Absolutism is defined as a form of government where the monarch rules their land freely without legal opposition. In modern times, when democracy is the ideal, this form of government seems cruel and tyrannical; however, there was an era when it thrived in European politics. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, absolute rule was justified by the concept of divine right and its improvements to the security and efficiency of a nation. Divine right was a widespread idea under absolutist government: the concept that a king’s power was derived from God, and that kings therefore had the power to act as God on Earth. In 1609, James I of England spoke on this idea, proclaiming that kings were God’s lieutenants on Earth and likewise deserved the unquestioned authority of Gods …show more content…
Jean Domat published The Ideal State in 1697, which clearly outlines that the main two responsibilities of a sovereign are to uphold justice and to defend the nation against its foreign enemies (Document 4). This shows how security was a large aspect of absolutist rule. One of the examples of this is Peter the Great. As Michael Gibson writes in Peter the Great, at the beginning of Peter’s rule Russia had virtually no military; however, by his death he had created a professional 210,000-man army as well as a large navy, strengthening the argument of absolutists such as Thomas Hobbes. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote in his Leviathan about the need for an all-powerful, strong leader, claiming that without a common power, mankind would live in a condition of constant war (Document 3). He argues that the only way a state can defend itself against foreigners is by conferring all authority to one man, emphasizing the importance of this system to peace and defense. This clearly demonstrates how constructive absolutism was believed to be towards the state of a nation’s
Absolute monarchs ruled though the policy of absolutism. Absolutism declared that the king ruled though divine right with a legitimate claim to sole and uncontested authority (French State Building and Louis XIV). On this basis, Louis XIV of France and Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire were both absolute monarchs. Each ruler believed that his power belonged to him and him alone due to divine right. They showed their absolute power by living lavishly, increased their power by waging wars, and kept their power by ensuring complete loyalty of their subjects.
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts for governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life. He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principalities and a republics by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
In the seventeenth century there were different types of leaders in Europe. The classic monarchial rule was giving way to absolutist rule. Absolute kings claimed to be ruling directly from God, therefore having divine rule that could not be interfered with. In 1643 Louis XIV began his reign over France as an absolute king.
During the 16th and 17th centuries a new type of ruling emerged as a result of unorganized government called royal absolutism. This type of government was seen in many European countries including France and Russia where King Louis XIV and Peter the Great ruled respectively. Both had ways of ruling that were similar to each other and different to each other. Politically, economically and socially both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were similar to and different from how they ruled and what their reign resulted.
In France Absolutism was justified by the divine right of kings and the people themselves wanted a strong monarch. A unique feature to the absolutist state of Russia was that Peter had control over the Church. He did this by getting rid of the role of patriarch and establishing the Holy Synod a group who would lead the Church with his control. In Austria, the Habsburgs were broke and wanted to regain their power, the nobles only allowed an absolutist state because their cooperation would let them keep their money and lands. Also, the people needed order and unity.
During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France participated in four wars, while Peter of Russia ruthlessly executed anyone who stood against his will. Secondly, monarchs attempted to change religious beliefs. This was notable in England where rulers such as James II desired to convert the Anglican nation into Catholicism. Finally, the burden of taxation was more than the population could support. France was brought into huge foreign debt, English kings constantly attempted to raise money, and Peter of Russia increased taxes by 550 percent. These are some of the key reasons why absolutism failed in Europe.
“I am the state!” Declares French king Louis XIV to his Parliament in 1655. He wanted not only to be called king, but to control every aspect of his country. Although there is no proof that he actually said he was the state, it is an excellent summary of his “self-centered” style of rule, now called absolutism. Absolutism was a form of government popular in many European nations during the 1600s and 1700s. Absolute monarchs like Louis presided over their nations with an iron fist. Many absolute rulers were attributed godlike status, some kings even claimed to be equal or near equal with God Himself. This is opposed to feudalism, where nobles and vassals of the king control the land and much of the power or modern monarchies like Britain where the monarch is merely a figurehead. If the monarch was an effective ruler, this could be beneficial. However, if the ruler was greedy or ineffective, it could lead the nation to ruin. Absolutism is a form of government where the ruler
Absolutism was a period of tyranny in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries because monarchs had complete power to do whatever they pleased. Since absolutism is a "monarchical form of government in which the monarch's powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law" essentially there are no boundaries for actions the monarch can and cannot take. The absolutists did not focus on the people under their rule, they ruled by fear and punishment, and believed they were equal to God.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
The Declaration applied concepts of the Enlightenment traditions in how it reflected the experience of people living with absolutism and created a new form of religion in France.
Absolutism describes a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. To achieve absolutism one must first promote oneself as being powerful and authoritative, then the individual must take control of anyone who might stand in the way of absolute power. The Palace of Versailles helped King Louis XIV fulfill both of those objectives. Versailles used propaganda by promoting Louis with its grandiosity and generous portraits that all exuded a sense of supremacy. Versailles also helped Louis take control of the nobility by providing enough space to keep them under his watchful eye. The Palace of Versailles supported absolutism during King Louis XIV’s reign through propaganda, and control of nobility.
The term ‘absolute” defines the singular power of the monarch to control every aspect of governing without the aid of the aristocracy or parliamentary forms of governance. The example of Louis XIII defines the rise of absolute monarchy in the 17th century, which eliminated agreements, such as the edict of Nantes, which enabled to aristocracy rights and powers in governmental decisions., however, Louis XIII dissolved these laws in order to gain total dominance over governmental affairs through military and financial might. In this example. Louis XIII defines the role of absolute monarch and the individual powers that the king welled over the government in 17th century
In Absolutism the country is ruled by way of the unjustifiable decisions of the king with the citizens not partaking in the government. “The head alone has the right to deliberate and decide, and the functions of all the other members consist only of carrying out the commands given to them… The more you grant…[to the people] the more they claim...The interest of the state must come first” (Doc. 3). This statement highlights how the king had a majority of the power, and did not believe he should share the wealth. Although Absolutism is the inadequate form of government, it does contain a few positive aspects. For example, without any power amongst the citizens, there is less rebellion and and civil war amongst the people. In addition, if the ruler is good, he can use his power for good without a Parliament to reject