aqueeenis one more time im gonna lose it

Man, we had some of the greatest Kings in history, now we have politicians...

This is legitimately might be the best system for human rule

I think many people also underestimate just how big of a role the pope played in keeping the nobility in check.

After the 10th century, peasants became serfs and got tied to the land by their rulers. At that point, they had no way of resisting injustice and the medieval government was not much better than a mafia gang who extorted protection money from its serfs. It was a system halfway between autocracy and oligarchy, enshrined in "sacred" law. These videos only serve to try to muddle the waters and confuse gullible people.

If learning history tought me anything is how bullied were medieval kings by their nobility. It was so bad it lead destruction of some kingdoms like Poland and Hungry, Georgia

It truly is weird how blurred the lines between early modern and medieval societies have become. More must be done to show the clear differences between these periods.

This is why CK players know to max the demense limit, build tall in the crown lands, and provoke calculated rebellions against rising vassals. To build a power base while slowly changing laws, customs, and traditions to EVENTUALLY increase your control and influence in the hopes of becoming an absolute monarch xD

The federal government and President has more control and power than a medieval king lol...

I personally think what is missing from modern society is the government not having a "if we do this someone is going to try and kill us" consideration

Good video. Even if I haven't done the reading sources put you first beyond the others.

I never knew that Matt Walsh was an African tribal chief.

Jews misrepresenting monarchy, as ever.

You know bro is well-read from a few mispronunciations, which I think is awesome.

Democracy was such a wonderful idea
The rich and elite rape the land and destroy traditions and when people complain they blame the people

Lol

The only real kind nowaday is Lord Gaben, righteous King of the gaming realm

As time goes on i wont the return of monarchy even more

I always love foreigners trying to explain how our revolution started. At no point did Jefferson make it about Catholicism. He rejected Papacy just like the vast majority of Americans at the time.

I'm friends with that guy on Facebook

I think you need to revise your pronounciation of 'Thomas'

Really? No, it is not, what they were is infinitely worse: those vile evil fools blackmailed their own kids into marriages as part of the job- that kind of societal echelon can only be ever found in Hell!
Monarchs, and all aristocrats by extension, really are pure evil due to their social placing! And a huge element that backs that up is the records of the Church- it'd not have come up had that not been going on!
What those kinds of societies are really is Hell! Pure and simple, and theirs was a special kind, as it was primarily *domestic*!

It seems that the misconceptions of monarchy were promoted by the merchants.

I wonder who is that king in that thumbnail?

But Game of Thrones told me that most kings were either power-hungry, sadistic psychopaths or fat, lazy, disconnected old men, and that the Throne doesn't really have any power. WAAA!! DON'T LET THE BIG BAD MONARCH GET ME, DADDY GOVERNMENT!! 👶😭

My problem with this line of argument is that this is applicable to any social hierarchy. Power exists only so long as people believe it does. If you question power in an authoritarian state your only tool is a rebellion. In a democracy your tool can be a rebellion too, but there is a peaceful way to resolve the issue as well, voting for somebody else or running in an election.

What's the point of living in a democracy if you can't even tell if it's working properly or not?

Most people seem to either think it's not working "properly" or just assume that it is and ask no questions. Either way the politicians remain unaccountable.

,

The oligarchs who run the West want us to believe in contradictory positions. A King or Queen is bound by their subjects, they must have their support. After the fall of Rome everyone agreed a Sovereign was necessary to prevent the rich from ruling over the land, it is only in recent times with war and ignorance that Governmental or rich rule has been able to re-emerge and we see the same problems caused by the system that occured in ancient greece and Rome. Classism is inherent to human beings and those outside of whatever class their in people have a tendency to not look at or care about causing revolutions over time in Government only structures as the wealthy which control it create conditions that the lower large class which grows over time end of not be able to tolerate as they get worse and worse. What the American founders chose to do was have multiple Sovereign Governments which equal a Sovereign over the land, some still wanted that but the central figure being a President and not a King is what was accepted by the people after 1820 when the Federalist party dissolved. Multiple Sovereignties united = a singe Sovereign.

I think that this conversation ends and establishes itself in the realm of philosophy and theology; once usage of terms like "good, bad, better, worse, etc", or even words themselves, are present. We are in no capacity of discussion unless our paradigm is examined, compared and set. Therefore, I feel that further conversations regarding political administration will only finish (hopefully, if it's productive) in the active discussion of paradigm level philosophy, which I don't think these videos get there particularly. Those preassumptions need to be assesed before we get specific on how to "correct things for the better", which in it of itself, is a phrase packed with philosophical baggage which we just assume as a given

So everyone could just afford to up and move as soon as they felt like it? Being too poor to move your entire family and your stuff didn't exist yet...