European monarchs from the Early Modern Era were indeed justified in their decision to wield complete power over everyone else. Absolute monarchs have proven time and time again that their ruling style greatly benefits their people if done correctly. While many people in today’s society would argue that having an absolute ruler would be an unwise decision, you must take in consideration the fact that they have a bias opinion based of their current government. Rulers like Catherine the Great and Maria Theresa are known for doing great things and that further proves the advantages of establishing a monarchy. Even though absolute rulers are rare now, that doesn’t change the fact that it is every efficient.
On many occasions as well as
…show more content…
in different countries, kings and monarchs have been seen as gods. The reason for this is that they have the divine rights of kings. This states that that kings have been chosen by god to lead the common people, which really helps when one is trying to rule over a religious territory. King James the First of England shares the same beliefs for he says, “ God has the power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge everyone and be judged by no one… and his kings have the same powers” (Document 1). It is clear that King James believes that people should worship their kings the same way they worship god, allowing for a more prosperous ruling by said monarch. There is however a similar, but vastly different belief that was also very popular at the time. This belief was that while kings and princes were created by god to do their bidding, they were not allowed to abuse their power. The Dutch Declaration of Independence states, “ He (God) created the prince to govern the people according to fairness, to love and support them as a father supports his children. When he does not behave like this, but instead puts them down with violence, and looks for chances to take away their ancient customs and rights… then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant”(Document 2). Even though both views vary on what a king or prince should do, they both agree that they were either created or chosen by God to lead the comman man. There are many philosophers that agree with the idea of having an absolute monarch. Thomas Hobbes is one of those people, he believes that the common man is too stupid to rule themselves and that they need a well educated nobleman to take care of them. Another one of his ideals is that the government was created to take care of itself and maintain order, while the common people are there to help the government and not the other way around. In his book the Leviathan he writes, “During the time men live without a common power (government) to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war… in such conditions, there is no place for industry… no arts; no learning; no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death. And the life of the man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Document 3). Another philosopher that agreed to the idea of having an absolute monarch was Machiavelli. According to Machiavelli, he believes that men are wicked people and that they are quick to turn their backs on someone they love. However, in the other hand he states, “Men hesitate less to offend a man who is loved than one who is feared...Fear on the other hand, is connected to a dread of punishment, which never relaxes” (Document 7). While this does not excessively say that he supports absolutism, it is very obvious that he does since not only does he serve a prince, but the title of his book is called The Prince. Even though philosophers of the time were usually very liberal by today's standards, there were many that approved of absolutism. The best way to get information on a topic is to talk to someone that is involved in said topic, so by logic there is no one better to talk about absolute rulership than the monarch King Louis XIV himself.
Louis the Great, as some called him, was a firm believer of absolutism since he himself saw the effects it had on countries if done correctly. In his opinion sharing power would lead to corruption. According to him, “ The more power or rights you grant to the assemblies of people, the more they want… Instead, the needs and interest of the state must come first” (Document 5). In other words, Louis is saying that if one grants power to their people then they will grow greedy and would only act to benefit themselves. The best way to prevent such a thing would be to have one person hold all the power therefore preventing corruption. Likewise having this ruler with all the power would ensure that he would only act in ways that would benefit his kingdom and his people. Another very influential person from this time period was also one of the best orator and his name was Jacques Benigne Bossuet. Jacques was an apologist towards absolute monarchy. In his eyes the king’s power must not be inescapable if one wishes to retain a powerful and prosperous nation. In one of his books he
writes, The royal power is absolute,...The prince need not explain or account of his acts to anyone, ...Without this absolute authority [he] could neither do good or repress evil. It is necessary that his power be such that no one can hope to escape him. ...The prince is not regarded as a private person; he is a public person, all the state is in him and the will of all the people is included in his. ...all the power of individuals is united in the person of the prince.” This means that if the prince or ruler does not have all the power than they are unable to help their people, nor would they be able to prevent evil from arising (Document 9). Absolute monarchs are essential to the prosperity of a kingdom and it would be unwise for one to try to disband such an instrument of progress. Rulers of the Early Modern Era were not only justified in their decision to retain complete and total power, they were required to do so for the sake of their kingdom. Rulers like King James the First and Louis XIV did their people a great deed by taking on the burden of shouldering all the responsibility that comes with being an absolute monarch. While it is true that countries like the United States and France are able to prosper without a monarch. It would be unjust to say that this sort of government would work well during the Early Modern Era. In conclusion monarchs were completely justified in their attempts to control all the power instead of having a governmental party or an elected official.
Louis XIV is considered the “perfect absolutist” and he has been said to have been one of the greatest rulers in France’s history. He came up with several different strategic plans to gain absolute
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
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.
nation. In order to become a true absolute ruler Louis xiv needed to make sure
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.
Machiavelli wrote that a ruler should be both like “a lion and a fox” (The Prince, Chapter XVIII). By this Machiavelli means that a ruler should be like a lion to keep away the wolves that can get to the fox who finds the traps that the lion could get into. Essentially, a ruler should be cunning and powerful. Elizabeth I of England and Louis XIV of France fit these characteristics. Louis XIV acted as a lion in such ways as the Edict of Fontainebleau which took away the power of the Huguenots. Elizabeth I of England was like a lion because she married her country, not a man, therefore keeping all power to herself and frightening away the “wolves.” Louis XIV acted as a fox by getting away from the “traps” of the nobility by heavily taxing them because he did not want to relive the Fronde, a civil war where he was humiliated by nobles (Tom Richey, Louis XIV Rap 0:27-0:31). Elizabeth acted as a fox because she was religiously tolerant and kept England away from “traps” that could lead to wars.
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.
... move, defunding any revolts they might plan, and preoccupying their time with petty social matters instead of matters of the state. If Louis’ reign was not supported by the enabling qualities of the Palace of Versailles, his reign would certainly not be as absolute as it was.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
The European monarchs during that time period lacked any kind of selflessness. They want to keep themselves safe and protected. They will act deceitful and will always be eager to avoid danger (Machiavelli). They will be a person’s best friend when they need to, but when they are put in danger, they forget everything about the friendship. The selfish way of ruling makes it a tyranny. People's opinions about how the government should run are uncared for which gives the monarchs a chance to rule in a cruel way, in a tyranny. The monarchs were doing what they felt was right for their kingdom, but they should not have the right to decide what the members of the government do
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
Over the course of Louis’ rein, he showed that he was a bad monarch because he abused his power. Ultimately, he made the citizens unhappy. Louis believed that Kings “are born to possess all and command all” and their power should not be questioned. This caused him to make impulsive decisions without thinking of the citizens opinions because they were not supposed to question him. If his power was questioned Louis was quickly able to say that God gave him the power to make decisions therefore they were right.