Karte, die den Status der Monarchien und Republiken in Europa im Jahr 1626 im Vergleich zum Jahr 2026 zeigt
Von SatoruGojo232
Karte, die den Status der Monarchien und Republiken in Europa im Jahr 1626 im Vergleich zum Jahr 2026 zeigt
Von SatoruGojo232
37 Kommentare
Using 21st century boundaries to depict political situations which existed 400 years ago is going to be problematic at some point.
Fucking Napoleon of all people made the Netherlands a monarchh
Swiss Republic FTW
I find it funny how the Netherlands was one of the first large European republics, but it then ended up becoming a monarchy
Venetians:
A “monarchy” in 2026 is a very different type of entity than a monarchy of 1626.
Since when has Andorra been a Republic?
Having 2 co-princes at its head, the map is wrong.
Andorra has the wrong color.
Andorra has been a principality since 1278 when it was established, apart for the Napoleonic parenthesis if you want to count that. So it should be green.
I’d hesitate to describe russia as a republic
[deleted]
Calling russia and belarus republics is generous
That is not what that map shows. It says “how were regions ruled compared to now”. European monarchs rule absolutely nothing in 2026. Its just a tradition and has nothing to do with how the countries are structured or governed.
If we want to get technical, Iceland was ruled by a monarchy in 1626. It only became one in 1918 for a very brief period of time.
Modern borders are concealing Venice, Genoa, and a bunch of city-states elsewhere. This map’s not by region as it claims, it’s by state in 2026.
This map shows the best chance of survival for a royal family was capitulation to democracy
Saying Spain „is still a monarchy“ isn’t necessarily wrong but it feels like it’s glossing over a few things. I’d put it more like „Spain was a monarchy in 1626 and it is also a monarchy now.“
Roll a little forward in time to 1649-1660 and you have another yellow: Great Britain, as that was the period of the Commonwealth. You might need to think how to colour Ireland (the area now part of the republic) as it would have been a form of republic then, and is now but was part of a monarchy in between.
Poland-Lithuania had more like lifetime presidents rather than monarchs in classic sense.
UK did not exist in 1626 and those countries became a republic for a period later in 17th century.
The Dutch going back in IQ
1626 borders were very different. This map makes no sense. Lucca, for instance, has always been a republic.
Vive la révolution!
Most of these countries didn’t exist in 1626, for example, in Italy you had Venice, a republic, which is not a monarchy
The Dutch switched back to monarchy because they didn’t care for the taste of prime minister.
Malta should be green since it’s in the commonwealth
Thank you Napoleon.
Switzerland BASED.
with the exceptions of denmark and norway, all of the other monarchies are fabricated resets that deviate away from the rules of their monarchies in 1626 – almost all have no male or next of kin bloodline, and some (like sweden) are almost entirely made up.
Denmark: ~13–15 generations. Same dynasty family (Oldenburg → Glücksburg). Male line mostly intact. Continuity: very high (5/5).
Norway: ~13–15 generations. Same root as Denmark (Oldenburg line). Male line broadly intact. Continuity: very high (4–5/5).
United Kingdom: ~12–14 generations. Stuart line continues by blood, but male line ended in 1714. Dynasty changed (Stuart → Hanover → Windsor). Continuity: medium-high (3–4/5).
Spain: ~11–13 generations. Habsburg line ended in 1700, replaced by Bourbons. Still connected by blood through female lines. Continuity: medium (3/5).
Sweden: ~10–12 generations. Vasa line ended; replaced by Bernadotte (a French dynasty). Only very distant or indirect blood links. Continuity: low (1–2/5).
Netherlands: monarchy didn’t exist in 1626. Current house (Orange-Nassau) connects to earlier European nobility but not a 1626 monarchy directly. Continuity: low (2/5).
Belgium: monarchy created in 1830s. Current house (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) is genealogically linked to European royals but not tied to a 1626 monarchy. Continuity: low (1–2/5).
Swiss be liek „Yeah, gon‘ be a no from me, dawg.“ for 400+ years.
interesting point, reading really does enhance language skills over time
Both Genoa and Venice were Republics.
The Swedish king is a novelty, not a political figure lol. I assume that goes for most of the green-marked countries here.
I dont think 1626 PLC could be considered a proper monarchy. It was a sort of anarchic state with nobility ruling on their land how they saw fit, with regional republicanism when it comes to the law, mostly obstructing any change that would make it worse for the nobility caste, but also from time to time to enforce more serfdom on peseants. This being said there was no administration to enforce this, so it was more of social agreement between the lords to do smth. There was also a king, elected each time by nobility, but over time the king could do less and less and was sorta more of a representative, and a person promising more privileges to nobility if elected, also one who could call people for war, but again, no real administration thus it was all paralyzed by the need for support from nobility class. The commonwealth in plc stands from actually a republic, res publica – item/thing/wealth common/popular/public in latin, and them, the nobility saw themselfs as such. Ofc most of the peasant population had no represantation and vere basically a property of local noble, so if you want to look at republican ideas as egalitarian in some way, the it was not this, but besides that plc imo should be considered classist and rasist sort of a failed republic with a monarch representative head of state. Something like those ‚monarchies‘ of today where elective parliament decides and rules but there is still a figurehead with little power.
glad to see someone breaking it down so clearly, really helps understand the context
Chad Dutch politics lol
russia is a is a democracy only on paper