The View of Absolute Monarchies

Abryl Navarro DBQ Essay During the 1500s and 1600s, Western Europe experienced a period of governments ruled by ab-solute monarchs. Absolute monarchies are forms of government in which the monarch has abso-lute power over the people. The absolutism was caused by religious and territorial conflicts which was crated fear and uncertainty. Rulers/ Kings abused their power of absolutism over their sub-jects.

The 17th century of European history, colloquially known as the “Age of Crisis”, gave rise to a new form of government: absolutism. Religious wars, economic troubles, inflation, and new agricultural challenges such as the Little Ice Age wracked the nations of Europe and caused tremendous fear and uncertainty among the masses. Thus, as many felt that life itself was endangered, they were willing to accept the rise of a strong, independent ruler who might lead them from the darkness. In this way, absolutism emerged- a new form of monarchy based on a hereditary ruler with complete authority. Perhaps the most well known example of an absolute monarch in European history is Louis XIV, the ruler of France from 1643 to 1715.

Compare and contrast the theories and practice of absolutism and constitutional monarchy during the 17th century.

Another idea used to challenge an absolute monarchy was in Document # 2. Voltaire, who was a French author and philosopher, states “…I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it… The best government seems to be that in which all ranks of men are equally protected by the laws…” This statement challenged absolute monarchies because Voltaire believed that freedom of speech should be a right for each person. He believed that people should be able to express their thoughts and feelings. Freedom of speech is a very important right today, and it is used every day by people who express their thoughts. Also in Document # 3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was a French philosopher states “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” Rousseau is saying that despite the fact that man is born free, he is still tortures, still abused and has all of those free liberties taken away from him. For example, even though people in France prior to the revolution were all human, only the third estate had to pay taxes.

Thomas Paine is not an advocate of monarchy. In fact, he called monarchy institutionalized robbing. In his work Rights of Man, the political philosopher contrasts old government with new government, defining the former as hereditary and the latter as a representative system. Specifically, Paine had two major objections to monarchy; first, he argued that a hereditary government is a imposition on humans, and secondly, “it is inadequate to the purpose for which government is necessary” (Paine 113). A hereditary government unfairly binds future generations, this would make the monarchy illegitimate because a government must have continuous consent in order to be legitimate. If a monarch inherits a kingdom he too inherits its people, Paine says to inherit people is to treat them as farm animals. To sum up this point, Paine exclaims that a hereditary monarchy reduces humans to beasts.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

According to the text book, an absolute monarch is a king or queen who has unlimited power and seeks to control all aspects of society (McDougall little, 1045). In more simple terms, it is a ruler who can do just about anything without having to get permission from anyone, or having to worry about the repercussions. This was a trend that started in the 1600’s by European leaders who were rich, and didn’t

Almost all governments during the 16th and 17th centuries were absolute monarchies. These monarchs caused a lot of controversy because the people they were residing over believed that it was unfair for them to not have a say in the government. This caused many people to look at at absolute monarchs as tyrannical because they did not like the way that they chose to rule. This period of absolutism caused people to look at monarchs as tyrannical because the people believed that they saw themselves as equal to God, did not listen to their people, and because they thought only they knew how to lead.

In the latter half of the 1600 's, monarchial systems of both England and France were changing. Three royal figure throughout history who all tried to establish a role of absolutism in their societies all of them had varying factors with the greatest success from least to greatest being Charles I, Louis XIV, and Peter the Great. Absolutism is a form of government where a king or queen rules with unrestricted powers. They are often followed in heredity by passing on the leadership through bloodlines. All over the world these bloodlines still exist except, that most of them only remain as a symbolic figure or a person of fame. A couple of monarchs that still rule are Brunei, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, the emirates comprising the UAE, and Vatican City.

Therefore, the king/queen only had to answer to God, not the people. Since the ruler was chosen by God it was considered axiomatic that the monarch has absolute power, after all God has great power so His earthly representative does as well (Document 7, James I of England 1609). Furthermore, because God chose the sovereign, disobeying the king was considered the same as disobeying God (Document 4, The Ideal State 1697 by Jean Domat). Of course, because the monarchs had such great power and were God’s chosen people they had to govern per God’s will, which was absolute justice. (Document 5, On Social Order and Absolute Monarchy by Jean Domat). As important this concept was in maintaining absolute monarchs, the reason that the Divine Right to Rule was so effective is because absolute monarchies primarily occurred in Catholic countries, where the monarch could gain the partnership of the Roman Catholic Church and thus win power over the

In “Social Order and Absolute Monarchy, written by Jean Domat, Domat argues that the absolute monarchy portrayed by King Louis XIV of France was created in the best interest of France. Domat’s audience in this document seems to be the middle class as well as the lower classes of France since Domat’s main goal of this paper is to justify the actions and amount of power held by the upper class and the king in an absolute monarchy.

The royal government is dominant and ruling over its own aristocrats and all of the other authorities. Basically, in absolutism, there are no other powers that can hold more ground than the monarchy itself. There are many absolute monarchs that are present in our society and even to this day, However, I firmly believe that Peter the Great is the epitome of the various absolute monarchs who ruled from 1682 - 1725. Prior to Peter the Great, Russia was disorganized and did not hold a major influence or power globally. Peter the Great used methods

During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France

King James I, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes strongly believed in the idea of Absolute government. They believed that King's were "God's Lieutenant's" and they were in power simply because God sent them there. These men believed in divine power upon earth, and that "God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or sent death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure…and the like power have Kings…" as quoted from doc. 2 of King James I. Being how King James I was a King, it is a conventional belief that Kings had divine rights. In one of Machiavelli's works "The Prince" Machiavelli writes "Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared."(Doc.1) Consequently Machiavelli believes in having a fear in your ruler, because if you fear your ruler, you will not hesitate to obey him, for you are afraid of the punishment. Where as, if you love your ruler, you are more lenient to challenge your ruler's authority.

During the late 1400s and 1500s, many rulers took great measures to centralize political power and place it in their own hands. This lead to the occurrence of absolute monarchies, some of which I thought were overall very effective. In absolute monarchies, theoretically the monarch is all-powerful, with no legal limitations to his or her authority. Absolutism in Europe was characteristically justified by the doctrine of divine right, according to which the monarch reigns all-powerfully by the will of God. The intention of absolute monarchs is to utilize his or her power in an effective, better-organized way, despite its weaknesses or negative consequences; and from my perspective, I would have to say