The Age of Absolutism and Constitutionalism in Europe:
AP World History:
Overview:
· Karl Marx noted that all history is cyclical and a response to a previous
period, this dialectical notion teaches us to examine patterns and trends with
the purpose of predicting future events. According to Marxist thought
history responds logically and materially to the flaws of the previous period.
Using our knowledgebase of the previous section…it is clear that the previous
age faced great challenges that led to new trends in the following era, trends
that included Absolutism and the liberal response; constitutionalism. In
dealing with the political, religious, economic, and climatic problems of the
day the leaders of state sought more power to deal with problems. The
response was a new political philosophy that had been in the works for a
millennium; Absolutism. Absolutism gives a monarch absolute or total
authority in dealing with the state. This power is absorbed by the Monarch
and takes liberties away from elected representatives and citizens. The
response (dialectally) is constitutionalism, a system that seeks to enumerate the
rights of citizens by limiting the rights and powers of the State.
· These political ideas will manifest themselves in several locations; France,
Russia, Austria, and Prussia.
France: The Model of Absolute Monarchy
·
The French Monarchy had been in a constant state of evolution since the
fall of Rome. Great monarchs had appeared, ideas solidified during the
Renaissance, and conflict during the age of religious wars. Henry IV revived
the monarchy and laid the framework for the reign of the Great Monarch Louis
XIV.
·
Henry IV: Huguenot turned Catholic king; ended the French Religious
wars by granting his former group the Huguenots religious freedom and
toleration with the Edict of Nantes. Henry laid the groundwork for
Absolutism in France. The king took the following initiatives: denied influence
to the royal council of the nobility, ended feudalism, lowered taxes on the
peasantry, encouraged trade for economic strength. Unfortunately his
assassination will institute a crisis. His successor Louis XIII was not yet ready
to rule and was substituted (Hathesput) by Marie de Medici. Henry’s
initiatives suffered under the rule of a substitute without a mandate and as a
result the nobility surged in authority.
·
However, this dominance would be short lived after her appointment of
Cardinal Richelieu who will be the lead minister on the royal council. He will
use incredible influence over the feeble minded Louis XIII to rule absolutely as
a member of the royal councilor for 14 years. He commanded total
subordination of all groups and institutions in French society. He used
relentless energy and quick executions to quell any noble uprisings. He
refused to call a session of the legislative body the Estates General, due to the
aristocratic tendencies of the nobility. He combined federalism with the
system of local intendants to control society at the local level and answer
directly to him. He viewed the Huguenots as a religious group with political
ambitions and siege their walled city at La Rochelle and forced its submission.
They were allowed to practice their faith but were no longer to hold armed
strongholds, which was synonymous with political strength. His foreign
policy was designed to crush Hapsburg influence in and around France.
Taxation was a complex web in France and could not be solely responsible for
raising revenue so in its stead Richelieu commanded economic allegiance from
local elites, the only form of political compromise allowed by Richelieu. One
problem that his intolerant attitude faced was the conflict between his religious
inclinations as a cardinal and his desire for social control. Thus, he came up
with the political philosophy of “Reason of State” which is a Machiavellian
philosophy of social control that states: “what is done for the state is done for
by God…actions if privately committed would be a crime”. Thus, giving him a
blank check for control as God established states and they must be run to
ensure his interests. Richelieu’s legacy will continue as his protégé is
appointed by Louis XIII to rule in the place of the young Louis XIV, Jules
Mazarin will be a dominant power and dominant influence on the young king.
However, a response movement known as the Fronde arose in response the
policies of Mazarin and caused a period of civil wars beginning in 1648.
·
Monarchy of Louis XIV: under the long reign of Louis XIV the absolutist
state reached its zenith. He dominated all aspects of French life, culture,
politics, religion, and economics. His philosophy was that god had put kings
on earth to rule, to rule the earth. Kings were a race apart and had to obey
God’s laws and rule for the good of the people. His experiences during the
Fronde uprising led him to a policy of seclusion and secrecy, which became
powerful political tools at his disposal. Established the legendary royal palace
at Versailles. This former hunting lodge has become the world’s most elegant
palace. It was a tremendous symbol of the power of the state and was a
powerful force unifying France under Louis’ rule. The key to his centralizing
control was his ability to over awe and dominates the nobility in France. He
did subjugate them but certainly involved them and often collaborated with
them on matters of state. Louis had kept the principals of Absolutist
federalism established by Cardinal Richelieu. As was the case he never called
a meeting of the Estates General giving his critics no means of discourse on his
policy initiatives.
·
France had a long-standing policy to avoid taxation of the nobility
allowing for taxation of the poor! The poor peasants/laborers were forced to
bear a heavy burden. Gradually the French moved towards a policy of
Mercantilism: or a collection of government policies for the regulation of
economic activities especially those commercial by and for the state. Involved
things like a balance of trade, accumulation of gold, and self-sufficiency. New
industries were developed and cultivated through state support to ensure
French economic independence. Overall his impact was very positive,
however…the merciless taxation of the farming class eventually led to the
downfall of the French economy.
·
Louis XIV complicated matters with his revocation of the Edict of Nantes
that had granted Huguenots religious tolerance. This new practice called for
the destruction of their schools and churches and immediate conversion to
Catholicism. Those who chose not to were exiled. This was a poor move but
was done to promote unity within the empire; it backfired leaving him open to
criticism and without valuable citizenry.
·
The art and literature of the day is characterized as “French Classicism”.
French Artists imitated Renaissance Italy. Art was a mandated act by the state
to promote the state. Those expressions of creativity that were favored by the
King were those that have endured. Plays of Moliere (Humor) and Racine
(tragedy), the music of Lully and Charpentier.
·
One other method of exalting himself above others was Louis almost
constant state sponsored warfare. The military was reorganized, highly
organized with the impression of a military machine. He had gained modest
territory but considering the expenditures, they must be considered
unimpressive. (Map 564) War of Spanish Succession: who was to succeed
Charles I? Charles I gave his Spanish empire to Louis XIV’s grandson Phillip
of Anjou. Phillip being Louis grandson would give France a favorable position
economically and militarily. This had violated a previous agreement, which
would have not favored France so heavily; Louis was to split the Spanish
empire with Holy Rome. For the purposes of a balance of power the rest of
Europe could not accept Louis and France possessing this kind of strength.
Thus, the Grand Alliance was formed led by the Dutch and the English to
combat the acquisition by France. The war was lopsided and Louis was forced
to admit defeat in the Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the glory of Hapsburg
Spain and the dream of a dominant France. (Map 564)
The Decline of Absolutist Spain In The Seventeenth Century
·
Spain had developed absolutist tendencies well before France in
the kingdom of Castile. The glory of conquest had added to the credibility of
the Spanish absolutists had vanished as Spain had fallen into economic ruin,
political chaos and intellectual isolation. Once the gold and silver stopped
flowing in the wake of expansion, chaos emerged. The demise of the Spanish
Armada and the defeat at the ends of England damaged national pride and
perspective. The fake confidence spurred by the metallic wealth of the new
world created a miniscule middle class that was losing confidence in the state.
Inflation produced the gold produced a major lack of confidence in the
economy. Yet spending and aristocratic tendencies remained high. The
monarchs were dwarfed by these problems as Absolutism works well when
problems are solved! Territorial wars and losses such as the Mantua conflict
further complicated the loss of imperial confidence. The inability to remove
itself from the past (16th century) inspired the brilliant story Don Quixote.
Absolutism in Eastern Europe: Austria, Prussia, and Russia:
·
Built on much different foundations than the situation in the West.
The East possessed a much different socio-economic situation and as a result
Absolutism evolved much differently east of the Danube River. The societies
remained more feudal in nature, industrialization was far less advanced, the
ideas of the Renaissance were non-existent, and society had not endured the
religious tensions that had occurred in the West. The major players were
Austria, Russia and Prussia.
·
Lords and Peasants: the role of peasants had been diminished by
1300, but the black death and the economic troubles to follow forced the
Eastern Europeans to migrate back towards Feudal principles. The Lords had
used political contacts to force the subjugation of peasants. Punishments for
attempted movement were very harsh. It got so bad that peasants were forced
to work without pay! In places like Poland and Russia, hereditary serfdom
was implemented giving Serfs no rights or motivation. This coupled the
growth of estate (deep south US) agricultures. This type of society places little
emphasis on idea distribution or technological/industrial growth. As a result
the eastern version of Absolutism was vastly different due to the weak political
and economic structure of the day.
Austria and the Ottoman Turks:
·
The Habsburgs of Austria emerged from the 30 years war period a
battered entity. They were the leaders of vast lands torn apart by war,
lands with tremendous diversity religiously and economically. Their ally
the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed, something needed to happen to
reassert their power.
·
Bohemian Czechs provided the answer, their revolt against the
Habsburgs was crushed by the Habsburgs, and their nobility restructured
to ensure loyalty for the Habsburgs. The re-conquered nobility thrived
economically and gave unyielding support as the peasants suffered
unbearably. The first stages of Absolutism were in place. This practice
became widespread in the Habsburg Empire. They also turned their
attention to conquering the eastern empire of Hungary in opposition of the
regions other powerful force; the Ottomans.
·
Ottomans were an Islamic empire of Turks stationed in Eastern
Europe and the Balkans. They had had eyes on conquering Christian
Europe through Vienna and Austrian Habsburg lands. In 1683 they
launched a massive siege on Christian Europe at Vienna. The Viennese
held out and the Habsburgs forced the Turks to defeat in the process
conquering Hungary and Transylvania.
·
Despite the conquest, not all was well. The Habsburg lands were
incredibly diverse and did not fit well into an absolutist scheme. The three
parts (Austria, Bohemia and Hungary) all had unique needs and leaders.
The Hungarians for example never embraced the principles of Absolutism.
They resisted in large part due to their protestant roots, the Habsburg rule
was in stark contrast to the tolerant nature of Islamic rule under the Turks,
which recognized the virtue of all Christians. Constant revolts by the
Hungarians forced the Habsburgs to yield power to the Hungarians in
terms of religion, politics, and culture.
The Emergence of Prussia:
·
As peasants suffered in German lands, the princes suffered great
losses of power. As a result a new group of landed nobility; the
Hohenzollern in particular gained authority. The Hohenzollern who
ruled as elected dukes, officials in Prussia were the largest landowners
who extended their influence to politics. The seat of their authority was
the great city-state/province of Brandenburg (present day Berlin). The
damages of the thirty years war enabled the family to assert absolute
control under Frederick William (The Great Elector). Frederick who had
inherited the lands at 20 had a daunting task to attempt to bring the
lands to order, vast wars with the nobility and provincial lands were
fought. His first initiative was to establish a system of taxation that
could not be challenged and was distributed without consent! Order
was established by a series of warriors in his military class. He was able
to establish total control due to the chaos of the period and the appeal to
the narrow self-interest of the ruling nobility.
·
His predecessor the neurotic Frederick William I, he of the
obsession for tall soldiers. Had a dog-eat-dog philosophy, outlook on
society. Military strength the key to society. He established a strong
clean bureaucracy that gave him total control through its effective
administration. Trend was set; give the nobles power in the form of $$$$
and you can establish a military absolutist state while taxing the Peasants
into submission.
The Rise of Muscovy: Moscow
·
Established initially by the invading Vikings, the great
leader Oleg established the famous center city Kiev. Ruled to a zenith by
Iaroslav the Wise until his death in 1054. Following his death, Russia
degenerated into a feudal state in the European tradition. Society divided
into two classes: Boyars (nobles) and Serfs (everyone else). The Mongol
invasion, conquest and rule put an end to the bickering Boyars for a period
of 200 years. The threat of death unified Russia. The princes of Moscow
found great power in pleasing the Mongols (Alexander Nevsky among
them), and became a hereditary class of ruling princes. Eventually they
became so powerful that they were able to replace the Mongol Khans
themselves.
·
Ivan the Moneybags became an example of the power of
these powerful new “opportunistic” princes. He led a combined RussoMongol force against a neighboring prince and his forces operating against
the Mongols. His reward for victory was the title/honor of supreme
taxpayer. This title gave him the purse strings to control. With each
passing generation the princes gained control in Moscow.
·
Ivan III stopped acknowledging the Khan as supreme
ruler in 1480. At least in the Mongol form, they ruled similarly and as
absolutely as the Khan. They had obtained most of their religious
influence from the Byzantine empire so following the fall of
Constantinople in 1453 they viewed themselves as the leaders of the 3 rd
Rome. Intermarriage with the daughter of the Byzantine emperor
solidified this status. Russian rule was so absolute and Mongol in nature
that even the Boyars, the landed saw huge tracts of their land absorbed by
the King and redistributed amongst a newly created elite.
·
Ivan the Terrible: Ivan IV ascended the throne at age 3. He
was insulted and neglected by the Boyars as he matured. But at age 16 he
pushed everyone aside and ruled with an absolute ferocity for a period of
40 years. He defeated the last of the Mongols by 1556 giving him
tremendous credibility. However, his greatest move of strength was to
eliminate all Boyars, and make all landed nobility that of the service
nobility. Meaning you own land, you owe allegiance and service to me, or
you can be a peasant! Not all was well however, an attempt to conquer
Poland/Lithuania to gain land he was unsuccessful becoming increasingly
unstable and demented. After the death of his wife he became a hardened
man dependent on violence to crush anyone in his way. Ruling via terror
with a powerful secret police.
·
Peasants began fleeing to the newly conquered areas to
form militant armies known as Cossacks. His solution ties the serfs to the
land by giving the nobles the authority to hold them there. He controlled
the nobles so it was a hierarchy he controlled.
·
His death in 1584 led to a period of chaos and confusion
over who was to control the giant nation. The period between his death
and the death of his son Theodore were known as the time of troubles.
Relatives stumbled over their murdered relations to gain control of the
throne. The Cossacks proved most troublesome as they marched
northward towards Moscow. Not until a Polish Invasion in 1613 did the
Nobles crush the disunity and unite under Michael Romanov, Ivan’s 16
year old grandson.
·
Michael restored much of his grandfather’s autocratic
principles. His one mistake was relaxing the military tendencies of his
grandfather leading to revolt after his death. Religious disunity spurred
Cossack revolts by 1670, the results were horrifying for Boyars, murder
and mayhem were common tactics.
Peter the Great:
·
Peter is often portrayed as some grandiose westernizer who
wanted nothing but to unify the region under the principles of the
enlightenment. His reforms were military in nature in response to threats
from Western Europe and The Cossacks. He was also interested in
continuing the territorial expansion that had yielded the Ukraine and
Siberia. 43 years of Peterian rule yielded 1 year of peace!
·
Peter viewed Russia’s army as an extension of their societal
problems…backward and lagging behind the powers of the West. He
envied a highly sophisticated, trained infantry. He required every noble to
serve in his military or bureaucracy-for life. Schools and universities were
created to foster education not for the western purposes of learning, but to
create a nation poised for warfare and conquest. He tried to bring the
Western spirit of advancement to Russia with the purpose of learning for
military conquest. He studied abroad, (sailing and shipbuilding) cut his
beard, made others, brought foreigners to his court to study. He made
serfs more important to his court mandating membership and military
commitment. Taxes were very high and serfs were commissioned to work
in western style factories. His efforts returned only modest gains with
conquest over Sweden bringing him Estonia and Latvia. Russia was the
dominant force in the Baltic Sea. They lacked something that he coveted; a
warm water port for constant commercial growth.
·
Peter’s innovations and advancements brought growth
regardless of their intentions.
Absolutism and the Baroque:
·
The grandeur and splendor of the absolutist rulers can be
seen in their marriage with Baroque architecture. The unification has
given us some of the worlds most extravagant and grand structures.
Palace building became an undeniable symbol of the power of the day.
·
Examples: Schonbrunn, and Wurzburg are great examples.
·
St. Petersburg, redesigned for Peter on some water logged
islands in the Baltic Sea. He wanted a city of grandeur built there, as it was
to bear his name. The city was built with a great plan to be the window of
Europe and reflect his dedication to European principles. Class segregated
the city.
England: the Triumph of Constitutional Monarchy
·
England’s success and growth as a constitutional nation stood in stark
contrast to the development of her peers.
·
Queen Elizabeth represented a zenith of Absolutist power in England.
But a century after her reign the constitutional nature of England had
drastically limited the power of the Queen. 1 king had been executed, a
bloody civil war, a murdered kings son restored, all illustrating great
instability in England.
·
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan. An enlightened age text that defeated
the vigorous approach of Absolutism, pointing to the status of society in
the absence of such a sovereign. However, this power must be transferred
to the king via the people and a social contract to rule effectively in their
interest. (Lord of the Flies).
·
James I succeeded Elizabeth and proved her greatness by his lack of.
Believed in divine right of kings and paid little attention to reform or
performance. His view and embracement of Absolutism did not blend
with his results. Attempted to undermine the influence of Parliament and
Commons in particular. Commons had the control of the purse strings of
England. They refused to give him the funding he requested for grandeur
and circumstance—traits of absolutist kings like Louis XIV. In this nature,
Commons began to assume sovereign of its own. The body was vastly
different from its historical self, a group of loyal pushovers to the king.
They had become sovereign, reform, fiscal, and articulate leaders. Social
mobility was more common in England, thus expanding the power of the
Commons.
·
Religious conflict also shaped England, protestant reform had spread
wide but how “deep” was it? James and his son Charles I gave the
impression of being highly sympathetic to the policies and institutions of
the Papacy and Roman Catholicism. The reform movements initiated by
Charles and his Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud operated against
the principles of the Scottish Presbyterians. In order to suppress a revolt
by the Scots Charles was forced to convene Parliament for the first time in
11 years. Charles had gone around Parliament by finding alternative
sources of revenue and not needing their approval to tax. The policy had
worked in the absence of a crisis the magnitude of the Presbyterian Revolt
of 1640. Their convening brought about the worst possible results for the
King. He saw a “Long Parliament” a session of 20 years with results that
hampered the powers of the monarch. Triennial Act: compelled the King
to (Commons power through Magna Carta) call the Commons once per 3
years. They impeached Laud, and abolished the House of Lords, and the
ecclesiastical court of the high commission. Civil War continued, as
Commons would not trust him with an army all to himself.
·
Ireland: a huge problem almost 1000 years after its acquisition by
King Henry II in 1171. The English Reformation of Henry VIII only made
the divide between the staunchly Catholic Irish and their English rulers
wider. Charles could not put down rebellion in either Ireland or Scotland
in the 1640’s as Commons would not put an army under his control.
Charles thus recruited an army of his loyalists as Parliament controlled the
national army. The result an English Civil War in 1642. The question, who
controlled England? The Civil War will not resolve this problem. It did
end the problem that was Charles as he was executed in 1649. Along with
him, the monarch was abolished in favor of a commonwealth.
·
However, the commonwealth controlled by Oliver Cromwell did not
meet its expectations. The expectation was that Cromwell would not have
assumed the power he had. However, given his high profile role as the
leader of the army that defeated the monarchal forces he was the obvious
choice. He was a devout Puritan who motivated his army on their
convictions making them an efficient fighting force. His army had drawn a
constitution, which Cromwell will tear up after disputes. The constitution
had implemented the changes that had been called for in the Triennial Act.
Cromwell established a “protectorate” with himself a protector.
·
Cromwell’s age was one of tolerance with regards to everyone but
Irish Catholics whom he considered seditious. He crushed the rebellion of
the Irish in 1649 with savagery leaving a legacy of hatred that has
continued in to the second millennium. He censored the Press, forbade
sports, and closed theatres…sounds like the Taliban! His government will
collapse in 1658 after his death. The experiment in the absolutism of one
man was a mistake they would not forget.
·
Restoration: the restoration of 1660 re-established the Stuart dynasty
by inviting Charles II the son of Charles I to return and rule with limits
from Parliament.
·
During his reign the Commons attempted to promote religious unity
by tying economic and political virtues with religious conformity.
(Protestant)
·
Politics: Commons was determined to be superior over Charles who
at first was cooperative. He appointed a council of five men (ministers) to
be his segue way between the monarch and parliament. The council of five
would pave the way for cabinet government; they were responsible to both
Parliament and the King.
·
Harmony was based on cooperation, the Commons being called and
voting the king revenue and the King recognizing the vast power of the
Parliament. This was the case until a secret agreement leaked out
promoting religious tolerance for all Catholics if Louis XIV would pay him
200, 000 pounds annually. This corruption was viewed as an attempt to recatholocize England. Given Charles lack of an heir, England freaked over
the fact that his brother James I was a devout Catholic! Fear spread on
several levels, England’s possible Catholicism and the role of Louis XIV in
England. This was unacceptable. Commons attempted to pass a law
forbidding succession to a Protestant, Charles II dissolved Parliament.
·
James II was allowed to succeed his brother. Tension was at an all
time high. James appointed Catholics to high offices, granted religious
freedom to all. He imprisoned church officials (Anglican) amidst great fan
fare. His wife produced an heir, which illustrated that a catholic dynasty
was in the mix. The Bloodless revolution (Glorious Revolution) occurred
after eminent persons offered the throne to his eldest daughter Mary and
her husband William of Orange both devout Protestants. The King
learning of this and the potential violence fled England to France and
abdicated the throne. In addition to the religious implications the new
King and Queen recognized the supremacy of Parliament. The document
supporting this the Bill of Rights established a constitutional monarchy, a
direct result of Stuart Absolutism. The absence of a standing army and the
writings of the brilliant philosopher John Locke put England in stark
contrast with Europe. Locke’s writings supported the initiatives of life,
liberty, and property. His writings establishing a series of natural rights
and a social contract are the cornerstones of modern democracy. England
evolved into the current system (see government notes for specifics) of a
constitutional monarchy with a prime minister heading a cabinet, chosen
from Parliament.
The Dutch Republic in the 17th century:
·
Following their ousting the Spanish Habsburgs the
Netherlands charted a strong course for success.
·
A period of prosperity, cultural flourishing and intellectual
exploration followed.
·
The political system of the region had no conformity in the
region, no model. It was a republic based on the oligarchic reign of the
individual provinces merchants called Regents. The estates as the regents
were called held all the power and authority. They controlled domestic
policy where as the Federal Assembly the higher office at the national level
controlled the foreign policy. It was an odd power sharing initiative that
has found home in the many recent governments of France. (5 in the last 60
years).
·
Naval supremacy, colonial dominance, and commercial
excellence added to the prestige of the Netherlands. The nation functioned
so well due to the incredible size and power of their middle class. They
stood in stark contrast to Louis XIV France, middle class, religiously
tolerant, with political freedoms, and a political structure outside of one
man. Their tolerance made Amsterdam the financial capital of the world.
They controlled the fishing industry of Europe, bought forests for ships
and controlled trade in the Baltic region. See map 588. They pursued
colonial interests through the Dutch East India Company, capitalizing on
their tremendous naval skills, the Dutch traded all over the world.
Economically, politically, and socially they were as free, prosperous and
stable as any society Europe has seen. Their utopia will come to an end
with long drawn out wars with France and England.