Maybe this is a dumb question, but when did Monarchs stop being

>>1601341
Napoleon was the last monarch to lewd armies while in power

Napoleon was also based as all fuck

>>1601349
Fuck off napoleonfag

>>1601341
Gradually from 13th century onwards.

You always had a struggle between the monarch and the people (read: Wealthy nobles, not the peasants)

In the early and high middle ages, a country was successful if it had a strong, all powerful king who could keep the nobles in line, he dominated, he led his country, and it was a success. Power was maintained through actual power, be it political skill or military skill, not really through law. The best and greatest example of this would be Henry II of England. This Angevin empire was held together because of him alone, it fell apart soon after. This was the entire of the power kings, after this the nobles want not necessarily more power but not fairness and rights. This is where parliaments begin to be birthed and over the next few centuries the power of monarchs is chipped away, we stop seeing kings take part in battles and directly rule their land and see them more being figure heads and general guiders.

1600<

>>1601341
Basically after the Medieval period. The English kings in particular were always going around fighting and fucking shit up.

>>1601341
>Maybe this is a dumb question

It's not at all.

>>1601341
Around 2500 BC in Egypt

>>1601349
I'm pretty sure even Catherine the Great did not lewd her entire army.

>>1601497
Well, maybe just the horses.

>>1601341
As society grew more complex they spent less time in the mud with their men and more time dealing with the admin and other nobles, clergymen and stuffy bureaucrats.

The day the iberians dirt bags exclaimed their names in war battles. And said my name is inago santiago rodrigo y ferrero de bragamontes. Poseedoe de la santa herradura y santa cruz de braga. Then all the nordic countries decided to feminize and painttheir faces and go liberal. Theire men wore wigs. Their roylty became weak but their constituents became more villainous.

>>1601569
Then the english l made a fancy tale of how their kings couldnt measure up because they had no rightfull sword and called it king arthur.

>>1601341
Pretty sure King Harold was the last fighting English king before he was shot in the eye. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>1601807
>Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are very very wrong. That doesn't even make any sense since the next king (William the Conqueror) was in that battle too. Harold wasn't even the last king to be killed in battle (that would be Richard III). The last English king to command in battle was George II, in the 1740s.

>>1601807
Not English but James IV of Scotland was the last british monarch to die in battle in 1513