Is it possible for the monarchy to be revived again

The possibility of a revival of the monarchy is relatively low.

First of all, modern society has become more and more inclined to the idea of a democratic republic, which is in conflict with the idea of monarchy. In contemporary society, the growing importance of the concept of freedom, equality and democracy makes the existence of a monarchy more difficult.

Second, the succession required for monarchy is also very challenging in modern society. For example, if the monarch of a country dies suddenly, then a suitable heir needs to be found. In modern society, such an heir is often difficult to find, because people prefer to choose leaders through elections and other means.

Finally, the monarchy has been abolished in some countries, which has made it impossible for these countries to restore the monarchy. Even if there are some countries that still retain the monarchy, the power of the monarch has been greatly diminished and has played more of a symbolic role.

Of course, although the revival of the monarchy is unlikely, this does not mean that it is absolutely impossible. In the future, it is also possible that the monarchy will be revived again if there are significant changes in the social environment. However, this requires a complex set of conditions, including but not limited to changes in social attitudes, changes in political systems, etc.

Therefore, at present, the possibility of the revival of the monarchy is relatively low.

In my opinion, it is entirely possible that in 509 BC (244 years after the founding of the city) Rome established a republic, and the democratic republic was deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. But in the end, it still went to the imperial system!

The concept of democracy has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people.

Hehe, you support me as the emperor! I will crown you prince.

The monarchs of Europe since ancient times did not have sufficient totalitarian power, which can be seen from ancient Athens and ancient Rome, etc., their aristocratic class, especially organizations such as the Senate, can fully restrict the rights of monarchs, and even many times their kings are just dolls of these nobles. Since Qin Shi Huang unified the six countries and ended the separation, China began to centralize power more seriously, resulting in a tendency to individualize follow-up rights, and at the same time, China does not have an organization such as the Senate, more of a superior bureaucrat such as the prime minister, they are only the servants of the imperial family or the emperor, and it is difficult to contain the emperor; Even the royal family is very different, such as the Eight Kings Rebellion in the Western Han Dynasty, which led to the full reduction of the rights of the king with the same surname from the Western Han Dynasty onwards. At the same time, in fact, China's feudal monarchs could not be killed and taken at will, such as Emperor Xian of Han in the late Eastern Han Dynasty, who was completely incapable of dealing with Cao Cao, because the actual ruling power of the country was not in the hands of this so-called emperor.

Zi said: Yidi has a king, it is better to die in Zhuxia.

In the past, the so-called Yidi was a culturally backward frontier area, and the four races of Dongyi, Xirong, Nanban, and Beidi were uneducated and very barbaric at that time. Huaxia, Hua is the United States, and Xia is the collective name of the princes of the Central Plains. Because Xia is the first centralized state formed by the tribal alliance of the Central Plains according to its own cultural identity, the cultural system of Shang and Zhou was inherited in Xia.

Let's start with the literal meaning of this sentence. Confucius said that those people in the barbarian backward areas also had leaders, monarchs, and chieftains. But there is only the form of a country, no culture, what is the use, it is not as good as the Xia Dynasty and Yin Shang, although the country is dead, but in history, it will last forever, because it has culture and inheritance.

In connection with the above, this inheritance is a ritual culture with benevolence as the core idea.

So we know a very serious problem, the country is not afraid of the country, the country is still a way to restore the country, if the culture is dead, it will never turn over. Therefore, this sentence is Confucius's final evaluation of the incident of the Dance of the Eight Hundred Coming from the Hall of Three Families, and it is not misplaced, which is still emphasizing the importance of cultural inheritance.

Confucius believed that even if the princes of the world rebelled, the Eastern Zhou Dynasty perished, and the Central Plains had no Son of Heaven, as long as the cultural inheritance continued, the country and the nation would not perish.

Looking at the history of ancient and modern China and foreign countries, it is unprecedented for a nation whose culture has died to turn over. The Xiongnu were once strong for a while, and the Han and Roman Empires were known in the world, but he had no cultural heritage, not even writing (historical records, the Xiongnu did not have documents, and were bound by words), and after being driven to the west by the Han Empire, although there was a hundred years of rejuvenation, but finally disappeared in the long river of history. Some of the Yidi in Chinese history, such as the Qiang, Rouran, Khitan, Xixia, and Loulan, did not produce culture, and some were cut off from cultural inheritance, and were eventually forgotten by history.

Similarly, the ancient Maya, ancient Indians, ancient Egyptians, and ancient Babylonians, although they created a splendid culture alongside China, have all become waves in the long river of history due to the severance of inheritance. On the other hand, the Jews wandered around Europe after the demise of their country, but the Jews paid great attention to their own cultural heritage, and after thousands of years, they finally succeeded in recovering in Israel. Ancient Greek and Athenian culture was passed down by Rome and later European countries, and eventually ushered in the European Renaissance.

The Analects of the Eight Hundred Chapters, Part III

Zi said: "Xia Li, I can say it, but it is not enough; Yin Li, I can say it, Song is not enough. The literature is insufficient. Enough, then I can levy it.

No. The opposite is church oppression.

As far as our teachers are concerned, the Renaissance is also anti-feudal.

Because feudalism here includes the feudal church and the feudal system.

The reason why there is a feudal church is because the European social church at that time was a great feudal force.

Whereas both the Renaissance and the Reformation were anti-feudal churches.

Hence anti-feudal.

No, they are not a single thing, but a series of events.