Was absolute monarch the foundation of Democracy? In today’s world, there are several types of governments that control their countries. There are democracies, dictatorships, republics, monarchies etc. Absolute monarchy was a very common form of government centuries ago. Throughout this time period, many leaders, dictators, monarchs made mistakes that the government looks at today. The abuse and misuse of power by absolute monarchs inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy. This is shown through leaders abusing their powers as absolute monarchs, the unreliability of monarchy, and corrupt governments. During the fifteenth to nineteenth century, there were several leaders from different countries, who abused their powers as absolute monarchs. The misuse of their powers led to downfall of their country. An example of an absolute monarch who abused their powers is Louis XIV. He is a very important figure in history because he would make decisions and everyone would be under his power and control. For example, he controlled all the taxations, military power and justice. Furthermore, he did not set a list of defined rules. What this meant was that whatever he wanted to do at the time became the law and he could change it anytime. Louis built the Palace of Versailles which demonstrated the wealth and power of the monarch. The expenses for building the palace ended up with peasants unable to pay the increased tax. The country was enraged, countless suffered from poverty and famine. The proposition of a revolution was spread and Louis divine rights were being stripped away. The inevitable failure of absolute monarchy led to the uprising of the Reign of Terror and Napoleon Bonaparte. After the beheading of the King and Queen, France ... ... middle of paper ... ...stakes that were made and try to avoid them. Without a doubt, democracy was the answer for most of these governments. If leaders were formally elected by citizens to represent them, the representative would not abuse their powers. If there was indeed a loophole in the way this system worked, the government would elect again to make further decisions. If King George III considered a democracy rather than a monarchy, the British Regency Crisis would not have existed. If the directory had made decisions as a whole rather than Napoleon crowning himself as dictator, many wars would most definitely be prevented. If monarchy was not the way the French government worked during 1770’s, the Queen would not have been a young, inexperienced fifteen year old girl, Marie Antoinette. The abuse and misuse of power from these absolute monarchs inevitably led to the rise democracy.
Differently, England failed at absolutism as a result of unstable, unpowerful, and differently minded kings and their failure at overpowering the nobles. France was able to gain more royal power than England, leaving them with complete control over their country, and left Europe without complete control. Learning how countries gained an absolute monarchy is important in the modern world because from this, people learned how to develop modern governments. Afterwards, countries started to decide whether it would be in their best interest for sovereigns to be under the law, rather than above the law. The old need for an absolute monarchy turned into a need for a government that was right for the
In his book The French Revolution, William Doyle talks about the king’s power before the The French Revolution. Doyle explains that the king has an absolute monarchy over the citizens in France. An absolute monarchy is when a king or queen has full control over his citizens. The king is the judge, jury, and the executioner for his people. Whatever the king decides goes, no one has a say in what he has decided on. There are several examples that Doyle talks about in his book that shows how King Louis the 16th had an absolute monarchy over his citizens before 1787.
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.
people decide that they want a dictatorship. If I was a ruler during the period of the
...nstead the state consists of rulers who behave like subjects and subjects who behave like rulers. The people begin to desire a strong leader, who will make the difficult decisions for them and bear the consequences: the Democracy has become a Tyranny.
The prevailing government of Europe from 1900-century back was absolute monarchism, this form of government worked very well considering the belief of all people in god and the teaching. Monarchist use this belief to justify this rule in. if they could make the people believe that they were ordained position by god then they had no worries because the people belief in god was so prevailing that it was not mentionable in private to go against it. Napoleon and Louis XIV were the ideal rules to use this type of ruling. Napoleon and Louis XIV were the same type of rulers by using the divine right monarchy to control the people of their country, which was France. Napoleon and Louis way of ruling and other similarity were so alike that they could have traded their period when they sat at the throne and the people would have not noticed
First of all, I overshadowed many of Louis XIV’s accomplishments in the previous paragraph. His most important accomplishment is that he established France as a military power that could not be competed with until the French Revolution long after his death. Philip II of Spain created a rich and powerful nation that, for a time, was one, if not the most powerful country in the world. Even after Spain's humiliating defeat against England, the country remained a force to be reckoned with for years. At least when it comes to militaries, absolute monarchs are extremely useful. Four of the the five countries I analyzed (France, Spain, Prussia, and Russia) were all centers for art and literature too. Religious tolerance was a rarity in the 16 and 17 hundreds, but one to the few countries to have it was Prussia, and they had an absolute monarch. In conclusion, I believe that absolute monarchs generally bring more good than harm to their nations because of their support for the arts and their military and economic
Absolute monarchies were very dominant political systems during the age of absolutism. The aspect of an absolute monarchy that made it so successful was the complete control that each ruler was able to gain over the country. The dictionary definition of an absolute monarchy is when there is one ruler whom has total control without laws or a constitution to hold him back from giving any orders. This was a very helpful system for many of the rulers during the Age of Absolutism. During this time it was common for one person to be head of state however the rulers who took upon this political system were sometimes negatively affected. There were four main examples of rulers who affected their whole government negatively due to their absolute monarchy. These rulers were Louis XIV(the sun god), Peter the great the tsar of Russia, Charles I, and Philip II. These rulers were able to grow large empires through the ideas of a absolute monarchy. However, their empires were also weakened by absolutism because as enlightenment ideas came to the people they began to realize the unfairness going on. The people began to yearn for equality and started to revolt
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.
Every system was corrupt, there was practically no right and wrong; no order, just rebellion. Several conflicting arguments can be made, but there is a definite decision to make in this situation.... ... middle of paper ... ... King Louis XVI tried to rule his country with an absolute monarchy, and the plan backfired substantially.
In this context, an absolute monarch would be revolve around a single leader (usually a king) that would make decisions without the assistance of the aristocracy, such as a the nobility, the parliament, or other organizations that include the interest of wealthy families or government officials. In this case, the king would act alone in deciding the political, economic, and military decisions of the people, which would illustrate the absolute power that is wielded by the individual making the decisions. This governmental interpretation of the term “absolute” defines how a king would rule without the interference or inhibitions of an aristocracy or democratic form of government. Of course, the realization of this type o government can be better explained through the context of the absolute monarchy in France, which was founded in the leadership of king Louis
First, there are major points that give the monarchy a better form of government. A major point is impartiality, Presidents and Prime Ministers come to power after expensive and difficult elections, which take a lot of time. These people make commitments to their voters to cr...
In the 1600’s and 1700’s Europe had much going on when it came to government. France along with Russia had absolute monarchs who had a vast amount of power and wealth. However England was doing the opposite by trying to limit royal power, they also protected the rights of some of their people. No government is perfect though, seeing as there are advantages and disadvantages to both absolutism and democracy. Nonetheless, the 17th and 18th century enlightened European nations would be most successful with a democracy. The freedoms of people, which many well-like philosophe of this time expanded upon, would be protected in this type of government. Revolts would also be prevented without the use of fear in a democracy. This too allows powers to be spread out, so a head alone doesn’t make all the decisions. Following the enlightenment European nations would strongly benefit from a Democracy compared to Absolutism.
... result of a direct democracy, complications like getting every citizen to vote on every single issue, something close to impossible with modern populations that grow like grass in springtime. These changes have caused democracy to become intertwined with other forms of government, and while they have caused a deviation from pure democracy, they have allowed countless nations to function efficiently while maintaining the basic pillar of democracy: that ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.