Why didn't the rise of gunpowder weapons lead to the downfall of monarchies?

Why didn't the rise of gunpowder weapons lead to the downfall of monarchies? Wouldn't putting mass produced weapons in the hands of the common citizenry generally be the sort of equalizer that leads to hierarchies based upon noble blood being cast down? So why didn't we see that happen historically?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    For most of history gunpowder weaponry was too expensive and unwieldy to be a weapon for the common citizenry

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    now you understand why mass shooting exist

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It did.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Do you see many monarchies around today?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It did.

      The German, British, Italian, Japanese, and Scandinavian monarchies all survive just fine long after the introduction of gunpowder.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >These glorified tourist attractions are going just fine

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The monarchies voluntarily chose to lessen their responsibilities so that they could enjoy more free time to pursue the pleasures of wealth.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I'm sure that's exactly what happened

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's literally what happened, the King of England for example has the power to dissolve parliament and has control over the entire British military, there'd be nothing to stop them from taking over, but they choose not to do so for the sake of enjoying their position without responsibility.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Citizens of England are not allowed to possess firearms

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            All of these countries still have immense gun control to this day.

            It wouldn't matter even if they had widespread firearm ownership, who would ever shoot the king?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Serbs

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure he does, I'm sure he does

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        All of these countries still have immense gun control to this day.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Most countries have strict gun control, monarchies or otherwise

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Firearms absolutely did weaken the power of nobility by decreasing the military role of heavy cavalry/knights. Dunno why you think it should've left to the downfall of monarchies though. Less power to nobility=more power to governement bureaucracy and the monarch at its top.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      (You)
      *should've led to the downfall of monarchies

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Why didn't the rise of gunpowder weapons lead to the downfall of monarchies?

      How, exactly?
      >Monarchs: BROOOOOO YOU MEAN I DONT HAVE TO RELY ON EXPENSIVE AF WARRIOR CLASSES/NOBLES AND ALL I DO IS ARM PLEB-SOLDIERS WITH A DEADLY FORCE MULTIPLIER NO WAAAAAAY

      Though in some situations it strengthened the power of the Nobility. Japan comes to mind when the Daimyo monopolized firearms in the realm.

      theese

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't the rise of gunpowder weapons lead to the downfall of monarchies?

    How, exactly?
    >Monarchs: BROOOOOO YOU MEAN I DONT HAVE TO RELY ON EXPENSIVE AF WARRIOR CLASSES/NOBLES AND ALL I DO IS ARM PLEB-SOLDIERS WITH A DEADLY FORCE MULTIPLIER NO WAAAAAAY

    Though in some situations it strengthened the power of the Nobility. Japan comes to mind when the Daimyo monopolized firearms in the realm.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *