Absolutism was the trend in both Western and Eastern Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Many leaders maintained control of their countries by controling a centralized beaurocracy, having a strong military, and advocating economic policies that would maximize their own wealth.
I do not believe that this "Age of Absolutism" came about merely by coincidence. I believe that the trends and conditions of the world at the time contributed to the success of this form of government. One such trend was that of theocracy. The belief that the ruler had divine rights allowed one monarch to control his empire.
Stong diplomatic ties between the West and the East also contributed to the spread of the aristocratic style of government. Ambassadors were well-recieved at Versailles by French kings, and alliances had been formed between France and the Ottoman Turks. The Moguls in India also modeled their government after that of the "sun king." The relationships between the East and the West made the spread of Absolutism inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with my classmates who have expressed that the nearly simultaneous rise of absolutism in the empires of Europe and Asia could not have been coincidental, if only due to the fact that established trade routes allowed for communication of influential ideas across the region--and historical precedent, of course. It may or may not be coincidental that conditions were right in all of these empires to allow for or necesitate absolutist rule, depending on what one establishes as valid conditions. That is to say, if one condition is economic hardship, it is possible that if one of these empires experienced such troubles, so would the others, as they were linked by commerce, thus providing conditions throughout the continents for absolutist rule. It is coincidental that the people of these empires went along with the ideas of their absolutist rulers. It is also important to note that there were powerful kingdoms and empires, such as Habsburg Spain, that were not ruled by absolutist monarchs.
ReplyDeleteSomething I am surprised that no one (that I have noticed) has mentioned is how religion may have affected the rise of absolutism, at least and especially in Europe. It makes sense that the idea of monotheism and the Catholic Counter Reformation (which overlapped the beginning of Louis' rule by approximately 5 years) supports the notion of one ruler (one ruler in Heaven, one on Earth), especially given Louis XIV's penchant for calling himself "God-given" and the "Sun king" as he clearly saw himself as God's representative on Earth. Or one of them, anyway. Remember that Charles I of England also believed in absolute power. Taking cues from Louis as a model ruler, he governed England, Scotland and Ireland without Parliament and also headed the Church of England. During Louis' lengthy reign, England's monarchy was restored only to eventually be challenged again by James II. I think it is important to investigate the significance of religious influence on absolutist rule--especially in non-Christian/Catholic countries. Was the structure of religious and political power similar in other societies, or were the other countries driven simply by secular motives?