Absolutism is a favorable way to rule. This is because of the characteristics of a monarch. A ruler, according to Jacques Benigne Bossuet, must have certain traits. He must be caring, father-like to his country, beyond question, and they must rule with logic. The King also has a Divine Right to rule according to Jacques Benigne Bossuet. The King must rule in an Absolute state to have a country ruled the way that God wants it. Absolutism is also a good way to rule if it is not religious based. This is because a King has a paternal instinct toward his subjects in Absolutism. A King also has an instinct to do what is right for his subjects and country, according to Filmer. An Absolute State is an ideal way to rule because it benefits the monarch. The people are also happy because they will cared for. Bossuet says that the King has his right to rule by God. The King ruled by Divine Right, and thus he is beyond question. To question the King would be to question God. Bossuet’s justification of the Absolute State is thus a good justification. Bossuet adds a religious aspect into it that will convince the subjects to obey the King. His justification is good because people are fearful of God. He also says that if you allow the King to claim Divine Right, then his subjects …show more content…
This is because a King is a like a father of his subjects in his country. The King are the “natural parents of the whole people”(Filmer). This characteristic of a monarch that shows how a leader of a country must be is Paternal. An Absolute King must be paternal because he needs to care for his people. He needs to be paternal to care for his country. The paternal instinct about his subjects will cause him to make his decisions to benefit his subjects. This will make them happy, thus making it easier for a King to have obedient subjects. If a King has obedient subjects, he will have more power which will make him more
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.
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.
During the 17th century, the ideals of absolutism is completely condensened in the statement by King Louis XIV “Un roi, un loi, un foi” which translates to “One king, one law, one faith”. As the model for the rest of European powers that wanted to achieve absolutist rule, Louis XIV achieved his goals (of one king, one law, and one faith) very well.
Absolute Monarchy was a major form of government in Europe during the Renaissance. The monarch of that country controlled every aspect of their country and acts as the undisputed head of state. Whether economic, social, religious, or domestic the monarch had his say in every matter in their country. While except in places like the Middle East and Africa, absolute monarchs have ceased to exist, their policies and actions are used in the governments of today.
Although it is often argued that rulers such as Joseph II, Catherin II, and Frederick II were motivated to instate enlightened principles; oftentimes, these rulers were slaves to the ideals of despotism, where the preeminent goal was to obtain more power. Indeed it may be a legitimate claimed that these rulers realized the greatness of Enlightenment ideas; however, since most of their reigns were spent preserving dominance over their people, it is safe to say that these individuals may have been more dedicated to serving their own self-interests.
middle of paper ... ... Throughout the Early Modern Period, absolutism prevailed in most of the lands of Europe as modeled on the French monarchy. Absolutism placed complete authority within the hands of the ruling sovereigns instead of the people. Many of them, however, such as King Frederick the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia, were supporters of the Enlightenment.
Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, Western Europe experienced multiple types of rulers which then led to the belief that rulers should be a combination of leadership types. Some rulers were strong, some weak, and some were considered to rule as tyrants. All of these were versions of absolutism which gave kings absolute power over their provinces and countries. Over time kings began to believe that their supreme power was given to them by God in a belief known as Divine Right. The people looked at Divine Right kings as those who would incorporate God’s will into their politics; however, many kings took this power and turned it into tyrannical opportunities. By the time the seventeenth century came around, kings continued to believe in Divine Right and absolute power which continued to create many tyrannical kings and caused many of the people to begin to fight the king’s power by granting some rights to the people. These uprisings led to more people believing that they have certain rights that the king cannot ignore. By the eighteenth century, many rulers started to combine their absolute power with including the newly granted rights of the people. The belief also shifted from Divine Right to one that the people gave the king his power which led to kings like Frederick II of Prussia to rule with his people’s interests in mind.
While absolutism benefited Louis XIV and France during the 17th century, other countries were unable to sustain his model as long as he did. This model dispersed to as absolute monarchs were seeing the world change from when the Sun King reigned (491).
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.
According to the text book, an absolute monarch is a king or queen who has unlimited power and seeks to control all aspects of society (McDougall little, 1045). In more simple terms, it is a ruler who can do just about anything without having to get permission from anyone, or having to worry about the repercussions. This was a trend that started in the 1600’s by European leaders who were rich, and didn’t like to be told what to do. These conflicts arose with the States-General in France, or Parliament in England who had substantial control. The first countries to have absolute rulers were the traditionally strong countries, such as England, Spain, and of course Louis XIV’s France.
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.
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 William Shakespeare’s play “King Lear’, there are several issues that answer the questions about our duty to our fathers and our kings, as well as, whether there are ever circumstances when we should disobey them in order to do our duty to them. Our duty to our fathers and our kings is not only to love and obey them, show them respect and honor them, but it is also to humble them, keep them honest when necessary, keep them safe and protect them. You cannot have the praise without the discipline of being a good father or a good king. To be praised and worshiped as many kings and sometimes fathers are by their children, can breed a sense of entitlement that can be damaging to their character.
If you were asked to answer the question, “Which king in European history was the best representative of absolutism?”, you would probably answer, “Louis XIV.” If you were asked to identify the king with the biggest palace and the most glamorous court, you would answer “Louis XIV.” If you were asked to identify the king whose reign coincided with the most glorious period of culture in his country's history, you would answer “Louis XIV.” If you were asked to identify what king fought an endless series of wars, heavily taxed his population, set up the pre-conditions for a revolution against his own system and was jeered by his people as his body was taken to be buried, then you would answer “Louis XIV.”