DBWI: monarchies in europe?

As we all know, europe has been called 'bastion of the res publica' - western and southern europe maintain a 2,000 year old legacy of republicanism (a feat rivaled only by those dang Numidians), and the rest of the continent has adopted it millennia ago as well. How could you, the good peoples of Alternate history, dislocate this rich and deeply ingrained traditions? Is it even possible to have despotism in europe?
 
Monarchy would require an ideological reason that justifies the king's rule. In Europe, there is neither Confucianism's Five Bonds, nor can any noble family claim direct descent from the Persian King of Kings. So kingdoms just don't make sense in Europe. They would be seen as entirely artificial. Only exceedingly rare circumstances, like the conflict between the Spartans and the Messenians, could justify the creation of an actual monarchy on that subcontinent.

The ancient tribal chieftains of the Germanic tribes were the closest thing you're going to find in the history of most of Europe, but the problem is that due to rather primitive seafaring technology, the Germanics had no real way to curb the Roman Republic's expansion. Among other groups, you saw rapidly shifting tribal confederations such as the Huns, Alans, and Sarmats, which always had an electoral element. The two Greek states that adopted monarchy -- Macedonia and Sparta -- both declined over centuries and fell in rather spectacular ways.
 
I can't see in Europe being monarchies at least not very notable ones. How evne any monarch would justify his reign? And monarchies tend to be quiet instable. Look now how much of civil wars and rebels in Persia, Indian states and China have seen. Damn, if Europe would be dominated by monarchies we would see more of wars. Monarchy doesn't seem being very viable system at least not in long run.
 

Dolan

Banned
Still, as late as year 710 AUC, the Roman Republic was held by the Traitorous Triumvirate of Octavian, Anthony, and Lepidus. Octavian is said to have some plan of making himself King in all but name, while Anthony's consort is Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt.

It was due to True Roman spirit that Brutus the Liberator managed to defeat them, and thus, restoring the Republican system as Cicero formed the new Democratic constitution that would be the base of all European states formed afterward.

Have either Octavian or Anthony won the Civil War, and we might see Roman Republic themselves turned into Monarchy.
 
The ancient tribal chieftains of the Germanic tribes were the closest thing you're going to find in the history of most of Europe, but the problem is that due to rather primitive seafaring technology, the Germanics had no real way to curb the Roman Republic's expansion. Among other groups, you saw rapidly shifting tribal confederations such as the Huns, Alans, and Sarmats, which always had an electoral element. The two Greek states that adopted monarchy -- Macedonia and Sparta -- both declined over centuries and fell in rather spectacular ways.
Maybe a Sparta-Wank can do the trick? the western 'neo-lacedaemonic' provinces of the spartan empire seemed quite able to hold off rome until the third 'hoplitic war'.
 
Fortunately Ocativan failed. It would had made Rome extremely instable nation. Romans have still very strong Republican feelings. Rome would had slipped quickly back to civil wars and instabliity. Probably there would had been some military coups too.
 
There were some monarchs traditions in Europe that predate the Roman Republic. Many of them were in Italy, but take Macedonia, Iskandar Megas came from there, and had been kings there for a very long time, and they continued to have Kings when the Diadochi period came. If we could somehow boost that Kingdom post-Diadochi to be able to hold off the Republic then that could be done.

Perhaps even butterfly the full conquest, Iskandar had a father, Phillip who was Hegemon, why not have him not die when he did, but lead the invasion. He wasn't interested in a fully Persian conquest, and might stop within Anatolia, Syria and Egypt. Then you have a new Empire that is "European", a Monarchy, and has both the ancient Egyptian monarch tradition, and those of Anatolia and Greece. That could at the very least set up SE Europe ideologically, and if they are dynamic and European rather than constantly in conflict with "Diadochi" to control Persia, they might well expand into Europe.

Heck, I'd say that is the right PoD - especially since we could see them focusing on uniting the Greeks, which includes parts of Southern Italia at the time - and it could very well conquer Italy and kill the Republican ideal in its crib.
 

Dolan

Banned
Fortunately Ocativan failed. It would had made Rome extremely instable nation. Romans have still very strong Republican feelings. Rome would had slipped quickly back to civil wars and instabliity. Probably there would had been some military coups too.
The Marian norm, that started the Civil War era in Rome, actually have professional soldiers directly paid from the pockets of their own generals. Octavian is rich, and Anthony is even richer due to Egyptian Treasure accessible to him. If either of them won the war, their army, who would be then the only standing army permitted, would have no incentive to restore The Republic.

It took the proclamation of Athens, that expanded the Roman Citizenship, and instilling one man one vote rule, enabled the Liberators to use Greeks and Eastern Natives to be levied en masse against the veteran legionary of the Traitorous Triumvirates. Sure, the anecdote back then is they need two against one odd to win the battle, but then because of democracy, they could afford to outnumber their enemy in four against one fashion.

Yes, Cicero did admit about it was Greek Pikes that finally restore the Republic. The Milites Phalangarii end up being the start of en masse levy of all able-bodied men, common in all European Republics.
 
I suppose a hypothetical religion could do the trick. Let's say some Germanic tribal chieftain becomes very successful and has a personal favorite god or goddess. Said dude abolishes the official worship of other gods in favor of his personal god/goddess. I think Sunna would be an option, but if you prefer a male god it would be Woden I think. Things spiral out of control and before you know it you have monotheism thousands of years before those 60s hippies made it up. The "chosen" by Sunna could become something like kings (she needs someone to rule in her stead).

Of course, the religion needs to survive the Romans. And then become dominant in the Roman empire. That's not going to happen!
 
I can't see in Europe being monarchies at least not very notable ones. How evne any monarch would justify his reign? And monarchies tend to be quiet instable. Look now how much of civil wars and rebels in Persia, Indian states and China have seen. Damn, if Europe would be dominated by monarchies we would see more of wars. Monarchy doesn't seem being very viable system at least not in long run.
Well, it's certainly worked well enough for the rest of the world. Sure, Persia's had its fair share of civil wars but its been the hegemon of the middle east since Cyrus the Great, and its borders have basically remained constant despite the best efforts of people like Alexander III. And remember, the Roman Republic still had to survive the civil wars of the 700s.

Really, though, geography made European Republicanism inevitable. The Republicanism we see now is the natural evolution not of the Roman or Greek Republics but of the Celtic and Germanic tribes that eventually defeated them and adopted many of their institutions, forming the basis of European civilization today. These tribes were more democratic than Greece or Rome ever was, at any rate.
 
Top