absolute monarch

I forgot to mention it in the flurry of last night but I wanted to take a moment now to point out just what a PISS POOR writer Ann Coulter is. Let’s look at this quote again:

There are dozens of words that would be better to use than “sneering” and “catcalling.” Sneering is not a behavior that mobs are known for; I suspect she meant to say “jeering.” And while “catcalling” does have the larger meaning of heckling or taunting, it seems like a really, really poor choice of words in this case. And now I want a comic of Louis XVI (in a CARRIAGE, though, not in a cart as Coulter incorrectly claims) being “catcalled” by the bloodthirsty mob. “Hey citizen Capet, I’ll let you be my absolute monarch IN THE SACK!”

anonymous asked:

What bothers me a lot about dorito fans claiming her “kween” and “the rightful ruler” is that she never do an actual job as a queen? I never saw her holding a paper and a quill, all she does is ride drogon and yell “dracarys”. Tell me again how is the “queen”. At least Cersei did her job!

Exactly, Cersei may not be the best candidate but she does know a thing or two about ruling, although she’s definitely straying from that after her whole wildfire act. Still, it irks me to see Dany stans say she deserves the Iron Throne. You could argue that it wouldn’t matter considering the past rulers we’ve seen managed to keep the realm considerably stable with the help of their counsel but wouldn’t that further reinforce the notion that Dany does not know a thing about ruling by herself? Even Joffrey faced backlash from the people in S2E06, the only difference is he didn’t have the dragons to intimidate people to think twice. What makes her worthy of the throne then? Her gentle heart? Tommen had a gentle heart, he still managed to be manipulated and lost the one thing that mattered to him, driving him to suicide in the process.

Speaking of Tommen, let’s examine the exchange he had with Tywin:

Tommen: “Wisdom makes a good king.”

Tywin: “Yes, but what is Wisdom? […] A wise king knows what he knows and what he doesn’t. You’re young. A wise young king listens to his counselors and heeds their advice until he comes of age. And the wisest kings continue to listen to them long afterwards.”

Preceding the exchange in S4E07 above, Tommen explores ideas of holiness, justness, and strength before finally concluding that “Wisdom makes a good king.” So let’s dissect this further:

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Can we please discuss the possibility/probability of the Targaryen Restoration? The story started off with almost the extinction of House Targaryen. I’m starting to get excited with the way the story is headed as we race towards the end.

I think it’s pretty likely because of historical parallels! This isn’t to say that I think that Jon and Dany will both live, or that things will proceed happily ever after, but I do think we could see the beginning of a new era for Westeros in the form of a new Targaryen dynasty. 

Westeros is clearly in many ways analogous to Britain. If we look at distant British history, the isle of Great Britain was once several warring factions, and  was finally united into one kingdom in 924 A.D. by King Æthelstan, essentially the first king of England (notice the æ–much like “ae,” a staple in Targaryen names). 

There were seven different Anglo-Saxon factions before Æthelstan’s unification, and this was called the Heptarchy. But in the tenth century, he brought them all together as one, much like Aegon Targaryen when he landed in Westeros.

But the work Æthelstan started wasn’t really finished until the Norman invasion in 1066, which is widely recognized as the beginning of England as the country it is today. The Norman invasion was led by “William the Conqueror” (see: Aegon the Conqueror!). William of Normandy was a descendant of Norman royalty but had to fight for six years to establish peace in Normandy (much like Daenerys taking six years to establish peace and freedom in Essos) before sailing to the British Isles to make his claim. 

So we can see clear parallels here, but there are far more in the actual timeline of ASOIAF/GOT. Our principle story parallels the Wars of the Roses between the rival British noble houses, the Yorks and the Lancasters. On the Lancaster side, Margaret of Anjou was married to the weak King Henry VI, and essentially ruled the country through him by proxy. She is clearly represented by Cersei Lannister, who swayed the drunk and disinterested Robert Baratheon during his reign. To further the parallel, the Lancaster colors were red, just like the Lannisters. 

The Lancaster rivals were the Yorks, and Margaret’s main adversary was the king’s closest advisor, Richard of York–represented in our series by Ned Stark. The York’s house color was white, like the Stark’s grey/white direwolf sigil. 

The two warring factions fought viciously for years and after Henry VI’s death, he was followed by a string of temporary rulers (see: Joffrey, Tommen, etc) and a tumultuous political climate for England. 

Eventually, Henry Tudor, a man with ties to the Lancaster family and thus a claim, sailed for Britain (much like Daenerys sailed for Westeros) and married Elizabeth of House York (we can tie this to Dany’s union with Jon–who everyone believes is a Stark). Their union established a new family, ending the York/Lancaster (Stark/Lannister) conflict and launching the Tudor (Targaryen?) dynasty.

So I think that based on this, it’s highly probable that Jon and Dany will helm a Targaryen restoration. But all of that hinges on ASOIAF/GOT upholding instead of overthrowing “happy ending” style tropes, so I’m not holding my breath. 

But if anything, I think it’s possible that the “wheel” will still be broken and that Jon and Dany will not rule on the Iron Throne, and will not rule all Seven Kingdoms as absolute monarchs. Instead, each kingdom will have representatives in a sort of parliament-style, almost representational democracy. Jon and Dany will be at the top as figureheads but also as heads of state ensuring that their egalitarian values are enforced throughout the Seven Kingdoms. After all, if Westeros = Britain, Britain is literally the “United Kingdoms,” and England, Scotland, and Wales, were still distinct territories of their own, ruled by the British monarchy. 

Anyway, Jon’s and Dany’s reign would be sustained through peaceful means and negotiations, not fear. After all, we’re supposed to believe they are different sorts of rulers. So I personally think that part of the “bittersweet” ending will be the loss of the dragons. Jon and Dany might still be able to continue on, but they will have to do so on their own merits, without the power and political clout that comes with super weapons like the dragons. Together they start a new age for Westeros, a Targaryen dynasty much more progressive than Aegon’s but just as solid and unified (probably even more unified–with Dornish cooperation).

anonymous asked:

SomethingLikeALawyer, when you say that Daenerys doesn't deserve to survive or succeed, what exactly are you talking about? Her behaviour so far in books, or something else? Thanks (:

grottoofregrets: What has Daenerys done that’s so terrible that you say that she doesn’t deserve to survive or succeed, and even hope that she dies?

lesmotsincompris: I second the question about Daenerys. I don’t want to see her sitting the Iron Thrones, but why you think she doesn’t deserve to succeed or survive?

Alright, I know since I said it, I was going to have to elaborate on it. So here it is, why I don’t like Daenerys, why I don’t think she’s a good queen, and why I wouldn’t want her to rule Westeros. I’ll warn you already that a lot of this bases on my own value system, so you might (and many of you probably won’t) agree with some or all of my rationale. So anyway, here we go:

Daenerys does not value her word, nor does she see her obligations as binding. This is disastrous for any political leader, but especially for one looking to rule under feudalism. Under feudalism, the feudal contract and the vassal-overlord relationship are key, and both must be abided by. Daenerys proved at Astapor that she is willing to enter into bargains that she has no intent of fulfilling, when she dealt with Kraznys. She identifies the Dothraki as her people, accepts and acts with the power of a khaleesi (even authorizing Viserys’s execution), yet as soon as the position requires her to do something she does not desire, she abandons the responsibility most handily. As a potential feudal vassal, this would concern me. Feudalism’s basic premise is that your forsake autonomy in exchange for protection. If Daenerys does not see her oaths to me as binding, how am I to rest easy if I am under attack and require her to fulfill her end of the bargain? If she enters into arrangements in deliberate bad faith, how am I to feel comfortable that she has any intent of honoring them? Will she take my troops to fight her wars and not defend my lands? Will she take my taxes but snatch up holdings in my fief to please some other vassal? If I am not a vassal, but a foreign power, this still looms large. Will she abide by peace or economic treaties? Is she receiving me in her court to discuss matters of diplomacy only to execute me? There’s always an uncertainty when dealing with an arbitrary ruler that erodes faith in the monarch, and that is something I strongly condemn in leaders of government.

Daenerys confuses justice with vengeance, which is something that I’ve talked about at length in this tumblr ask. She approaches justice completely arbitrarily, rendering verdicts out of a desire to satisfy the self rather than uphold a unified form of law. We see this when she crucifies the 163 Great Masters without finding out who was responsible for the crime, not even a cursory examination. Her inner thoughts are revealed in this chapter, and we see her weak rationalization. Crimes have to be punished, so she thinks, but she already confesses that her reason for doing that was to make her feel better for being unable to protect the 163 children crucified along the wayposts. This is wrong. The offices of government, especially in the execution of justice, aren’t vectors to satisfy the ego of the person in charge. Crime and punishment is a serious thing, and it cannot be treated as a bandage for wounded pride. Daenerys is deliberately misusing her office and duties for self-gratification. We finally see this at the end of A Dance With Dragons, where Daenerys fully embraces the mantra that dragons plant no trees. She does not desire to bring stability, peace, or growth either to Westeros or to Meereen. She wants to hurt the people who made her powerless. She wants to kill the ones who shattered her ego, by forcing her to compromise, by evicting her family from Westeros, one and all. It’s that cycle of vengeance I’ve talked about all over again. She’s lost any high-minded concept she may have had. She wants her opponents to suffer so she can feel like the glorious queen she imagines herself to be.

Daenerys confuses her office as a queen with herself as a person. This is evidenced most clearly when she deals with the wineseller and his daughters. She authorizes torture for information, which is barbaric on its own, but for the time period, I can’t criticize it as much as I would. Torture for information important to the state was a standard practice, as we see with Tyland Lannister and the position of the Lord Confessor. As disgusting at that practice is (not to mention that empirical research indicates that torture simply doesn’t yield accurate data, which Martin hints at numerous times throughout the novel series), the characters of the setting understand it as a standard practice of government. What I can criticize, however, is that she authorizes torture because she finds out that Rylona Rhee, a harpist she was particularly fond of and a leader of a former-slave committee. She is not acting in respects to the murder, nor is she acting out of doing so because the victim was an agent of the state (the Unsullied are actors of the state, and she refused to authorize the Shavepate’s torture when she learned there were Unsullied among the victims). She only authorizes the torture because she personally knew the victim. Impartiality is a key component of justice, and if a judge cannot be impartial, I cannot have faith in justice. We see this also when she judges Jorah and Barristan for collaborating with Robert’s court. She considers both equally guilty of the same crime, but she pardons Barristan and exiles Jorah not because of their crimes, but because she felt Jorah was not contrite enough. Had she judged Jorah’s crime more severely, because his information led to her attempted assassination, that would be one thing, but we clearly see in her chapters that she was angry that he did not immediately beg for forgiveness. She sees the state as the extension of herself and cannot separate the two, thus her judgment must always be called into question. I cannot have faith in the judgment of the monarch if I can reasonably expect her to judge differently based on her own personal investment in the case. Corruption of the court is the reason why King Jaehaerys I abolished the Faith’s right to conduct trials, and Daenerys’s judgment is equally corrupt and impure. Even Henry VIII, bloody-handed tyrant that he was, said he was not above the law. Dany, however, views her personal desires and opinions as superior to the law, and I cannot respect nor swear fealty to a monarch who does such a thing.

Daenerys is a petty, arbitrary tyrant exemplifying some of the worst traits a monarch can have. She views monarchy primarily as a sense of self-gratification, that only her own desires matter (damn what anyone else thinks), and that’s what’s good for her ego is good for the state. She abandons her obligations when they inconvenience her, and now justifies further destruction of the innocent and guilty alike because the throne belongs to her. There’s no high-minded concept here, just: “I deserve to be queen.” The notion that there are limits to a king’s power, the notion that a king who violates his lordly obligations and the social contract is no true king, all of the faults that Robert’s Rebellion addressed, go away under a Targaryen restoration spearheaded by Daenerys. In their place, Daenerys leaves the idea that the state exists wholly with the selfish whims of an absolute monarch, one who believes that guilt and innocence are secondary to feeling powerful and dominating all dissenters, and one who believes that lordly obligations are second to personal satisfaction. Daenerys’s ascension means that Robert’s Rebellion was wrong, that the Targaryens are answerable to no man or justice. Westeros needs a monarch who will treat the position with the gravity and honor that the position deserves, and respect the heavy burden that it requires. All of the people who labored to make Westeros a better government, Jaehaerys I, Good Queen Alysanne, Septon Barth, Viserys II, Aegon V, Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark, Davos Seaworth, all of them, deserve to have their efforts pay off.

Thanks for the question Grotto, Compris, and all of the Anons who were waiting patiently for an answer to this.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King


–> anonymous asked: top eight favorite overlooked or forgotten historical figures?

Hephaestion Amyntoros: lifelong friend of Alexander the Great and distinguished general of the Macedonian army, diplomat in Asia during the campaign, Chiliarch of the Empire, he also corresponded with the philosophers Aristotle and Xenocrates and actively supported Alexander’s attempts to integrate the Greeks and Persians.

Anne of Brittany: last Sovereign Duchess of Brittany and twice anointed Queen consort of France (1491-1498 and 1499-1514), she was a central figure in the struggle for influence that led to the union of Brittany and France. She is highly regarded in Brittany as a conscientious ruler who defended the Duchy - the safeguarding of Breton autonomy and the preservation of the Duchy outside the French crown being her life’s work.

Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk: lifelong friend of Henry VIII, courtier and general, he married for love Mary Tudor in 1515, risking his head in the process and losing the royal favor temporary. Much appreciated at court, he spent his life as a trusted and beloved courtier to the king, who payed for his burial in 1545.

Mary Tudor, Queen of France: sister to Henry VIII, she became the third wife of Louis XII of France in 1514. At his death in 1515, she married Charles Brandon for love, against the wishes of her brother and his council. The couple were eventually pardoned, after having paid a heavy fine. She was the maternal grandmother of Lady Jane Grey.

Anne of Cleves: fourth wife of Henry VIII whose marriage was annulled, she was afterwards refereed to as the King’s Beloved Sister. She lived to see the coronation of Mary I, outliving the rest of Henry’s wives.

Mary I of England: first queen regnant of England, she wielded the full powers of a king and paved the way for her female successors. She is mostly remembered for her restoration of Roman Catholicism and her unpopularity at the time of her death.

Gustav II Adolf, or Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden: credited as the founder of Sweden as a Great Power, he led Sweden to military supremacy during the Thirty Years War and is often regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time.

Louis XIII of France: one of the first examples of an absolute monarch, he relied heavily on his chief ministers (Charles d'Albert, duc de Luynes and Cardinal Richelieu) to govern the kingdom, ended the revolt of the French nobility, as well as successfully intervened in the Thirty Years’ War against the Habsburgs.

Zora Race

Subraces split between the classical river zora from anything pre-ocarina of time and link between worlds and the sea zora more prominent in games post-ocarina, could probably make for good rangers and warlocks. I was originally thinking of just reflavoring triton for the theoretical campaign but a lot of their traits weren’t very fitting for river zora or zora in general.

Keep reading



Ok so first this may seem scary but here are key terms and comprehensive definitions taken tom R.E.A’s AP Euro Crash Course edition book… so ya look at these and make sure you know at LEAST vaguely what each one means. Just for more credit they are literally verbatim from the R.E.A. book. No credit to me.

Key Terms—you have to know these

a.       Europe in Transition, 1450-1650

  1. Humanism: The scholarly interest in the study of the classical texts, values, and styles of Greece and Rome. Humanism contributed to the promotion of a liberal arts education based on the study of the classics, rhetoric, and history.
  2. Christian Humanism: A branch of humanism associated with northern Europe. Like their Italian counterparts, the Christian Humanists closely studied classical texts. However, they also sought to give humanism a specifically Christian content. Christian humanists like Desiderius Erasmus were committed to religious piety and institutional reform.
  3. Vernacular: The everyday language of a region or country. Miguel de Cervantes, Geoffrey Chaucer, Dante, and Martin Luther all encouraged the development of their national languages by writing in the vernacular. Desiderius Erasmus, however, continued to write in Latin.
  4. New Monarchs: European monarchs who created professional armies and a more centralized administrative bureaucracy. The new monarchs also negotiated a new relationship with the Catholic Church. Key new monarchs include Charles VII, Louis XI, Henry VII, and Ferdinand and Isabella.
  5. Taille: A direct tax on the French peasantry. The taille was one of the most important sources of income for French monarchs until the French Revolution.
  6. Reconquista: The centuries-long Christian “reconquest” of Spain from the Muslims. The Reconquista culminated in 1492 with the conquest of the last Muslin stronghold, Granada.
  7. Indulgence: A certificate granted by the pope in return for the payment of a fee to the church. The certificate stated that the soul of the dead relative or friend of the purchaser would have his time in purgatory reduced by many years or cancelled altogether.
  8. Anabaptist: Protestants who insisted that only adult baptism conformed to Scripture. Protestant and Catholic leaders condemned Anabaptists for advocating the complete separation of Church and State.
  9. Predestination: Doctrine espoused by John Calvin that Gad has known since the beginning of time who will be saved and who will be damned. Calvin declared that “by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once and for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction.”
  10. Huguenots: French Protestants who followed the teachings of John Calvin.
  11. Politiques: Rulers who put political necessities above personal beliefs. For example, both Henry IV of France and Elizabeth I of England subordinated theological controversies in order to achieve political unity.
  12. Columbian Exchange: The interchange of plants, animals, diseases, and human populations between the Old World and the New World.
  13. Mercantilism: Economic philosophy calling for close government regulation of the economy. Mercantilist theory emphasized building a strong, self-sufficient economy by maximizing exports and limiting imports. Mercantilists supported the acquisition of colonies as sources of raw materials and markets for finished goods. The favorable balance of trade would enable a country to accumulate reserves of gold and silver.
  14. Putting-Out System: A pre-industrial manufacturing system in which an entrepreneur would bring materials to rural people who worked on them in their own homes. For example, watch manufacturers in Swiss towns employed villagers to make parts for their products. The system enabled entrepreneurs to avoid restrictive guild regulations.
  15. Joint-Stock Company: A business arrangement in which many investors raise money for a venture too large for any of them to undertake alone. They share profits in proportion to the amount they invest. English entrepreneurs used joint-stock companies to finance the establishment of New World colonies.

    b.       The Age of Kings, 1600-1789

  16. Absolutism: A system of government in which the ruler claims sole and uncontestable power. Absolute monarchs were not limited by constitutional restraints.
  17. Divine Rights of Kings: The idea that rulers receive their authority from God and are answerable only to God. Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, a French bishop and court preacher to Louis XIV, provided theological justification for the divine right of kings by declaring that “the state of monarchy is the supremest thing on Earth, for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon Earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself are called Gods. In the scriptures kings are called Gods, and their power is compared to the divine powers.”
  18. Intendants: French royal officials who supervised provincial governments in the name of the king. Intendants played a key role in establishing French absolutism.
  19. Fronde: A series of rebellions against royal authority in France between 1649 and 1652. The Fronde played a key role in Louis XIV’s decision to leave Paris and build the Versailles Palace.
  20. Robot: A system of forced labor used in eastern Europe. Peasants usually owed three to four days a week of forced labor. The system was abolished in 1848.
  21. Junkers: Prussia’s landowning nobility. The Junkers supported the monarchy and served in the army in exchange for absolute power over their serfs.
  22. Scientific Method: The use of inductive logic and controlled experiments to discover regular patterns in nature. These patterns or natural laws can be described with mathematical formulas.
  23. Philosophes: Eighteenth century writers who stressed reason and advocated freedom of expression, religious toleration, and a reformed legal system. Leading philosophes such as Voltaire fought irrational prejudice and believed that society should be open to people of talent.
  24. Deism: The belief that God created the universe but allowed it to operate through the laws of nature. Deists believed that natural laws could be discovered by the use of human reason.
  25. General Will: A concept in political philosophy referring to the desire or interest of a people as a whole. As used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who championed the concept, the general will is identical to the rule of law.
  26. Enlightened Despotism: A system of government supported by leading philosophes in which an absolute ruler uses his or her power for the good of the people. Enlightened monarchs supported religious tolerance, increased economic productivity, administrative reform, and scientific academies. Joseph II, Frederick the Great, and Catherine the Great were the best-known Enlightened monarchs.
  27. Enclosure Movement: The process by which British landlords consolidated or fenced in common lands to increase the production of cash crops. The Enclosure Acts led to an increase in the size of farms held by large landowners.
  28. Agricultural Revolution: The innovations in farm production that began in eighteenth century Holland and spread to England. These advances replaced the open-field agriculture system with a more scientific and mechanized system of agriculture.
  29. Physiocrats: Group of eighteenth-century French economists led by Francois Quesnay. The physiocrats criticized mercantilist regulations and called for free trade.
  30. Invisible Hand: Phrase coined by Adam Smith to refer to the self-regulating nature of a free marketplace. 

    c.        Revolution and Reaction, 1789-1850

  31. Parlements: French regional courts dominated by hereditary nobles. The Parlement of Paris claimed the right to register royal decrees before they could become law.
  32. Girondins: A moderate republican faction active in the French Revolution from 1791 to 1793. The Girondin Party favored a policy of extending the French Revolution beyond France’s borders.
  33. Jacobins: A radical republican party during the French Revolution from 1791 to 1793. Led by Maximilien Robespierre, the Jacobins unleased the Reign of Terror. Other key leaders included Jean-Paul Marat, Georges-Jacques Danton, and the Comte de Mirabeau. The Marquis de Lafayette was not a Jacobin.
  34. San-Culottes: The working people of Paris who were characterized by their long working pants and support for radical politics.
  35. Levee en Masse: The French policy of conscripting all males into the army. This created a new type of military force based upon mass participation and a fully mobilized economy.
  36. Thermidorian Reaction: Name given to the reaction against the radicalism of the French Revolution. It is associated with the end of the Reign of Terror and reassertion of the bourgeoisie power in the Directory.
  37. Legitimacy: The principle that rulers who have been driven from their thrones should be restored to power. For example, the Congress of Vienna restored the Bourbons to power in France.
  38. Balance of Power: A strategy to maintain and equilibrium, in which weak countries join together to match or exceed the power of a stronger country. It was one of the guiding principles of the Congress of Vienna.
  39. Liberalism: Political philosophy that in the nineteenth century advocated representative government dominated by the propertied classes, minimal government interference in the economy, religious toleration, and civil liberties such as freedom of speech.
  40. Conservatism: Political philosophy that in the nineteenth century supported legitimate monarchies, landed aristocracies, and established churches. Conservatives favored gradual change in the established social order.
  41. Nationalism: Belief that a nation consists of a group of people who share similar traditions, history, and language. Nationalists argued that every nation should be sovereign and include all members of a community. A person’s greatest loyalty should be to a nation-state.
  42. Romanticism: Philosophical and artistic movement in late eighteenth—and early nineteenth—century Europe that represented a reaction against the Neoclassical emphasis upon reason. Romantic artists, writers, and composers stressed emotion and the contemplation of nature.
  43. Chartism: A program of political reforms sponsored by British workers in the late 1830s. Chartist demands included universal manhood suffrage, secret ballots, equal electoral districts, and salaries for members of the House of Commons.
  44. Zollverein: A free-trade union established among major German states in 1834.
  45. Carbonari: A secret revolutionary society working to unify Italy in the 1820s.
  46. Luddites: A social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution. The Luddites believed that the new industrial machinery would eliminate their jobs. The Luddites responded by attempting to destroy the mechanized looms and other new machines.
  47. Utilitarianism: A theory associated with Jeremy Bentham that is based upon the principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Bentham argued that his principle should be applied to each nation’s government, economy, and judicial system.
  48. Utopian Socialists: Early nineteenth-century socialists who hoped to replace the overly competitive capitalist structure with planned communities guided by a spirit of cooperation. Leading French utopian socialists such as Charles Fourier and Louis Blanc believed that the property should be communally owned.
  49. Marxism: Political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They believed that history in the result of class conflict that will end with triumph of the industrial proletariat over the bourgeoisie. The new classless society would abolish private property. 

    d.       Toward the Modern World, 1850-1914

  50. Second Industrial Revolution:  A wave of late-nineteenth-century industrialization that was characterized by an increased use of steel, chemical processes, electric power, and railroads. This period also witnessed the spread of industrialization from Great Britain to western Europe and the United States. Both the U.S. and Germany soon rivaled Great Britain.
  51. Social Darwinism: The belief that there is a natural evolutionary process by which the fittest will survive. Wealthy business and industrial leaders used Social Darwinism to justify their success.
  52. RealPolitik: “The politics of reality”; used to describe the tough, practical politics in which idealism and romanticism play no part. Otto von Bismarck and Camillo Benso di Cavour were the leading practitioners of realpolitik.
  53. Syndicalism: A radical political movement that advocated bringing industry and government under the control of federations of labor unions. Syndicalists endorsed direct actions such as strikes and sabotage.
  54. Autocracy: A government in which the ruler has ultimate power and uses it in an arbitrary manner. The Romanov dynasty in Russia is the best example of an autocracy.
  55. Duma: The Russian parliament created after the revolution of 1905.
  56. Imperialism: The policy of extending one country’s rule over other lands by conquest or economic domination.
  57. Sphere of Influence: A region dominated by, but not directed by, a foreign nation. 

    e.       The “Second Thirty Years’ War”: WWI and WWII, 1914-1945

  58. Fourteen Points: President Woodrow Wilson’s idealist peace aims. Wilson stressed national self-determination, the rights of small countries, freedom of the seas, and free trade.
  59. Bolsheviks: A party of revolutionary Marxists, led by Vladimir Lenin, who seized power in Russia in 1917.
  60. New Economic Policy (N.E.P.): A program initiated by Vladimir Lenin to stimulate the economic recovery of the Soviet Union in the early 1920s. The New Economic Policy utilized a limited revival of capitalism in light industry and agriculture.
  61. Existentialism: Philosophy that God, reason, and progress are all myths. Humans must accept responsibility for their actions. This responsibility causes an overwhelming sense of dread and anguish. Existentialism reflects the sense of isolation and alienation in the twentieth century.
  62. Relativity: A scientific theory associated with Albert Einstein. Relativity holds that time and space do not exist separately. Instead, they are a combined continuum whose measurement depends as much on the observer as on the entities being measured.
  63. Totalitarianism: A political system in which the government has total control over the lives of individual citizens.
  64. Fascism: A political system that combines an authoritarian government with a corporate economy. Fascist governments glorify their leaders, appeal to nationalism, control the media, and repress individual liberties.
  65. Kulaks: Prosperous landowning peasants in czarist Russia. Joseph Stalin accused the kulaks of being class enemies of the poorer peasants. Stalin “liquidated the kulaks as a class” by executing them and expropriating their lands to form collective farms.
  66. Keynesian Economics: An economic theory based on the ideas of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. According to Keynesian economics, governments can spend their economies out of a depression by using deficit-spending to encourage employment and stimulate economic growth.
  67. Appeasement: A policy of making concessions to an aggressor in the hopes of avoiding war. Associated with Neville Chamberlain’s policy of making concessions to Adolf Hitler. 

    f.        The Cold War Era, 1945-1991

  68. Containment: The name of a U.S. foreign policy designed to contain or block the spread of Soviet policy. Inspired by George F. Kennan, containment was expressed in the Truman Doctrine and implemented in the Marshall Plan and the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance.
  69. Decolonization: The process by which colonies gained their independence from the imperial European powers after WWII.
  70. De-Stalinization: The policy of liberalization of the Stalinist system in the Soviet Union. As carried out by Nikita Khrushchev, de-Stalinization meant denouncing Joseph Stalin’s cult of personality, producing more consumer goods, allowing greater cultural freedom, and pursuing peaceful coexistence with the West.
  71. Brezhnev Doctrine: Assertion that the Soviet Union and its allies had the right to intervene in any socialist country whenever they say needed. The Brezhnev Doctrine justified the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
  72. Détente: The relaxation of tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Détente was introduced by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon. Examples of détente include the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), expanded trade with the Soviet Union, and President Nixon’s trips to China and Russia.
  73. Solidarity: A Polish labor union founded in 1980 by Lech Walesa and Anna Walentynowicz. Solidarity contested Communist Party programs and eventually ousted the party from the Polish government.
  74. Glasnost: Policy initiated by Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980s. Glasnot resulted in a new openness of speech, reduced censorship, and greater criticism of Communist Party policies.
  75. Perestroika: An economic policy initiated by Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980s. Meaning “restructuring,” perestroika called for less government regulation and greater efficiency in manufacturing and agriculture.
  76. Welfare State: A social system in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens in matters of health care, education, employment, and social security. Germany was the first European country to develop a state social welfare system.

The Greatest Kings

I’ve received some disgruntled messages about comparing Jinheung and Wang So in one of my previous posts and coming to a conclusion that Jinheung was in some ways similar to Wang So. All I can say is: WELL, HE ISN’T NOW! I miss the Jinheung from the first 6 episodes where he was so much stronger, self-confident and aware of his position and right to the throne. I miss the man who was ready to fight the whole world to claim what was rightfully his. This must be the first time EVER that I have seen a character REGRESSING instead of developing.

Moon Lovers had its own flaws but there is no doubt that compared to Hwarang it’s highly superior drama, especially the portrayal and development of Wang So. Mostly because the writer there understood that the greatest monarchs of Goryeo and the Three Kingdoms were no modern pacifists - they were ABSOLUTE MONARCHS, CONQUERORS, WARRIORS WHO FOUGHT WARS AND KILLED AND PUNISHED THEIR ENEMIES TO CONSOLIDATE POWER because that’s how they managed to make all the reforms and memorable deeds they are remembered for today. Taking that away from them is the greatest injustice a writer can do to historical figures like them. Unlike Jinheung,Wang So wasn’t reduced to a mere love interest; his main objective in the first 15 episodes of ML might have been gaining Hae Soo’s love and protecting his loved ones but that’s because he was in different position than Jinheung - he WAS NOT THE KING NOR A CROWN PRINCE, in fact as the 4th Prince he was so low in the line of succesion that he had no reasons to believe or hope that he would one day become a king. He never lived with those responsibilities, so naturally his actions and character were never ruled or shaped by them like Jinheung’s were (but mostly only at the beginning, unfortunately).

Some might argue that Jinheug isn’t the main character of the story in Hwarang, but he still is the second most important character AND HE STILL IS ONE OF THE GREATEST KINGS KOREA EVER HAD. This is the man who founded Hwarang, the man who made the unification of the Three Kingdoms possible and the shrewd politician who in 551 allied with Baekje to attack Goguryeo, only to turn on his former ally 2 years later, allying with Goguryeo instead, and attacked Baekje. It was the biggest conquest on the Korean Peninsula until the unification of the Three Kingdoms. JINHEUNG DESERVES BETTER THAN THE TREATMENT THE DRAMA HAS GIVEN HIM.

I would just like to point something out

To all the people on tumblr making jokes about “killing a dictator” in the Ides of March tag in a very obvious attempt to tactlessly mock/passive aggressively threaten Trump…

…You do realize that when they did that the very thing the conspirators didn’t want happened (Rome became an Empire with basically a hereditary line of absolute monarch) and they were all killed for their trouble?

You–you know that right?

Often times in the most (in)famous cases of political assassinations rater than lead to the “freeing” of the people or society it in fact often lead to the EXACT OPPOSITE since violence gives an excuse for a violent retaliation and suppression?

Can you just maturely accept that you lost a perfectly fair election and can *gaspchoke* try again next time around? Because just in case you didn’t notice we live in a beautiful place called AMERICA where we have this thing called ELECTIONS where you can, without threat of government or party reprisal, vote for whoever you want? And that the President isn’t an absolute monarch but a man hemmed in by MANY rules and laws purposely designed to limit his power so as to avoid anything even close to dictatorship?

So maybe you want to think twice before making your very tasteless (and might I add very undemocratic sentiment) public? Or just, you know, educate yourself a little bit? Please?


–> Favorite historical figures:

Alexander III of Macedon: king of Macedonia, he created one of the largest empires of the Ancient world, stretching from Greece to Egypt into northwest India and modern-day Pakistan. Undefeated in battle, he is widely considered one of history’s most successful military commanders. Military academies throughout the world still teach his tactics. He is often ranked among the most influential people in human history.

Cleopatra VII Philopator: last active pharaoh of Ptolemaic Egypt, she was a politically astute ruler who fought for the independence of her country, while understanding the need for an implication in Roman affairs, leading to her relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. Despite the efforts of a lifetime, Egypt became a province to the newly-established Roman Empire after her death.

Anne of Brittany: last Sovereign Duchess of Brittany and twice anointed Queen consort of France (1491-1498 and 1499-1514), she was a central figure in the struggle for influence that led to the union of Brittany and France. She is highly regarded in Brittany as a conscientious ruler who defended the Duchy - the safeguarding of Breton autonomy and the preservation of the Duchy outside the French crown being her life’s work. 

Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk: lifelong friend of Henry VIII, courtier and general, he married for love Mary Tudor in 1515, risking his head in the process and losing the royal favor temporary. Much appreciated at court, he spent his life as a trusted and beloved courtier to the king, who payed for his burial in 1545.

François I: first king of the House of Valois, he was a prodigal patron of the arts, who initiated the French Renaissance. His reign saw important cultural changes, the rise of absolute monarchy in France, as well as the spread of humanism and Protestantism. For his role in the development and promotion of a standardized French language, he became known as “le Père et Restaurateur des Lettres” (the “Father and Restorer of Letters”).

Mary Tudor, Queen of France: sister to Henry VIII, she became the third wife of Louis XII of France in 1514. At his death in 1515, she married Charles Brandon for love, against the wishes of her brother and his council. The couple were eventually pardoned, after having paid a heavy fine. She was the maternal grandmother of Lady Jane Grey.

Mary I of England: first queen regnant of England, she wielded the full powers of a king and paved the way for her female successors. She is mostly remembered for her restoration of Roman Catholicism and her unpopularity at the time of her death. Although her reign (1553-1558) was quite short, she started the policies of fiscal reform, naval expansion, and colonial exploration that were later lauded as Elizabethan accomplishments.

Louis XIV, the “Sun King”: one of the most powerful French monarchs, he consolidated a system of absolute monarchical rule, turned France into the leading European power of his time, encouraged and benefited from the work of prominent political, military, and cultural figures. His reign, by its length and achievements, has been dubbed “Le Grand Siècle” (“the Great Century”).

The most frequent questions and statements I see of Shingeki no Bahamut.

Hello again, this might be my last possibly long post on Shingeki no Bahamut. I am happy to know that some enjoy reading my posts so thank you for that!

I want to analyze and answer “with some evidence” from the show the frequent questions and statements I see about Shingeki no Bahamut. This is my opinion you are free to agree or disagree but I will provide evidence and how I believe things work in the SnB universe and also mostly will be my personal opinion.

There has been so much controversy in this show mainly around Charioce XVII and his actions so he will be somehow a major part of this post, not only because he is my favorite character, but because he is the character that a lot argue about.

Keep in mind I will not be applying modern views, morals, and look at it from a white or black perspective because in order to understand this show you have to know that not everything is perfect, not everything works in favor of good characters, villains can get away with their actions.

This universe has gods, demons, dragons, and mankind living in it. Applying real world logic and morals doesn’t work on a medieval fantasy world.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Do you think Stannis could/would be a good monarch for all of Westeros? What do you think the most major issues he'd have to overcome if he did win the throne?

Stannis would be one of the better monarchs the Iron Throne had seen, head and shoulders above all claimants put together (can’t really blame Tommen though, kid’s eight), especially after a long stint of institutional corruption plaguing the high offices of Westeros that desperately needs a good cleaning. Stannis is truly a political radical in his conception of power, the access of a king to his subjects, and the accountability of all people before a law above the desires of people. Stannis desires constancy in the law as a means for predictable governance, and emphasizes both the duties of the vassal to the monarch and the duty of the monarch to the subject. Moreover, his conception of a king is not an absolute monarch, and he understands that the failure of a monarch to uphold their own end of the bargain is just as much of a failure as a vassal’s duty.

As for the major issues that he would have to manage, he’d have to handle the other factions who had lost power, his people’s ability to handle his creepy foreign religion, and his pre-Blackwater self would have to put aside his petty grudges. Fixing the rot of the government is a good thing, but angrily lashing back at those who wronged you isn’t.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

anonymous asked:

(1) I’m not quite sure how long this gets but I’m trying to make it short: in my fictional world there are four countries. All are supposed to be monarchies. The first is absolute with an emperor/empress ruling, supported by his/her vassals as advisers. /This may sound dull, but it is actually really fleshed out as it is where my MC comes from. The second one is a nomad country: families send people to councils who send people to tribes who send people to the Racha (king) so everyone will be

(2) less) satisfied. The other two… well I ran out of ideas. I would like one country more religion centred and be based off Celtics – but I don’t know anything about their politics. And another one focused on economy. But how do I do this? Any help? If you’ve got any other suggestions how to build an interesting monarchy (constitutional/absolute) I’ll be glad to hear about them. 

To begin with, there are six Celtic nations: Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man. One is an independent nation, one is part of France, and the other four are part of the UK -that means they have quite a variation in their political systems.

However, allow me to take a few liberties with this. When you say ‘religion-centred and based off the Celts’, I’m going to assume that you mean something based off the popular cultural idea of Druids (though do come back and correct me if I’m wrong). If I combine this with the fact that you want all of your countries to be monarchies, I’m going to suggest a theocracy.

A theocracy is a nation where all authority is divined from God or another religious figure, and are often ruled by a sole monarch-style figure. This can be seen in Iran, which is technically a theocratic republic, but is headed by the Ayatollah, a scholar of Islamic law who had wide-ranging powers across the state and is more powerful than Iran’s elected President. Simplifying and modifying this concept, you could have a nation wherein all power is divined from a god/dess figure or perhaps nature itself, with courts that run along laws/holy rules that have been ‘handed down’ by the divine figure. Your monarch figure could come in the form of a supreme religious ruler, who makes all the important decisions as an absolute monarch would and is both backed up by and chosen by the priesthood of the dominant religion.

Since all your countries are monarchies, I’m going to take another liberty is assuming we’re in the usual pseudo-Middle Ages fantasy time period here. As such, for you economy-based system, I’m going to suggest a Merchant Council. In a country where commerce and wealth are venerated, the wealthiest men and women (landowners, owners of big businesses, merchants etc.) could be the ones directly in charge of the country. Strict ledgers are kept on everyone’s wealth, and, say, the wealthiest three hundred people get to take seats in the House/Parliament, with the richest twelve or so forming the Merchant Council (the executive, or supreme ruling body). The Merchant Council could rule absolutely and merely consult with the larger body, or laws could be created by the larger body and passed/modified by the Merchant Council: really, it’s all up to you! If you need a monarch-style figure you could have the Merchant Council elect a supreme leader among themselves, or elect a Speaker of sorts to negotiate/deal with the other nations on their behalf. (Hint: as an economics student as well as a politics student, I really really love the idea of Merchant Councils and the like).

With regards to constitutional/absolute monarchies, this post may help. But on how to make an interesting monarchy? Here are some tips:

  • Think logically: how did this system arise? The US has a strong system of checks and balances because they wanted to prevent the autocratic rule found in Europe at the time. Likewise, a nation full of atheists isn’t going to want to live in a theocracy: it would take a religious populace or a hell of a lot of oppression for that to fly.
  • Think out of the box: I think you’ve largely got this covered with your four different systems, but they are all inherently still monarchies. So differentiate! Instead of four monarchs, you’ve got a more generic absolute Emperor/Empress system, a Racha perhaps beholden to the views of their people via the tribal election system, a religious figurehead and the Speaker of a Merchant Council. On this point I think you’re doing pretty dang well so far, but it’s always something to consider!
  • Think rivals: does the Emperor have a backstabbing, power-snatching little sibling? Is their another religious faction inside the theocracy that disagree with or hate the current ruler? A young upstart making their millions and trying to worm their way into the longstanding Merchant Council membership? There is always dissent within a state, and not everyone will agree with the system. And even when they do agree with the system, they might want to snatch power for themselves
  • Think people: finally, it’s often the people that make the system shine. A charismatic, popular leader can get a lot more done than someone widely loathed and/or with the personality of a damp dishrag. Maybe your Empress has a particularly clever adviser whose intellect sparkles like a rare jewel, or your Racha has a troublesome faction that they spend half their time trying to control. Whatever your political system, it really it the people in it that will bring it alive.

Hope that answers your questions! If you need any more help, feel free to come back for more!

anonymous asked:

In GoT there was a line dany said about breaking the wheel. But in that line she included her own house. Do u think it's just bad writing? Since she is going to take over the throne using her family name for her family.

I don’t care to write too much about the show here, but I’ll say this much: in the long annals of sensationalist, designed-for-trailers writing of which the show seems to be inordinately, unfortunately, and increasingly fond, that particular collection of lines is one of the worst offenders.

For one, what is “the wheel”? Is it the structure of Westerosi governance as set down by Aegon the Conqueror? Is it feudalism in general? Is it the series of wars from the Targaryen Conquest to Robert’s Rebellion to the War of the Five Kings which have manipulated which Houses have primary influence over the Iron Throne? Is it something else entirely?

For another, what does Daenerys mean when she asserts that she will “break the wheel”? Does she mean she’s going to dismantle the class of Great Houses established by the Conqueror and set up completely new Great Houses? Does she mean she will rule as an absolute monarch, destroying the feudal order and ending the system of vassalage, so that no House can take the Iron Throne again? Does she mean she’s going to make Westeros more democratic and give more rights to the smallfolk? Does she mean something else entirely?

Finally, how can Daenerys Targaryen “break the wheel”? If the Targaryens are part of the problem of “the wheel”, how does Daenerys claim she can fix that while still being a Targaryen (and very prominently flying the Targaryen banner of the Conqueror)? What is Daenerys basing her claim on, after all, than on the right to rule as the last living child of Aerys II, the last legitimate dynastic male-line descendant of House Targaryen (save Jon and his secret parentage)? If she succeeds in her war and sits the Iron Throne, isn’t that just House Targaryen “back on top”, so to speak?

It’s a stupid bit of writing.

anonymous asked:

"Turned the kingdom into an absolute monarchy, Morty! Boom, big reveal, I'm an absolute monarch. What do you think about that? Turned myself into an absolute monarch! I'm King Rick!"


I shouldn’t be allowed to draw in the AM. So I was drawing him and turns out a real close friend of mine, @catastrophex had the same idea but with an Adrien~ So of course we both stay up drawing and screaming.

This is kwami swap with Paon and Monarch. His name is Sylphina Angel, partner of Paon Céleste. Their names are still in the works but since they have a royal theme before why not a heaven theme with a swap? Angel and Céleste.

Along with the creation of champions he can create transparent shields, they last as long as a butterfly’s wing beat so he has to time them perfectly. 

Hello! We Are the ABC is currently seeking voice actors for a radio drama. Currently, we are seeking voice actors for numerous roles (there will be more in the future) as well as one narrator.

What is We Are the ABC?

We Are the ABC, or watabc for short, is a Les Misérables fanfiction in the style of a blog. It follows the story of Les Amis de l'ABC (who readers of the book and watchers of the musical may or may not recognize as “those guys who led that revolution”) in an alternate version of the modern day where France is still ruled by an absolute monarch. The canons of both the book and the musical are used as guidelines, but many of the characters have interpretations that were not stated in any canon material, and the plotline is almost wholly new.

How long is this gig?

Considering that the story itself has not yet ended, that has yet to be determined. It is a long-term gig for most roles, so if you plan on undergoing anything that would drastically change your voice (testosterone treatment, vocal cord procedures, etc.) then please do not apply.

Is there an age limit?

There is a minimum age. Every character must be played by someone who is sixteen or older. The only exceptions are child and teenage characters, who may be played by anyone.

Can I audition for more than one character?

Yes. There is no limit on the number of auditions you can send.

Can I be double-casted?

If you say that you are alright with being double-casted and demonstrate that you can provide two or more distinct voices, then yes, it is possible that you will be assigned to more than one role. You will not be assigned to a role for which you did not audition, though you may be asked to audition for another character in certain cases.

When is the deadline?

The deadline for the first set of characters and narrator will be set once the level of interest in auditioning for the project has been determined.

How do I audition?

Choose a part listed on the Open Roles page and record the sample lines for that character. Then, send that recording to watabcofficial@gmail.com along with the following information:

- Your name
- Your Tumblr URL
- Your age
- Your gender/pronouns
- Whether or not you would be okay with getting double-casted

Break a leg! And as always, you may now continue to your regularly-scheduled programming.

rachaellikespink  asked:

Is it bad that I really don't want the raid on Beta thing to be true? Rose is an extremely important character to me as a fat woman who's portrayed as beautiful and desirable and good--super rare--and the thought of her doing something like that causes me a great deal of anxiety. I'm really scared of her turning out to be evil or a bad guy.

It’s not bad to feel that way. I see it this way, tho. Rose Quartz isn’t evil, but this whole fandom idea that the Crystal Gems never shattered their enemies just doesn’t add up. The Crystal Gems have had it pretty good so far. The most “morally grey” thing they’ve done is shatter Pink Diamond, and one could (and the fandom has) waived that away as killing an absolute monarch and that it was arguably justified - tho “The Trial” has since sent that into a debate (for the record I still think PD’s death was an accident and she got caught in the cross-fire between Rose and WD as depicted on the mural in the pyramid). 

The Raid on Beta thing tho can’t be justified so easily. Sure, the cold hard rationalist could argue that it was the quickest way to try and end the war (Homeworld can’t fight without soldiers after all), but as Kindergartens are also nurseries, in this case a nursery filled with majority off color Gems, that would still be something hard to swallow for a team whose whole point of rebelling was for the shattering of off color Gems to stop and for any Gem to be given the chance to be whatever they wanted. 

There’s the rub, isn’t it? The Raid on Beta would be nothing short of a war crime, the Crystal Gems’ answer to Homeworld’s Cluster. And that’s not easy to accept. Everyone wants to believe their side is the right side, that they’d never do anything bad, that they can justify doing terrible things because they’re the good guys. But as Greg said since season one, there’s no such thing as a good war. Necessary? Sure, absolutely. Good? No. Wars aren’t glorious things, they’re brutal, and few (soldiers or civilians) ever come back from them the same. And I hope the show stays committed to that.

Personally, as a Jasper fan, it would give me catharsis because we’ve been saying ever since “Beta” (and before) that she has motives for her actions other than just being a Big Ol Meanie. Fandom still largely hasn’t accepted that, because they want someone they can hate with impunity and they can say is just evil for evil’s sake. But imagine what it must have been like for Jasper to be attacked on her first day alive (which make no mistake is canon), and be forced to kill those Gems to save herself? Imagine what a lifetime of that must do to someone. 

Either way you slice it, the Earth Quartzes of Prime and Beta got screwed in this war, by Homeworld and the Crystal Gems. 

anonymous asked:

What is this tsarist autocracy Russia had? How is it different from a normal monarchies?

Typically, Russian tsars were absolute monarchs, that is, power was invested in the person and office of the Tsar. This was in contrast constitutional monarchies like Great Britain (or constitutional federal republic like the U.S., really any constitutional *blank*) , where powers were explicitly enumerated within a foundational legal document, clarified under supporting legislation, and had a legislative body to counterbalance the head of state. The Tsar had the state power, which was delegated to ministers and offices to act in the name of the Tsar, and was typically the primary landholder as well. Western monarchies typically had weaker kings, with a lot of power resting in the hands of powerful nobles. Now, Tsarist autocracy was not static, at various points different groups held some amount of political power, but typically, Russia was ruled by an absolute monarch.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King