8Korgi
@8Korgi
Followers
51
Following
4K
Media
2K
Statuses
3K
21st Century Caligulan ♆ Royal Juche ★
Joined October 2024
@LandsknechtPike I get this information by a pamphlet, because he brings up the example of Andrea Doria. The royal charter granted unto kings (by Thomas Bayly) Who argues in defense of kings against the examples of the Italian city-states as so-called free-states: https://t.co/vvurUVDfB2
0
1
0
@LandsknechtPike The Republic of Genoa basically was under the enlightened despotism of Andrea Doria. (Picture of him as Neptune). For me, Despot isn't such a bad word; let there be one lord, one king.
0
1
0
@MedievalScholar @DrNWLuna There were better days for royalty. Medievalists drool over royalty being cucked by the notables and the clergy.
0
1
2
Nicholas II was rough, masculine man that was unfortunately eclipsed by this weak, soft, and effeminate Lenin.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
1
Nicholas II would personally test the Russian soldiers' uniforms and walk a miles in them with all the equipment.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
2
Emperor Peter I was a giant.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
2
Nicholas I was a 6'2" broad-shouldered chad.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
1
Russian Czars are better physically. Czar Alexander III was among the most masculine men in all of Russia, like a Russian Hercules.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
1
Of all the points leftists could focus on, like muh Bloody Sunday & serfdom, muh Space Race & technology, muh WW2 victory, leftists choose to focus on the physique of Lenin vs Nicholas II--& Nicholas II is 5′ 7″, Lenin is 5'5"; Nicholas II is fitter than Lenin, no doubt.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
1
The Russian Czars outclass the Soviets leaders in terms of physique; Lenin was a scrawny 5'5" rat-faced man & Nicholas II was burly and fit and taller. Leftists may boast a lot, but this is nowhere to boast. Emp. Peter I mogs them all. Czar Alexander III lifted a train roof.
Lenin was a rough, masculine man that overthrew the weak, soft, and effeminate Tsar Nicholas II. He spent years exiled in Siberia lifting weights and hiking while the latter ate from a silver spoon with his cronies. Communism is simply stronger.
0
0
2
Some will call it tyranny, and directing the populace to be loyal to the ruler--might have the accusation of tyranny or a dictator cult of personality, partiality of his own interest, but everyone does it. Democracies do it. Christians do it. Hitler did it. Plato said it, etc.
0
0
1
Western people may waver between populism and Christianity--I'd say for the Ruler, Hobbes' prescription is pretty much it: They are not natural born royalists--and not being born apt for it--They would have to be educated. That is repugnant to many rightwingers, but so it is.
0
0
1
No matter how much it is said that Christ is King, in the same breath it won't come to mean -- that this King is King -- no matter how much a ruler might cultivate a familial bond within the Church, it doesn't particularly correspond to people that his State like a familial bond.
0
0
1
The problem with integralism is it is mostly the Church's propaganda. I won't deny the clergy in many cases have been support for kings, but... Rulers need their own. They need to connect with the lay people, & not simply by association with another king, but as their own king.
0
0
1
Memory Medieval grew up playing Stronghold Crusader, and I grew up playing Stronghold 2. We are not the same.
This guy spent almost his entire reign in England. Must have been a fantastic king.
0
0
1
🙄They are all thorns, but maybe it is a good thing for all their purposes: We don't share a vision.
0
0
1
I have one agenda: To have a domestic Monarchy & their administration. All the Medievalist accounts: To fight somewhere in the Middle East & overall be papal henchmen/puppets. 😒 You would think Medievalists would be friends with the monarchist agenda, but no, a thorn in my side.
This guy spent almost his entire reign in England. Must have been a fantastic king.
0
0
1
Palatine Hill in Rome is the chief example: Like the pagan deities of the Greeks lived on Mt. Olympus, the Roman Emperors lived on Palatine Hill: The word "palace" would originate from Palatine Hill where the imperial palaces were.
0
0
1
Aristotle in Politics hints at this: The acropolis is proper for Monarchy, Aristotle says--which would be the highest terrain in a city or overlooking it.
0
0
1