It having any power at all is enough to make Prussia not Autocratic.Because the Reichstag in Prussia didn't have much power.
Either you're a autocrat or you're not there is no middle ground.
It having any power at all is enough to make Prussia not Autocratic.Because the Reichstag in Prussia didn't have much power.
So, Russian Tsar Nicholas II wasn't an autocrat after 1905-1906?It having any power at all is enough to make Prussia not Autocratic.
Either you're a autocrat or you're not there is no middle ground.
Did he have absolute power?So, Russian Tsar Nicholas II wasn't an autocrat after 1905-1906?
OK; thus, could we see an eventual Prusso-Russian alliance in order to preserve autocracy in Eastern Europe in this TL?
The Almanach de Gotha stated otherwise, though:Then he wasn't one
Question--didn't the German Kaiser have about as much power as the U.S. President had (and still has)?I'm with Jack here, Prussia was conservative but not autocratic, but more importantly Prussia by the late 20th had very little cultural influence over the German Empire, with the Junkers never having the political power that most think they had. In this Germany with the Junkers probably having even less power I can't see with Germany would defend autocracy when they never did it OTL.
Then he should learn what words meanThe Almanach de Gotha stated otherwise, though:
https://books.google.com/books?id=0yIABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=constitutional+monarchy+with+an+autocratic+tsar&source=bl&ots=j6qpcQS4rA&sig=e4dE5r2X7sxX1CFv_vYAnEy8osk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_ideQqpPSAhWHgVQKHbijAcsQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=constitutional monarchy with an autocratic tsar&f=false
So, is it unfair to call, say, Bashar al-Assad a dictator simply because he has a parliament?Then he should learn what words mean
Bruh it's not complicated if you can over rule everyone else and no one can over rule you you are an autocrat anything less than that is not AutocracySo, is it unfair to call, say, Bashar al-Assad a dictator simply because he has a parliament?
My point here is that the line between these two-things isn't always so clear-cut, though.Bruh it's not complicated if you can over rule everyone else and no one can over rule you you are an autocrat anything less than that is not Autocracy
Yes it is, simply due to the nature of Autocracy, it's absolute power.My point here is that the line between these two-things isn't always so clear-cut, though.
So, are monarchs with semi-absolute power not autocrats?Yes it is, simply due to the nature of Autocracy, it's absolute power.
Either you have it or you don't.
If anything you would want to make the argument that I'm applying the definition too literally, which is honestly correct, I just like to argue technicalities.
I do stand by the statement that Prussia is not be Autocratic through
Was just poking fun at the ridiculousness of the word "semi-absolute"Power which is almost absolute but not quite.