Skip to main content

What are the central features of absolutism? In what ways does the absolutist state differ from the medieval state?

In theory, an absolutist state is one in which the monarch has complete, total authority over society, and can effectively do whatever they want without anyone to stop them.

In practice, no real-world state has ever been that absolutist. Even extremely powerful kings have been restrained by economic, social, and political limits. Often even very powerful kings fear that the aristocracy will undermine them, or that the general populace will try to overthrow them, and as a result they make some effort to please their subjects rather than simply fulfill their own aims.

There is actually some dispute among historians over where exactly to draw the line as to which states were "absolutist" and which were not. Many monarchs asserted absolute authority in principle but were never able to obtain in it practice. Still, some governments have gotten much closer to absolutism than others.

The chief difference between an absolutist state like France in the mid-18th-century (or Saudi Arabia today) and the medieval state is their level of centralized power. During medieval times, the feudal system reigned, and power was much more decentralized. Travel and communication between regions were so costly that it was difficult for national authorities such as kings to really exert power over their subjects. Instead they relied on local authorities such as dukes, and to greater or lesser extent sought to influence those local authorities rather than control them by force. This gave kings much less direct power over individual subjects, though as far as the subjects were concerned it may not have made much difference in their lives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.