When the peasant revolts occurred during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries the mass murders of the harmless defeated, and often innocent, people were at no surpassed in the 20th century. These gangsters families slaughtered entire populations with the good graces of the church. Even after the reformation in Germany, Martin Luther even joined in with the Roman Catholic officials giving his blessings to the mass murders conducted by the monarchical gangster families.
Even when monarchists fought each other mass murder had its occurrences. For example, during the 30 years war numerous instances of mass murder occurred by monarchical lead armies. Slaughter, rape, and looting of the meager belongings of civilian populations was quite common place.
Of course there were many gangster territorial wars for gaining control over enslaved populations. In those wars, populations were for the most part not needlessly killed, as the enslaved people were part of the booty and thus not to be lost in wasteful killing.
Yes you are quite correct that the monarchical system was much better for holding the masses of people in a state of virtual slavery and keeping any form of progress or enlightened thought from reaching the people. It truly was a dark ages. But once people begin to think for themselves, and progress starts to shine through, then there will be a cost. Even the monarchists realized that the stronger countries became stronger by having increasingly stronger and educated populations. And those kinds of people, capable of thinking for themselves, will not accept monarchies.
You are so wrong about everything I don't even know where to start, try reading a history book
Yes you are quite correct that the monarchical system was much better for holding the masses of people in a state of virtual slavery and keeping any form of progress or enlightened thought from reaching the people.
Thank you Marx.
Comparison of feudal lords to gangsters, although derogatory, is legitimate. Indeed they were foremostly private individuals making private deals, enforcing private interests and waging private wars with private armies. The concept of modern state that somehow makes conscription and slaughter of men, or carpet bombing of civilian areas morally permissible, was foreign to them.
It is important not to idealize the past. Chroniclers record, for example, destruction of crops during war, and killing of the city's population following a successful siege.
The rest of your post is an illusion. A pervasive state that cannot be resisted by the individual simply did not exist till the 20 century. Peasant revolts were violence initiated by the peasants; you can sympathize with them rather than with their victims, but you cannot deny the right of retaliation, or the duty of the monarch to crush the revolt and restore peace. The teaching of the Church hasn't changed for 2000 years. It values peace and obedience to just authority, and blesses an occasional war when causes for war exist. A breach of confessional privacy is among the gravest offences a priest can commit. For most of the history of the Middle Ages and monarchical period, the Church stood in opposition to civil authority, -- as we endlessly discussed on another thread just recently.
My view differs form KJVail's in that I think that the golden age of civilization ended with the Reformation. Following Luther's apostasy we see ugly incidence of state churches, state-on-state violence, decadent monarchs, and overall decline, so that by the 19 century republics had justifiable appeal, and by the 20 century the innate advantages of monarchic social order were completely erased.