Absolutism Dbq Essay

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

The first concept, unqualified absolutism, does not consider the fact that belief in Christ does not shift the responsibility to God for it grasps the moral law to complete and non-conflict. Moral conflict is merely a mistaken perception, for God always provides a way out of sin. The viewpoint is to be respected as it trusts in God’s faithfulness and refuses to let the end explain the meaning. There are religious conflicts that must be addressed like those who promise to complete absolutism and will probably hold off on telling the truth but never actually lie, instead looking toward God to provide a way of escape. This ethical system argues that all moral laws are absolute and should never be broken.

In 1655, an adolescent Louis XIV famously remarked “L'état c'est moi,” meaning “I am the state.” This quote encapsulates the fundamental principles of absolutism. Absolutism is a form of government in which a sovereign holds unrestricted government power. Coming just after the Era of Exploration, the Age of Absolutism was an effort by monarchs to consolidate power in their newly expanded empires. Though France is viewed as the pioneer of absolutism, the idea quickly spread throughout Europe. The major power shift occurring across Europe raises the question: how much of an effect did absolutism have on everyday life in the 18th century? Absolutism had a large effect on everyday life in the 18th century. The disempowerment of the

Absolutism affected the power + status of the European nobility depending on the country in which they lived. In England the power of the nobility increases due to a victory in the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1658. However, in France, Louis XIV¡¯s absolutist regime decreased the powers of the noble but heightened their material status. In Russia and in Prussia, the absolutist leaders of those countries modernized their nations + the nobility underwent a change, but it retained prestige + power.

     According to Jacques-Benigne Bousset, a preacher and tutor to Louis the fourteenth’s son, there were four characteristics to royal authority. The first of being, royal authority is sacred. Second, royal authority is paternal. Third, it is absolute. Fourth, All power comes from God. (Text 596) To summarize Bousset he believes that, like God, a king is a father figure. To be idolized, respected and loved. So if God is the father of earth then his sons are the fathers of people, or kings. This makes a king both divine and undisputable, as a descendant of God. “Royal authority is absolute…The prince need account to no one for what he ordains…without this absolute authority, he can do no good nor suppress evil…” (Text 596).

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

European absolutism was the concept that one sovereign individual had some power in the government. Absolutism required the King to have the support of the nobility, which were the closest threat to them. King Louis did this by using extravagant pageants to awe his possible threats, and he used court ritual, gifts and court privileges to gain support from his nobility. Frederick also gained support from his nobility by granting them favors ( in his case exemption from taxes) in exchange for their support financially. A key component in Absolutism is military. Leopold the I implemented a standing army with a hierarchy of sefs as soldiers and nobles as officers. Frederick brought his army from eight thousand to thirty thousand, aso using the noble-over-peasant hierarchy. King Louis used his French army to gain french territory against the spanish and austrians. A key in absolutism was bureaucracy, a line of officials working under a routine one of authority, which was supervised by the absolute

Louis XIV's absolutism in France caused significant consequences in France. Economically, he used 80% of the wealth of the country on his personal palace. After the reign of Louis XIV, France was not in a good state financially. Politically Louis XIV centralized the government, strengthened the royal administration, decreased other sources of authority, and weakened power of the nobility. Socially, France was one of the strongest countries; however, Louis XIV used much of the money and there were not many surrounding areas who allied with France or helped them out. Socially, the people of France as far as peasants, they stayed peasants, the wealthy and powerful had everything.

The 17th and 18th centuries were a tumultuous time for France and its colonies, as the slave trade grew and power shifted from nobles to the king, and the system of government slowly changed. The goal of absolutism was stability, order, and to achieve a unified state, building the power and strength of France, and ultimately of its Sun King. However, this shift in power caused tension which came to a peak in 1789 at the start of the French Revolution with the storming of the Bastille, as well as delegitimized the authority of the monarchy. Louis XIV curbed the power of the nobles in order to create a standing army and absorb more power for an absolutist regime, and instead created intendants, or nobles of the robe chosen from the upper middle class, to help manage the country. The cruelty of the slave trade in the New World caused a growing unrest among the French people. This in combination with the absolutist rule beginning with Louis XIV in France angered many, resulted in revolts breaking out, and eventually led to the French Revolution.

In the course of the seventeenth century, there were many political and religious conflicts within Europe. These struggles affected countless nations across the continent, but almost none were as troubled as France due to the years of religious wars fought out within their territories, which caused widespread chaos in their lands. Both, the upper and lower class citizens were exhausted by these conflicts and were supportive of a new style of government. In attempt to maintain the integrity and stability of their country, French kings started to gradually adopt the political ideal of absolutism to maintain total control over their nation. The final goal of this ideal was to achieve the good of the state and a higher level of national existence. The development of absolutism in France can be thoroughly analyzed both in theory and in practice by looking at three kings and their cardinal advisors who consecutively ruled France leading up too, and in the seventeenth century. This development of absolutism can be firstly seen through Henry the fourth, followed by Louis the thirteenth and most prominently in Louis the fourteenth.

Furthermore, individuals can also react to deviance by using the relativism perspective, which states that acts, beliefs, and conditions are not inherently “right” or “wrong”. Instead, this perspective argues that the decision of what’s right or wrong is socially constructed, that is, it is based on collective human judgements and ideas (Newman, 236). Unlike the absolutism perspective, this viewpoint argues that the rightness or wrongness of an act can vary from one society to the next, and is likely to change over time (Newman, 236). Compared to the absolutism perspective, relativism serves as a useful tool for sociologist to understand the process of how an act becomes constructed as deviant. Analyzing these two viewpoints and the case of

Absolutism and relativism are polar opposites in the study of morality. Relativism, in short, is something morally open to interpretation. The context of the situation determines the right or wrong thing to do. A common ethical issue is the idea of killing being justifiable. If someone were to fire a gun at me and I were also armed I would find it difficult not to return fire. Now even this scenario is highly subjective. Who is shooting at me? Why are they shooting at me? Do they know they are shooting at me? Friendly Fire? All these questions make killing in self defense such a relative concept. I believe this because my reaction to being fired upon is “relative to time, place, persons, and situations.” (p.78)

Most parts of Europe were under monarchy, and that was the way it had been for a long time. But as people started questioning the church, they also questioned the position of the king, because if the church is corrupted, then the king could be as well. Other problems as a monarch especially an absolute monarch, is that they controlled everything. They made the laws, controlled religious authorities, used armies to expand the country, and limited the power of the nobles (Doc. C). Because of that, the people’s individual freedom was suppressed. And all of these factors helped led to the Enlightenment, where ideas spread about how society should run.

These changes included society roles, and the belief of nationalism which made strong and powerful monarchs.10 Although both France and England began a transformation, they went in different directions. The King of England began to lose power because he was beginning to be seen as a person, held to laws of the government. However, in France the king began to gain power through the belief that he had a divine right to rule given by God and therefore he was above law.11 Also, in France the call to war was met not through feudal armies but by contracts and payment. This way of life allowed the king to increase power and wealth because he took the place as the highest power. However, these contracts gave the common people a say in government because kings needed troops and only the common people could supply. Both monarchs began to see a change in military expectations because of an overall change in belief and advancements in weapons. Kings and knights began to lose their chivalry because they were not needed to fight as cavalry units. The archers were better equipped to fight than the cavalry troops so knights began to lose their importance. Dominance in war and merit became more important than noble birth. Noble people’s power was put in jeopardy because they were not able to show their value on the battlefield. Because of the change, nobles began to try and

In France and England in the 1610s through the late 1640s, the monarchies and people surrounding them attempted to make their rules more absolute and govern unchallenged, consequently taking power away from the people. The people, dissatisfied with the policies resulting from absolutism such as raised taxes and lesser influence, attempted to enhance their own power through whatever means they deemed necessary.