THE FALL OF ABSOLUTISM IN SWEDEN
It was a typical November night with a light cold breeze in the air. The time was nine o clock in the evening and the date 30th of November 1718.
The King was standing firm at his place on the parapet that was facing the fortress of Fredriksten. It was the second military campaign against Norway and the siege had only lasted for ten days, until an unexpected event changed the situation dramatically.
While heavy firing was commencing from the fortifications, Charles XII stood there, on the very front line, gazing beyond the surroundings with his head out, uncovered by the parapet, as projectiles were swarming overhead. In close vicinity stood Bengt Vilhelm Carlberg, who served as fortification officer during the siege. This is his eye witness account of the event that followed:
“It was now when the unfortunate time had come, the time that ended everything. Barely a quarter of an hour had passed before His Majesty the King, who had been standing above and beside several high officers, was shot from nowhere. It was a shot that pierced through the left side of His Majesty The King’s head, leaving him motionless and dead .”
Charles XII efforts to strengthen the Swedish empire ultimately led to its fall and the rise of parliamentary reforms in Sweden
This was the end, and not only the end for Charles XII King of Sweden. But also the beginning of the end of the Great Northern War, and ultimately the end of the Swedish Empire. Sweden had fought two decades of constant war against Poland, Russia, Denmark and Norway. The outcome was over 200 000 casualties and an economy that was crippled.
Charles XII had been ruling Sweden as a divine right monarch. Absolutism brought him total power and with it responsibility. The responsibility to protect his people and strengthen the glory and greatness of Sweden, but both these responsibilities he failed to comply, and left was a poor, betrayed, miserable people with nothing but despise towards the state, and in particular absolutism as a form of government. The time of absolutism in Sweden was over, while the beginning of parliamentary reforms was taking its course.
What efforts did Charles XII make to strengthen the Swedish Empire? How did these efforts lead to the fall of Absolutism in Sweden, and finally what was the reason for reforming the parliamentary climate in Sweden?
In conclusion, opposition to personal rule between 1629 and 1640 was very strong. Charles had criticism and opposition coming at him from all directions and angles. This therefore put him under serious pressure. The key are of opposition for Charles was ‘Thorough’. This was the key are of opposition because it applied to the whole country, and eventually Ireland. ‘Thorough’ made itself lots of enemies as it was so far spread. Most, if not all areas, disliked ‘Thorough’ due to the king and his minions Wentworth and Laud putting pressure on the local sheriffs to abide by the kings word more.
When Charles X came to power after the death of Louis XVIII, the leader of the ultraroyalist faction came to power. Charles X first began compensating aristocrats who had lost their land during the revolution ...
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
Absolute monarchy (Absolutism), it is a form of monarchy in which a single ruler has supreme authority and it is not restricted by any written laws or customs. An example of absolutism monarchy is French King Louis XIV, Russian Tsar Peter the Great, or English King Henry VIII. Democracy is a system of government by elected representatives or officials. Example of democracy is the United States. These type of government exist in the 17th and 18th century in Europe. So the question is, which type of government was considered the most effective in Europe? In my opinion, I believe that absolutism was the most effective in Europe.
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...
The aim of absolute monarchy was to provide ‘stability, prosperity, and order’ for our territories (458). The way Louis XIV set forth to accomplish this was to claim complete sovereignty, to make laws, sanction justice, declare wars, and implement taxes on its subjects. This was all done without the approval of any government or Parliament, as monarchs were to govern ‘by divine right, just as fathers ruled their households’ (458). In Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, he described that absolution was one of the four characteristics imperative to royal authority, “Without this absolute authority, he can do neither good nor suppress evil; his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him” (460). This was epitomized when Louis XIV sought to control the legal system as well as the funding of the financial resources through a centralized bureaucracy for the monarchy.
The growth of European absolutism led to many different types of war and call for independence. One of the effects of absolutism was the European Civil War. This war, starting at 1642 and ending at 1649, was between the supporters of King Charles I and his opponents; he was an absolute monarch. An absolute monarch was a king or queen that had total control within their states' boundaries; this made him do whatever he wanted in England and it angered some people. King Charles had offended the Puritans by turning the kingdom to Anglicanism, and he offended the Parliament by putting them away from session because they bothered him about a petition he signed but ignored. All of those factor led to the English Civil War.
Absolutism is a political theory giving rulers complete sovereignty. Louis XIV was one of the most popular successful absolute monarchs. He exercised absolute paternal rights of a father on France and his powers were unlimited by church, legislature, or elites. Calling himself the "Sun King" after the God Apollo, he worked to banish feudalism and create a unified state under his absolute power. To illustrate this power he built the Palace at Versailles and created an elaborate, theatrical royal lifestyle. His reign of 72 years, from 1638 to 1715, it is the longest documented reign of any European monarch. To establish absolutism in France Louis XIV used divers strategies including the centralization of the French state, diminishing the nobles' power and oppressing the third estate.
The reign of Charlemagne was full of wars and invasions. Charlemagne became king of half of the Frankish empire while the other half was given to his brother, Carloman. When Pepin died, there was a void that needed filling and Charles and his brother were both made kings by the Frankish people. This division was not peaceful and the reign was marked with each brother fighting for the other’s land and power. When Carloman died and his wife Gerberga fled to Italy, Charlemagne became king of both halves of the Frankish kingdom. Charles became the strongest ruler in Western Europe overnight, and as soon as he had control over both halves of the kingdom he swung promptly into action carrying out a plan of dominating many lands in all directions. This new reign was full of wars in the beginning as Charlemagne was starting to dominate a lot of different places at the same time. He fought with the Lombards and the Saxons while simultaneously leading expeditions into Spain to take land and castles. He waged wars with the Huns, a Slavic set of wars, and the Danish War. All of these exploits by Charlemagne made him a very powerful ruler but he neglected the lands that he already ruled and famine and uprising was happening. Charlemagne dealt with these problems and continued to thrive as a ruler.
Charles V essentially failed in all aspects of his universal empire plan (3). In the end, he was never able to stop the spread of the Reformation in his empire (5). Although he fell short of his own goals for his reign, people still remember him for his sense of duty, strength of will, and integrity (11).
Although, Gustav III was initially admired by his people for staging a coup d’etat, his later actions caused him to become unpopular with the citizens and with global leaders. Gustav III of Sweden had a big act to follow after all the successful leaders that came before him but he contributed to the waning of the Vasa Dynasty by not being a good leader due to his inability to empathize with the citizens of his country. He lacks the ability to show concern for Sweden and is blinded by his self-interests. The article suggests that Gustav turned a blind eye when advisors or troops addressed complaints to him. He also made a habit of going behind the backs of his ministers. He easily faced down his opponents but was never able to gain respect because
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.
After Charles VI died, the war he had tried so hard to prevent broke out after Maria inherited the throne. Besides having to deal with the war, Maria found that Charles had left the Habsburg territories in a dire state of disrepair, along with an empty treasury.
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
The development of English Parliament was the single greatest effect of the Norman Conquest. France had a system of absolute monarchy, where each of the dukes’ estates were so powerful that they themselves could have overthrown the king of France. The king kept his power only by being a negotiator between the different counties, pinning them against one another. If they were to disagree with and rise up against the king,