Differences Between Louis Xiv And Peter The Great

This religious aspect to these absolute monarchs caused the people to have respect for their rulers. People thought “Fear God, Honor the King.” (Document 5) It meant that people should have faith in their Kings and fear the course that God has set for them. They believed that monarchs were sent to do the good deeds of god and that using their power for evil was a horrible sin.

1. Politique were rulers in the 16th and 17th century who put the success and good of their state above everything else. That includes over their religion. Henry of Navarre was a politique because he put the politics of the country before his religion. He converted to Catholicism just so he could be taken more seriously at masses.

In addition, he increased his army to gain more territory. Peter the Great centralized his power through fear of the people, built up his army from nothing, and what also made him an absolute monarch was he did not share his power with anyone at all. Louis XIV is the best example of an absolute monarch because he had all four characteristics. He did not share his power with anyone or any organization. He limited the power of his nobles and princes by having them live in his palace where their power would have been void.

The differences between Catherine and Peter may seem as if they were greatly different rulers, yet were both strong rulers that helped Russia immensely, but made mistakes based on their personal use of power. Catherine the Great and Peter the Great were similar rulers yet their success differed. Genders played a large role in their difference of reigns because Peter being a male, made his rule much easier to get. Catherine did not have the same advantage, which made her road to empress much more

“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts... perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” – John Steinbeck. According to John Steinbeck it’s not absolute power that corrupts people, its fear of losing that power. When people gain power that he may do as he/she would like, then forthwith he/she starts contemplating about how he/she may preserve this load of power, and if he/she contemplating about how to preserve this power then he anticipates losing it

What Peter the Great and Louis XIV did with their new armies were similar because of their

The examples that show that absolute monarchs held a great deal of power over their kingdoms by Peter the Great, Louis XIV, and Philip II. First, during the 1500’s and 1600’s absolute monarchs had great power over their kingdoms. Peter the

It was one of his main goals, as well as the most important, wanted to have a strong army to be able to win battles and defend Russia. Peter the Great always knew he would have to fight many wars and win warm water ports, but even though the leader's greatest goal was to have a strong and successful army, Peter knew that his army was not trained or equipped to fight in battles. The war began in 1700 and continued into 1709 and Russia gained land around the Baltic Sea and eventually acquired warm water ports. Peter made a splash during his 43-year reign in Russia. Peter died in 1725 at the age of 52, which is quite young but still accomplished more than any Russian ruler before him.

Shanti Gurung History 101 Final Exam Professor Montague 12/06/2015 1. As some 16th and 17th c. leaders sought to strengthen their control over both the legislative and administrative machinery of their respective kingdoms, others witnessed the destruction of absolutism as their principle governing philosophy. What obstacles did English royalty face in their effort to establish an absolute monarchy in the early decades of the 17th century? (Hint: Remember the tactics monarchs employed to achieve absolutism.)

Absolute monarchies had all the power in Europe. Their kingdoms were powerful and accomplished. Although absolute monarchies empowered and enriched their kingdoms, they were still largely detrimental because of King Louis XIV of France, debt, Frederick the Great’s seizure of Silesia, and the city of St. Petersburg. King Louis XIV of France was an absolute monarch.

The century of the early modern from 16th to 18th was considered as a doctrine run by absolutist, such as, Louis XIV, whose reign lasted seventy-two years from 1643 to 1715. It was the longest reign in the Absolutism era, and by Peter the Great in Russia, who ruled from 1689 to 1725. Those two kings assigned many rules to establish a government based on their beliefs. The power and the influence were held in their hands. The authority of their power covered many different areas, like as, taxes, administration, justice and forging policy, social aspects, army, and religion.

Glorious men have graced the earth and have left significant impressions on the following generations. Alexander the Great suits that profile like none other. As arguably one of the most influential military leaders in history, Alexander conquered the majority of the known world, including large-scale empires such as the Persian. Succeeding his father, Philip II, to the throne at the age of 20, Alexander commanded an already skilled military, which he schooled further in the beginning of his reign. Even militarily significant empires had no chance against Alexander 's military brilliance and so he constructed one of the largest empires in history.

An absolute monarch can be defined as a ruler who rules without any interference from the nobles, having complete, utter and unrestricted rule over his people. Louis XIV of France was a key model of an absolute monarch during the time seen as a man to whom there was no equal intellectually, militarily or physically. His absolute monarchy was one of the most successful during the Age of Absolution, having the longest rule of any monarch in Europe. The king's rule was extremely successful due to his control over both the nobility and his own people, the massive and powerful army that he embarked on creating for his nation as well as the revenue he attained through his taxation of his people and use of mercantilism. France has not since or prior

"We behold kings seated upon the throne of the Lord, bearing in their hand the sword which God himself has given them" (Document 5). If God himself sent these rulers to lead, why wouldn 't they be prosperous? This is the question many from this time period asked. Absolutism was good for them because their God put the monarchs in charge and gave them his power. Absolute monarchs came into

It was believed that the authority and the power to rule the whole country came directly from god. In other words they were considered as representatives of earth. Absolute monarchs are not judged by the society and also there are higher chances of rebel. Another characteristic is that the ruler rules until his dies, and the throne is passed to their next generation. An