Discussion

The Age of Absolutism and Constitutionalism in Europe:

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 be 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 Year’s 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 Russo-Mongol 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 3rd 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 world’s 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 re-

catholicize 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 fanfare. 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 whereas 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.