This is the place where we will post our thoughts about what we are discussing in class.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Absolutist Keys to Success
After reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule, do you believe that the monarch exists 1) to maintain and strengthen the country, or 2) to take care of the people that they rule and protect their well being?
After reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule I believe that the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen the country. For example Ivan the terrible, he at first was not a harsh leader. He maintained strength economically by opening up and getting trade routes, he ordered the murder of all the inhabitants. If her wanted to take care of the people that he ruled and protect himself from a revolt he would not have had people killed. This also caused a weakened Russia. If he was thinking about the whole country he would not have continued to fight in wars when money was scarce.
Louis XIV I believe is kind of a mix of both. He wanted to maintain and strengthen the country but also wanted to take care of the people that he ruled and protect their well being. He wanted to maintain the country which made him get into situations of war. Everything that he did was either for the country or himself. He usually didn't think of the people.He weakened the nobles so that he had power over then and this allowed him to strengthen and approve his own laws such as national laws for the middle class. The laws such as national taxes helped to maintain and strengthen the country by a paying for the standing army but actually was paying for his house. During his life he had been part of many wars and he would usually threaten the lives of others before his. He did use lots of money to construct useful things to benefit him and only himeself. One final reason that shows that King Louis Xiv maintain power is that he reigned a total of 77 years with out being killed and he lived the life he wanted to live not based on his country and the people. So overall I believe that absolutist monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. In general try to be the best in military tactics, to gain more territory and to keep it. They usually do not take care of people and protect the peoples well being. Some of the absolutist are even willing to kill the people that go against them show it is not the people that matter it is the King and his country only!!!!
After learning and reading about the absolutist monarchs I think that they ruled to maintain and strengthen the country. I think that most of the monarchs did this because most wanted to expand their territory and be dominate leaders in the eyes or their country and in the territories around them. An example of a ruler that wanted to maintain and strengthen the country was Charles XI. He spent his entire reign working out an answer to the problem of getting the Hapsburgs to continue to rule all the lands. He wanted to make the country better by continuing to get the leaders of Europe to sign agreements. This just shows that most of the absolutists tried to strengthen their country to be dominant and try to maintain the power that they already had so they'd look dominate and the monarchs could continue to rule.
After reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule, I believe that the monarchs exsist to maintain and strengthen the country. I believe this because they can't really protect every person and their well being. They can't do that because first they must maintain the country which is a never ending job. So they can only hope to protect the people by strengthening the country. That way they can ensure the safety of all the people in general.
The ruler exists to take care of the people they rule and protect their well being. Like any great empirical object or structure, such as a house, the most important aspect is the foundation. Without a good foundation, the structure collapses. It's important to care for the people and provide for their well being, because above all they are the foundation. As long as there is a foundation (the people) THEN the monarch can focus on maintaining and strengthening the country. It'd be pretty hard for a king to try and make a great nation if he didn't have any subjects to rule. Any man can declare himself a king, it's the power AND authority that separates one from everyone else. The people are the most important aspect. If a king focuses only on making a country better and neglects the people, then the king has to deal with consequences such as rebellion, or economic security. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. A king is only as strong as his subjects. If he neglects the issues of his people, then a king has to deal with problems such as the people rising up against him. Now he might be able to put down a rebellion, but the damage is still done. He's fighting against himself, in a sense. Economic security is another side-effect of rebellion. The more the king does to punish his people or cause them to suffer, the less farming, manufacturing, production, etc can happen. A king has to focus on the people, and then he can look towards making a country better. For what good is a country without people?
I happen to believe that the monarch exists to maintain and strengthen the country. What I've pretty much summed up about absolutism is that the rulers do whatever they want and just make their people believe that they care about them. Knowing that more and more power will be in their hands is what drives them to do more more and not care if they treated their people badly because they would not have compassion for them. Absolutists want to be the biggest and the baddest. To most of the class, Ivan the Terrible was the one who could be the definition of absolutism. Doing such terrible things which game him his name is what gave him the title of being an absolute ruler. To deceive is to cause someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain personal advantage. This is exactly what these monarchs did. Peter the Great, Louis XIV, and Ivan the Terrible are perfect examples of absolutists.
I feel that monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. The absolutists ruled sometimes harshly and sometimes they were very kind and did what they believed was the best for the people. Peter the Great was a very strong leader. He had the appearance of a great leader and he was very successful in helping his country. Peter was very intent about education and he fought to seaports to promote education. He made his people stronger by providing them with education and he was raised women's social status by allowing them to attend social gatherings. When he traveled through the west, he dresses as a common worker so his identity wouldn't be revealed. Peter was very intent on doing what he thought should be done to help his country. Back to the question, Peter strengthened his country by succeeding in battles and reforming the culture and government of Russia. Peter the Great died but his country was still strong. I think the Monarchs need to continue to try and make their country better but they also need to do what the people would really want and which would be more peaceful throughout the country rather than choosing something that would possibly lead to a war.
After "reading" about the monarchs and how they ruled, I believe that the monarchs exists to maintain their country and strengthen it. If a monarch were to focus on the people then he would have to attend many challenges which would include attending the needs of the people. If the monarch decides to work more on the lines of strengthening the country in general than it would appear that he is also helping out the people too. When it comes to himself in general of course he is going to make it look as if they are fearless and will sometimes even put themselves into the heat of battle.
After this weeks’ reading, the class has expanded their knowledge on absolutism and how different absolutists took order. I believe a monarch exists to maintain and strengthen the country. Plus the monarch is there to take care of the well being of their people. I think these two topics kind of go hand in hand. I mean in order to strengthen their country more than it already was, they would have to get the people to follow what the leader says. Protecting the people’s well-being was a way to get those people side with the leader to give respect and more power.
Keyli… I disagree with your statement. It may seem that rulers do what ever they want but not all do. Some rulers actually care about their people even though what they do can be full of terror at times. The reason some rulers do such drastic things is to make a point for others to not do the same. It can also be to gain fear from the people like in Ivan’s case, so the people can be more humble and give him more power. Sally… What you have sated I agree with. Absolutists would make their points sweet and simple at times even if it means doing something harsh. They also took in consideration what their people needed so the people can give them more power.
After reading about absolutism, I think that Monarchs exist to maintain and expand their country. For instance Louis XIV focused on strengthening his army and expanding his territory. Yes, he was a philosopher and his father did not like the idea of him ruling, but nevertheless, he followed his fathers policies when he reigned. Louis was ambitious. He tried to manufacture everything that France needed and the trading within the colonies added fur to the trade and wealth. If he would have wanted to protect the people and their well being I don't think he would of made the nobles practically his slaves. Also he wouldn't have canceled the Edict of Nantes, which caused thousands of Protestants to fled the country. Many monarchs were selfish for example Queen Elizabeth, she did not care about the people. All she wanted to do was be the queen and rule.
I believe monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. Absolutists want to rule absolutely, and in the case of Elizabeth I, it's pretty obvious that they'll do whatever it takes to gain and keep that control. She really didn't do anything for the country, she just wanted to have the power that came with the title. In addition, Louis XIV worked on strengthening his army and expanding his land space. Peter the Great was an awesome example of this as well. He strengthened his country by improving education and introducing foods like the potatoes that would help strengthen his people, thus strengthening his army. He reformed government and culture in Russia forever. When he died, his mark was left on Russia forever because of his additions to the country.
I would have to say after reading about the differences about absolutism. I do think that monarchs are to maintain and strengthen themselves and their country. Such as Ivan the Terrible, he was a great leader and ruled with strict laws and punishments. He made himself literally unstoppable, those who opposed him were dead and he did inherit the thrown at a very young age. Which made his odds of success a higher chance. I would say that Ivan’s tactics of ruling were somewhat questionable, such as when he had his eldest son murdered so that his own name will live on and his younger son who was mentally disabled. Would be the next one in line to rule. Ivan did make Russia a greater country with opening trade routes so that more income could be brought into Russia. On the flip side wars were a mayor draw back, costing money that Russia did not have.
I believe that the monarch exists for the first reason. The people would like to think that the monarch is there to protect them, but in reality, this is not always the case. What the monarch is truly interested in is maintaining the country and strengthening it. Every monarch wants to gain more power, and they cannot due so if their country is falling apart because of lack of maintenance, or because their country is weakened and lacks strength. The monarch not only wants to do this, but he/she wants to gain more power. By strengthening their country, they are more able to do so. All of these things that the monarch does are for one reason--to stay in power. If the country isn't maintained, the people will grow angry and this is dangerous for the monarch. If the country is not strengthened, it would be easy for another monarch to take over.
By maintaining and strengthening a country, a monarch is also benefitting the people that live in it. By taking care of the people of a country and protecting their well being, a monarch is also creating a sense of strength within the country. Doing one of the above will most likely benefit the other as well simply because any positive will boost other relating aspects. A monarch's job is to better a country in whatever way possible in hopes of establishing a powerful, healthy, and strong nation.
Teresita- I agree with your post. I think that you did a great job and I liked how you said that the absolutists wanted the well being of others. I think that they also want to stay on top of power, good job!
Deep-- Good job, your post was really good! I liked how you used examples and I think that opening trade routes helped the country prosper and grow too. Nice work.
Kelli B, I agree that there is somewhat of a fine line between monarchs and absolutists. The fact that Queen Elizabeth didn't do anything for her people and just wanted the title and didn't really want to get into trouble with other countries was in a way pathetic. Also the fact that Peter the great was in a way the opposite of Queen Elizabeth is a great point as well. Great post.
Teresita, You make a good point when you state that the monarchs cannot take care of everybody at once. Also you said that they can strengthen the country and in general they would be helping out the people as well. Good points made.
Teresita- I'm thinking you're pretty much right. I chose the strengthening and maintaining the country as well. I mean obviously absolutists aren't meant to "really" help the people.
Hugo- I'm sure you "read" about the monarchs. hehehe. Anyways good post for sure. I pretty much agree with you as well.
Teresita, I agree with what you said about the monarchs not being able to protect each person's well-being. In almost any decision, someone or group is upset with the solution. Good point!
Kelli, Interesting point when you wrote about Elizabeth and how she did what she needed to do to gain and keep control but she didn't do anything specifically for her country. Great job tying each of the monarchs into the topic.
Alex.. Ivan the Terrible was a good absolute ruler, except he didn't intentionally plan to murder his eldest son. It came about during an argument over his son's wife dressing immodestly. The quarrel got out of hand and Ivan hit his son on the head, killing him.
Laura... Yes, in order for a ruler to gain support to strengthen the country, he needs to take care of the people. I think that the ruler shouldn't worry about expanding the territory until the subjects he already has are taken care of.
Although I think that both traits are carried, I believe that they are there to strengthen themselves and their country. One good example would be Peter the Great. He did things that would benefit his country as well as himself from doing so. With him, he had his country in mind, but with his people becoming more educated and stronger, this helped him because that means better armies and more power.
I think that the monarch is supposed to care more about the people they rule and their well-being. However, there were certain rulers who cared more about strengthening the country by increasing their borders and gaining other resources. For example, Louis XIV may have cared very much about his people, however, he spent a lot of money on wars trying to expand France's boundaries, when France was already considered one of the most powerful countries in the world. When Louis XIV died, the people of France were resentful because of all the wars that had been fought and the taxes they had to pay. Should that really be considered protecting the well-being of the French people? I would think not...
After reading and learning about the different absolutist monarchs and their own unique way of ruling I believe that the monarch existed to maintain and strengthen the country, as opposed to doing it in order to take care of their people and protecting their well being. I think this because pretty much all the absolutist rulers we learned about were looking to expand their rule and better their country, they weren't really looking out for their peoples best interest but their own. I also believe that those rulers that were concerned about protecting their people were doing it as a way to strengthen their country. For example Frederick the Great came to power and softened some of his fathers rule, he encourage religion and reform. He was well liked by his people, this in turn was a way to strengthen the country, and even though he did care about his people he was still looking to expand and strengthen the country. He invaded Saxony and was part of the Seven Years War. So overall I believe that the absolutists were more concerned with strengthening their own power and country.
Keyli, I agree with what you think. The absolutists that do good for their country still always have themselves in mind because that mean that much more power for them. Teresita, That is a good point. I never really thought of that but you'd be correct. The rulers can't have everyone in their best interest but by having the country being strong and stable, that will help the people become the same way.
After reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule, I believe that the monarch exists maintain and strengthen the country. The reason why I think is, is because the kings and queens would do anything in their power to get what they wanted. Especially more power and land. They did not care much for the people within the kingdom but only for themselves. The rulers would only want to maintain themselves in power for as long as they lived. This is the reason why I believe that the monarchs only exists to maintain and strengthen the country.
Madi- I agree I thought that some absolutist did have the interest of their people in mind and also wanted to strengthen their country. I think the two can go hand in hand because if you look out for your people and they trust you they will want to protect the country and in turn this would strengthen it.
Olivia- I agree with your post. Before I just saw it as if the people are strong and protected the country would be strong also. But, your right having a strong country also benefits those that live in it.
Olivia - I understand your point when you say that the monarch exists for both purposes--one also benefitting the other--but that isn't always the case. Increasing the borders and becoming more powerful doesn't always benefit the well being of the people of that nation. As I had already stated in my blog, King Louis XIV fought several wars gaining more land for France. However, by the time he died, his people grew to resent him for the all the wars the country fought and all the taxes he imposed on them. France did in fact become more powerful as a country, but the people became more resentful, thus leading to the French Revolution about 70 years later.
Alex - I agree with your post. While it can be argued that strengthening a country benefits the people of the country, I like that you point out that although Ivan the Terrible may have made the country more powerful, he wasn't exactly very considerate of the well-being of his people during his rule.
Sally, I liked how you used Peter the Great as an example. Indeed, he strengthened and maintained his country with his efforts. You also mentioned how monarchs should also acknowledge its people's wants so I think you're leaning more towards fortifying the country but also think that the people are important. I agree with that as well.
Keyli, You say that rulers "make their people believe that they care about them"; yet, you're argument stands on strengthening and maintaining the country. Also, you mentioned poor treating the people of a country, thus that particular ruler obviously isn't expressing a message to the people that he or she "cares about them". So I suppose you could say I'm slightly confused. Nonetheless, you're Ivan the Terrible argument makes sense. He did indeed strengthen his country in disregard to the wellness of some of his people.
After reading about the different monarchs and how they rule as absolutists, I believe they should exist to take care of the people they rule to protect their will-being. However, in reality, I think they exist to maintain and strengthen the country they rule. Of course, an absolutist should think about the people they rule first, because any decisions an absolutist makes for a country will affect the people of the country. But, this is not always the case. For example, Frederick William and his son Frederick II believed that having a strong army was important. After the Thirty Year's War, Frederick William had an 80,000-strong men military who he rigidly controlled. Peter the Great, who was considered one of Russia's greatest reformers, modernized his army and founded the Holy Synod Church, which was under his power. Finally, Ivan the Terrible expanded the country of Russia by adding more land.
Hugo - I have to say that I agree with your post. It's true that there are challenges with trying to cater to people and their sense of protection and their well-being. I thought you brought up a good point that if a ruler works on strengthening his/her country then, in turn they are helping the people in the country. I never thought of it that way. Lastly, I also think that a ruler will try to have as much power as he can, or appear to have a lot of power, so other people won't fear him/ her.
Sydney - I agree with a lot of what you said. In the back of their minds, I think almost every leader wanted to somehow expand the size of their country, yet not be seen as greedy but powerful and dominant in the eyes of others. Charles VI had some trouble ruling his empire, but in the end he was pretty successful, except for the fact that he spent a lot of his time worrying about who would success him after he died.
Olivia- I disagree with your post. I don't think that always when one does one of those things it benefits the other. It just does not work that way. I think you could have used more details. Overall it was great. Good Job!
Diana- I kind of agree with your post in that the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen the country. Though not always did the Monarchs not care about the people. Sometimes they cared more about the people then the country because they wanted to stay in control. It was a good lengthy paragraph though. Good Job!
Hugo, - I agree with you cause how the monarchs would want to rule and support their country and strengthen it as well. How the people had many needs and then the monarchs would have to support them and the monarchs would have to look fearless.
Laura B, - I really agree with you how you stated that how the monarchs exists to maintain the country and to take care of the people. With protecting the people you have more of a stronger nation, then you have a stronger leader.
I believe that Monarchs even though they say that they are there for the people it's more like they are there to strengthen the country even more than what the last ruler did. It's more of a bigger priority to maintain and strengthen a country than just take care of it's people. Then again by taking care of it's people the Monarchs are making the country stronger by taking care of it's people
After reading about the different absolutist monarchs I believe they exist to maintain and strengthen the country. Most absolutists want absolute power. For example, Elizabeth I. She didn't do much except look pretty, have power, and have the title, which is all she wanted. They might also be there to take care of the people they rule and protect their well being. Maybe originally they were "created" to take care of the people and protect their well being but I think they used that as an excuse to have the power they wanted. They try to maintain and strengthen the country. Peter the Great introduced new foods and improved education in his country. Each individual had their way of ruling but in the end it was mostly the power they wanted.
Sydney, I have to agree with what you have to say. They wanted to expand and be dominate leader if they weren't already or at least in the eyes of the country. I didn't really 'read' Charles XI but that is a good example to use. Trying to maintain their power was what the absolutists wanted and to become or stay dominate.
Teresita, I also believe the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen the country. I think they try to maintain and strengthen the country and some do strengthen it while other make it appear as if though it was strong. Your right they can't really protect every person but they can ensure their safety in general.
After reading about the Monarchs. Id have to say that they exist to protect their country and make it stronger. The people would love to have a king or queen that protected them and cared for them, but in most cases that only went so far. Ivan the Terrible was the person i thought was the best fitted absolutist, the purest because he was a great leader. Well, he was but then he became known as being terrible. Though he still did strike alot of fear into people.
Rosie, Id have to say that yes, most do just want power. And you do have some good points with Queen Elizabeth.
Teresita, Like ive said, Monarchs existed to rule for their own good. Protecting everybody would be hard, so keeping the kingdom safe in general would be fine.
Teresita- I agree with your post. The reason is because it does take a long time to protect the country. Although, some rulers do not care if they are protecting their people by strengthening the country. They are those selfish rulers that only care about power. Overall, great post! :)
Carlos- When I read your post, I got confused. The reason why is because you said that the rulers want to strengthen and maintain power. Then you started saying how taking care of the people would strengthen the country. Or maybe I am just reading it wrong. But, I do agree with you about strengthening and maintaining power.
Olivia, I agree with you that by,the monarch, providing a strong army it benefits the people because they are protected.
Hugo, Good points, especially where you talk about what would happen if the monarch had to focus on the problems of the people. It would be a mess if they did that and didn't have a stable army.
I have to say that the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. Many monarchs may seem like they care about the people, but really they only care about their own being, and about rising in power. They have many successful victories in wars, and seems that the monarchs has done something great for his country, but really only helping themselves. Caring for the people or having an appearance is just a bonus I guess you can say. But I believe that monarchs essentially exist to maintain and to strengthen their country.
Sergio- I agree with you, if there are some monarchs who care about their people, it would only go so far before they turn against its people. Like Ivan the Terrible is a good example.
Luara- I must kind of disagree, not all monarchs have to gain "respect" among its people to be able to strengthen or even maintain its country. An example is Ivan the Terrible, he may have been a swell guy at some point, but after the death of his wife, the "Terrible" was NOT put in his name for giggles, but because he really was terrible.
Franklin- Yeah they gotta give that impression they care about everyone else in order to have control but in reality all they care is about themselves. Yeah when they help others it's only for their own benefits.
Rosie- Yeah most of them were "created" to protect their people but as I said to Franklin all of it goes back to them and their own personal goals, not the ones for their country but for their own goals.
Teresita- I agree that they exist to maintain and strengthen there countries. I agree that they can't protect ever person. I agree with what you say but are you sure that the monarchs can't exist for both.
Franklin- I agree that they exist to maintain and strengthen their countries. If they didn't the they would become weak and there country would fall into ruins. So if the monarchs aren't selfish then the country will have to be cause the end of the country because the people do not trust the monarch for security. Good Job
Sydney, I like the last sentence of your response which states that the monarchs wanted to look dominant. This is true because the monarchs wanted this image of power and dominance to avoid being attacked by other countries. If they looked powerful, they were less at risk to be attacked by others, and therefore protected themselves from being possibly removed from their thrones.
Zulema, I like the different view you take on this question. You brought up a good point that the rulers might actually care for the people of their country. However, they placed their rule over the well-being of the people, so even if they were actually concerned for them, the monarchs would still do what it took to strengthen and maintain the country in order to protect themselves.
In my opinion, I believe that monarchs exist to stabilize and advance their country. These monarchs are usually only concerned with looking good to the people, increasing their wealth, and conquering more land. Although, these monarchs are never successful in the long run, because they are usually overthrown by their people. If a monarch exists to please the people, they are loved. Although, maintaining the people's happiness is expensive, and usually ends in debt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule I believe that the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen the country. For example Ivan the terrible, he at first was not a harsh leader. He maintained strength economically by opening up and getting trade routes, he ordered the murder of all the inhabitants. If her wanted to take care of the people that he ruled and protect himself from a revolt he would not have had people killed. This also caused a weakened Russia. If he was thinking about the whole country he would not have continued to fight in wars when money was scarce.
ReplyDeleteLouis XIV I believe is kind of a mix of both. He wanted to maintain and strengthen the country but also wanted to take care of the people that he ruled and protect their well being. He wanted to maintain the country which made him get into situations of war. Everything that he did was either for the country or himself. He usually didn't think of the people.He weakened the nobles so that he had power over then and this allowed him to strengthen and approve his own laws such as national laws for the middle class. The laws such as national taxes helped to maintain and strengthen the country by a paying for the standing army but actually was paying for his house. During his life he had been part of many wars and he would usually threaten the lives of others before his. He did use lots of money to construct useful things to benefit him and only himeself. One final reason that shows that King Louis Xiv maintain power is that he reigned a total of 77 years with out being killed and he lived the life he wanted to live not based on his country and the people. So overall I believe that absolutist monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. In general try to be the best in military tactics, to gain more territory and to keep it. They usually do not take care of people and protect the peoples well being. Some of the absolutist are even willing to kill the people that go against them show it is not the people that matter it is the King and his country only!!!!
After learning and reading about the absolutist monarchs I think that they ruled to maintain and strengthen the country. I think that most of the monarchs did this because most wanted to expand their territory and be dominate leaders in the eyes or their country and in the territories around them. An example of a ruler that wanted to maintain and strengthen the country was Charles XI. He spent his entire reign working out an answer to the problem of getting the Hapsburgs to continue to rule all the lands. He wanted to make the country better by continuing to get the leaders of Europe to sign agreements. This just shows that most of the absolutists tried to strengthen their country to be dominant and try to maintain the power that they already had so they'd look dominate and the monarchs could continue to rule.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule, I believe that the monarchs exsist to maintain and strengthen the country. I believe this because they can't really protect every person and their well being. They can't do that because first they must maintain the country which is a never ending job. So they can only hope to protect the people by strengthening the country. That way they can ensure the safety of all the people in general.
ReplyDeleteThe ruler exists to take care of the people they rule and protect their well being. Like any great empirical object or structure, such as a house, the most important aspect is the foundation. Without a good foundation, the structure collapses. It's important to care for the people and provide for their well being, because above all they are the foundation. As long as there is a foundation (the people) THEN the monarch can focus on maintaining and strengthening the country. It'd be pretty hard for a king to try and make a great nation if he didn't have any subjects to rule. Any man can declare himself a king, it's the power AND authority that separates one from everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThe people are the most important aspect. If a king focuses only on making a country better and neglects the people, then the king has to deal with consequences such as rebellion, or economic security. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. A king is only as strong as his subjects. If he neglects the issues of his people, then a king has to deal with problems such as the people rising up against him. Now he might be able to put down a rebellion, but the damage is still done. He's fighting against himself, in a sense. Economic security is another side-effect of rebellion. The more the king does to punish his people or cause them to suffer, the less farming, manufacturing, production, etc can happen. A king has to focus on the people, and then he can look towards making a country better. For what good is a country without people?
I happen to believe that the monarch exists to maintain and strengthen the country. What I've pretty much summed up about absolutism is that the rulers do whatever they want and just make their people believe that they care about them. Knowing that more and more power will be in their hands is what drives them to do more more and not care if they treated their people badly because they would not have compassion for them. Absolutists want to be the biggest and the baddest. To most of the class, Ivan the Terrible was the one who could be the definition of absolutism. Doing such terrible things which game him his name is what gave him the title of being an absolute ruler. To deceive is to cause someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain personal advantage. This is exactly what these monarchs did. Peter the Great, Louis XIV, and Ivan the Terrible are perfect examples of absolutists.
ReplyDeleteI feel that monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. The absolutists ruled sometimes harshly and sometimes they were very kind and did what they believed was the best for the people. Peter the Great was a very strong leader. He had the appearance of a great leader and he was very successful in helping his country. Peter was very intent about education and he fought to seaports to promote education. He made his people stronger by providing them with education and he was raised women's social status by allowing them to attend social gatherings.
ReplyDeleteWhen he traveled through the west, he dresses as a common worker so his identity wouldn't be revealed. Peter was very intent on doing what he thought should be done to help his country. Back to the question, Peter strengthened his country by succeeding in battles and reforming the culture and government of Russia. Peter the Great died but his country was still strong. I think the Monarchs need to continue to try and make their country better but they also need to do what the people would really want and which would be more peaceful throughout the country rather than choosing something that would possibly lead to a war.
After "reading" about the monarchs and how they ruled, I believe that the monarchs exists to maintain their country and strengthen it. If a monarch were to focus on the people then he would have to attend many challenges which would include attending the needs of the people. If the monarch decides to work more on the lines of strengthening the country in general than it would appear that he is also helping out the people too. When it comes to himself in general of course he is going to make it look as if they are fearless and will sometimes even put themselves into the heat of battle.
ReplyDeleteAfter this weeks’ reading, the class has expanded their knowledge on absolutism and how different absolutists took order. I believe a monarch exists to maintain and strengthen the country. Plus the monarch is there to take care of the well being of their people. I think these two topics kind of go hand in hand. I mean in order to strengthen their country more than it already was, they would have to get the people to follow what the leader says. Protecting the people’s well-being was a way to get those people side with the leader to give respect and more power.
ReplyDeleteKeyli… I disagree with your statement. It may seem that rulers do what ever they want but not all do. Some rulers actually care about their people even though what they do can be full of terror at times. The reason some rulers do such drastic things is to make a point for others to not do the same. It can also be to gain fear from the people like in Ivan’s case, so the people can be more humble and give him more power.
ReplyDeleteSally… What you have sated I agree with. Absolutists would make their points sweet and simple at times even if it means doing something harsh. They also took in consideration what their people needed so the people can give them more power.
After reading about absolutism, I think that Monarchs exist to maintain and expand their country. For instance Louis XIV focused on strengthening his army and expanding his territory. Yes, he was a philosopher and his father did not like the idea of him ruling, but nevertheless, he followed his fathers policies when he reigned. Louis was ambitious. He tried to manufacture everything that France needed and the trading within the colonies added fur to the trade and wealth. If he would have wanted to protect the people and their well being I don't think he would of made the nobles practically his slaves. Also he wouldn't have canceled the Edict of Nantes, which caused thousands of Protestants to fled the country. Many monarchs were selfish for example Queen Elizabeth, she did not care about the people. All she wanted to do was be the queen and rule.
ReplyDeleteI believe monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. Absolutists want to rule absolutely, and in the case of Elizabeth I, it's pretty obvious that they'll do whatever it takes to gain and keep that control. She really didn't do anything for the country, she just wanted to have the power that came with the title. In addition, Louis XIV worked on strengthening his army and expanding his land space. Peter the Great was an awesome example of this as well. He strengthened his country by improving education and introducing foods like the potatoes that would help strengthen his people, thus strengthening his army. He reformed government and culture in Russia forever. When he died, his mark was left on Russia forever because of his additions to the country.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say after reading about the differences about absolutism. I do think that monarchs are to maintain and strengthen themselves and their country. Such as Ivan the Terrible, he was a great leader and ruled with strict laws and punishments. He made himself literally unstoppable, those who opposed him were dead and he did inherit the thrown at a very young age. Which made his odds of success a higher chance. I would say that Ivan’s tactics of ruling were somewhat questionable, such as when he had his eldest son murdered so that his own name will live on and his younger son who was mentally disabled. Would be the next one in line to rule. Ivan did make Russia a greater country with opening trade routes so that more income could be brought into Russia. On the flip side wars were a mayor draw back, costing money that Russia did not have.
ReplyDelete'Reading' Funny Hugo!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the monarch exists for the first reason. The people would like to think that the monarch is there to protect them, but in reality, this is not always the case. What the monarch is truly interested in is maintaining the country and strengthening it. Every monarch wants to gain more power, and they cannot due so if their country is falling apart because of lack of maintenance, or because their country is weakened and lacks strength. The monarch not only wants to do this, but he/she wants to gain more power. By strengthening their country, they are more able to do so. All of these things that the monarch does are for one reason--to stay in power. If the country isn't maintained, the people will grow angry and this is dangerous for the monarch. If the country is not strengthened, it would be easy for another monarch to take over.
ReplyDeleteBy maintaining and strengthening a country, a monarch is also benefitting the people that live in it. By taking care of the people of a country and protecting their well being, a monarch is also creating a sense of strength within the country. Doing one of the above will most likely benefit the other as well simply because any positive will boost other relating aspects. A monarch's job is to better a country in whatever way possible in hopes of establishing a powerful, healthy, and strong nation.
ReplyDeleteTeresita- I agree with your post. I think that you did a great job and I liked how you said that the absolutists wanted the well being of others. I think that they also want to stay on top of power, good job!
ReplyDeleteDeep-- Good job, your post was really good! I liked how you used examples and I think that opening trade routes helped the country prosper and grow too. Nice work.
Kelli B,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is somewhat of a fine line between monarchs and absolutists. The fact that Queen Elizabeth didn't do anything for her people and just wanted the title and didn't really want to get into trouble with other countries was in a way pathetic. Also the fact that Peter the great was in a way the opposite of Queen Elizabeth is a great point as well. Great post.
Teresita,
You make a good point when you state that the monarchs cannot take care of everybody at once. Also you said that they can strengthen the country and in general they would be helping out the people as well. Good points made.
Teresita- I'm thinking you're pretty much right. I chose the strengthening and maintaining the country as well. I mean obviously absolutists aren't meant to "really" help the people.
ReplyDeleteHugo- I'm sure you "read" about the monarchs. hehehe. Anyways good post for sure. I pretty much agree with you as well.
Teresita,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the monarchs not being able to protect each person's well-being. In almost any decision, someone or group is upset with the solution. Good point!
Kelli,
Interesting point when you wrote about Elizabeth and how she did what she needed to do to gain and keep control but she didn't do anything specifically for her country. Great job tying each of the monarchs into the topic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex.. Ivan the Terrible was a good absolute ruler, except he didn't intentionally plan to murder his eldest son. It came about during an argument over his son's wife dressing immodestly. The quarrel got out of hand and Ivan hit his son on the head, killing him.
ReplyDeleteLaura... Yes, in order for a ruler to gain support to strengthen the country, he needs to take care of the people. I think that the ruler shouldn't worry about expanding the territory until the subjects he already has are taken care of.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that both traits are carried, I believe that they are there to strengthen themselves and their country. One good example would be Peter the Great. He did things that would benefit his country as well as himself from doing so. With him, he had his country in mind, but with his people becoming more educated and stronger, this helped him because that means better armies and more power.
ReplyDeleteI think that the monarch is supposed to care more about the people they rule and their well-being. However, there were certain rulers who cared more about strengthening the country by increasing their borders and gaining other resources. For example, Louis XIV may have cared very much about his people, however, he spent a lot of money on wars trying to expand France's boundaries, when France was already considered one of the most powerful countries in the world. When Louis XIV died, the people of France were resentful because of all the wars that had been fought and the taxes they had to pay. Should that really be considered protecting the well-being of the French people? I would think not...
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and learning about the different absolutist monarchs and their own unique way of ruling I believe that the monarch existed to maintain and strengthen the country, as opposed to doing it in order to take care of their people and protecting their well being. I think this because pretty much all the absolutist rulers we learned about were looking to expand their rule and better their country, they weren't really looking out for their peoples best interest but their own. I also believe that those rulers that were concerned about protecting their people were doing it as a way to strengthen their country. For example Frederick the Great came to power and softened some of his fathers rule, he encourage religion and reform. He was well liked by his people, this in turn was a way to strengthen the country, and even though he did care about his people he was still looking to expand and strengthen the country. He invaded Saxony and was part of the Seven Years War. So overall I believe that the absolutists were more concerned with strengthening their own power and country.
ReplyDeleteKeyli,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you think. The absolutists that do good for their country still always have themselves in mind because that mean that much more power for them.
Teresita,
That is a good point. I never really thought of that but you'd be correct. The rulers can't have everyone in their best interest but by having the country being strong and stable, that will help the people become the same way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the different absolutist monarchs and how they rule, I believe that the monarch exists maintain and strengthen the country. The reason why I think is, is because the kings and queens would do anything in their power to get what they wanted. Especially more power and land. They did not care much for the people within the kingdom but only for themselves. The rulers would only want to maintain themselves in power for as long as they lived. This is the reason why I believe that the monarchs only exists to maintain and strengthen the country.
ReplyDeleteMadi- I agree I thought that some absolutist did have the interest of their people in mind and also wanted to strengthen their country. I think the two can go hand in hand because if you look out for your people and they trust you they will want to protect the country and in turn this would strengthen it.
ReplyDeleteOlivia- I agree with your post. Before I just saw it as if the people are strong and protected the country would be strong also. But, your right having a strong country also benefits those that live in it.
Olivia
ReplyDelete- I understand your point when you say that the monarch exists for both purposes--one also benefitting the other--but that isn't always the case. Increasing the borders and becoming more powerful doesn't always benefit the well being of the people of that nation. As I had already stated in my blog, King Louis XIV fought several wars gaining more land for France. However, by the time he died, his people grew to resent him for the all the wars the country fought and all the taxes he imposed on them. France did in fact become more powerful as a country, but the people became more resentful, thus leading to the French Revolution about 70 years later.
Alex
- I agree with your post. While it can be argued that strengthening a country benefits the people of the country, I like that you point out that although Ivan the Terrible may have made the country more powerful, he wasn't exactly very considerate of the well-being of his people during his rule.
Sally,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you used Peter the Great as an example. Indeed, he strengthened and maintained his country with his efforts. You also mentioned how monarchs should also acknowledge its people's wants so I think you're leaning more towards fortifying the country but also think that the people are important. I agree with that as well.
Keyli,
You say that rulers "make their people believe that they care about them"; yet, you're argument stands on strengthening and maintaining the country. Also, you mentioned poor treating the people of a country, thus that particular ruler obviously isn't expressing a message to the people that he or she "cares about them". So I suppose you could say I'm slightly confused. Nonetheless, you're Ivan the Terrible argument makes sense. He did indeed strengthen his country in disregard to the wellness of some of his people.
After reading about the different monarchs and how they rule as absolutists, I believe they should exist to take care of the people they rule to protect their will-being. However, in reality, I think they exist to maintain and strengthen the country they rule. Of course, an absolutist should think about the people they rule first, because any decisions an absolutist makes for a country will affect the people of the country. But, this is not always the case. For example, Frederick William and his son Frederick II believed that having a strong army was important. After the Thirty Year's War, Frederick William had an 80,000-strong men military who he rigidly controlled. Peter the Great, who was considered one of Russia's greatest reformers, modernized his army and founded the Holy Synod Church, which was under his power. Finally, Ivan the Terrible expanded the country of Russia by adding more land.
ReplyDeleteHugo - I have to say that I agree with your post. It's true that there are challenges with trying to cater to people and their sense of protection and their well-being. I thought you brought up a good point that if a ruler works on strengthening his/her country then, in turn they are helping the people in the country. I never thought of it that way. Lastly, I also think that a ruler will try to have as much power as he can, or appear to have a lot of power, so other people won't fear him/ her.
Sydney - I agree with a lot of what you said. In the back of their minds, I think almost every leader wanted to somehow expand the size of their country, yet not be seen as greedy but powerful and dominant in the eyes of others. Charles VI had some trouble ruling his empire, but in the end he was pretty successful, except for the fact that he spent a lot of his time worrying about who would success him after he died.
Olivia- I disagree with your post. I don't think that always when one does one of those things it benefits the other. It just does not work that way. I think you could have used more details. Overall it was great. Good Job!
ReplyDeleteDiana- I kind of agree with your post in that the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen the country. Though not always did the Monarchs not care about the people. Sometimes they cared more about the people then the country because they wanted to stay in control. It was a good lengthy paragraph though. Good Job!
Hugo,
ReplyDelete- I agree with you cause how the monarchs would want to rule and support their country and strengthen it as well. How the people had many needs and then the monarchs would have to support them and the monarchs would have to look fearless.
Laura B,
- I really agree with you how you stated that how the monarchs exists to maintain the country and to take care of the people. With protecting the people you have more of a stronger nation, then you have a stronger leader.
I believe that Monarchs even though they say that they are there for the people it's more like they are there to strengthen the country even more than what the last ruler did. It's more of a bigger priority to maintain and strengthen a country than just take care of it's people. Then again by taking care of it's people the Monarchs are making the country stronger by taking care of it's people
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the different absolutist monarchs I believe they exist to maintain and strengthen the country. Most absolutists want absolute power. For example, Elizabeth I. She didn't do much except look pretty, have power, and have the title, which is all she wanted. They might also be there to take care of the people they rule and protect their well being. Maybe originally they were "created" to take care of the people and protect their well being but I think they used that as an excuse to have the power they wanted. They try to maintain and strengthen the country. Peter the Great introduced new foods and improved education in his country. Each individual had their way of ruling but in the end it was mostly the power they wanted.
ReplyDeleteSydney,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with what you have to say. They wanted to expand and be dominate leader if they weren't already or at least in the eyes of the country. I didn't really 'read' Charles XI but that is a good example to use. Trying to maintain their power was what the absolutists wanted and to become or stay dominate.
Teresita,
I also believe the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen the country. I think they try to maintain and strengthen the country and some do strengthen it while other make it appear as if though it was strong. Your right they can't really protect every person but they can ensure their safety in general.
After reading about the Monarchs. Id have to say that they exist to protect their country and make it stronger. The people would love to have a king or queen that protected them and cared for them, but in most cases that only went so far. Ivan the Terrible was the person i thought was the best fitted absolutist, the purest because he was a great leader. Well, he was but then he became known as being terrible. Though he still did strike alot of fear into people.
ReplyDeleteRosie,
Id have to say that yes, most do just want power. And you do have some good points with Queen Elizabeth.
Teresita,
Like ive said, Monarchs existed to rule for their own good. Protecting everybody would be hard, so keeping the kingdom safe in general would be fine.
Teresita-
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. The reason is because it does take a long time to protect the country. Although, some rulers do not care if they are protecting their people by strengthening the country. They are those selfish rulers that only care about power. Overall, great post! :)
Carlos-
When I read your post, I got confused. The reason why is because you said that the rulers want to strengthen and maintain power. Then you started saying how taking care of the people would strengthen the country. Or maybe I am just reading it wrong. But, I do agree with you about strengthening and maintaining power.
Olivia,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that by,the monarch, providing a strong army it benefits the people because they are protected.
Hugo,
Good points, especially where you talk about what would happen if the monarch had to focus on the problems of the people. It would be a mess if they did that and didn't have a stable army.
I have to say that the monarchs exist to maintain and strengthen their country. Many monarchs may seem like they care about the people, but really they only care about their own being, and about rising in power. They have many successful victories in wars, and seems that the monarchs has done something great for his country, but really only helping themselves. Caring for the people or having an appearance is just a bonus I guess you can say. But I believe that monarchs essentially exist to maintain and to strengthen their country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSergio- I agree with you, if there are some monarchs who care about their people, it would only go so far before they turn against its people. Like Ivan the Terrible is a good example.
ReplyDeleteLuara- I must kind of disagree, not all monarchs have to gain "respect" among its people to be able to strengthen or even maintain its country. An example is Ivan the Terrible, he may have been a swell guy at some point, but after the death of his wife, the "Terrible" was NOT put in his name for giggles, but because he really was terrible.
Franklin- Yeah they gotta give that impression they care about everyone else in order to have control but in reality all they care is about themselves. Yeah when they help others it's only for their own benefits.
ReplyDeleteRosie- Yeah most of them were "created" to protect their people but as I said to Franklin all of it goes back to them and their own personal goals, not the ones for their country but for their own goals.
Teresita- I agree that they exist to maintain and strengthen there countries. I agree that they can't protect ever person. I agree with what you say but are you sure that the monarchs can't exist for both.
ReplyDeleteFranklin- I agree that they exist to maintain and strengthen their countries. If they didn't the they would become weak and there country would fall into ruins. So if the monarchs aren't selfish then the country will have to be cause the end of the country because the people do not trust the monarch for security. Good Job
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI like the last sentence of your response which states that the monarchs wanted to look dominant. This is true because the monarchs wanted this image of power and dominance to avoid being attacked by other countries. If they looked powerful, they were less at risk to be attacked by others, and therefore protected themselves from being possibly removed from their thrones.
Zulema,
I like the different view you take on this question. You brought up a good point that the rulers might actually care for the people of their country. However, they placed their rule over the well-being of the people, so even if they were actually concerned for them, the monarchs would still do what it took to strengthen and maintain the country in order to protect themselves.
In my opinion, I believe that monarchs exist to stabilize and advance their country. These monarchs are usually only concerned with looking good to the people, increasing their wealth, and conquering more land. Although, these monarchs are never successful in the long run, because they are usually overthrown by their people. If a monarch exists to please the people, they are loved. Although, maintaining the people's happiness is expensive, and usually ends in debt.
ReplyDelete