The Difference between Absolutism and Constitutionalism - Assignment Example

Assignment Explain the difference between absolutism and constitutionalism in the seventeenth century with reference to the specific situation in France and England. Europe in the seventeenth century was in a state of upheaval, political factions were competing for legitimacy alongside the royalty. Not only were there political considerations, but also conflicts and economic struggles. All of this allowed specific groups the chance to come into having power, or at least lessen the power of the original leaders. This flex of power and structure was evident in France and England. Two strong types of government began to emergence in these countries both vying for power; Absolutism and Constitutionalism. Power is not a vacuum and these different governmental leadership techniques were born out of the 16th century, due to military advancements. These advancements caused long standing monarchs to search for new ways to fund projects. It was this funding and the methods France and England took that led to the eventual differences in political development. France succeeded in gaining absolute control by having a strong financial structure based on complete dependency on noble earnings. On the other hand, England did not achieve the same strong financial base and had to modify the government to achieve success. It is at this stage during the late 16th and early 17th Centuries that France became an absolutism structured government, while England took more of a Constitutionalism structured format. English leaders preceding the long parliament of 1640 attempted to run things the way they saw fit. Among numerous offenses in the eyes of parliament during the first 40 years of the 17th century were two things that really affected the future of the English government. Those two things were the lack of parliamentary inclusion on large decisions and the overall attitude towards religion. In 1604 King James I created a peace with Spain that while seemingly good, frustrated the parliament due to his apparent fondness with the Catholic Religion. England at this point was strongly connected to the Anglican Episcopacy.1 While the state’s religion had been this for some time, King James refused to allow the freedoms that Queen Elizabeth had. The peace with Spain caused the parliament to worry that King James was being influenced and therefore possibly weak to a Catholic power. In fact it is believed that much of King James rule was being influenced but those near him, specifically the Duke of Buckingham who sold titles and reportedly influenced much of the King’s decisions.2 His son, Charles wanted nothing to do with the parliament until his realization that without them, money did not flow towards to monarch. It was at this point in 1640 that the long parliament began. The Parliament as intended held the purse strings, and financially dictating what the monarch could use funds for. The power structure in France was drastically different than in England. Their method of financial control was an Absolute government. What this means is that the monarch did not have to answer to a parliament, therefore was able to go to war, or made treaties without the worry of not having the funds. Many consider King Louis XIV the creator of the strong absolute government; however it was really two ministers; Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin that created the structure.3 What really pushed the monarch to subscribe to this political structure were the rebellions known as Fronde that broke out when the initial political privileges were enacted. These rebellions caused Louis XIV that while complete control was necessary; being heavy handed about it was not.4 Louis XIV maintained all of the existing social and political institutions at the local level, but it was known the King had the final say with what happened. Louis XIV was so fearful that his political structure could be influenced or affected that with Mazarin was no longer an aide, Louis XIV did not replace him.5 What this did was put even more power into the King’s sphere and created fewer individuals who had the opportunity of wresting power from the monarch. The difference between the Absolute Monarchy of France and the Constitutionalism of England was due to not only the leaders, but the state the country was in. England was in a relatively peaceful stage and therefore power being released worked, while in France the division of power might have increased the violence seen during the Frondes. While each side may not have been the best method, at the time those in power believed it to be. Rather or not it was the best political structure to use, the leaders at the time believed their structure was the correct structure. The structure and influence of power is immensely different between the two structures. 2) Why did Great Britain take the lead in the industrial Revolution? Explain by referring to several aspects of society such as class structure, economic development, resources, and political structure. When the Industrial revolution ramped up in Europe, it was natural that Great Britain became the leader of Europe. This was due to multiple reasons; Economic, Political, Social, and resources. These elements allowed Great Britain the luxury of setting the pace for Europe, all the while creating more opportunities for its citizens. Each while having separate effects, also combined to create an atmosphere that was conducive to success. Although most populations were able to elevate themselves during the Industrial Revolution, women actually were forced back into the homes. The industrial revolution can be summed up by what it did for the Great Britain, Europe, and the world. It was not just about increasing jobs, or changing how jobs were done. What the industrial revolution did to Europe was fundamentally affect how supply and demand was determined. It also affected how people felt about themselves and the jobs they held. Most importantly it fundamentally changed how people worked and what it cost to work. The largest percent of the population affected by the industrial revolution were women. Instead of assisting women, and getting more into the global work force, it actually decreased the amount of women that worked and how the felt about what they did in the work field. This sentiment held true until late in the 19th century. Some of the things that affected how women worked were the great amount of machines created that replaced what women did at home. Knitted, quilting and making of goods necessary such as clothing and home goods could be now created by machine. The Spinning Ginny and the Water Mill are two machines that took away from spinners who were historically women working at their homes. The Water Mill pushed the usefulness of the Spinning Ginny to a new level and also created a machine that could not be used in a home. The mass production of cloth essentially made one job out of 20 or 30. Economically Great Britain was a leader of Europe. Although an island and not part of the continent, London was the economic center for most of Europe. London and Great Britain had the resources to industrialize which is exponentially expense during this time. In addition Great Britain had the largest free trade area in Europe.6 What this means is that more money and goods came into London and Great Britain than other countries. This allowed Great Britain to have the resources to push industry faster than other countries. Another aspect of London was that it was the largest city in Europe which meant people flocked for the newest in fashion and culture. With the increase in consumer products there was an increase in advertisements, and newspapers.7 It is not hard to believe that Great Britain was the cultural epicenter of Europe during the 18th Century. Established in the 17th Century, Great Britain became a constitutionalist country, meaning the monarch was not the sole political power. The Parliament was primarily the final say in how money in the country was used and how much was used. In many countries that did not have a constitutionalist government, basic tenets of life were neglected. These such as waterways, roads, and other infrastructures were strong and able to be supported by the large amount of taxes collected. Great Britain unlike many of it European counterparts had a strong banking and financial system which taxed everyone equally versus other countries who taxed economic groups differently. What this means is that Great Britain had much more money in general, and more money for the parliament to use, or expendable money. Prior to the 18th century and for most of Europe during the 18th century, an individual was destined their socioeconomic place by birth. If an individual was born into a specific socioeconomic class, be it a wealthy land owner or a poor worker that was what their station in life was. In Great Britain there was more mobility which allowed those who worked hard and acquired money to move up into other socioeconomic classes.8 If someone had the wealth, they could be part of the political sphere which gave all classes and groups more power. This pushed along the idea of industrialization by people who started economically poor but had good ideas, and therefore were able to make a difference. Last but not least are the resources that Great Britain enjoyed. Although not a large geographical area, Great Britain has strong and large coal and iron deposits. Coal and Iron prior to the industrial revolution was not as needed as once the revolution began. Once the revolution started, manufacturing became more important, which meant that coal and iron were in higher demand. Great Britain having large deposits was able to provide the necessary resources to push the revolution. In connection with the strong mineral deposits was the strong agriculture. These reasons may not have made an impact separately, but combined made an environment that enabled Great Britain to be a leader in the industrial revolution. Works Cited Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner. “The Western Heritage” 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. 2010. Read More