Absolute Monarchs During the Renaissance

2895 Words6 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Rise of Mercantilism in Europe

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. During the Renaissance countries like Spain, England, France, Russia, Sweden, and Austria all had absolute monarchs. Even though they differed in many policies they all had the power to do anything they pleased. The only thing that held them in check was the morale support of their armies. If the army of the monarchs were to go against them then all the power of the monarch would be lost. This was highly important because many of the absolute monarchs would fight against each other for religious or purely political reasons. They would fight in Europe or in their overseas colonies in the new world. After years of turmoil during the reign of Ivan the Terrible the Boyar Duma, ,a council of Russian nobles, appointed the young Peter Alekseyevich Romanovas the next Tsar of Russia. He was better known as Peter the Great. Peter took control of his country and established a dynasty that lasted until World War I. Peter realized that Russia seemed like a backwards country compared to Western Europe. He recruited western figures to come to Russia as his ministers and help him fulfil his policy of Westernization. Peter instituted the policy of Mercantilism from Western Europe to stimulate agriculture, industry and commerce. The state dominated all forms of industry. The state was the sou... ... middle of paper ... ...in was in dire need for money to support his military he appealed to Parliament and after the signing of the Petition of Right it was awarded but he lost the war anyways. Charles was very anti Calvinist and wanted to return to the Episcopalian way of the Anglican Church, while a majority of the people and Parliament wanted to continue the reformation to a more Presbyterian style. Charles was seen as a Catholic sympathizer mainly due to his marriage to the Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. He forced the Episcopalian-Anglican prayer book on the Scottish. Outraged the Scottish openly rebelled. The rebellion was later incorporated into the parliamentarians during the English Civil War. Charles had a very unstable relationship with Parliament. Earlier in his reign he needed money for one of his wars. Parliament refused to support this war. Charles desperate for money

Show More
Related

  • The Failure Of Charles I's Personal Rule

    1284 Words  | 3 Pages

    This was first brought to his attention in 1633 when he visited Scotland to have his coronation in Edinburgh, he noticed the ‘lack of ceremony and unscripted prayers’ and therefore introduced the New Prayer Book in 1637. Furthermore, the Puritan Network was a core group of opposition to Charles even though Parliament was absent, influential members of the network include Lord Saye and Sele, John Pym and Oliver Cromwell. In addition, the trial of Prynne, Bastwick and Burton caused further resentment towards Charles and his Personal Rule as they were accused for attacking the bishops. Moreover, the religious problems continued in Scotland with the First Bishops’ War because Alexander Leslie was the commander of the Scots and a ‘veteran of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany’. Also, most of the Scottish fighters were also experience with fighting as they served in the Swedish army fighting the cause of Protestantism in Sweden. Religion was the basis for the start of the First Bishops’ War and it was a headache for Charles after he tried to impose religious reforms to Scotland. Religion was an important reason for the failure of Personal Rule because the Puritan Network had important members and they were the main source of opposition against

    Read More

  • How strong was the opposition to personal rule in England between 1629-1640

    952 Words  | 2 Pages

    The first of these is Religion. Charles came under attack from, in simple terms, the Protestants and the Catholics. He had this attack on him for many different reasons. He was resented by the Catholics, because he was a protestant. To be more precise, he was an Arminian, which was a sector from the protestant side of Christianity. On the other side of the spectrum, he is resented by the puritans, as they see him as too close in his religious views to Catholicism. Furthermore, he is disliked by the puritans as he put restrictions on their preaching and themselves. The puritans were a well organised opposition to Personal rule. The top puritans, linked through family and friends, organised a network of potential opposition to the king and his personal rule. This ‘Godly party’ as they became known, was made up of gentry, traders, lawyers and even lords. This group of powerful and extremely influential people was the most well organised opposition to Charles’ personal rule.

    Read More

  • Peter The Great Case Study

    1116 Words  | 3 Pages

    Peter the Great was trying ultimately to make the Russian Empire more Europeanized or Westernized. He wanted to protect and enhance the vulnerable Russian Empire. Peter the Great saw that other European countries are colonizing in other regions like the New World, Asia, and Africa. Peter saw this as a threat and didn’t want for the Europeans to conquer Russia. Through decrees to shave and provisions on dress, he was trying to make them European. He also wanted to make military and economic reforms that could help the empire itself. If they built factories, they didn’t need to get supplies from Europe.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Louis Xiv And Peter The Great

    953 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Social and Economic Changes Brought by Peter The Great

    635 Words  | 2 Pages

    I believe that there was so much attention given to Peter the Great because of his extensive reforms. Peter brought both social and economic changes to his country. He wanted to make Russia big. Peter transformed the culture; he wanted his people to wear the western European fashion. Many of the people were not thrilled with the change because they did not like the ways of the western European societies. He made his navy stronger, he reformed his army to meet the western standards, and he gained control over the church.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Charles I And Louis Xiv

    337 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the Age of Absolutism, both England and France had strong absolute monarchies and leaders. Though Louis XIV, monarch of France, and Charles I, leader of Britain, both served as their country’s king and served in this role in different ways.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Ap Euro Dbq Absolutism

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Absolute Monarchy in Different Empires Throughout History

    1105 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Most Successful Absolute Monarch in Europe was Louis XIV of France

    1549 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Duty Of Care Case Study

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    The nurse, a traveling nurse, was working on a unit and received orders for infusion of normal saline in a 7 month old. He saw a small bag of what appeared to be saline on the desk in the nurse’s station, with the manufacturer’s pre-printed labeling indicating that it was filled with normal saline. One key aspect, as described by the traveling nurse, was that he had encountered in other health systems that pediatric infusions were specified in small bags. Based upon these two perceptions, the nurse administered the infusion – despite the pharmacy applied label being on the other side of the bag. Needless to say, the child died shortly after receiving the infusion, despite resuscitation attempts. The infusion was actually prepared for his adult patient

    Read More

  • Russia´s Peter the Great

    782 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter the Great had many goals during the time he ruled. One of his biggest goals was to modernize and westernize Russia. The main reason Peter the Great modernized Russia was because he did not want the country he ruled to be left vulnerable to expansionist powers in Europe. The powers were constantly at war, fighting to take over each other’...

    Read More

  • Louis XIV

    782 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The End of Absolutism in Europe

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of European Absolutism

    484 Words  | 1 Pages

    Charles Louis XIV was the leader of France when he was five years old. That is just one example of the hereditary monarchies. European Absolutism was made up of monarchs that had supreme rule over their kingdom. Although it led to some great outcomes, some leaderships were not so great. The period of European Absolutism between the 16th and 17th centuries was a period of tyranny because of the leaders misuse of power and God-like character.

    Read More

  • The Absolute Monarchy Of France In The 17th Century

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Absolute Monarchs During the Renaissance

Open Document