Willingness to be attacked by mummies, endure curses, be first in line for spike traps, rolling boulders, swinging blades etc

How did the early merovingians devide their territory, before the 'pagi (shire)' and 'county' systems ?

[removed]

[removed]

Sorry, I was just jokingly trying to revive the old controversy of the dress that nobody could agree the colour of from a few years back.

>Were there "last minute attacks" at the end of WW1, as seen in the new "All quiet on Western front",

There were some last minute attacks, but not as seen in the film, which is not historical. The Germans at that point in the war were incapable of offensive action, paralysed by lack of supplies and ammunition, with shockingly low morale and poor unit cohesion. There were British, French, and American attacks right up until the armistice took effect, in order to ensure that the Germans did not manage to gain a secure, sound defensive position and simply wait the armistice out, gathering their strength.

>Or in any other war, how common was attacking after the peace was signed,

The armistice was not a peace treaty, merely a kind of ceasefire. That was the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn't signed until 1919.

[removed]

What are some more recently discovered myths/legends from bygone pantheons?

Were there "last minute attacks" at the end of WW1, as seen in the new "All quiet on Western front", or was it just dramatic ending for the movie?

Or in any other war, how common was attacking after the peace was signed, but not yet in effect?

Sometimes it's not the question of who your father is, but who back your claim to the throne. Kings and princes always need to form personal connection with nobles in the court to gain their support in matters of the state, and in return award them with title, land and power. As long as you manage to keep the close circle happy they have no reason to rebel against you, and they'll put their trust on your heir to honor this system. Not to say the status quo can't be changed; rebellion and usurpation happened all the times even in countries with long hereditary tradition. When the nobles dissatisfy with their monarch and see some other person, or other political system, as a better alternative, they're willingly to revolt (look at the English Civil Wars and Glorious Revolution as examples).

When and where?

>But the older I get, the more skeptical I am that the social class just below the monarch would blindly subject themselves to the monarch's authority for the sake of upholding tradition.

They never did. The nobility had no problem revolting or disobeying in states that were often sorely lacking in centralisation; Magna Carta was practically signed at swordpoint for instance, by King John, who was compelled to do so by a bunch of rebellious nobility.

You are not talking about a modern state where we all reluctantly agree to elect a leader, and that leader wields vast power we have no access to. You're talking about a tiny minority who already has an enormous amount of power (physical, financial, political, social, etc) being kept somewhat in line by constant application of power-sharing agreements and marriages, competition, open violence and threats, gifts of land, money, and so on.

It's important to remember three things:

1. Historical democracy was generally diffrent from modern versions, being either exclusively available to aristocrats, or heavily weighed in their favor; and violence was pretty much always an option for deciding disputes if voting didn't go so well. As such, the difference between a kingdom with democratic elements and one without was often more academic than practical.

2. Historical democracies often gave way to autocracy: Rome most obviously, but even Athens ended up becoming more of an argument against Democracy than for it given the wars it lost to autocrats.

3. Democratic impulses aren't always obvious: China might not have voted for emperors or bureaucrats, but the idea of the public overthrowing non-virtuous ones is at least as old as Mencius (300 BC,) and massive popular revolts are a common theme in Chinese history. It may not be conventional, but then, western democracy was also built on incompetent autocrats getting overthrown by the people doing the actual work, so most of the world may just have never gotten the chance to do this once Europe started playing king maker.

As to why western democracy emerged and ultimately dominated, there are probably as many theories as historians, and the effect of trade is certainly a major one, but so is the branching effect of gunpowder coming to dominate warfare. There isn't really a simplified answer.

[removed]

See the silver lines? That's the silver

>King of England

Did you mean the King of the United Kingdom, the King of Canada, the King of Australia, etc?

The last King of England was William III whose successor Anne, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of Queen/King of England.

####FAQ

Isn't King Charles III still also the King of England?

This is only as correct as calling him the King of London or King of Hull; he is the King of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.

Is this bot monarchist?

No, just pedantic.

I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.

[deleted]

Who Would win Sun Jian or Leonidas?

The democratic tradition in antiquity is hugely overblown.

Athens of course being the prime example of a democracy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with democracy as we know it today. It’s a democracy based on privilege and wealth.

Same goes for Rome’s Res Publica, which was never a democracy. Just because something was a republic does not mean it’s democratic, and obviously Rome developed to an extremely autocratic state.

I’d argue it’s easier for civilizations to expand fast when connected to rivers. The larger a civilization the sooner it’s autocratic.

chicken and cow use dolphin and whale as a scapegoat!? This is outrage!

Germany was in dire shortage of much required for nuclear weapons. Nazi Germany had no uranium mines while the US could import what it needed from as far away as Australia.

Even having a nuclear weapon might not mean much without a delivery system. Nazi Germany never had a heavy bomber like the US. The Luftwaffe surprisingly didn't even have fuel drop tanks to maximize the range of its planes.

> how did hereditary monarchs actually hold on to power?

Divinity might help. When the king is seen as a god or chosen by god/gods, it validates his power to everyone. If the autocracy/nobility also derives their power and privileges on the same basis they have little interest in challenging the system.

I mean if it isn't already destroyed by the Americans while they try to kill innocent people.

Everyone wants their kids to have a good life. If I have to support the King's son becoming King if it means my son will replace me as Duke, so be it. At least, that's how I've always thought of it. The nobles want to uphold the status quo and the peasants don't really get a say. Plus, propaganda.

Hopefully the local militias won’t blow up this one , those guys must of hated history class