Absolutism (Political)

peter the great

The age of absolutism in France ultimately failed due to a combination of economic difficulties, social unrest, and political mismanagement. The extravagant spending of Louis XIV and subsequent monarchs strained the treasury, leading to widespread discontent among the populace. The rise of Enlightenment ideas promoted individual rights and questioned monarchy, culminating in the French Revolution. This upheaval dismantled the absolutist system, paving the way for new forms of governance.

Peter the great and Catherine the Great were considered great absolute monarchs. The reason for this is that they were interested in making Russia better and stronger.

It was the "so called" Divine Right of the Monarchs.

The idea of divine right (or natural law) is the idea that the will of god is being enacted through one man (king/ Monarchic/ Hegemon/ Emperor/ G.W. Bush i.e. whatever) He (I only say he because we all know it wouldn't be a woman ;) He is the tool of god on earth so to speak. Natural law afforded Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theopportunity to come up with absolutism the idea that all people turn power over to one man to protect all men (George Washington/ Abraham Lincoln/ Obama)

It was Germain de Stael

no, no, no.

---

By COMMIEOFTHEDAY:

Depends on what you mean by Monarchy and Monarchism. He would fit some, and if he was a monarch he would be an absolute one.

As with most fascists(expect Francoists), he was anti-monarchist. So he, and the Nazis, didn't see him as a king or a baron but just Mein Führer.

Hoped that answered your question.

Because of the numerous reforms which she made to Russia during her reign, however she wasn't a total despot because she let the nobels ginfluence her decisions greatly.

It had nothing to do with the fact she was married to Peter III - she had her lover murder him so that she could become ruler.

Absolutism cut down the rights of the people by adding new taxes and forcing peasants to become land-locked serfs. Absolutism created riots and revolts led by the angry peasants who simply wanted to live their normal lives without government interference.

Prussia-Brandenburg was always an absolute monarchy ... The best known absolute Prussian monarch is probably Frederich II (the Great), who reigned from 1740-1786. His father, Frederick William I (reigned 1713-1740) was also notorious for his absolute rule. He ruthlessly smashed the remaining powers of the regional estates (provincial assemblies of local grandees). For example, in the course of a dispute with the estates of East Prussia in 1716 he wrote in a well known decision, '[Ich] stabliere die Souveränität ... fest wie ein Rocher von Bronze' (English translation: 'I am establishing sovereignty firmly, like a rock of bronze'). Here sovereignty means in effect royal authority. As for rock of bronze, it is an odd turn of phrase, but the meaning is clear enough. Even after Prussia acquired a constitution in 1853, the kings and their ministers - especially Bismarck - sometimes gleefully violated it.

yes

Enlightened Despots were a subset of absolute monarchs that made legal, social, and educational reforms in accordance with Enlightenment principles. All Enlightened Despots were absolute monarchs, but there were a number of European absolute monarchs that were not Enlightened Despots.

YES. Louis XIV is usually held up as the quintessential example of an absolute monarchy. He weakened the power of the nobility, strengthened his direct power over locals, ran every aspect of the Kingdom of France, directed and controlled all religious activity in France, and finally, Louis XIV saw no distinction between his person and the Kingdom of France as a whole.

Yes, but only to an extent. The reason for this is because he was put into power at a young age, so he didn't learn how to maintain a kingdom until late in his rule. What made him bad was his extreme love for food, and tinkering which made him completely unaware of what had been going on outside of his palace. This is proved during the storming of the Bastille; while people were raiding the symbol of opposition he had no account of what happened on that day. So overall was he a bad monarch? Not necessarily, it was the poor timing that got to him.

he was absolute because he was able to remove the nobilty from power, therefore he was alone in the throne. Also he established and raised a military that was able to accomplish some of his desires.

Il Duce: Benito Mussolini

yes you idiot

god gave them the right to rule

Absolutism is a political system and theory of government in which the king (or queen) is all-powerful and possesses a monopoly on the use of force and the administration of justice.

1. The King (or Queen) has an orderly and efficient bureaucracy where all power and directives flow downward from the monarch.

2. The King (or Queen) has a large standing army with which to enforce his (or her) will.

3. The power of any other groups or traditional institutions is suppressed, especially the power of the nobility as a class.

4. Absolute government is costly and usually requires heavy taxation for support.

5. Absolute government was justified by the theory of "divine right" monarchy in which the King (or Queen) was said to be God's anointed on the earth.

6. Absolute government depends heavily for its success on strong personality traits in the King (or Queen) as a personal symbol of the state/country.

Divine Right is what gives legitimacy to the absolute monarch. Divine Right argues that the specific king who governs was chosen by the local religion's divinities to rule, which nullifies much of the opposition to his power. Vested with the power granted by divine right, an absolute monarch can then go about making all of the political decisions in the country.

Idi Amin, former President of Uganda, was a despot.

Enlightened despots applied Enlightenment ideas to the government

Parliamentary monarchy is a monarchy where the leader is only used as a figurehead. (only there for show, for looks, etc. while the parliament deals with all the work.

Absolute monarch is where the leader is in complete control of EVERYTHING. He isn't just there for looks, he's there because he has all power and makes all decisions.

The second paragraph is correct (about the Absolute Monarchy), but the first is not quite right - a parliamentary monarchy (usually referred to as a constitutional monarchy) does NOT have to have an impotent monarch. In a parliamentary monarchy, the monarch remains the Head of State, and may also retain a variable amount of Executive Branch power. Certain parliamentary monarchs have virtually no real Executive power, while others have a significant amount, including cases where the monarch is dominant over Parliament.

For example, compare the governments of Great Britain, Jordan, and Monaco. All are nominally constitutional (parliamentary) monarchies, but the amount of power retained by the monarch varies widely.

The best example of an absolute monarch would be Louis XIV.

Louis XIV of France...very powerful, spent a lot, controlled many aspects of French life