Absolute Monarchy: Similarities And Differences

An absolute monarchy is a form of government in which there is one leader who holds complete and unlimited power. King Louis XIV is considered a perfect example of an autocratic ruler. Two actions he took were building the Palace of Versailles and trying to impose uniformity in religious affairs. In the end he left his country in a bad economical and political state. King Louis XIV was a leader that used absolute power to hurt his country and people.

When a ruler holds power that is only second to the divine being themselves, an absolute monarch is born. In a way, an absolute monarch is the closest personification of God during medieval and renaissance Europe. Throughout history, Europe has been home to many individuals that helped define the term absolutism and absolute monarchy. Most notably are Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia during the late 1700s. Both had considerable power and encapsulated the fundamental characteristics of an absolute monarch.

Imagine a world were only one person had the sovereignty of a nation through his bloodline and was not chosen by the people of the nation. This form of government is known as absolute monarchism which was practiced since the beginning of the middle ages till this day (Pope Francis, Vatican City). When it comes to a monarchy, it is composed of an individual(s) (king or queen) who reigns till his death and has a divine right appointed by God to be the ruler. The divine right was a doctrine that plead in favor of absolute monarchism, which means that the power of the rulers came by God’s authority and could not be downsized by any earthly organization such as the government or even the parliament. The Queen Elizabeth I, ‘The Virgin Queen’, also

Throughout history kings have ruled land with absolute power and dominion. They ruled through the traditional government known as the absolute monarchy. The monarchs of Europe controlled everything in society including the rights if the citizens. Up until the 1700's kings have had this much authority to do whatever was pleasing to them. Then the Enlightenment came in the late 1600's and early 1700's, and many great thinkers began to speculate about the radical government.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries absolutism became highly prevalent. Absolutism was a type of national monarchy in which the monarch had great power. Many absolute monarchs kept their countries embroiled in war, which led to a feeling of instability and uncertainty that led to a dependence on one strong central power. Monarchs also justified their immense power by referencing the concept of the Divine Right to Rule, which was the belief that God created the monarchy; the monarch was his representative on Earth and thus was only answerable to God himself. The belief that the monarch was appointed by God, the need for a sense of security during a time of uncertainty, and the efficiency that resulted from an absolute monarchy were all factors that led some to believe that absolute monarchies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were

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 a monarchical society, the leaders had no trust in the people whatsoever so they would take charge. The king was as the people’s father and was over weak and dependent children. As a father would do, he would restrain the people from taking over the country and obeying his commands in the government. Wood explains in his quote how monarchy would only let people say so much, “...monarchies, based on the presumption that human beings were corrupt, had persisted almost everywhere for centuries because they offered security and order. ”(Wood, 93)

In cases where both the subjects and the monarch are happy with shared views on absolute ruling properly, the ruler should first unify his people to have the same goals as him which is to help their country be successful powerfully and financially. If the absolute monarch uses his power to his advantage, then the the subjects would not share the same view as their monarch, because they are living in poverty and unfair conditions, whereas the king is living in luxury and enjoying all the food they please. The subjects' view depend greatly on how they live their life, they might want everyone to live equally with enough food and money to get by, and to get rid of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. The rulers and the subjects have one ideal in common which is to help their country expand and prosper. Both the ruler and the subjects' views are so different since they are leading such contrasting lives, but a common ground they have is their country. They want their country to be great and powerful and they both hold much pride in living and calling it their

After the European expansion to the American continent at the end of the fifteenth century, many monarchs began to become absolute rulers. In between the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, absolute powers began a rise in mainly Western Europe; while Eastern Europe experienced absolutism in the mid eighteenth century. But during the absolute monarchs rise to power, the population of each sovereign state had an abundance of diverse attitudes towards sovereignty. These diverse opinions arose for acknowledgement of different urgencies for an absolute monarch to attend to; these groups were sovereign monarchs, peasants, and nobility. One of the main views that dominated the growth of absolute power was the monarch’s.

Before and During the Age of Enlightenment, many countries were ruled by absolute monarchy. Most of the time, the monarchs

King Charles I of England was the first king in England that tried to have an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different than the constitutional monarchy of the kings and queens before him were trying to have. An absolute monarchy is where the monarch has all the power and there are no nobles or anyone interfering with the king’s rule; a constitutional monarchy is where the king or queen acts as the Head of State, and the Parliament makes the laws, not the monarch. King Charles’s strong will created conflicts with government, which ended up establishing a civil war & his execution.

As Plato once wrote, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This concept can apply to many ideas, other than beauty. How similar governments are run is a good example of how something could be fundamentally the same, but in reality very different. Absolutism during the period of the Enlightenment can show many differences, even though the concept is the same. Absolutism is the form of government where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch exhibits and exercises unrestrained, supreme power over the people. A strong centralized government is the key to the success of an absolute monarchy. Monarchs could create a strong government in their hands through various means, but all monarchs exercised the four characteristics of an absolute monarch no matter what they did to keep their country under control, but still powerful. The methods of exercising the four characteristics of absolutism had many similarities and differences. The contemporary monarchs, King Louis XIV of France and Tsar Peter the Great of Russia, display the similarities and differences that are demonstrated between absolute monarchs. The similarities and differences in the four characteristics of an absolute monarchy, divine right, skilled administration, control of the economy, and a professional army, are good examples of how something can differ in practise, but still be fundamentally similar.

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

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.

In an absolute monarchy, citizens had limitations. They were forbidden from doing certain things that could harm the state, and therefore harm the king. If they were to break this rule they would be punished. “But if someone dared to rise up against him and transgress his laws, then he could exercise a direct power over the offender’s life: as punishment, the latter would be put to death” (Foucault, 135). Citizens had laws, taxes, military services placed on their freedom.