Absolutism And Enlightenment

A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France

Peter the Great led Russia to its modern and powerful time, at the same time Louis XIV also made his people see the rise of a stronger France which under the rule of him. They suffered their people but also bring them new life so that is hard to judge who is better, but as a leader, Louis XIV created the grandest court in history of France and made France became the leading cultural and military power of Europe. Peter the Great was successfully involved in every part of Russians’ life such as what people wore and read. Louis XIV made his country become much more powerful and respectful in the world stage so he was considered better than Peter the Great.

As a conclusion Peter the Great of Russia should receive the title of “Most Absolute Monarch” because he was wise, yet cruel. He created Russia's navy, but required an education before the men could join. He was fond of physical labor and didn't mind putting his men through it. Peter also westernized the entire country of Russia. Since beards were not a fashion in westernization, Peter made it mandatory for all of his nobleman to shave their beards off. He wanted Russia to be westernized completely. Peter was very strong and was not afraid of anyone's criticism. When his people tried to overthrow him (which was multiple times), it usually ended with mass executions. Peter had to let everyone know who was boss. He even interrogated his own son because of faulty reasoning. He also was a very strong Protestant Christian and made everyone follow him as a Christian. To get down to it, if things didn't go Peter's way, it all ended

During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the

Royal absolutism is a form of monarchy in which one ruler has supreme authority and where that authority is not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs. There are many monarchical absolutist rulers however most of them are non- memorable. Two rulers I found to be most memorable is Louis XIV of France and Ivan the terrible of Russia. At 4 years old Louis XIV inherited the crown. After his mentor Cardinal Jules Mazarin, Louis XIV decided to take full authority of the throne.

During the 16th century to the 18th century, Monarchs in Europe used absolutism. Monarchs such as King Louis and Peter The Great used absolute tactics because they wanted to consolidate power from the nobility. They wanted to consolidate power from the nobility because they wanted to take the power they lost during the middle ages. King Louis and Peter the Great used all multiple means to reclaim power. They used their power to glorify themselves and their country. The practice of absolutism can be argued to have both positive and negative effects.

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

     Absolutist rulers had several main goals for successive reign over the people. The first being to eliminate or weaken the national representative assemblies. Next rulers looked to gain

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.

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

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.

- absolute is passed down from generation to generation.A king or a queen is accepted as the ruler. Meaning, the king and the queen pass down their power and authority to their eldest. For example, in China an emperor passes down his thrown to his eldest son. Meaning the power and authority is still in their bloodline and it will strictly stay in their bloodline.

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