On The Social Order And Absolute Monarchy In The 16th And 17th Century

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

A form of government ruled by one person whose authority is not restricted by law or governing bodies is absolutism. It is arguable if this form of government can truly be successful due to its impression left throughout the course of history. Justification of absolutism by Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Benigne Bossuet, and analysis of Louis XIV rule reveal why absolutism in ineffective. Due to its removal of self-authority, vulnerability to a power, and the possibility of weakening a country make absolutism inefficient.

Louis XIV, the ruler of France from the late seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century, claimed, “I am the state.” He considered this to be absolutism. His goal, also acquainted with absolutism, was, “one king, one law, one faith;” Furthermore, Louis wanted to promote religious unity, royal dignity, and security of the state. In order to achieve this goal, he had to rule with a firm hand, laying down the law for all to see. Louis XIV’s absolutism fostered in four major parts: the building of Versailles to control the nobility, the breeding of a strong military, the improvement of France’s economy, and, while quite harsh, the brutal extinction of religious toleration.

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.

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.

Until now, the analysis of both Louis XIV and Peter the great form of absolutism showed some similarities in term of ideals, but more important differences on the method of application. And this contrast in again portrayed in their use of religion but also in the monarch himself.

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.

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.

For over 5,000 years of human civilization, there has always been a need for societal structure and stability. People developed governments in order to guarantee that structure and stability are present within the region. While there are various forms of government, some are more effective than others. Yet the effectiveness of that form of government is mostly dictated by the time period it is being used in. Even though democracy is widely regarded as the best form of government in the 21st century, the same cannot be said for the 17th and 18th centuries. The most effective form of government for the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe is absolutism because of the power of religious unity, the importance of fear, and the focus of the overall well-being of the state.

New England became a new start for the people of Europe who had crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Opportunities blossomed everywhere one looked; whether it was new items of trade or the entire land itself, waiting to be discovered. However, as people began to settle into their new home, one thing was certain: the social orders of Europe had traveled with them. Women were meant to stay home and men were meant to work. Women had little involvement in the choices made for their well being, and were required to follow all orders from the dominant male population. Just as people began to migrate to America, witchcraft was still a major fear amongst the people of England, and women were a primary target for these accusations. It was simply the way life was for these New Englanders, and nobody found the inspiration to end this awful oppression. As the colonies began to break away from Britain, however, few key women stepped up and took matters into their own hands. Authors Alfred Young and Carol Karlsen dive readers into the early and later times of New England. Karlsen allows us to understand the dynamics of witchcraft in the mid-to-late 1600’s and how women were so easily accused of such acts. During this time period, women were very much under the radar and any wrongdoings could be detrimental for their reputation and ultimately their lives. Young, on the other hand, takes the reader forward in time to the revolution and how a particular woman fought for her people in battle. By

The 17th century French aristocrat Michel de Montaigne lived in a tumultuous world. With the spark of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, the fire spread rapidly to France. The nation divided against itself. The rebellious protestant Huguenots and the traditional staunch Catholics both viewed the other group as idolatrous heretics in time when that crime could justify execution. Consequently, Catholic monarchs throughout Europe felt the impending threat to their reigns, too, because if they supposedly ruled through divine right, what would change concerning the support of their subjects? After the peace-making Edict of Nantes, rehashing the religious conflicts of the century was forbidden, but seeing his country—and even his own family—torn apart, how could one refrain from comment? So in his writings, Montaigne has to write around his actual subjects. This isn’t to say, however, that he conveyed none of his ideas directly. Montaigne criticizes the cultural belief in a correct way of life, opposing the idea with a more relativistic viewpoint, though the way in which he presents it, as mere musings in personal correspondence, fails to effectively convince his readers.

During the 17th and 18th century the 2 most powerful forms of government were created. these 2 forms of government were named Absolutism and Democracy. they both had a significate role during the 17th and 18th century which lead to an increase of wealth and territory. however, Absolutism brought the worst out of people. due to the fact that they had complete control over the citizens and the area, they placed laws that supported themselves(such as the increase in taxes) instead of issuing laws that would have benefited their citizens.

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

​Absolutism is a major problem the world has been dealing with, since the beginning of time. No matter the situation, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. “Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy and make their prophecies come true, but they can also lie and make their lies come true” (Eric Hoffer). The quote written by Eric Hoffer goes along with the theme because it shows how one person can use their power for wrong doings. With the different time periods, the French Empire and the reign of the Third Reich in Germany, both of the authors, Vincent Cronin and Eileen Heyes, relate with the theme that no person or people should be superior to another. The theme is very important because it shows that everyone and everything in the world should have equality. People of a high class rank or a fascist dictator should not put themselves on

This writer focuses on two parts of the question ‘The Tudor Reformation was a method of strengthening absolute monarchy in England.’. The first focus is the word ‘method’ and the second focus is the word ‘strengthening’. The word ‘method’ means a planned way of doing something. In this case, the question can be interpreted as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a planned and intentional affair to achieve strenghtened absolute monarchy. Also, this writer is going to put emphasis on the comparison meaning of the word ’strengthen’. Then this essay has to show how the Tudor Reformation made aboslute monarchy stronger than before and what changes did the Tudor Reformation bring out in comparison with the past. According to these focuses, the question can be understood as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a calculated event and it was to accomplish more powerful abosolute monarchy than before in England.’ However, this writer disagrees with the sentence and thinks that the Tudor Reformation was not an affair that had an intention to reinforce abosolute monarchy. Therefore, in the main body, the essay is going to concentrate on whether it was an intentional or unintentional matter that is related to strengthen absolute royal authority. Moreover, figuring out whether the absolute monarchy was consolidated than before. Finally, this essay will examine how the politics was at that time. At the end, in the conclusion part, it puts this issue aside