Monarchism: Difference between revisions
From Polcompball Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
→History
Line 165:
==History==
=== Creation of Monarchies ===
The historical shift from tribal confederacies to monarchies marks a significant transformation in the organization of human societies. These changes reflect a complex process of political, social, and cultural adaptations that vary depending on the region and historical context.
==== Centralization of Power ====
One of the fundamental aspects of the transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy is the centralization of power. In a tribal confederacy, power is dispersed among various tribes or clans, each maintaining a certain level of autonomy. The shift to a monarchy entails the consolidation of power under a single ruler or royal family, overseeing the entire territory. This process may involve negotiation, alliances, or military conquest to unite the disparate tribes under one authority.
==== Establishment of a Bureaucracy ====
To effectively govern a larger territory with a diverse population, a monarchy necessitates an organized bureaucracy. This includes the creation of administrative divisions, tax collection systems, and legal structures. Consequently, the transition to a monarchy typically involves the development of a more formalized and hierarchical governing system, allowing for efficient management of the state's affairs.
==== Creation of a Common Identity ====
In a tribal confederacy, tribes or clans may possess their own distinct cultures, languages, and traditions. The establishment of a monarchy often necessitates the development of a shared identity to foster unity among the diverse population. This process can involve the adoption of a common language, the establishment of shared cultural practices, and the promotion of a national myth or narrative that links all people together.
==== Expansion of Military Capabilities ====
A monarchy typically requires a larger and more organized military to maintain control over its territory and protect against external threats. The transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy may involve the creation of a standing army, the development of new military technologies, and the establishment of military academies or training facilities to ensure the state's security.
==== Infrastructure Development ====
A unified monarchy may require the construction of new infrastructure to support its administration, defense, and economic growth. This can include the building of roads, bridges, and fortifications, as well as the establishment of new cities or the expansion of existing ones. These infrastructure developments facilitate trade, communication, and the overall functioning of the state.
==== Changes in Social Structure ====
The establishment of a monarchy can lead to changes in social structure, with the creation of new classes or the reorganization of existing ones. For example, a new aristocracy might emerge, composed of individuals who have been granted land and titles by the monarch. Additionally, the roles of tribal leaders or elders may change, with some being incorporated into the new governing system while others may lose their influence or authority.
==== Legitimization of the Monarchy ====
The transition to a monarchy often requires the development of a system of legitimacy, which can involve religious or ideological justifications for the ruler's authority. This might include the promotion of a divine right to rule or the creation of a new state religion that supports the monarchy. This legitimization process reinforces the ruler's authority and consolidates their power.
==== Conclusion ====
The transition from a tribal confederacy to a monarchy involves a significant reorganization of political, social, and cultural structures. While the specific changes may vary depending on the historical context, the process generally entails the centralization of power, the establishment of a bureaucracy, and the creation of a shared identity among the diverse population.
=== France ===
The Kingdom of France lasted for almost a thousand years and, obviously, there were a great many changes in government during all of that time. That, in itself, puts the lie to the republican misconception that France under the monarchy knew nothing but stagnation. On the contrary, the government of the Kingdom of France grew up in an organic way and changed according to the circumstances of the time, all under the unchanging supervision of the monarchy. When France as we know it today was originally formed there was very little government at all other than the monarchy, growing out of the barbarian customs of warrior kings and loyalty to your family chieftain. These were superseded by the Franco-German empire of Charlemagne and after the division of that body by the Kingdom of France most today would be familiar with. Because of its roots in the Dark and Middle Ages, the Kingdom of France was originally governed in a very diverse and decentralized way, not at all how most picture the Kingdom of France. However, those beginnings are significant and, really, never entirely went away.
While the King and his court focused on issues such as national defense and foreign relations, the provinces were mostly left to their own devices. They had their own governors, parliaments and their own laws which varied from place to place according to local custom and individual circumstances. The legal system was not uniform itself, being based more on tradition in the north (like English common law) while being much more similar to Roman law in the southern parts of the country. In theory the power of the monarch was absolute but, in fact, the vast majority of local issues were considered outside of the purview of the King and were left in the hands of local nobles, clerics and officials. Eventually there would be over thirty parliaments in France, spread throughout the country. Certain regions such as Brittany and Burgundy also had their own “Estates Provincial” which had local powers of legislation and taxation and consisted of representatives of the common people, nobility and clergy in that particular region. It was a system that could be quite confusing and difficult to manage with government bodies frequently overlapping in their jurisdictions. However, this also served as a check against overreaching by those in authority even if it was not particularly efficient.
The problem with this system was that, under the right circumstances, it could be a major danger to national unity and internal peace and order. This basically came about with the spread of Protestantism in France. Unlike the earlier Albigensians, the Protestants persisted in parts of France and local governors, nobles and finally members of the Royal Family embraced Protestantism and made it a powerful force in France. Naturally the Wars of Religion ultimately broke out between the Catholic and Protestant factions and this had a devastating impact on the country. In the end, it would also bring about major changes in how France was governed. It was the Wars of Religion that really ended the old decentralized form of government France had known for centuries with most power being retained to the lower levels. This series of civil wars was something no one wanted to see return and the man in charge, who determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening again, was Cardinal Richelieu. In the name of King Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu set about demolishing the castles of the nobility and centralizing power in France into the hands of the King (with the Cardinal of course being the ‘power behind the throne’) while during the same period Gallicanism became a powerful trend by which the Church became more subordinate to the Crown rather than the Pope in Rome.
The peak of this centralization of power in France, both political and spiritual, is usually illustrated by the reign of King Louis XIV of France; the quintessential absolute monarch. Because France had been so traumatized by the religious and other civil wars that preceded him, most people were quite happy to see King Louis XIV take charge of everything himself. He dismissed the man who was effectively his prime minister, placing everything in the hands of government officials chosen by himself. Louis XIV also brought about greater legal uniformity with his “Code Louis”, streamlined taxation (which brought in more revenue) and encouraged manufacturing as well as the arts. On the religious front, he clashed with the Church often in both the private and public spheres but he was a staunch enough Catholic to never think of doing something dramatic as the King of England and founding his own church. Nobles came and lived in Versailles where all real power was concentrated in the country. For a time, it seemed to work and after the War of Spanish Succession when the Bourbon dynasty was successfully transplanted to Spain, it is no wonder that the new Spanish monarchs followed the example of King Louis XIV and began to centralize power in that country as well.
King Louis XIV, however, was a very talented and energetic man, a larger-than-life figure, and, obviously, not every monarch could be expected to be just like him and the period when centralization in France was most successful was during his reign. Even when Louis XIV made mistakes, he did not persist in them but was quick to change course and try something new so that, it did not matter so much that he was no brilliant statesmen but that he had the drive to always take action. Power was centralized in France under Cardinal Richelieu and that worked fairly well given that the Cardinal was a clever (if sometimes unscrupulous) man. It worked under King Louis XIV for reasons just discussed, however, there would come a time when there would be no Cardinal Richelieu and no “Sun King” and that is when the flaws in this massive centralization of power became evident. Under “the beloved” King Louis XV, French power began to stagnate, corruption became problematic and the nobles and clerics often neglected their local people. After the death of Louis XIV, the French nobility saw their power rise again but too many did not use this to benefit those under their care. The classes in France or the three estates of the nobility, clergy and commons became increasingly alien to one another. The Estates-General itself, the national assemblies of the three classes, was not called into session throughout most of the long reign of Louis XIV and throughout the entirety of the reign of Louis XV.
King Louis XVI did his best to put things back on the right track, trying to roll back some of the centralization of power that existed under his grandfather and great-great grandfather. He ordered the reinstatement of the local parliaments that had mostly been abolished after successfully opposing an effort by Louis XV to have the nobility pay taxes, he believed in listening to the voice of the people. He called an Assembly of Notables to address the economic crisis and when that fell through took the more drastic step of recalling the Estates-General. As we know from history, things quickly got out of hand from that point on thanks to unscrupulous officials and a class of professional agitators who made the destruction of the Kingdom of France their primary goal in life. It was the ruination of a great and historic opportunity to see the Kingdom of France put on a more balanced framework after swinging between the extremes of centralization and de-centralization. In the person of King Louis XVI the French had a monarch who genuinely cared for his people and wanted to know their opinions while also appreciating the safeguards and sacred foundations of his own absolute power.
==Beliefs==
| |||
