3 ms·
> Historically, monarchy’s seem to be more stable and result in less open warfare. How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like ahistorical nonsense to m
by nfg 7y ago
> Historically, monarchy’s seem to be more stable and result in less open warfare.
How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like ahistorical nonsense to me.
- patentatt 7y agoWell the history of democracy is very short compared to monarchy. Let’s check back in on this in a few thousand years to see how both fare.
- Retric 7y agoPlenty of research supports this, for example this trying to find why so many new democracies result in civil wars: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20752195?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/20752195?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... By comparison England lasted from 886 to 1642 without open civil war. At the extreme Harappan civilization seems to have lasted 2,000 years without an open civil war or really any major wars.
- gamblor956 7y agoExcept for the Hundred Year War, the War of the Roses, and the many other smaller English civil wars. But yes, if you exclude all the civil wars then England had no civil wars during that time period.
- Retric 7y agoIt’s a common terminology: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_succession#Terminology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_succession#Terminolog... Hundred Year War is hardly a civil war existing as it did between multiple countries. Smaller conflicts like Buckingham's rebellion are excluded much the same ways as I ignored most of these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_Un.... Along with a host of unmentioned smaller slave revolts. The War of the Roses was is arguable if it’s a civil war. I and many others disagree (see above Wikipedia link).