The countries that had absolute monarchy in the 17th century in Europe were better off than the countries that did not

Introduction 

A monarchy is a government system where only one person rules the country and is normally a king or a queen. The throne is hereditary. A monarchy therefore, is a state with a monarch or a kind of government with a king or queen at the head. Absolute monarchy is a system where the ruler rules with complete power and authority over the people. In this system, the leader believes that the authority they have is given to them by God. This authority is thus not constrained by the legislatures, customs or any other written laws. It is from this system that the word absolutism is generated where the monarch is both the head of the state and the head of the government. Aside from being hereditary, it can also be passed on via marriage. In Europe it was fueled by the crises they faced and the centralizations of the state authority. Some of the crises they faced were religious wars, economic and social predicaments. Countries with absolute monarchs included Spain, Netherlands, France Britain and Russia among others. 

Absolutism had its benefits and disadvantages. It is because of this that some of the countries embraced it while some did not. Absolutism was introduced in these countries for various reasons. Various bodies in the particular nations such as the church had diverse opinions on the idea of absolution. This essay seeks to prove that the countries that embraced absolutism were better off than the countries that did not. It will broadly discuss why absolutism was introduced in the mentioned monarchial states. It will also outline the various merits and demerits of absolute monarchies. The countries that will be used as case studies are France and Prussia. Today, some of the countries that still have absolute monarchs. These countries include are: Oman, Swaziland, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, individual emirates that make up the United Arabs Emirate and Vatican City. The state of affairs in these countries in relation to politics, the economy and the social arena will also be discussed. 

History 

In his article Trueman (2015) stated that in the 17th century, Louise XIV was the leader of France who introduced terms such as “I am the state” and “one king, one law, one faith”. He epitomized absolutism in France and he was known as the “Sun King” signifying how the court and France should rotate around him. He claimed to be only answerable to God and no one else. He built an extravagant palace to display his power and the government of France was extremely centralized and reported straight to him. He was able to minimize the power that the parliament had and in turn spent a lot of money on the armed forces as they were the people who would ensure all his rules were followed. The outcome of this was that his reign was the longest in the history of Europe. 

Before employing Colbert to be his financial minister, Louise XIV squandered the revenue he extracted from the people he was leading. He led the country into a financial downward trend due to poor management of finances. He had also made a deal with the nobles exempting them from paying taxes. This led to high taxes for the peasants who could not afford to pay. This deal affected the financial and overall economic state of the country. He abused the power he had, neglected his people and focused only on himself. The peasants who were rebellious were executed or used as slaves. His palace that was stationed at Versailles was maintained by about sixty percent of all the revenues collected. Doyle (2011) stated that, the deals Louise XIV made with the nobles and the other people led to immense corruption in the country and poor organization in Louise’ courts. He declared himself the head of the French Catholic Church and did not permit the pope to apply any political power in the Church. The Huguenots fled France for Holland and England because they were deprived of their right to Calvinism. He also shut down and banned all schools that were protestant from political meetings. Eventually, he was the only monarch who was executed in France. 

Reasons why France was better off under absolutism 

The monarch was more efficient because there were oppositions to face. The word of the monarch was final and as such there was ease in decision making. This also minimized civil wars in the monarchies. Despite the ups and down, the result of absolute monarchy in the 17th century was that France developed into a pinnacle of power, prestige and wealth. It led in intellectual and culture in all of Europe. Absolute monarchy failed in England and thrived in France because, the leaders who had gone ahead of Louise XIV laid extremely strong foundations for absolutism as compared to those in England. Despite having the final say, Louise XIV had other forms of systems of authority such as Parliaments, Estates General and even had some cities and towns hold a little power. This way Louise was still capable of retain his monarchy that was in every way absolute. 

Absolutism was also meant to ensure order and security in the region. Louise XIV had a large army at his disposal as he had invested in them. He had soldiers who were trained and turned into obedient and tough fighting machines. The army was able to do everything that he wanted and their large number and intense training ensured that France was protected and secured from its enemies. In case of any wars, France was almost always victorious and it became the undisputed major power in Europe. Absolutism was further encouraged due to the increase in territorial and religious conflicts which were creating uncertainty and fear in the people. His army ensured any groups that rose up to revolt were dealt with. Louise XIV made French the international language for over two centuries in Europe. France also became the epicenter of art and literature till the 20th century. absolutism resulted in the flourishing of art and culture. This is even witnessed today. Louise XIV ensure that art was encouraged in his territory and it was required to as personified by the king. Orchestral work and music were also encouraged during his reign. He enjoyed theater as well. He also ensured that the people retained their culture and that it was not lost. 

He also had his finance minister apply Mercantilism which revolutionized the economic system of France. This method ensured that gold flowed into France resulting in prosperity. The surplus money obtained financed the many wars that Louise XIV waged against other countries such as Germany. The Mercantilism strategy resulted in high profits which enable the government under Louise XIV construct roads and canals for its people. Louise XIV minimized the international tariffs that hindered trade in the country and he also manage to establish French companies involved in trading such as the West and East India Companies. This made France to be the leading industrial region as it shone in industries such as textiles, firearms, lace-making and even mirrors. 

France was prosperous as compared to England because of absolute monarchy. England had a Parliament that symbolized England as a whole It was wealthy, quite powerful and well organized. The Parliament gave room for discussions and democracy since they members of Parliament represented the people of England while France did not have a Parliament and this gave room for any power to take over. Absolute monarchy failed in England because there were many bad choices that were made by James II and Charles I that eventually led to their deaths. These reasons made absolute monarchy non-effective in England. England did not have a large army compared to France 

History of Prussia 

Prussia was another country that was under an absolute monarchy. Before absolutism, the unity of Prussia relied wholly on the princes that were ruling them and the institutions that were put in place to help in the ruling. According to the “Absolutism in Austria and Prussia” (2018), article, the Thirty Years War brought Prussia to its knees. Its territories were destroyed, nearly half the population was lost during the war, the power and authority in the region was weakened. The country was broken by foreign and domestic armies. The economy was also affected as the productive capacity of the country dropped significantly and the wealth of the Prussian society was almost all gone. The power that the representative assemblies had was immensely weakened. The Estates (assemblies) were now dominated by the landowning class who were known as junkies and the nobility. It was after the war that the weight of the laws began to shift towards making the citizens of Prussia more disciplined and more productive. 

Fredrick William came to power in 1640 and was determined and committed to uniting the realm into a single absolute monarchial state. He forcefully made the representative assemblies to hand over power to him. He also levied the taxes in the country without the permission of the Estates. The taxes were collected forcefully and the funds received were used to maintain and sustain his army. The soldiers in the army were used to collect taxes for his subjects. This gives us a mental picture of how the people who were unable to pay the taxes were dealt with. Fredrick William had the army supporting him and the financial capacity to override the powers of the Estates. He tripled taxes, forcefully suppressed his people and his militia augmented tenfold. Despite the conditions he subjected his subjects to, he was able to ensure their security during wars and territorial disputes because of his large army. He was succeeded by King Fredrick William I. 

King Fredrick William I was neurotic and cruel. He was greatly responsible for the establishment of Prussian absolutism. He created an army that was considered the best in Europe and also inculcated army values and principles into the Prussian society. It was under his leadership that the assemblies vanished, extravagant industries were swapped for workshops that were used to make the uniforms use by the armies. His army multiplied and he won many battles and protected his territory and peoples. 

Reasons why Prussia was better off under absolutism 

Prussia developed under the monarchs in the 17th Century and its people benefited from their monarchial rule. In the article “Development of Prussian Absolutism” (2018), it is also documented that the soldiers played a huge role in picking up the pieces of the Prussia after the war. New roads were built and the roads that needed fixing up were fixed. Waterways were also constructed along other infrastructure in the country. This may have helped picked up the broken economy because the presence of infrastructure in a region leads to business ventures which in turn leads to increased revenue. 

Under the rule of these monarchs, peasants were permitted to change their statuses to nobles as a token for exceptional service to the state. He also gave them incentives and bonuses for the good service they gave. This gave opportunity for the peasants to improve their lifestyle and better themselves. They were also put under training where they were trained to be part of the army reserves this was a solution to the problem that they had where the army was consuming large amounts of funds collected during taxation. The monarchs also rebuilt the economy and managed to get the country back to its original level of population. The monarchs were also influential at the institutions of education of all ranks. They welcomed priests into their territory and encouraged the migration or movement of religious minorities. Prussia was better off under an absolute monarchy. This is because the monarch ensured the growth of the country after it lost half of it population. The country was in dire need of someone to step up and take charge steering the country in the right direction. 

As shown above countries that were under absolute monarchies might be considered better off. This is because of all the benefits that they obtained under absolution. Despite the challenges they faced in the long run they were able to look back and be grateful that a man stood up and single handedly made decisions for an entire population. Countries that were not under absolute monarchies in the 17th century spent a lot of their time debating over issues and going back and forth over matters because of the various opinions each representative or member of Parliament had. Absolute monarchs used force to exert their rule and in turn made it work for the subjects who were obedient and loyal. 

References 

Absolutism in Austria and Prussia (2018). Retrieved from http://www.historydoctor.net/ 

Development of Prussian Absolutism (2018). Russian Absolutism. Retrieved from https://mcclure-world-history.com 

Doyle W. and Campbell P. R., (2011) Chapter One in W. Doyle, ed., The Ancien Régime, forthcoming OUP Absolute monarchy. Université de Versailles St-Quentin & IAS, Princeton 

Trueman C. N., (2015). The History Learning Site. Absolutism and France. Retrieved on 17 March 2015 from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk