How do you think you would feel if you were someone living in an Absolutist Monarchy? Absolutism is the rule of a monarchy that holds complete political power over their kingdom or state. Absolutism began to rise up in popularity at the time of Louis XIV Bourbon of France (r. 1643-1715), as he started the era of Absolutist rule in Western Europe. During the late 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, kings previously used Absolutism in their rule, and all of them had a slightly different approach to their rule. The question remains of how those within the monarchy viewed the absolutist rule. Certain groups believed the monarch should work together with people and state, others thought of their country running only off taxes and payment. Then there are those …show more content…
During the Absolutist Era, there were some monarchs that ruled with their kingdom in mind, meaning they worked with their people. From the first document, an exempt from a book written by Frederick II of Prussia, mentions how a “sovereign is a representative of his state.” (Frederick II). In this document, while it is short, it gives a well of information in the form of Frederick’s views; a state and a monarch were to work together. The source itself mentions Frederick wrote it, as a clear statement of the era as Frederick II ruled between 1740 and 1786. As it is entitled Essay on the Forms of Government, it could be a clue that this exempt as document one is not the only feeling Frederick II expresses inside. The small exempt itself quite simply explains the elements a king is to his kingdom, calling them one. It is a key example for the idea that ruler and ruled work together in their Absolute kingdom. The next piece of information is the second document, written by the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, an exempt from a letter stating “every action being related to the overall view, which only the monarch and his closest associates should share and pursue” (Joseph II). The
King Louis XIV of France recommended absolute rule because he believed that the less people there are to exploit it. (Document 3) I agree with him and I believe it is one of the reasons for the prosperity of absolutism. When one person controls an entire country,
In the early 1200’s, King John of England spent most of his time trying to expand his territory. In doing so, he outstretched his expenses, and forced his people to keep trying to pay impeccably high taxes he imposed on them. After his many military failures, the kings’ nobles forced John to write a document stating his powers as King for his people. This could be a problem because King John could have threatened people who didn’t agree to his terms with their family’s’ lives, or their social status as nobles. Then as recipients of the letter, his people might not expect too much out of it because the king can change the document as easily as he can create it.
Absolutism is a form of government in which a ruler at a certain time period controls every aspect of politics and military in that country. An absolute monarch is defined as not one limited by a constitution, but referred to as one that wields unrestricted political power over the ruling state and its people. This absolutist, the successor of Matthias, Ferdinand II, also know as the Holy Roman Emperor, was the king of Bohemia from 1617-1619/1620-1637, and the king of Hungary from 1618-1625. Ferdinand II was born on July 9, 1578, in Graz, Austria.
This document review describes and compares three documents written by the rulers of three European nations: Louis XIV, the king of France; Frederick William, the Great Elector of Brandenburg-Prussia; and Peter the Great, the emperor of Russia. Through these documents, we are able to see what was most important to these monarchs, and what they considered best for themselves and their countries. Although textbooks are useful for reading descriptions of historical people and events, through reading documents such as these, we are able to see not only what these rulers did, but also their motives and their rationalizations of their decisions. In “Louis XIV Revokes the Edict of Nantes”, written in 1685, Louis XIV explains that the Huguenots,
Being an absolute ruler was beyond any other ruler and had no limitations to what
They were rejecting the idea of a monarchy. A monarchy was based on the idea of
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).
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.
Domat wrote “On Social Order and Absolute Monarchy” to defend the king’s powers, and to give a better understanding of the hierarchy type system so ordinary people would accept it. Jean Domat’s life goal was explaining absolutism. Since he was not a king and seen as a regular person, people at his time can get a better understanding of the system when someone like him explains it. He explained that the king was given his power through God and is responsible to no one but God. At first this may not have caught the attention of the people, but when Domat tells that disobeying their king is the same as disobeying God it is the
One of the most prominent examples of resistance to absolute monarchy came, in England, where King and Parliament struggled to determine the roles each should play in governing England (Duiker 2013). After the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, the Stuart line of rulers was inaugurated with the accession to the throne of Elizabeth’s cousin, King James VI of Scotland. James I (1603-1625) espoused the divine right of kings, a viewpoint that alienated Parliament, which had grown accustomed under previous rulers to act on the premise that monarch and Parliament together ruled England as balanced polity (Duiker 2013). The Puritans were alienated by the king as well, which wasn’t a wise decision. The Puritans were the Protestants within the Anglican
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.
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.
Absolute monarchy is rule by one person, usually a King or Queen, who obtains absolute power of authority with no repercussions for what he or she does. Bishop Bossuet held strongly to the argument of absolute monarchy, whereas John Locke opposed on the basis of man's natural rights. Bossuet and Locke have different views on the government’s source of power and their ideas about the rights of the people, but agreed that their chosen theories are in the best interest of the people and held their country's unity in high regard. The first thing we can look at when comparing the two philosophers ideas, is their differences of opinions on the government's source of power.
An absolute monarch can be defined as a ruler who rules without any interference from the nobles, having complete, utter and unrestricted rule over his people. Louis XIV of France was a key model of an absolute monarch during the time seen as a man to whom there was no equal intellectually, militarily or physically. His absolute monarchy was one of the most successful during the Age of Absolution, having the longest rule of any monarch in Europe. The king's rule was extremely successful due to his control over both the nobility and his own people, the massive and powerful army that he embarked on creating for his nation as well as the revenue he attained through his taxation of his people and use of mercantilism. France has not since or prior
Pag. 61. He also promoted innovative domestic policies, among which the most remarkable is that Frederick did not justify himself by divine right as other monarchs did (such as Louis XIV), but in a pragmatic way.¹⁵ In fact, he sought to achieve legitimacy through the social contract of the military state instead of having claims by blood and dynasty. Nevertheless, looking at the topic from a different perspective, Frederick tried to legitimate his position by strengthening the nobility and making it loyal to him rather than by achieving a widespread consensus among common citizens. Indeed, as Palmer points out, ‘A king of Prussia, in Frederick’s view, must, to have an army, hold a firm balance between classes in the state, and between economic production and military power.