The age of absolutism and constitutionalism in europe over

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. “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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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;

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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. Charl es
had gone around Parliament by finding alternative sources
of revenue and not needing their approval to tax. The policy

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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.
1