World History Period 2

March 15, 2015

Absolutism of France and England

The word absolutism is directly defined in the dictionary as the principle or the
exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government. Absolutism is a very
effective form of government and with it many nations were able to grow and prosper.
Through this form of government God gave power to the rulers (Divine Right of Kings)
much like the Mandate of Heaven. England and France are two nations that used
absolutism as a solid form of rule. Though England and France both used absolutism,
they were utilized differently and not both were able to succeed.
In France prior to absolutism was a system where monarchs worked by other
people. The monarch was a single ruler but to some sense shared his power with
estates. Absolutism within France was mostly associated with Louis XIII and Louis XIV.
The absolute rule started to grow in this nation around the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
centuries and with it were very strong supporters such as Cardinal Richelieu.
Absolutism is only as effective as the ruler. If the ruler is patient and listens to the
people of the nation, the nation itself will prosper. France is an example of this.
Absolutism under the rule of Louis XIV made France a world superpower after it was a
broken down country of ruins, because of years of bloody wars. Before Louis XIV
France was controlled by weak rulers so absolutism was much called for. People of
France were in need of a ruler strong enough to step up - strong enough to take total
control of the corrupt government and make it something great. Louis XIV had no
education worth bragging about, and was still able to put his foot down and make

himself out to be an all-powerful man who would in turn praise his ruling. He was able to
use resources to the fullest and soon created an extremely powerful economy and
military.
Although absolutism was very effective and efficient in France it was not like this
in England. During the first half of the 17th century in England two different kings tried to
put absolutism in effect, James I and Charles I. Both men were unable to do so because
of Parliament and could not disband. Parliament was a large influence in England and it
was near impossible to decrease its role in English government. This is because
England had been under the combined rule of Parliament and a king for a very long
time, they were not ready to surrender the power to one single man. Much different from
France people of England did not support absolutism to the fullest and would much
rather have stayed with parliament. Many merchants, nobles, and lower class people
supported Parliament over a monarch. In the year 1642 a civil war broke out. This civil
war was caused by Charles's refusal to share control of the country and by Parliament's
refusal to give up its own power. This war quickly became the beginning of the end for
absolutism in England.
The reason why Louis XIV was able to utilize absolutism is because of the
difference in influence that Parliament had on both nations. English Parliament was
overwhelmingly more powerful because there was only one unified assembly in all
England. Louis XIV had support from the majority of people whereas the general
population of England did not support giving one man complete control. This is why
Louis XIV was able to use absolutism to the fullest and make France prosper through it,
whereas England was the complete opposite. Absolutism only declined in England

because of how strongly influential Parliament was and that it was integrated into the
regular process of English government.
When completely analyzing the effects of absolutism on both Nations, France
had it much better than England and became more powerful because of absolutism.
Overall more people supported it and that is why it was able to achieve much more.
France was able to establish a strong military and economy. During the time of Louis
XIV France was a leading European power and fought in three major wars. Most every
class in France reacted positively to absolutism.
This was the exact opposite for England. England accomplished much more
under Parliament then it did under the rule of absolutism and this is because most
people did not support it. Merchants, nobles, and lower class workers all did not favor
one absolute ruler. The only legitimate rule of Absolutism in England was with Queen
Elizabeth but this was short lived because England was soon put into a civil war and
because of it you cannot say that it helped the nation, it only hurt it. The effects of
absolutism for France and England are completely different.
Absolutism is only as effective as the ruler. Unfortunately, many nations did not
have effective rulers. This is extremely evident even today. So many years later, it is
obvious that the worlds most successful nations have a system of government in place
very much different from absolutism. Areas of the world where absolutism is still present
tend to also be the least stable, with constant conflict and the threat of rebellion. This
rebellion has been occurring in nations where absolutism is present in many areas of
the Middle East today, particularly in the last decade.