Absolutism & Constitutionalism: Fear or Reform?

Here is an essay I wrote for my History of Western Civilizations class that almost received an A. I am posting it here so I can look back on my work and see how much my writing will have improved. Plus, it was very fun to research and write this paper since the topic revolves around periods of history I am fascinated by. I hope you all enjoy!

Absolutism & Constitutionalism: Fear or Reform?

The 17th century was filled with periods of instability and tension. The Thirty Years’ war was coming to a close making way for new conflicts to arise. Religious conflicts were beginning to shape all around Europe, pushing back on the strict Catholicism that had its grip on Europe for centuries. Peasants were sick of being treated like personal wallets for the king and nobility, with their taxes being raised frequently for things they viewed as frivolous nobility activities like wars and banquets. With the increase in taxes alongside the little ice age that was taking place during this time, the civilians were having an extremely rough time just living. Bakers were having to cut their bread with sawdust to make ends meet and food was at an all time cost high. Due to all of this crisis, European states had to determine how power would be structured moving forward. France went in the direction of strengthening the monarchy, aiming at increasing the absolute power of the royals. However, England decided to go into a completely different direction and decided that the royals had enough power and shifted to parliament as a means of governing while limiting the monarchy. These decisions didn’t just redefine their countries, it created two fundamentally opposing systems: absolutism and constitutionalism. Both of these types of governance revealed a new era for each nation, one thriving and one deteriorating. As France moved to centralize the monarchy and England moved towards parliament, we are able to see the beginning of the political future for each individual nation based off of these choices. 

Rather than empower the people and resolve the issues faced by its civilians, France chose to secure the monarch’s power and centralize authority in order to address the growing instability believing that control instead of reform was the answer. They chose strict control over an organized government. This was a direct response to the growing fear of revolts, especially after the Fronde. The Fronde uprising was led by the nobles and had occurred due to the nobility being tired of constant taxation and financial stress with the wars. This was especially an issue under the hand of Louis XIII and Cardinal Rachilieu who took the noble’s castles and power which weakened the noble’s influence. The monarchy perpetuated the idea of “the divine right to rule” and Louis XIV, Louis XIII successor, attributed this philosophy to the way he ruled, as a way to combat the rage he felt by the nobility. Found in 15.2 of Western Civilizations, The Sun King Shines it is said, “After Mazarin’s death, he had enough intelligence to realize his deliverance, but not enough vigour to release himself. Indeed, that event was one of the finest moments of his life, for it taught him an unshakable principle namely, to banish all prime ministers and ecclesiastics from his councils.” This excerpt tells us how deep Louis XIV hatred for the nobility and those in power besides him ran, which led to his push for absolutism. Absolutism is the belief that the monarch has the absolute right to rule given to him by God. Louis XIV used this so no one would question his authority any longer. By using God as the scapegoat for the monarchy’s mismanagement of its people, they attempted at sweeping everything under the rug with this philosophy. After Louis XIV was crowned, the absolutism of France grew even larger. Due to the Fronde uprising in his youth, Louis distrusted nobility. He made a point at isolating them from him while historically kings surrounded themselves with the nobles. He instead chose to amplify his authority as to drown out the possibility of any noble claiming an authority close to his own. Louis was also not shy when taxing his subjects, using local officials to take the blame instead of himself so he could keep his clean and godly image. When reading The Power of The Prince from Western Civilizations it states, “...power is the cause of fear, and it is most certain that among all the pressures capable of moving a state, fear, grounded in esteem of reverence, has the power to make everyone perform his duty.” This shows that France believed domination and suppressing rivals was the key to stability instead of addressing the root of the civilian problems. Unlike France, England responded to the same issues by questioning and challenging royal authority rather than enforcing it. 

England, facing the same economical and social strains as France, went in a different direction when it came to royal authority. The English turned away from the monarchy, through a new form of Parliament, a direct attack on the very idea that a king should rule based on divine right to rule alone. This began from tension surrounding the rule of Charles I who, like Louis XIV, believed his right to rule came from a divine power given to him by God. However unlike France this spiraled into a complete monarch deformity where a political struggle rose and people questioned who deserved the true power of the state, the king or representatives of the people? Charles I was not happy with the idea of Parliament holding more power than him, so he attempted a dissolvement. Parliament tried to challenge him by stating they would not be funding him without their consent, and this frightened him. Charles I attempted to then rule without Parliament, imposing more taxes without their consent. Now like France, England had their own version of The Fronde. They had a civil war in direct response to the monarchy’s unchecked power, just like France’s uprising. However unlike France, this revolt had a much more positive outcome for the people. It led to the very public execution of Charles I on January 30, 1649 in London. Had the French done this sooner, things may have turned out differently for them. This was the beginning of constitutionalism in England, as the execution of Charles I was a violent and firm rejection of absolutism. It was the people saying “We have had enough” and would not tolerate it anymore. After the execution, the foundations for constitutionalism were laid. We see evidence of this change in mindset in Jan de Vries historic economic essay, he writes, “The Early, or Radical, Enlightenment philosophes in the ‘unprecedented intellectual turmoil which commenced in the mid-seventeenth century. . . which heralded the onset of the Enlightenment proper in the closing years of the century’.” Forty years later during the Glorious Revolution, which led to the overthrow of James II and the English Bill of Rights, they established a new monarchy under William and Mary but only under the condition that they accept the primal authority of Parliament. Where France continued to rule under a single royal monarch for years to come, England was living in the future of democracy, ensuring that no one would ever rule again without the consent of the people again. 

Although France and England had virtually the same instability, they both ended up with vastly different political outcomes which sent them down opposite historical paths. They were faced with an unavoidable crisis and one nation chose the crown and the other chose the people. France fixed on tightening the monarchy's power leading to a longer centralized royal rule and then led to a historic and violent revolution that is still spoken about to this day, with countless versions of its story told in both film and literature. This shows us that politically, France was more concerned about living lavishly and in style. For example, Charles XIV chose to build the Palace of Versailles to hold his court, a most expensive and gorgeous palace built by the peoples hard earned money. Then came Marie Antoinette who also used the taxed peoples money to build gardens, hold lavish parties and decorate her rooms in Versailles. It is apparent that the French were concerned with their lifestyle deteriorating if the money flow stopped, so they doubled down. England however was able to start building their democracy much faster than France. The French had to deal with the French Revolution after Louis XIV, and then experienced another time of crisis with Napoleon Bonaparte. England planted the seeds of democracy earlier with the English Bill of Rights, stating that the people of England had to give consent when it came to who was in power to ensure that another disaster like before would not happen again. This is a perfect example of how important history can be, as long as we understand it then we can learn from it and that is exactly what the English accomplished. 

In the end, the nation's decisions resulted in epic finales for them both. France clung to its royal power, only delaying their inevitable demise. This decision led to a bloody revolution, with many lives lost and life for the civilians becoming even more bleak. England embraced a new way of governing, allowing power to fall in the hands of the representatives of the people. This allowed a window of change without collapse for them. There is much we can learn from these choices, the willingness to embrace change and share power can be the key to stability. We can now look back in history and see what happens when a nation picks reform and when a nation picks fear.