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
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 addition, he increased his army to gain more territory. Peter the Great centralized his power through fear of the people, built up his army from nothing, and what also made him an absolute monarch was he did not share his power with anyone at all. Louis XIV is the best example of an absolute monarch because he had all four characteristics. He did not share his power with anyone or any organization. He limited the power of his nobles and princes by having them live in his palace where their power would have been void.
Many of the Presidents of the United States became presidents just because of their campaign; multiple presidents have used the campaign they are a common man and will do the best for every citizen. Andrew Jackson however was more of a king than a common man for several reasons. Jackson ignored Congress and continued with the Indian Removal Act which pushed the indians western of the Mississippi river. Jackson also held up Congress with his vetoes. If Andrew Jackson wanted an act to be passed or denied he either vetoed Congresses ruling or he declared what he wanted and everyone went with it.
Being an absolute ruler was beyond any other ruler and had no limitations to what
Absolute power..good or bad?It's a topics often brought up in discussion. can Absolutism be justified as a means of providing order in otherwise unstable societies?Absolutism would help a unstable country because having at least one person running it is better than none because if the people were to decide they wouldn't agree on things and it would just huge mess and they would live in chaos. Document 2,6, and 7 help support my thesis. Absolute monarchy is a type of government in which the monarch has absolute power/control over his people.
Alexander The Great’s title of “The Great” was not an exaggeration. To earn the title of “The Great”, you must've done some extremely good things as your reign as a king, queen, or emperor. Alexander The Great did many great and powerful things during his lifetime. He established an extremely powerful military, and he knew how to strategically conquer land, and he was interested in turning this conquered land into powerful areas.
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.
Peter the Great and Louis XIV were both the greatest rulers of their times. Both of them were autocrats having unlimited power and on the contrary both of them were absolutists. Louis XIV was the ruler of France and nicknamed “The Sun King” and Peter the Great was the ruler of Russia. Although Peter the Great and Louis XIV has some different successes, they had several noticeable similarities such as power, buildings, and armies/economical growths. Peter the Great and Louis XIV had similar successes in their famous buildings.
The examples that show that absolute monarchs held a great deal of power over their kingdoms by Peter the Great, Louis XIV, and Philip II. First, during the 1500’s and 1600’s absolute monarchs had great power over their kingdoms. Peter the
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.
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.
Courage, bravery, leadership, and dedication are only a few of the great attributes shown by King Leonidas of Ancient Sparta. Leonidas was King of Sparta for only a short amount of time, but in that time ensured himself a legacy that will never be forgotten. In Leonidas’ life he did many things but, the most diligent and respected action was the stand he took at the Battle of Thermopylae along with 300 other warriors. Leonidas is one of the most widely known leaders of the ancient world and will never be forgotten for the bravery and discipline he demonstrated in his self sacrifice at the Battle of Thermopylae.
By far the most popular solution to the crisis of authority in the era of religious wars was absolute monarchy. What is absolute Monarchy you may ask? Absolute Monarchy is a form of government where it’s ruled by a king and he has an absolute power over everyone and that there is no one higher or equal to him. Even though they are similar, Absolute monarchy is not the same as dictatorship. In a dictatorship it’s ruled by one person and they usual get their power through force the people are forced to follow their orders or they will be killed or hurt.
"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
