The United Goals and Vastly Different Ideals of Absolutism and Constitutionalism Ellie Guyon AP Euro 11/15/16 During the 17th and 18th century, a vast majority of the European countries that rose to global power did so under the rule of an Absolute or Constitutional monarchy. Both of these political systems shared the concept of a single ruler that had the final say in all decisions, and acted in the interests of their country, but they differed greatly in their ideals. With an Absolute rule, the monarch had complete, unquestionable rule and made all decisions regarding the country, and this monarch had the divine, god-given right to do so. An Absolute monarch was not bound by constitution to his country, whereas in a Constitutional monarchy, the ruler had to adhere to a laid out constitution and shared power with Parliament, the representative party for the people. The major differences of Absolutism and Constitutionalism rested in the power of the monarch. With an Absolute monarchy, the ruler made all decisions and their subjects followed them blindly. This kind of strict dictatorship can be seen with famous Absolutist rulers like Peter the Great of Russia, who raised a fierce military, expanded borders, and forced his people to modernize and adopt a more western European lifestyle. Ivan the Terrible of Prussia was another tyrannical Absolutist who killed anyone who defied him. He brought Prussia to power amidst other European nations as a brutal ruler. Another famous Absolutist ruler was Charles I of England, who disbanded parliament, enforced taxes on his people, and tried to maintain sole rule
of England. This eventually led to the English Civil War, afterwhich a Republic was instituted for a short time, and Constitutionalism overtook Absolutism. With this system, the monarch had
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 4 pages?
- Fall '17
- Craig Divis
- Constitutional monarchy, Absolute monarchy, Monarchy