In a guideline using suppression, backed up by the claim to divine authority, an outright monarchy embodies the supreme government reign. Such power was provided exclusively to the head of the state without any made up restraints. Throughout the Reformation approximately the seventeenth century, Europe’s social system started to have dispute regarding whether absolute power need to be selected to the king. The king’s subjects, mainly nobles, supported their kings right to outright power due to the fact that they got the benefit of political leadership roles and were likewise provided royal security.
The common-folk and the servants were against it since absolutism abused the power in judgment over the peasants as the king, which tended to be restricting. Specific elements of absolutism with the perfects of the nobility would bring strength to the economy that was based upon domestic and foreign trade, land holdings, a centralized federal government, and an increase in military perseverance.
The upper class invested their fortunes into ending up being political leaders and to serve by the king.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the French Minister of Finance, advised King Louis XIV to pursue the conditions of domestic and foreign trade. With a surplus of cash came a surplus of labor, his individuals had the ability to make a living and travel across the waters for earnings. Cash is the structure of any world order; if the nation has a solid foundation, then the benefit of the nobles are greater, exposing the factor of the nobles true motives to supporting the king.
(Document1) In concerns to home the lands were all kept in the hands of the kings from the secular and the ecclesiastical classes. It’s a trade in between the nobles and emperors to do as they please with their land, like being a required for instance. (Document 9) The king is to rule “under the divine law” and his subordinates must follow obediently.
These servants would not question any authority given by the king for their belief of divinity. (Document 7) The Civil Servants ranged from every social class. They were fully responsible for carrying out their duties to the king. (Document 11) The monarchs were held to being mandates that were to be just and defensive of the king’s people. To reassure the people laws were created. (Document 4) The Sovereign is absolute; the freedom is driven by a central power to rearrange issues rather than deprive natural rights. (Document 8) Inherently, absolutism seems to be supported by mostly bishops and rulers. On the flip side, no human asks to be held back from his or her rightful freedom. Before there was a time where government did not matter because we had the “state of nature”.
Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan to protest the monarchy, yet Hobbes was a supporter of central power, which leads to absolutism. His view was that if absolutism weren’t around, man’s common trait of corruption would hold supreme power. He believed that strong assertive figures could grasp liberty by ruling over the hearts of men and defending their nations. (Document 2) Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy was not popularly supported because many rulers take advantage of such power, such as the German peasants of Swabia were said to be another mans property. According to the scripture and the “divine rule” it is completely unethical to identify a man as anything other than a man, a slave for example.
Yet tolerating religion was also deemed unacceptable, so the peasants revolted. Hobbes philosophy was always contradicted because the people of an absolute monarch were always in rebellion. (Document 3) The levy of taxes continued to strive as they would during any other oppression. The nobles and clergies were represented in “stereotypes” for standing by the king. The highest of the social ranking were exempt from such taxes. Only the laboring citizens were imposed upon with taxes. (Document 5)
In a perfect world, an absolute monarch that is entrusted with “divine power” would balance their role in ruling. In reality, the benefits of the ruler along with those of the nobility were too good when it came to the power. The higher-class ranks would come to an agreement of centralizing powers so a stronger nation is made. If the nation is strong enough the nobles only benefit more, so as a result the tension is inevitable between the upper and lower class. On the peasant’s side, they’re paid low and can barely make a living.
To build onto the plight of the poor they were given heavy taxes to pay. Their natural rights were clearly revoked. From a certain view, absolutism is viewed as a sign of strength for a full force nation and its economy, military, and political engagements. When it gets down to the point, if the lower-class are being belittled, the only other balancing factor is tyranny. Thus the proper role of an absolute monarch would be to achieve a sense of balance in protecting the natural rights of his men, no matter the class, and to continue to hold ultimate power over his land.