Absolute vs. New Monarchs
Monarchy was not at all a new institution in the 15th, 16th, or 17th centuries. It wasn’t even very different with respect to the goals that prevailed in each monarchy. However, the differences between the New and Absolute Monarchy come in the way of the methods, theories, and conditions prevalent throughout the different monarchical reigns.
The main goal of new and absolute monarchies was the centralize the state. War, civil war, class war, feudal rebellion, and banditry afflicted a good deal of Europe in the middle of the fifteenth century. Various rulers now tried to impose a kind of civil peace. They thus laid the foundations for the national states. Similarly, in the early part of the 17th century, wars pertaining now to religion and dynasty had a profound impact upon the western European states. As military spending increased, monarchs realized the importance unifying their state possessed.
The difference between the two monarchies’ plan for a centralized state was the method in which both were carried out. In the time of the New Monarchies, religion was integral to unifying the state. Monarchs such as Isabella of Castile tried to unify their countries as a result of religious purification. Isabella believed firmly that a stable Spain would only stem from a Catholic Spain. As a result, the reconquista was initiated and unification took place around the church. The monarchs insisted on religious conformity. In addition, parliamentary institutions were ignored or even sometimes abolished in order to centralize and bring peace to the state. Townspeople, the target of monarchs for support, were willing to let parliaments be dominated by the king, for parliaments p...
... middle of paper ...
...was not to preserve peace, but to preserve the sovereignty and independence of the states of Europe against potential aggressors. The basic rule was to ally against any state threatening domination. The weaker countries would seek alliance with the other weaker states. They would thus create a balance or counterweight against the state whose ascendancy they feared.
Overall, the goals of the monarchies remained mainly the same but as the social and political conditions changed and monarchs learned from past experience, the methods of attaining these goals became quite different. In addition, monarchs were viewed quite differently between the two time periods which also attains to the differences in method. However, it can be seen that the "New Monarchs" had great influence on the establishment of ideals and policies in the subsequent era "Absolute Monarchs".
France and England both worked with the middle class, and they both centralized power, yet France gained an absolute monarchy, while England didn’t. What was the difference between their growing of royal power? In addition to centralizing power and working with the middle class, they got rid of the nobles and they both had kings who refined the countries. However, when England got rid of the nobles, they didn’t gain any royal power, and their kings didn’t benefit their search for royal power. Unlike England, French absolutism succeeded due to its ability find their way around the nobles and powerful and determined kings.
The government within the monarchical society was populated by the aristocracy. It was they who were depended upon for directing the course of governmental affairs. The controls of all co...
However, here the was a monarchy and a king with great control over the government. Using his control of the economy, a strong "Mercantilism" system was used aimed at maximizing foreign exports and reserves. The king became the center of this new power. The last major point which increased political power was the reorganizing of the central governments in both England and in France. The economic changes in this century required new relationships between the King and his subjects.
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.
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.
This set a belligerent mood in Europe as each nation was prepared to fight a war. A German officer once said "in time of peace, prepare for war," and that is exactly what European nations did, eventually leading to the Great War. Without a doubt, the one underlying cause of the three described above that was most responsible for World War I was the system of alliances.
The Reformation spurred a wave of political devolution throughout Europe in the early 1500s, the most obvious example being that of the Holy Roman Empire. Although the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire had managed to keep hold of its power throughout a time of political unification, the Reformati...
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
Alliances played a hefty role in the inevitability of World War One. Countries were constantly at each other’s necks and needed power in order to protect themselves from each other. This is where alliances came in; countries could seek shelter from others by developing truces with close friends. Having a truce was beneficial in most ways because it provided the illusion of being a bigger power, and offered one extra support in case of a crippling event. Then again they did also create tensions between the countries that could only escalate further. For example, in the year 1879 there was a dual alliance created between Germany and Austria-Hungry. This alliance was created to protect them from Russia, who ...
The Alliances not only contributed to war breaking out; it made the war last longer and become on a much larger scale; major political disputes would inevitably cause a large conflict. The alliances caused suspicion, fear, and tension among nations. The two camps were the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary). When countries formed alliances with each other it gave them protection, if a country was threatened or under attack then the alliance would come to that country’s aid. Countries made an alliance when they both needed protection from a stronger country. When Austria-Hungary had heard about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand they went to war with Serbia which resulted in a chain reaction of countries going to war with one another, and when countries teamed up to support their attacked friends when war came, it meant that a number of nations would fight, not only the two involved in a dispute. The division of...
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...
The importance of the alliance system that developed in Europe in the decades before World War I as a cause for it is still an important topic of debate and argument between modern historians. Some argue that the alliance system was a direct cause of the outbreak of war between all major countries in Europe while other historians prefer to state that the alliance configuration we observe before the war started was simply a symptom of the conflicts and disagreements, fears and envies that had been accumulating since the Bismarck system of alliances collapsed, and even before then. This last opinion is becoming more accepted as the one that describes the true importance of the actual alliance system as a cause of the war. In order to determine the importance of the alliance system as a cause for the war we must first explore the origins of these alliances. We will take high-point of the Bismarck system in 1878 as our starting point as the Franco-Prussian war is a key factor for the development of this system.