Name:

Absolutism
Objective: Students will be able to identify absolutism as well as absolute monarchs by
reading a passage from Leviathan and other texts.

Why is this important?: This is important because by the 16th century, absolute monarchy
began to take over much of Western Europe and spread throughout the continent. This
concept is important to understand in order to comprehend the European monarchy.
Vocabulary:
Word Definition
Monarchy A system of government in which the power is
held by a singular person
Absolute Monarch A single person with unlimited power and the
authority to command all aspects of society
Government Reform Changes to government institutions to improve it
Warm-up: Four Corners
Directions: Listen to the statements read and move to the corner that best fits your
opinion

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Directions: Read the following passages then answer the corresponding questions.

Leviathan is a book on the origin and ends of government. This work, written
during the time of the Puritan Commonwealth, was a defense to "secular
monarchy."

"'Good' and 'evil' are inconstant names applied haphazardly by

different men to what attracts or repels them. This egotistical
psychology makes the life of man in a pre-social state of nature,
'nasty, brutish and short,' a constant war of everyman with everyman.
Rational, enlightened self-interest makes men want to escape such a
predicament by the establishment of a contract in which they
surrender the right of aggression, but not that of self-defense, to an
absolute sovereign, whose commands are the law, freedom being
relegated to the spheres not covered by the sovereign's commands.
The social contract is binding only so long as the sovereign has power
to enforce it. Sovereignty may be vested in a person or an assembly,
but it must be indivisible, not a division of powers between King and
Parliament, church and state." (Chambers.)
 "Thus, in his [Hobbes'] view, the first principle of human
behavior was egoism, or self-interest, and it was this egoism,
that was the root of all social conflict." (Benet's .)

1. Does this quote support or refute the idea of absolute rule? Explain this
quote supports the idea of absolute rule because it mentions that in order
for humans to protect themselves from the social conflicts that come from
different interpretations of good and bad, humans surrender their freedom
to a governmental for their protection.

(Before going on, permit me a small digression: Hobbes wrote, "Stateless

societies are forms of armed aggression ... but not organized offensive
warfare to conquer people. [Thus,] conquest warfare ... is not an inherent,
inevitable feature of human social life -- too many societies have existed in
human history without it." Hobbes then poses the question: "Is modern war
inherent and inevitable in the modern form of state organization?" Hobbes
wrote his Leviathan, in 1651, and much before that time, and since, we have
seen government after government, in country after country, rise up, time
and time again; and we have seen wars upon wars; and still yet we see them:
wars that account for human death and misery in countless numbers: look to
the 20th century alone and see what organized governments have done to
untold millions of innocent people of the world. We can speculate about the
misery of pre-social man, if we like; but it does not on the whole even
remotely to be compared with the misery of 20th century man. When one
thinks of things this way, one is led to believe that anarchists are not without
an argument.)

And, so, it was Hobbes who was likely the first to formulate a reason (beyond
the divine) as to why it was in man's best interest to band together under a
government. The theory -- and this is but only deemed -- is: that if people
were fully appraised of their chances in both states, they would choose the
state with a government as opposed to a state without one. This is so,
according to the theory, simply because an individual is better off in a state
where only the government can, in certain prescribed situations, legitimately
exercise aggression; and, thus, allowing an individual to spend his time and
 energy to serve his and his family's wants, and too, to satisfy those needs of
the state necessary to preserve good government.

In the historical development of the social contract theory, one likely should
begin with Hobbes.2 Hobbes propounded this theory as follows: government
is an artificial creature brought about by the, albeit implied, voluntary
association of the governed. To Hobbes, man's nature does not require a
governing state, independent of his own; however, a better life might well be
assured through the existence of an outside governing state. So, it was
Hobbes' view that it was unnatural for man to put himself under the control
of others, to have a government, but that it was rational to do so. This is
unlike the theories of Plato and Aristotle in that they taught that
governments came about because there exists a social instinct in man to
gather together under powerful councils, i.e., it was natural for man to put
himself under government.

Hobbes preferred monarchy mainly because he believed there should be only

one supreme authority. He could tolerate parliament alone, but not a system
in which government power is shared. This is the exact antithesis to the views
of Locke and Montesquieu.

2. Does Hobbes believe that people want to be ruled and are quick to give up their
right to rule themselves? Explain. No, Hobbes believes that its unnatural for
humans to put themselves under the rule of someone else. Naturally humans
would want to govern themselves and make their own decisions but it is more
Sensible to put yourself under the rule of a government

3. Plato suggests (Allegory in the Cave) that people do not want to rule
themselves because they fear the unknown and failure. Do you agree
more with Hobbes or Plato? Why? I agree with Plato more because
people choose to have a government due to a sense of safety and security.
One of Hobbes reason was that humans choose the government in order to
provide for their needs and family and while I agree with that I believe it
is fear that drives humans the most.

The State of Russia Under Ivan and Peter & France Under Louis XIV
Directions: Read pg. 151-155 for Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. Then read p 139-
143 for Louis XIV in the purple book. If necessary, do independent research if necessary.
Categorize the reforms as a success or failure and share the responses with your partner.
Discuss the questions with your partner but make sure to write down your own answers.
 Successful Reforms/Decisions:

Ivan the Terrible:

Won great battles, added land to Russia, created a code of laws and ruled justly
Increased central government power, founded standing army and council of nobles

Peter the Great:

Strengthen government by passing law code and putting down a revolt
Creating a strong navy
Secularized schools, created great control over Orthodox Church, introduced new
administrative/territorial divisions of the country
Louis XIV:
Raised the French monarch to the zenith of glory, dignity and power. Made France the
most prosperous and powerful nation at the time, increased tolerance towards non-
Catholics
Failed Reforms/Decisions:

Ivan the Terrible:

Accused innocent people
Organized murderous police force ( oprichnina)
Destroyed major city (Novgorod) weaking economy and trust in leadership
Policies undermined noble class
Killed his heir creating succession crisis
Overtaxed population

Peter the Great:

Overtaxed peasants
Alienated traditionalists
Wasted resources on unsuccessful military campaigns
Lack of strong navy and large military
Weakened church
Overextended resources

Louis XIV:
Excessive wars
Persecuted protestanasts
Centerilized power
Lavish spending
Ignored finicial reforms
Overtaxed peasents

1. What kind of methods did Peter, Ivan, and Louis XIV use to achieve reforms? Were
they necessary, considering most of the population was illiterate and did not receive a
formal education. They used methods of absolute power, centralized authority and
forceful implementation. This was necessary because if most of the population was
illiterate it would be harder to implement policies because many people wouldn’t
understand just by reading the policies they would have to be forced or convinced.

2. Is it valid to argue that people required a strong leader because of the frequent religious
and political protests which were occurring throughout Europe?
Yes it is valid to argue that people required a strong leader because of the frequent
conflicts. There needs to be a leader that is able to Keep the conflicts under control or fix
or prevent the conflicts. Without strong leader the conflicts would escalate and tear the
country apart.

3. Did Peter, Ivan, and Louis’s reforms prove that a leader can create something out of
nothing or that people must want change before progress can be accomplished? Provide
specific examples to support your answer.
It can support people who want or need change before progress can be
accomplished. Without the needs of the people the leaders couldn’t
create beneficial reforms for the people.

Dear Diary...
Directions: Write a diary entry from the perspective of either Peter the Great, Ivan the
Terrible, or Louis XIV. Make sure to include evidence to support the entry. In this entry
write about:
● A positive reform/decision your chosen ruler made.

● A negative reform/decision your chosen ruler made.

● How your ruler views their power as absolute.

Absolute Monarch I chose:
Dear Diary,

While my beautiful wife was alive I made many good decisions which benefited Russia
like my tactics to win great battles and more land. I was also proud of my code of laws
as well as my just ruling. Some example of my just ruling and laws is that I gave more
power to local communities in which they elected representatives, this allowed for
more equal legal decisions. But when my wife died, i became crueler. I created a police
force called the oprichnina which killed many people and answered to me only. I also
mistreated the peasents and pesecurted the entire city of Novgorod. Although I made
some good and bad decisions, I had Been granted absolute power which allowed me to
have the final say over laws and decisions. I’m able to tax how ever much I want,
persecute whoever I want and raise How ever many militias as I please.