Brovs Vs Romanovs

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

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

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.

Many rulers used absolutism in their countries. They believed rulers should have complete control over the country. Prince Machiavelli believed the best way to rule was to be feared and thought that the only way people would listen to him was if he was mean and scary. He thought if he was nice and loved then they would not fear him and end up taking advantage of him. (doc1) King James also believed absolutism was the way to go. He believed in divine right and that it was the only way to keep the country

One difference between England and France’s monarchy was their individual theories on Constitutionalism and Absolutism. Absolutism, which was practiced in France, was when a monarch had all the power. Constitutionalism was different than Absolutism because the monarch shared their power with Parliament. Each monarchy had their own respected theorist on Absolutism and Constitutionalism. For England, it was John Locke. John Locke emphasized that the core of commonwealth was the Legislature, which were elected representatives. Property was the most important thing to Locke, because he believed if you owned property you earned it and you had done something with your life. Contrast to Locke, Hobbes and Bossuet had different opinions about their monarchy. Hobbes supported an absolute monarchy because he believed that a republic, or constitutional monarchy, was chaotic and

From the dawn of the first human civilizations, there has always been some form of government, whether it is a monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. Within these forms of government, there are sub-subcategories, in the case of a monarchy, it is divided into three types: number one is a limited monarchy, number two constitutional, and number three absolute. An absolute monarchy or better known as “Absolutism” is a government run by an absolute monarchy meaning they have absolute power over their nation and are not required to follow the rules or laws provided by the legislature. Although absolutism was more prevalent during the 16th to 18th centuries, it still exists in our current time.

Answer: Absolutism hold the supreme or absolute powers and constitutionalism is the head of state and a hereditary or elected monarch. Absolutism is when the King or Queen rules with absolute and total power. Which basically makes them a dictator. A King or Queen of constitutionalism has limited powers since they rule along with a parliament or a governing body. An absolute monarch is entitled to make all the economic and other state-related decisions for the country whereas in the constitutional monarchy, the parliament is responsible for the economic and foreign affairs. A absolute monarch is not legally bound, a constitutional monarch is legally bound by the constitution of their country. The absolute monarch gains powers either from hereditary or from marriage. The constitutional monarch is either elected directly or indirectly.

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.

Absolutism places no boundaries on the sovereign’s power. Since most sovereigns saw themselves as God’s lieutenants, they believed that everything that they did was correct. King James states, “for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth…God hath power to create and destroy,… And the like power have kings.” (Document 2) They believed that they were able to enslave, kill, or evict anyone at their leisure. However, constitutionalism is the exact opposite. While the sovereign does have power, they still have to properly recognize and uphold the people’s natural rights, “When legislators try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey laws.” (Document 5) The government doesn’t have all the power and have to adhere to the people or else they will revolt. This was also a major discrepancy between the two governments. As the quote states above, the people are allowed to revolt if the government infringes on their natural rights. However, it is believed that since the sovereign in an absolutism has everyone’s best interest in mind, revolt would be selfish as you

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.

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

Throughout world history different forms of political systems have been conjured and used, in the hopes of finding the right one. During the l16th and 17th century Europe went through economic catastrophes and violent wars, an absolute monarchy was one of the many trial and error solutions used to search for a way to create more order in society. As Europe created nation-states, the divine power and extreme wealth of the absolute monarchs controlled countries such as Russia and France. While in England the political system was more centralized, attempts were made to limit royal power and protected the rights of the governed. There has always been a battle of which political system worked better. Studies have shown that both absolutism and democracy have their advantages and disadvantages. There are various differences and similarities between the development of the nation-state ruled by an absolute monarch like in France and in a democratic government like in England.

The conditions that led to constitutional monarchy in England and absolute monarchies in Spain, France, Prussia, and Russia are compared to and contrasted in the following essay. The extent to which the conditions that predated the establishment of a constitutional or absolute monarchy and the type of monarch's that would be established in each country is explained.

The first, absolutism, was characterized by three things: strong monarchies, unlimited power, and efficient rule. Two notorious examples of absolutism in Europe were in France and Austria. In Austria, the Habsburgs were the ruling family. This was a family that had been in control of the area for a long time, since the middle ages. The area had a ton of diversity, from religion to ethnicity. In order to keep all of it’s people in line scare tactics were used, an example of efficient rule. The empire also had many strong leaders of the monarchy, including Rudolf I, Leopold I, and Charles VI (source).