Absolutism Versus Democracy Dbq

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the nature of man was one of the main disputes. More specifically, the nature of how man should be governed came under heavy questioning during this time period. Although there were many ideas put forth by philosphes, political writers, monarchs, and other important people, absolutism and democracy were the two reigning governmental ideas of the period. From the evidence shown, we can see what each type of government had to offer such as King Louis in France, Queen Elizabeth in England, and philosphes opinions of their government and how it was being run, and why absolutism would prove to be the best and most efficient way to run the government and run a country. Based on the reasons provided for absolutism versus monarchy, absolutism was the most effective form of government in the seventeenth and eighteenth century because it allowed the monarch to control their people, control a territory on his/her own, and govern the way he wanted to without worrying about any negative repercussions. Some examples are provided in the following paragraphs such as King Louis' control of his nobility by assigning them tasks so they would not interfere, and the Queen Elizabeth was liked by the people so she did not meet any resistance in her journey to achieve absolute control.

Absolutism was the system of only one monarch ruling the country, giving him/her extreme power. In order to run the country, the monarch had to deal with a lot of problems. One of the main problems for the monarch was delegating how many rights to give to his commoners. Of course, they did not want to give many to them because they might get smart and revolt. Absolutism dealt with this by just giving the monarch absolute power over everyone. King Louis XIV believed "the more power you grant, the more it claims [the assembled people]. . .the interest of the state must come first (Document 3).This showed that the absolute monarchs did not believe in giving people many rights for they might rise against them. Through this method, they almost brainwashed the people into believing they were gods and could do no wrong. Saint Simon stated "The King's great qualities shone more brilliantly. . .he showed a natural kindness of the heart and a sense of justice. . ."(Document 7). King Louis XIV was also known for his conniving methods of gaining power for himself by undermining his nobles, so it is interesting to see how he was seen by Saint Simon as such a great person. Of course, Saint Simon had to gain this point of view somehow, and he may have been influenced or bribed to only speak well of Louis. This was not uncommon during the time, and would certainly not have been a big deal to Louis in his goal of getting to the top. Along with the monarchs wanting to eliminate anyone who could get in their way, they had to decide, what, if any, people to assist them in their quest to complete control. But, as Machiavelli pointed out, "men are ungrateful, fickle, and deceitful. . .avid for gain. Any prince, trusting only in their works and having no other preparations made, will fall to ruin"(Document 1). Basically, Machiavelli believed that men were only going to try and be close to monarchs for their own selfish reasons, and at the first sign of danger they would desert the monarch. One way some of the monarchs justified their harsh or controlling ways of attempting to achieve absolute control was by advocating divine-right monarchy. As King James I said, "The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for king's are not only God's lieutenants upon earth. . .kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a divine power upon earth. . ."(Document 2). This document sounds believable