HOME | DD
Alchetbeachfan β The evils of monarchy
#maximilian #mexico #monarchy #monarchist #monarchism
Published: 2016-07-03 21:19:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 2405; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Not so evil now is he!Related content
Comments: 25
π: 0 β©: 0
I always was aware of Maximillian's good points.Β Unfortunately he really never had a fair chance in Mexico, as he was placed there by Napoleon III for the sake of French ambitions.Β The end of the American Civil War, and Juarez's use of guerillan warfare in Mexico doomed his government.Β If a real Mexican plebescite (not the fake one Napoleon iII used) actually had offered Maximillian and his wife Carlotta the throne, he would have proved as wise and good a Western Hemisphere emperor as Dom Pedro I or II of Brazil.Β
He did accomplish one interesting success - as Admiral of the Adriatic fleet of the Austrian Empire, in 1866 (while in Mexico) he heard his successor von Tegetthoff, using the fleet with Maximillian's reforms and modernization program, won the battle of Lissa against the naval forces of Italy.Β It turned out to be the one bright spot of victory for Austria in the Seven Weeks War against Prussia and Italy.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Finally, someone gets it! Great work here. I just wish I could see the look on the republicanist's face when they read this!
π: 0 β©: 0
Max was better than that prat Karl Von Hapsburg they're trying to make a saint - the guy used poison gas during WW1
π: 0 β©: 1
The fact that the traitor Lenin is still seen as a hero is scary to me.
π: 1 β©: 1
Yeah, our history class teacher used to call Lenin the German Bacillus(i.e. Germ) - The German High Command stuck him on a sponsored train to Russia in the hope of causing trouble for the Russian Govt..
The Russian anarchists and democrats rightly hated him - one anarchist accused him of not genuinely holding the ideals he professed to have, just look what happened at Kronstadt when people demanded freely elected Soviets(councils) and freedom of speech and religion.
π: 0 β©: 0
Henry de Valois.
Literarly after being elected and having promised to lift up Poland, his borther died so he abbandoned Poland ocmpletelly trying to escape at night to instead go rule France.
He was caught and asked by the nobles to return, but ran away as the lying to coward he was back to France.
π: 0 β©: 2
You have to remember one thing : On France, and unlike other monarchies : the Prince belongs to the Crown. Not the opposite. When Henry of Valois became Henry the IIIrd of France, He was DUE to get back to France.
π: 0 β©: 1
I did not know that.
Though in Poland the King was a sort of Civil servant. And swearing on his honour the caditates for king made promises before being elected.
The problem is that Heryk did not furfill any of his promises and escaped suring the nigh not only causing a huge embarassment on the ocuntry but also causing a next bezkrΓ³lewie.
He had as much duty to Poland as to France. Most Polish Kings were not Poles.
π: 0 β©: 1
Truth. Perhaps, it was a heavy mistake. But then again, we weren't there and especially not in front of the dilemma Henry III was, so we might be missing a few keys...
π: 0 β©: 1
Yea, that's true.
I just know that in history they taught me about him in a bad condnotation. Thoug they added that he was a good King for France.
π: 0 β©: 0
yes but that was because France had no king and he needed to rule it, plus he reformed the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth into an elective monarch so a new king could be chosen anyway.
π: 0 β©: 1
No he has not reformed it.
The system was in place before he came.
There was also the possibility of ruling 2 countries at once and at the time it was common for one King ro rule over many countries.
He broke his promise, embarassed the ocuntry and threw it into disarray.
Monarchy has one bad side and one good side:
Bad side: All desicions are made by one man.
Good side: All decisions are done by one man.
A monarchy is equal to how the King is. It is uncertain, thats why I dislike it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Henri III's rule over Poland is brief but notable, the Henrician Articles he signed into law accepting the Polish throne established Poland as an elective monarchy subject to free election by the Polish nobility.
π: 0 β©: 1
The articles he sighned were forced uppon him, and having to sign them was part of why he escaped the country.
He was much rather a king of France where he had absolute rule, he even refused to rule over both ocuntries.
He escaped at night as a coward.
He sighned the articles, because he wanted to be King of at least something.
There was nothing notable about that, he was a greedy man who did not keep one of the promises he made to the polish nobles before election.
He left the country embarassed and in a state of unrest.
Up untill this day they teach us that he was a disgrace as a King.
π: 0 β©: 1
He already would have been better off in France.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, and thats why he escaped...
π: 0 β©: 1
He is hardly an example of a poor monarch.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
He might have been goog for France, I heard he even was, but for Poland he was a very bad one.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, He was good for France.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Seems he liked France more than Poland...
π: 0 β©: 1
I know.
I learned that in history class.
π: 0 β©: 0