Absolutism must have something working for it seeing as every civilization that the book discusses in the 17th and 18th century was at one time under its rule. From Louis XIV in France to the Qing dynasty in China it seems that the whole world thought of absolutism as some great way to rule a country or state. Obviously they were wrong since these countries now have different systems of government or simply don’t exist anymore. With that said however Absolutism did work for a time. The book states that “when the Qing dynasty reached its zenith—during the very last years that Louis XIV ruled France—it governed the largest, most populous, and one of the most unified states in the world”. With such a prosperous time its hard to imagine how this system for ruling failed. However when looked at closer these times were not so prosperous for everyone. The king/Emperor/Shah or whatever they were called lived lavishly while the peasants crawled through their lives living very poor. Without this period of absolutism it can be argued that we would not have such grand palaces and temples such as Versailles or the Taj Mahal, also we might not have the great art pieces or plays and ballads as we do know if it weren’t for these extremely powerful rulers who needed to be entertained. In short the world needed absolutism, it just couldn’t sustain it for very long. There were just to many poor and the rich lived to lavishly. It was to evil and gave way under the extreme pressure for equality in the world. This is why today absolutism is a rare find.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your statement that absolutism is something that is needed at times, but it cannot be kept. King Louis XIV unified France to some extent because of his absolute rule. That was a good quote that you found and it defends the fact that Louis's absolute rule made France a top notch country in the world. Before Louis came to power, France was struggling to survive and be unified. There really was no leader of France at the time until Louis stepped in and began to rule France with a true, absolute fist. Granted, his selfishness may have coincided with the needs of France, but Louis's rule brought unification to a country that was in desperate need of it.
ReplyDeleteBut good things never last. Absolute rule did indeed have it's high points but it does not last as shown by examples of the dynasties in China and the Moguls in India. These groups also brought unification to their respective areas but they too could not last as the needs of the people changed along with the times. This leads to my next point that agrees with your statement absolutism is hard to find today. The times are changing way too fast for absolutism to keep up, and the needs of the people are constantly changing at a pace that would leave absolutism far behind.
i would have to agree with your point that many great things were created as a result of the absolute rule that was taking place in the world. I don't agree with saying that absolutism was something that the world needed. There are far to many negatives involved with giving one person unlimited power to say that it was necessary. the fact that it has become less and less popular in the last centuries should show that it was not necessary, but rather a less than ideal way of filling another need. That is the need for a centralized power. This need is even evidence of this need in the history of our own nation, with the failure of the articles of confederation. With a centralized power that allows citizens freedom of expression, it is not unforeseeable that many of the same things would have been accomplished that took place under absolute rule.
ReplyDeleteI agree with dreese that the world does not need absolutism. It is true that before Louis XIV, France was not unified and on the brink of ruin. However,how is that different from the France Louis XIV left upon his death? In the beginning to middle of Louis XIV's reign, the french people saw hope for their future; France appeared to be gaining military power and accumulating more wealth. However by the time Louis XIV was on his deathbed, France was in major debt and once again on the brink of ruin. Therefore is it not fair to say that absolute rule is no better for a country than any, for instance, a monarchy?
ReplyDeleteBoth of you have excellent points in saying that absolutism was not necessary for the world. However i feel that i must clarify myself. in saying that it was necessary I meant that it was necessary in order for us to have the great arts that we do now from this time period. You both are correct in saying that without absolutism we most certainly would be fine today and the human race would still be around, we just simply wouldn't have all the arts that we do know that came about during this time.
ReplyDelete