Differences Between Louis Xiv And Peter The Great

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.

It takes a while to build your reputation, but it can be broken within second. Louis and Peter use their reputations to persuade others of why they would make suitable leaders. Along with their statuses they use a variety of tactics to lure in followers. Louis relied on a more aggressive and controlling method, whereas Peter went with a passive aggressive effort. Louis XIV and Peter the Great ruled their countries similarly using PERSIA categories, but overall there impact of that control are different.

Absolute monarchs centralize their absolute power. Louis XIV and Peter the Great are exceptional examples of an absolute monarch. Louis ruled in France from 1638 – 1715 and Peter ruled in Russia, but he was not liked by many people. They both had all four characteristics of an absolute monarch. Louis centralized his power by keeping nobles busy with court life, he increased revenue by supporting the arts and literature and reformed taxation with the help of Jean Baptiste Colbert.

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,

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.

Absolutism is a name given to a system where all the responsibilities are given to just one person. All the decisions are made by the monarch. Therefore, it means that an absolute monarch governs alone and is not controlled by anyone. An absolute monarch has control over administration, taxes, foreign policy etc. Under the control of a monarchy there is less corruption.

"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

Peter the Great came barreling through Russia as tsar from 1721 to 1725, bringing with him a slew of economic, social, and political reforms that are argued to have made Russia a great nation once again. Prior to his reign, Russia had endured many difficulties, from Ivan the Terrible’s chaotic reign to the great Raskol to the time of troubles. Peter the Great is credited with prompting Russia to rise once again as a great nation through great institutional reforms, particularly surrounding military-based industrialization. Despite how highly regarded Peter the Great is in Russian society, historians like Marc Raeff argue that Peter the Great’s reign “was to tear Russian society apart, leaving behind a legacy of uncertainty and insecurity that

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,

1. Politique were rulers in the 16th and 17th century who put the success and good of their state above everything else. That includes over their religion. Henry of Navarre was a politique because he put the politics of the country before his religion. He converted to Catholicism just so he could be taken more seriously at masses.

Louis XIV was the best example of an absolute monarch. Louis XIV ruled in France from 1643 until 1715. During his reign, he ensured that he was in absolute power, and control the whole time. Louis XIV thought that the world should revolve around him. Louis XIV did not do anything for the good of France, he would only do things that benefited him, and he treated the people of France very poorly.

Another great absolute ruler was Maria Theresa who ruled Austria. She didn’t have a good start since she was a female. The reason why she was put in as an absolute ruler in the first place was because her father, Charles VI, wanted the Hapsburgs to continue to rule the Austrian throne but he had no male heir. In order to make sure that other powers in Europe would not seize his kingdom after his death, he convinced European monarchs to accept Maria Theresa, his eldest daughter, as the next ruler of Austria. In 1740, when Charles died, 23 year-old Maria Theresa, inherited the country.

Although, through an absolute monarchy would only benefit the king and his noblemen, but the Magna Carta changed that when rights were given to the people. The Magna Carta greatly states, “Men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions” (Britannica). To illustrate, the Magna Carta states no man will be denied of their rights or justice, instead will be equally among his heirs and the government. With that being said, no individual rights will be oppose under this justice system. Thus, from the article one of the constitution states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Glorious men have graced the earth and have left significant impressions on the following generations. Alexander the Great suits that profile like none other. As arguably one of the most influential military leaders in history, Alexander conquered the majority of the known world, including large-scale empires such as the Persian. Succeeding his father, Philip II, to the throne at the age of 20, Alexander commanded an already skilled military, which he schooled further in the beginning of his reign. Even militarily significant empires had no chance against Alexander 's military brilliance and so he constructed one of the largest empires in history.

Peter the Great Peter the Great was an iconic individual in Russian history and even in world history. He made many strides for Russia to become more of a westernized nation. World Civilization II: The Rise and Fall of Empires© 1500- present stated, "From his father, Peter learned of Russia’s need for modernization, so in the early 18th century, Peter embarked on an extended journey throughout Europe where he learned how to build ships, observed modern military techniques, and recruited Western craftsmen and artists to come back to Russia with him" (Sattler, 60). He was very determined to make Russia modernized to say the least. In his reign, he held many reforms to push Russia to become more westernized (Sattler, 60-61).