The Russian Tyrant Vs. the Sun King When a ruler holds authority that is only second to the divine beings themselves, an absolute monarch is born. Throughout history, Europe has been home to many monarchs that help define the term absolutism. Most notably are Louis XIV of France and Peter I of Russia during the late 17th century. When examining a ruler’s legacy underneath the context of an absolute monarch, how nice or how effective of a ruler they were has no bearing. On the contrary, an absolute monarch is defined by their actions and how capable they are of imposing their will onto their subjects, regardless of how incorrect or radical others may deem. And when these two rulers are judged under this guideline, Peter I was simply more domineering …show more content…
an exemplified an absolute monarch better than Louis XIV. Whether it was the way he enforced religious authority, altered his country’s economics, brought endless cultural changes or even his ruthless nature when it comes to dealing with opposition, Peter I’s action and attitude portray the term absolute monarch better than Louis XIV. There was not much cultural change in France at the time. Louis XIV during his rule aimed to solidify France’s position as a powerhouse in the arts all throughout Europe. He emphasised. He emphasised the patronage of art, which brought forth one of the greatest results of Human ingenuity, the Palace of Versaille. Throughout his rule, those who were commissioned by him continued to spread and reinforce his image as the Sun King. His image slowly became self propagating and his reputation grew and everyone began to worship him even more. On the other hand, Peter I believed that the westernization of Russia was important to it’s success and longevity as a country. He brought Russia from its feudal past to a new modern western state through a variety of enormous changes that changed the very foundation of the country. First off, he shifted Russian Calendar system from a Julian style to an primitive Gregorian style. Western fashion was introduced, and forced upon Russian nobility, which caused discord and unrest between the western nobles and old Russian serfs and peasants. He introduced the new Russian language, complete with a script or letters. Furthermore, many different industry and sectors were created by Peter I and Russia gained a new focus on science. Peter I simply changed more of Russia than Louis XIV did and is reflective of his control over the state. The fact that he was able to uproot hundreds of years of foundations from Russia in such radical cultural shifts is proof of his authority as an absolute monarch. Louis XIV’s power simply pales in comparison to Peter I’s influence over the cultural state of Russia. Economic strain was certainly prevalent during the rules of both Louis XIV and Peter I Their ambitions required an equally ambitious funding from the state. As a result, both rulers were in favour of taxation and heavily taxed the public. Louis XIV craved more land and power and partook in many wars. His net gain during the four major wars of his reign, that being the War of Devolution (1667 - 68), the Dutch War (1672 - 78), the War of the Grand Alliance (1688 - 97), and the War of Spanish Succession (1701 - 14) was little to none and instead strained the state for more money. Not to mention he spent a lot of money and revenue on the construction of the Palace of Versaille instead of providing for his people. Despite this, Louis XIV and his minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert were major proponents of mercantilism and the encouragement of domestic industry. Peter I showcased similar influence in albeit less detrimental way. Peter I needed a lot of money in order to support his large scale westernization of Russia and the public’s pockets suffered as a result. During the peak of his rule, taxes reached a 550% increase from the original number before Peter I’s rule. He simply taxed everything, from beehives, mills, fisheries, bathhouses, to beards, and even number of corners in a house. Also, he introduce a lot of foreign industry like shipbuilding and revolutionize Russian industry and economy. The purpose of the high taxation and new industry was to improve Russia, but to also provide Peter I a large standing army. He used the people’s money to fund his army and was a bit extreme to say the least. Similarly to his cultural reforms, he uprooted several hundred years of foundations and changed the entirely of Russia into his vision. The fact that he was able to project his vision onto Russia so readily is evidence to how much power he wielded during his time as a monarch. Religion was a main aspect of Renaissance period Europe, and Louis XIV and Peter I were sources of some of the most radical changes at the time.
Both individuals shared the sentiment that control of the church is essential to the control of the people. Throughout Louis XIV’s rule, he clashed with prominent religious figure for control over the French Church. Even the Pope was no match as in 1682, Louis XIV passed four articles into office that stripped the papacy of any power in France and successfully brought the French Catholic Church under his rule. Furthermore. Louis XIV believed that religious uniformity was integral for control over the people of the state. Therefore, during his rule, he used his power as head of the state to persecute religious minorities and force them to convert into Catholicism. Among these groups were those who followed Quietism, Jansenists and most notably Huguenots. In 1685, he revoked the Edict of Nantes made in 1598 that protected these French Protestants from persecution from the state. Peter I on the other hand saw the church as a potential threat and wanted to subdue it. So when the head of the Russian church died in 1700, Peter the Great decided not to replace him. Instead a year later, Peter the Great introduced the he Monasheskiy Prikaz, which was a council that governed religious matters in Russia. Later in 1721, the Holy Sonod took it’s place, essentially acting as the same role. Despite their identity as a separate entity, these councils were subordinates of Peter the Great and gave him full control of the church and religious matters in Russia. As a result, the church essentially became a department of the state. He even invited foreign powers to govern religious matters in Russia. In 1700 to 1762, 70 of the 127 hierarchs who headed cathedrals in Russia were from Ukraine and only 47 from Russia and the rest originated from other regions. Many of the Russian clergyman wanted to oppose Peter I, but no one was able to stop
his religious reforms. Both introduced concepts that stripped the church of their power and instead gave them the power instead. They both were able to use the church to manipulate and control the people’s image of them and reinforce their image as an absolute monarch. In this aspect, Louis XIV and Peter I were comparable in this sense. Political issues were present in both countries. When shifting from a traditionally feudalistic state to an absolute monarchy, there will always be resistance from people, especially those from nobility vying for power. Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great dealt with the uprising nobles in their own respective ways. Louis XIV used his image to manipulate them. Instead of planning a rebellion against Louis XIV, nobles would instead try their damndest to get an invitation to the Palace of Versaille. The Palace of Versaille was an integral part in 1700 France as a mean to control the opposition. Now, the nobles would try their hardest to curry favour with Louis XIV just so they could assist him menial tasks, like changing clothes or helping him sleep at night. Louis XIV had total control over the nobility of France at the time without having to resort to violence and threats. The problem was that these Nobles were still a threat in a sense. They continued to retain their power and was capable of a rebellion at any point. However, the Palace of Versaille proved effective and there were little to no opposition from the French nobility at the time. On the other hand, Peter the Great was a ruthless ruler who was able to keep a firm grasp on the nobles of his kingdom. He was able to quell the Streltsy Rebellion of 1682 by capturing and relentlessly slaughtering the thousand streltsy involved. He even forced his wife and half-sister who sympathized with the rebels to become nuns. He created a system of prestige based on merit instead of nobility, giving more opportunities to the common folk and even conscripted nobility. His strong standing army and navy was used to reinforce his image and destroyed any possible coups. He demonstrated more control and dominance over the nobility that Louis XIV simply did not have. There was less of a threat from nobility during Peter I’s rule than Louis XIV. Although Louis XIV and Peter had somewhat similar influence, their circumstances leading up to their rule were radically different. France was already beginning to shift away from their feudalistic nature into the absolute monarchy in the early 1600s. This foundation can even be traced to Henry IV and his minister Sully and later his successor Louis XIII and his minister Cardinal Richelieu during the turn of the 15th century. France was primed to convert into an absolute monarch state much more readily than Peter the Great’s Russia. Richelieu was able to challenge and alienate the various nobles in France by destroying their castles and crushing any idea of rebellion. Furthermore, he divided France in 32 districts which were primarily governed by intendants drawn from the middle class or minor nobility in order to centralize power in France to the king. In addition, France is situated in Western Europe meaning it has plentiful resources capable of supporting the state. Compare this to Peter the Great’s lack of resources and it’s hard to imagine how they should be comparable in the first place. Peter the Great over the course of several decades from the 1672, took full control of Russia and transformed it into an absolute monarchy. With considerably less resources and a more disorganized state, Peter the Great was able to showcase a rule unrivaled at the time. In the end, both Louis XIV and Peter the Great had similar rules and power. Upon closer inspection, Peter the Great showcased more absolute control of his state and was able to change it more radically than Louis XIV. His ability and complete authority over the state in terms of religion, economics, culture and nobles reflect that of an absolute monarch, just a bit better than Louis XIV. This is further amplified by the fact that Peter the Great was able to display so much power even though his circumstances were so much poorer than Louis XIV. Although Louis XIV could also be considered a formidable example of an absolute monarch, Peter the Great’s action just simply surpass him and many of the leaders who came before him. There’s a reason why he was able to invoke so much change in Russia during his short forty year rule.
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
The Edict of Nantes had given Protestants, or Huguenots, in France the ability to practice their religion without fear of violence or persecution. Enacted in the late 1500s in an effort to resemble France after the destruction of the French Wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes served as a means to unite the French population and end the violence that often accompanied religious persecution. Louis’ decision to revoke such a peace-promoting edict, in an effort to homogenize his country and align his subjects with his own beliefs, clearly illustrates his giving of priority to his own agenda, as opposed to that which would best benefit his country. However, while the claim that the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was detrimental to French society, seems to be disproven by Doc 6, which essentially asserts that the king’s revocation has resulted in the rapid conversion of “whole towns” and describes the king as “the invincible hero destined to… destroy the terrible monster of heresy”, the author’s inherently biased point of view must be addressed. This description, which could be used as evidence to support the fact that Louis did act in interest of the state, must be taken with a grain of salt as the author himself, a member of the Assembly of the Clergy, does not even have the best interest of the state in mind; rather, he is
Absolutism was at its most popular in the 17th century. Monarchs Louis XIV who ruled France from 1643 to 1715, and Peter the Great who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1725 both secured absolute power in their kingdom. Peter the Great, however, managed to accomplish more during his reign than Louis XIV with politics and military. Peter was able to tax his nobles but still keep their loyalty and also change how his army was run by using Prussian organization and discipline.
One of the first actions Louis did when he came to power was revoke the Edict of Nantes which originally allowed protestants to worship in many towns. With the revocation Huguenot churches and schools were closed and Huguenot pastors that did not renounce their faith were sent to exile. However, besides the Edict of Nantes, Louis did not have many other laws that directly changed the way people lived compared with Peter, who had many. Peter wanted to modernize, and therefore, ‘westernize’ Russia. Peter also used St. Petersburg to modernize Russia. The new capital was designed to reflect modern urban planning with new features such as wider avenues and aline buildings. He prohibited men from having beards and had them taxed if they did so. He also changed men and women’s clothing to be more like France and England’s styles. Furthermore, he changed the way Russians entertained; now, both men and women would be in the same hall during celebrations and parties. When Peter’s social changes resulted in more modernization for Russia, Louis’ social changes resulted in international prestige for France. By the end of Louis’ reign, France was a country that all other countries looked up to and French replaced Latin as the common language. The French language and French customs became a symbol for the wealthy and
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.
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.
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.
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
Of all the absolute rulers in Europe, by far the best example of one, and the most powerful, was Louis XIV of France. Although Louis had some failures, he also had many successes. He controlled France’s money and had many different ways to get, as well as keep his power, and he knew how to delegate jobs to smart, but loyal people.
Absolutism is defined as a form of government where the monarch rules their land freely without legal opposition. In modern times, when democracy is the ideal, this form of government seems cruel and tyrannical; however, there was an era when it thrived in European politics. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, absolute rule was justified by the concept of divine right and its improvements to the security and efficiency of a nation.
Absolutism describes a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. To achieve absolutism one must first promote oneself as being powerful and authoritative, then the individual must take control of anyone who might stand in the way of absolute power. The Palace of Versailles helped King Louis XIV fulfill both of those objectives. Versailles used propaganda by promoting Louis with its grandiosity and generous portraits that all exuded a sense of supremacy. Versailles also helped Louis take control of the nobility by providing enough space to keep them under his watchful eye. The Palace of Versailles supported absolutism during King Louis XIV’s reign through propaganda, and control of nobility.
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 this time France was ruled by a series of absolutist rulers such as Richelieu an appointed regent who took Louis XIII place until he was old enough to be king, and Mazariń who was Louis XIV appointed regent until he came of age. Amidst the constant changing of laws and war during these kings reign, religious tension between the Huguenots and the Catholics was starting to build back up, even after Henry IV wrote the Edict of Nantes, which gave Hugenotten followers the right to practice their religion without any prosecution, as well as being able to fortify their cities. During the reign of Louis XIV, tension between the monarchy and the nobility was at an all-time high; Nobles of the robe and Nobles of the sword were used as a ploy
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 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