At the start of the early-modern period of European history, feudalism was dying, and countries looked to strong, centralized governments for leadership. The popular political theory to address this new development was absolutism. Absolute monarchs reduced the power of nobles in order to consolidate the nation’s leadership under one banner. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Europe’s political landscape was dominated by this form of government. Monarchy was seen by the early modern Europeans as the best form of government for a variety of reasons. It held religious justifications, followed the natural order of authority, and brought great wealth and power to its nation.
A substantial source of strength for monarchy was the religious justification of the divine right of kings. This principle claimed that kings were anointed and derived their power directly from God. Essentially, rulers, “act as the ministers of God and as His lieutenants on earth. It is through them that God exercises his empire” (Western 775). The Christian religion was paramount in the lives of nearly all Europeans and legitimized the idea that God acted directly through a monarch. Divine direction even played a part in the
…show more content…
Saint Augustine wrote in The City of God, “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies” (Western 363). Any set of laws a government has established will inevitably result in injustice, because it is impossible for a law to be written that addresses every variable. How, then, does the government fulfill its purpose? One possible answer is absolutism. Absolutism is a political theory where absolute power is vested in one ruler. Absolutist rulers practiced the power of Absolutis Legibus, or the ability to suspend the law for the sake of justice. The belief that God exerts his will through monarchs granted kings this ability, for God himself utilized Absolutis
The honor and faith the people had for the rulers was another key factor that leads to the success of absolutism. Without their faith, many of the accomplishments of these monarchs would never have been
Absolutism started when Henry IV ended the French Religious wars with Edict of Nantes. Henry IV and duke of Sully laid out the foundation for French absolutism. After Henry IV had died Marie de’ Medici became the head of government because Louis XIII was too young to lead. Marie de’ Medici secured appointment of Cardinal Richelieu to the council of ministers. Richelieu ended up appointing Jules Mazarin when Louis XIII died, who became dominant power in the government, and Queen Anne of Austria governed for king Louis XIV as he was a child.
Many people debate over which form of government is best. In his In Praise of the Emperor Constantine, Eusebius Pamphilus argues that monarchy is the superior. Monarchy reflects God’s created order. There is one God, not two or three, and thus there ought to be one ruler (WH: 357, 27). Eusebius argues that because God is divine and perfect and holly, and because He (God) created humans in His own image, humans ought to emulate God and His order (WH: 358, 11).
The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government.
However, when it is practiced, it is unfair and not applicable to the situation anymore. King spent his life “expressing the very highest respect for the law.” Therefore, he had faith in the government and was hoping it could be just one
The Age of Absolutism is defined as a time period in Europe in which monarchs gained all of the power and wealth over the state for themselves, expanding the idea of single rule. The Enlightenment, on the other hand, is defined as a movement during the 18th century that rejected traditional social, religious, and political ideas, and introduced a desire to construct governments free of tyranny (or single rule). Document 3, a primary source written by King Louis XIV of France in 1660, is describing the idea of monarchy stating,“ The more you grant . . . [to the assembled people], the more it claims . . . The interest of the state must come first” (Document 3).
They wanted to have control over everything in the state. These leaders believed that God chose them to rule and that they only had to listen to Him. Rulers, like Louis XIV, controlled every aspect of his subjects life 's. In the same way, the Fredericks of Prussia and Peter the Great kept their country under control by forcing people to join the military. During the 1600 and 1700s this new type of leader, known as an absolute ruler, had similar beliefs and objectives to reform their country. Strengthening of their military, increasing taxes, and unifying religion were some of the many strategies an absolute ruler
Shanti Gurung History 101 Final Exam Professor Montague 12/06/2015 1. As some 16th and 17th c. leaders sought to strengthen their control over both the legislative and administrative machinery of their respective kingdoms, others witnessed the destruction of absolutism as their principle governing philosophy. What obstacles did English royalty face in their effort to establish an absolute monarchy in the early decades of the 17th century? (Hint: Remember the tactics monarchs employed to achieve absolutism.)
Absolute monarchies had all the power in Europe. Their kingdoms were powerful and accomplished. Although absolute monarchies empowered and enriched their kingdoms, they were still largely detrimental because of King Louis XIV of France, debt, Frederick the Great’s seizure of Silesia, and the city of St. Petersburg. King Louis XIV of France was an absolute monarch.
A king must become one with his people and not view himself as a god to maintain his status. History has demonstrated that those who exalt themselves will trip and fall off their pedestals. This is what a king must be. Throughout the recorded ages of the earth, there have been countless rulers. One of these rulers, Henry V of England, is quite an interesting character.
To many, monarchs were God 's form on earth. King James I of England said that "The state of monarchy is the supreme thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants on earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods..." (Document 2). Like King James I, people believed monarchs were needed because they had power like God. Kings and Queens were essential and brought goodness to the land.
The importance of this Metternich System reflected Metternich’s significant role in Europe. That is why this period in Europe is also known as the era of Metternich. He defeated Napoleon and brought former rulers into power. The new forces of liberalism and nationalism were prevented to disturb the conservative order by victors at Congress of Vienna. Metternich hated revolutionary ideals of equality, democratic government, and nationalism, liked absolute monarchy, multi-national empires and class distinctions, wanted to put down ideas of political upheaval in order to maintain stability and he also wanted “legitimacy” to return rightful monarchs or their heirs to their
to give life or sent death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none”. Although on a smaller scale then the lord these kings believed that within their borders, they were second to only God, a close second. With this mindset you will not take crap from anybody or anything. Which makes these kings more powerful on the planet.
He prescribes for each one in particular the duties proper to his condition and status”. As a result, any king would have also have been chosen by God and his duty would be to rule over others and ensure the stability of the nation. In addition, if people chose to rebel against this
A moment examination may be made amongst criminal and sacred method for accomplishing power. Here, the primary purpose of contrast is not the expertise and experience of the ruler but rather well known demeanors toward the sovereign. A sovereign who comes to control through wrongdoing runs the most serious hazard since he might be compelled to confer some brutality toward his subjects, jeopardizing himself by reproducing contempt and disdain among the masses. A sacred sovereign, be that as it may, comes to control with the support of either the nobles or ordinary citizens, and his employment comprises basically of keeping the unsupportive gathering happy with his run the show. To entirety up, ability is to be favored over fortune since ability prompts to a more viable ruler who is probably going to gather enduring transcendence.