Catherine The Great Were The Negative Effects Of Absolute Monarchs

478 Words1 Page

In general, absolute monarchs developed their nations more than they harmed them. With Catherine the Great being a absolute monarch she did a lot for her country. Catherine ruled for a total of 34 years. During which she made good educated choices for her country. She was a patron of the arts because she believed it to be important and that is could build Russia a reputation as a center of civilization. She also built more schools for girls and boys. Catherine also write up the “Nakaz” declaring that every man be equal. She also worked to change the feudal system for people that were owned by landowner for life. These laws she wrote from the ideas of another absolute monarch. Catherine did many things for her country during her reign. By also winning wars to get new and more territory. Another absolute monarch that did a lot for their country was Peter the Great. Like Catherine he established a great nation. Peter built the up his army and made them better trained. Plus, he put the Russian orthodox church under his control. As well as reducing the power of the nobles. He gave power to his country with him as ruler. Overall, absolute rulers were better for their country because they knew what was wrong and knew how to fix it. …show more content…

Using Maria Theresa as an absolute monarch harmed her country more than helped. She forced labor on peasants and that lead to riots in villages.As well as having peasants pay crazy taxes to lords. She also put her country in a 7 year war that drained resources. Philip the second is another example of a absolute monarch that harmed more than helped. He was obsessed with keeping with his faith and awencering to God. He made sure that there were no heretics in his country. Philip was also known to be a prudent. He did not have clear ideas that he wanted for his country. To finalise absolute monarch harmed their countries a

Open Document