Document Based Question 4 In an Absolute Monarchy, the Monarch has complete, or absolute, power over his or her people. When faced with such a power one might not know how to deal with it and many people will have many different opinions about the system. During the time of the Holy Roman Empire and other absolute monarchies, the main opinions on the system were that the monarch should have absolute power over his or her people, no person should be faced with that much power, and that the people should be ruled by a group of people rather than one ruler. These opinions and different viewpoints are the same as many people today and are reflected by many of today’s governments. Many people believe that a nation should be ruled by a leader and …show more content…
Bayle St. John is a strong believer of this as well. In The Memoirs of the Duke of Saint-Simon on the Reigns of Louis XIV [r.1643-1715], and the Regency, 1857 John states “The frequent fetes, the private promenades at Versailles, the journeys, were means on which the King seized in order to distinguish or mortify the courtiers, and thus render them more assiduous in pleasing him...Louis XIV took great pains to be well informed of all that passed everywhere; in the public places, in the private houses, in society and familiar intercourse. His spies and tell-tattlers were infinite...all these letters were seen by him alone, and always before everything else... These unknown means ruined an infinite number of people of all classes, who never could discover the cause; often ruined them very unjustly; for the King, once prejudiced, never altered his opinion.” In this excerpt you can tell that John does not believe on having absolute power. This may be because he is not in absolute power, but he does see the effects of this kind of monarchy on the people in which it is reigned over. He sees and understands how Louis XIV was a very intrusive king and used his power unjustly which, according to John, “Ruined an infinite number of people of all classes.” Bayle St. John seemed to share the views of John Dalberg who is known for the famed quote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts …show more content…
The Royal commision is against this. In the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Conditions of the Peasants of Bohemia, the commission has this to say on the subject of taxing peasants, “Even those nobles who have the best intentions are unable to protect their peasants, because their agents are rough, evil, violent and grasping… The Kingdom of Bohemia is like a statue which is collapsing because its pedestal has been taken away, because all the charges of the Kingdom are born by the peasants who are the sole taxpayers.” What the Royal commision is saying is that not one man can rule an entire kingdom if even his men cannot help to rule portions of it. Also, that in making these small, uncontrollable portions, the ruler is begging for a collapse since the tax collectors of these portions are making it impossible for the peasants to live there. The Royal commision believes that the peasants should be thought of more than the monarch, since they bring in most of the Kingdom’s
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.
As soon as Peter took the throne in 1682, and just after the death of his first minister the Cardinal Mazarin in1661 for Louis XIV, they both decided to rule alone and to establish an Absolute Monarchy. Defined by William Beik as being the fact that “ (…) the King derived his power from God and could exercise it without other constituted bodies having the rights to challenge them (…)”. If one applies this definition to both Louis’s XIV and Peter’s reign, without more research, it could indeed be said that both reigns were absolute. However, there is a difference of terminology between the two monarchs: Louis XIV was an absolute monarch but his sovereign power was limited by unwritten
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.
King Louis XIV of France used absolute tactics. He used absolute tactics from the late 17th century to the early 18th century. What does king Louis do to create absolutism? King Louis creates absolutism by building the most brilliant court ever known to Europe, Versailles. He built the court because he wanted the nobility to live there. They didn’t really have a choice because he commanded them to leave their castles in the country. King Louis wanted the nobility to live with him because he wanted to watch over them. He wanted to watch over them because he wanted to take their power. Without knowing it, the nobility challenged each other. They all fell into the habit of trying to please him. It was very unwise to be disobedient or disrespectful to him while living at Versailles (DOC 2). King Louis wanted absolute power because he wanted to be the one and only to make decisions. He did not want to share that power with the
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.
Of all the absolute rulers in Europe, by far the best example of one, and the most powerful, was Louis XIV of France. Although Louis had some failures, he also had many successes. He controlled France’s money and had many different ways to get, as well as keep his power, and he knew how to delegate jobs to smart, but loyal people.
The 16th and 17th centuries were a powerful time for European monarchies. Absolutism had taken hold, allowing Kings to have powerful rules over their states. This was due to the absolute monarchies that had taken hold and the belief in a divine right that kept them there. This allowed the countries under the rule of powerful monarchs to thrive and prosper. Absolute monarchies and the belief in a divine right to rule made absolutism a period of prosperity in 16th and 17th century Europe.
There has been many type of monarchies all throughout Europe's history that each had their own ideas of a good social structure. Usually, the lowest class is treated poorly by the higher classes. The monarchs would make certain actions to fulfill his needs or those of the higher classes even if it causes the lower classes to suffer. Political rule during the 18th century denied the people of some if not most of their natural human rights. This would lead to enlightened thinkers challenging the traditional rule of monarchy.
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.
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.
Tristan Maracha Mr. McKinney Global 10 December 18, 2014 Peter the Great What is an absolute monarch? This is a form of government in which the ruling monarch has absolute power amongst the people.
An absolute monarch is a ruler by divine right who has control over every portion of his kingdom. The most famous absolute monarch, Louis XIV, had the longest reign of any of the French kings. Louis achieved this as a result of his reformed laws, foreign policy, a smart economic advisor, and his decision to deny power to the nobility. Although some of these ideas could be viewed as having a negative impacting on France, overall Louis XIV's absolute government was beneficial to the development of his country.
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
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