Eastern and Western European countries had many differences on economics and political structures. Both the East and the West tried to achieve an absolute monarchy, which can be described as a type of government where the monarch has complete rule over everything. Although both had an absolute monarchy at some point, they were structured differently and one much more successful than the other.
In Eastern Europe the members of nobility had almost all of the control over the poor peasants who lived in their community. They controlled their judicial and economical state. The Nobles and the monarchs worked together in an agreement that the nobles would support the monarchy in military, political, and economical matters. Eastern Europe soon lost more power as the country became more and …show more content…
After the war not much changed nobles once again controlled the land and the poor. Both Germany and Austria tried their hand at creating a Absolute Monarch, but neither were truly successful due to a large and powerful nobility and diverse ethical and religious beliefs. Prussia was probably the closest thing Eastern Europe had to Absolutism even though the nobility still held a good bit a power due to land control and leadership of the lower class. In western Europe on the other hand, had a successful absolute monarchy.
Franch can be used as a prime example of an absolute monarch in Western Europe. France began building toward absolutism when Henry VI created the Edict of Nantes in efforts to reduce the violence in the country and gained many supporters. When Richelieu temporarily took the throne he centralized the government and established the supremacy of the king's law. When Louis XIV finally became king, Franch was already well on its way to an absolute monarchy. He went even further by diminishing the power of the nobility and gave them only ceremonial tasks until they we no longer relevant in the political
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
For instance, Charles II of England brought back the Anglican Church to re-establish his monarchy in England. Third, arts usually flourished during those absolute monarchs’ reigns -- lots of the absolute monarchs built exquisite architectures to symbolize his/her power and his/her leadership of the state. Louis
The European structure is topped off with the ruling class of kings followed by lords then knights and ends with peasants. According to this social structure, the king is the highest ranking member of society. This hierarchy is a little bit vague as it categorized millions of people into but four categories.
How did late medieval governments shape life in positive and in negative ways? The government shaped life in a positive way by protecting the kingdom from invaders and keeping people safe. The monarchs had armies and lots of knight at their disposal. The knights had a code of honor so they were nice to women and others.
In the 1500s and the 1600s the feudal system was beginning to fall. Different countries were trying new different types of governments instead of the dysfunctional feudal system. The feudal system consisted of many different nobles ruling over their own land. It was not a uniform system of ruling over the country. There were small city-states run by a singular ruler.
During the 1600s and 1700s a new type of monarch emerged known as an absolute ruler. Some of these rulers were Louis XIV, the Fredericks of Prussia, and Peter the Great. These rulers believed that a monarch had a divine right to rule and should only listen to God. All these rulers had characteristics that defined them as absolutists. Louis XIV was constantly at war during his reign which resulted in a powerful army.
Ideas that were formed by the enlightenment philosophers were used in the new government. The French, however, did not make significant progress toward ending absolutism and instead were subject to another absolute ruler immediately after the revolution. After the French revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte became emperor. In this role, Bonaparte had absolute power over France. But some traces of progress were seen, as Bonaparte created a fairer tax system, new schools and a new set of laws (some still in place over 200 years
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.
Since Louis XIV inherited his monarchy at the mere age of five years old, his nation was run by Cardinal Mazarin until his death in 1642. After the cardinal’s death, Louis began to reform France through his absolute rule which is apparent in the words he uttered the day he came into power: “Messieurs, I have come to my Parliament to tell you that, following the law of the land, I intend to take over the government myself; and I hope with the goodness of God it will be with piety and justice” (Horne 107). Even when he just began to rule, Louis XIV had full intent to take over France absolutely for the betterment of the country. The main principle of his absolute monarchy was weakening his nobility so that they had little to no control over the state. This was quite simple when he forced his nobility to live in the Palace of Versailles, planning various parties and banquets in order to keep the nobles preoccupied so that he could truly rule France.
"We behold kings seated upon the throne of the Lord, bearing in their hand the sword which God himself has given them" (Document 5). If God himself sent these rulers to lead, why wouldn 't they be prosperous? This is the question many from this time period asked. Absolutism was good for them because their God put the monarchs in charge and gave them his power. Absolute monarchs came into
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.)
During the Middle Ages, the prevailing system of government was feudalism. Under feudalism, there was the use of a definite social structure. People were born into a social class and usually stayed in that class for the rest of their life. The three social classes were the nobility, clergy, and peasantry and each of these classes had different roles to perform in the society.
Louis XIV treated the people of France unfairly and he didn’t seem to care about their well-being. Louis XIV suppressed the Catholic church, and Nobles. He made the Nobles wait on him. Louis XIV weakened the power of the nobles and excluded them from his councils. This supports my thesis that Louis XIV was the best example of an absolute ruler because this shows he truly only cared about himself and he made sure that he had all of the power, by weakening the power of all of the nobles.
How revolutionary was the French Revolution? Did the Revolution simply replace the old ruling elite with a new bourgeois one? What were the major effects on different groups of people, including nobles, priests, peasants, urban workers, slaves, and women? This essay will address the French Revolution and the degree to which it can be aptly described as “revolutionary.” How revolutionary was the French Revolution? Was the storming of the Bastille, the destruction of feudalism, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of a fundamental and radical and revolutionary nature, or, alternatively, simply a series of historical events that results in the supplanting of one authoritarian regime for another and at great cost in
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.
Before the Age of Absolutism, institutions, such as the Church, legislatures, or social elites, restrained monarchical power. Absolutism was characterized by the ending of feudal partitioning, consolidation of power with the monarch, rise of state, rise of professional standing armies, professional bureaucracies, the codification of state laws, and the rise of ideologies that justify the absolutist monarchy. Hence, Absolutism was made possible by new innovations and characterized as a phenomenon of Early Modern Europe, rather than that of the middle Ages, where the clergy and nobility counterbalanced as a result of mutual