Q: European monarchs of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuri

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.

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.

The 1600s and 1700s were times of change. The Reformation of the previous century had shaken the foundations of society in Europe, while the Age of Exploration had introduced Europe to lands, peoples, and resources that brought new wealth to individuals and countries. Building off of this wealth, monarchs in Europe began to centralize their power using methods of taxation and claims of divine right. These monarchs, including Louis XIV of France, Peter the Great of Russia, and James I of England, eventually created a governmental system, known as absolutism, that revolved entirely around themselves and their desires. Because of their claims to such extreme power, absolutism had wide reaching effects on many parts of their countries. The effects of absolutism were the Nobles got treated like servants, the king's power increased a lot, and the military improved.

These two kings were fighting over land in modern southwestern France. The men both prepared to go to war with each other, so they both wanted the churches in their kingdoms to pay taxes to help fund for the war. However, according to the canon law they church didn’t have to pay taxes to the lay ruler, unless the lay ruler got approval from the pope to tax the church. Despite, knowing the rulers both kings taxed the churches from their kingdoms without papal authorization, thus testing the Papacy’s power. The clergy had to choose between the kings or the Pope. Although, the pope had to power to excommunicate any clergy that disobeyed him, he didn’t win the conflict. The French king Philip IV cut off the wealth from France that was sent to the Pope. This cut off a major amount of Boniface income, causing the pope to back down. Meaning the kings of England and France had the power to tax their clergy, no matter what the canon law

Thesis: Rulers during the period from 1450 to 1750 viewed themselves ruling with God’s name and have great power and diverse methods to rule their lands, and they are expected to do everything for their people and have great diplomatic policies.

Once the seventeenth century began, western civilization became based upon bounds. In a structured and shared-power system known as limited monarchy, rulers either became hastened within their bounds or exploded from them. As the British Isles were frustrated in the religious, political, and national voices going unheard, England developed a Protestant-run nation in conjunction with Scotland as a bounded country in 1707. Their Parliament would make their decisions, distribute the country’s wealth, and stand for the rights of individuals. The model of one man who could not be chained to a Parliamentary system was France’s King Louis XIV. His reign begins in 1643 which brings about the genuine definition of an absolute monarchy and it’s faults. Absolutism was a practice built heavily within the Middle Ages, it would include Kings as the primary shareholders of their land, partnerships with nobles and their Churches. It would prove unsatisfactory for most kingdoms as they failed under civil war and invasion until the seventeenth century shines a new importance on superior command. Through the strife of religious reformations and international conflicts, absolutism grants those in kingship unlimited power. King Henry IV had brought France from fifteenth century centralization and the Reformation’s civil war to cleanse the people’s doubt in their King. The Bourbons built a monarchy for the ages with their grandson Louis XIV, and Boy-King in 1643. Utilizing absolutism to accept

2. '79: European monarchs of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries are often referred to as the

He strongly opposed the French Protestants known as Huguenots. Louis threatened the Huguenots with brutal military force and immoral evils if they did not convert to Catholism. His religious upbringing, and consultants conducted him to think he could not go to heaven unless he wiped all the heretics from France. Those that refused to convert were slaughtered without sympathy. Louis XIV claimed to rule France by divine right, with the belief that monarchs are chosen by God to lead the state. Louis XIV considered it his responsibility as a Catholic monarch to make all of France fully Catholic, even if there would be many lives lost and French blood spilt. Although Louis XIV achieved absolute power in France, but he faced many dilemmas. Louis XIV had lost immense quantities of money by participating in wars overseas. His religious bias caused many Huguenots to flee from France in fear of death, leading this to severely disabled the French economy. Although his actions gave him the support of various Catholic nations, the Protestant nations like England now intensely stood against Louis XIV for his strict beliefs in Catholism, and formed the League of Augsburg in spite of him. This led to more conflict, which made France go further and further into debt leading to elevated taxes. Which enraged an already distressed

Wyatt Hoover Prof. Keenan English 101 November 19, 2014 Paper 5: Obedience to Authority In Medieval times Monarchy’s were the most common form of government in the civilized world. Monarchies were built on the premise that the King and Queen had a birth right from a higher power to rule over the common man. In that time people were much more submissive to power, they would gladly die for their King or Queen if it meant that they would go to Heaven. Most of the countries that were run by the Monarchy system are still around to this day and thriving.

During the Middle Ages, developing monarchies had difficulties forming because of the nobility and church. However, there were specific differences between problems with the monarchs and nobles, and the conflicts with the church. The problem that monarchies had with the church was the fact that the church was the main ruling factor during this time. The church also claimed papal supremacy, which made it hard for the monarchy to form any power because all the people believed what the pope said was true.

New Monarchs of the 17th century led the way to the formation of the modern states in various ways. To make a strong-central government the new monarchs had to change. The government increased the taxation and tariffs on the common people. Politically, the new monarchs set a “good” government by becoming absolute rulers. Finally they set a good foundation for the modern states by building strong and loyal militaries. These were some ideas that paved way for modern states.

The New Monarchs replaced the power of nobles who would tax peasants and start war as desired. The New Monarchs were able to ends these wars and secure nation states. For instance, the Tudors of England ended the War of Roses. In addition, they were also able to set up national taxes and form armies. The centralization of power was a push factor because it allowed Europe to produce the financial resources and military power needed to explore. European rulers also relied on trade to finance their spending and maintain their

Then after the French king, Charles VI, became unable to rule, many “rival factions of French nobles” sought the position and began a civil war in the process. (Spielvogel 287) Similarly, Germany “had already begun to fall apart in the High Middle Ages… [because] the failure of the Hohenstaufen ended any chance of centralized monarchical authority, and Germany became a land of hundreds of virtually independent states.” (Spielvogel 287) Even if these states were bound by the king of Germany or the Holy Roman Emperor, they were highly independent. Gradually, Germany began to adopt an electoral system for their king as stated by the Golden Bull, therefore, power was transferred to the people, the German monarchy became on the “verge of anarchy.”(Spielvogel 287) South of Germany, Italy also lacked a centralized monarchical state due to papal opposition and its division into separate kingdoms. Eventually, tyrants began a limited rule of Italy that became “long-term despotism” of ever growing regional states. (Spielvogel 288) Thus, centralized monarchical rule became a rare sight in Europe, excluding certain areas.

Absolutism, where there is a person who has full political power over a country, rose in the 17th century due to the increase in surplus, mercantilism and the standing armies. Due to the increase in surplus in these countries, the government had more money to spend. Mercantilism also contributed to the economic growth of countries that adopted it. The increased money from these meant increased funding for standing armies. The standing armies gave the king an army without needing to call on the nobles, thereby lessening their importance and power, and heightening the king’s.

In War in Human Civilization, Azar Gat asserted that, “Europe experienced a so-called military revolution,” in the 16th and 17th centuries as a result of social, technological, and economic factors. Likewise, historians Williamson Murray and MacGregor Knox affirmed that European militaries experienced revolution during the same period for a variety of other reasons, including the development of the military profession and the disbursement of regular pay. These authors recognized the extensive and lasting impact of the radical military, social, and economic transformations resultant to the rise of the nation state from approximately 1560 to 1700, culminating in a post-Westphalian Europe. The product of this military revolution, subsequently, was a shift from, “bellicose persons… [and] men acting in unison with plenty of brute ferocity but no effective control,” to a professionalized force, with the equivalent of a functioning institutional “central nervous system.” Fundamentally, the emergence of the modern state constituted a military revolution because it subordinated the act of warfare and the monopoly of violence to the newly formed state, enabled the establishment of the modern military institution where none existed previously, and instituted a process for integrating modern and emerging science with military matters. Consequently, the conclusion of feudalism and the emergence of modern states demonstrated a paradigm shift in both the conduct of governance and