why would anyone expect good long-term outcomes from any sort of monarchy or dictatorship and the like? it works well for a generation, maybe two, then it's civil war time, or your king is insane, or some other issue crops up. and then you're fucked for a couple of centuries until another good king comes along. let's take the british monarchy, for instance. it was a shitshow without real benefit for most of the time, and without accomplishments, until they beat a bunch of concessions out of the king, which eventually over some centuries lead to actual (if relative) improvements. > it got better as the king lost relevance then it declined again as the peasants got more and more uppity, which however was not totally unjustified. the track record of democracy is no worse than that of monarchy at minimum (= both are shit), so clearly it's not an improvement.
Germany