Week 3: Absolutism vs. Constitutionalism Answer in at least 4 paragraphs for each question! 1) How did absolute monarchy come about in France and Russia? What were the qualities (political, social, economic) of these governments? Were they "all-encompassing?" 2) What were the major factors in the causes of the English Civil War as well as Cromwell's dictatorship of England? Which side would you have supported and why? Do you think that the Restoration of Charles II was a good thing? Why or why not
 

Week 3: Absolutism vs. Constitutionalism

Question 1

During the 17th century or thereabouts, the concept of absolutism became extremely popular in Russia and France. Absolutism referred to the governing Monarch's absolute power. The Monarch makes the final choice. It is thought that the absolute Monarch in command was gifted with authority to reign indefinitely by God's powers. As a result, the ruler has nobody except God to answer to. The absolute Monarchy was established during the reign of Louis XIII. When his heir Louis XIV inherited the throne, the duration of trouble regarded as Fronde took place in France, and this took advantage of the fact that Louis XIV was considered a minority.

The period of absolutism in France emerged during King Louis' reign due to numerous rebellions by aristocrats and troops against the Monarch and his advisers in reaction to the Balkan Wars. In Russia, absolute Monarchy was achieved by Peter the Great during his reign. In 1613, the rule of the first Romanov emperor restored some order. However, it was not until the turn of the era that a tsar emerged who was powerful enough to reclaim the total power of previous tsars. Like Peter the Great, he utilized his influence to set Russia on the path to becoming a great modern power.

Louis XIV is remembered for his financial, economic, and spiritual policies. Louis entrusts his royal court to ministers whom he chooses. As a result, he has the right to declare war or peace, enforce royal power against any efforts by the church, and charge taxes to operate the government. In terms of religion, Louis did not want Protestants to exercise their beliefs in predominantly Catholic France. He delivered the Tainebleau Edict and the Nantes Edict. Jean Baptiste Colbert was the director-general of budgets at the time. He made significant contributions to the growth of industrialization in France.

Russia is yet another example of absolute Monarchy. His objective, led by Peter I the Great, is to render Russia more enlightened or civilized. He wishes to bring western technology to Russia. He begins by assembling the first Russian Navy and even reforming the government by establishing a Senate to manage the state. He mandated that all landowners serve in civil or military posts, and he even allowed non-nobles to rise up the hierarchy to serve. To keep the economy afloat, Peter implemented mercantilist measures. In terms of religion, he attempted to put the Russian Orthodox Church beneath royal rule.

Louis also sought to make his dominion all-encompassing by making choices to raise taxes, take care of the religious dispute, and expand France's holdings. Regrettably, absolutism does not frequently care for lower-class individuals and ignores all social strata under their authority. An authoritarian regime is more self-centered and challenging to be "all-encompassing" since there is a constant desire to defend the king rather than his subjects.

Question 2

Throughout history, there have been disagreements and discussions over how a country operates or is managed and political and theological debates between rulers of various religions. The English Civil War was a direct result of this. It was a protracted conflict brought on by James I and King Charles I's choice to reign as absolutists in a realm dominated by an enraged Puritan Parliament. A heated debate between James and his Legislature centered on how James would deal with the Anglican Church.

With Charles I on the helm, he merely fueled the flames. Charles felt that his absolutist rule would be restricted after signing the Petition of Right and agreeing that levies could only be levied with the vote and consent of Parliament; thus, he "suspended Parliament." Significantly speaking, the Puritans get increasingly enraged about this, notably when Charles summons them back into position only for financial gain.

In the War, Oliver Cromwell headed the Puritans, often known as the Gauls. Due to Charles' failure to command a powerful force, Cromwell had the opportunity to take over the Monarchy. Cromwell's immaculate merciless method of controlling his army to guarantee no one opposed his method was a significant element that contributed to his dominance. He beheaded Charles I for treason and seized control of England in military and brutal manner. The hanging of Charles and the battle inside Parliament among Puritan radicals all contribute to his more significant influence in England. Cromwell's goal to depose an absolutist monarch becomes ironic as his tyranny continues to be developed in order to preserve power over England. 

Charles II, son of Charles I, reestablish the Monarchy after Cromwell's demise, which sounds plausible. I feel that especially given the dangerous and dictatorial reign that England has been subjected to, the reinstatement of a new monarch would be beneficial to the country. This would be a refreshing change. Even though it cost them time to decide that placing Charles on the Monarchy was a good idea, it was solely up to the troops of England, so they were praying for the best as well. Presumably, he would draw from his father's failures as well as the reactions of the English people to Cromwell's severe reign,

After Cromwell's death Charles II, son of Charles I, restores the Monarchy, which makes sense. I believe that, especially after the dangerous and dictatorship rule England had been placed under, the restoration of a new king would be suitable for England. It would be a change. Although it took them a while to conclude putting Charles on the throne, it ultimately was up to the military of England. Therefore they were hoping themselves too that it would be a good thing. Hopefully, he would learn from his father's mistakes and the responses of England's people to the strict rule of Cromwell and govern with less divine authority than his father and less tyranny than Cromwell.