Question

Compare the cause and effect of the development of constitution monarchy with the development of absolute monarchy

Answer 1

Short answer first
- Constitutional monarchy grew where rulers were forced or agreed to share or be limited by law and representative institutions (e.g., England after 1688). Its main effects were legalized limits on royal power, stronger property rights, growth of parliamentary government and predictable law — conditions that favored commerce and political pluralism.
- Absolute monarchy grew where rulers concentrated power in the crown (e.g., Louis XIV’s France, Peter the Great’s Russia). Its effects were rapid centralization, larger standing armies and bureaucracies, uniform taxation and law — often at the cost of political freedoms and sometimes provoking social unrest or revolution.

Definitions (to be clear)
- Constitutional monarchy: a system in which the monarch’s powers are defined and constrained by a constitution or laws and/or by representative bodies (parliament). The monarch typically remains head of state but not absolute ruler.
- Absolute monarchy: a system in which the monarch holds central, often unchecked, political power justified by tradition or ideology (e.g., Divine Right); institutions of noble counterpower are weak or subordinated.

Causes — why each developed

Constitutional monarchy (common causes)
- Rising bourgeoisie/merchant classes seeking legal protection for property and predictable markets.
- Strong parliaments or legal traditions (e.g., Magna Carta, common law) that could check royal power.
- Military and fiscal limits on monarchy (monarchs needing consent for taxes) that forced bargaining.
- Religious conflict that weakened royal claims to absolute legitimacy (e.g., English Reformation, disputes between crown and church).
- Political compromise after crises or revolutions (e.g., Glorious Revolution 1688; the Bill of Rights 1689).

Absolute monarchy (common causes)
- Collapse or weakening of feudal fragmentation that allowed central rulers to consolidate power.
- Need for centralized taxation and standing armies in the age of war and territorial competition.
- Weak representative institutions or defeated nobility, allowing rulers to suppress rivals.
- Ideologies supporting centralized rule (Divine Right, absolutist political theory).
- Rulers’ ambition to modernize/standardize administration and law from the center (state-building).

Effects — political, economic and social consequences

Effects of constitutional monarchy
- Rule of law and constitutional limits on arbitrary royal action.
- Growth of parliamentary institutions and representative government (at least for elites initially).
- Protection of private property and contract enforcement, encouraging commercial growth and investment.
- More regularized taxation and fiscal accountability (parliament approves budgets).
- Greater political pluralism and peaceful mechanisms for succession or change of government (reduced likelihood of personal despotism).
- Over time, a smoother path toward liberal democracy and civil liberties (though expansion of franchise took longer).

Effects of absolute monarchy
- Rapid centralization: strong bureaucracies, uniform legal codes, centralized taxation and justice.
- Large standing armies and aggressive foreign policy in many cases; ability to mobilize resources for war and state projects.
- Patronage culture and state control over nobles (e.g., Versailles), often weakening alternative power centers.
- Cultural flourishing under court patronage (arts, architecture), but also heavy fiscal burdens on the population.
- Arbitrary rule and limited political freedoms; potential for administrative efficiency but also corruption and repression.
- Long-term instability in some cases: fiscal crisis and social inequality could produce revolutions (e.g., French Revolution) or force sudden reforms.

Direct contrasts and trade-offs
- Legitimacy: constitutional monarchy relies on law and consent; absolute monarchy relies on personal or divine legitimacy.
- Stability vs adaptability: constitutional systems create institutional checks that permit peaceful change; absolute systems can act decisively but risk catastrophic breakdown if leadership fails or fiscal/social pressures build.
- Economic impact: constitutional regimes tended to foster environments favorable to commerce, property rights and later industrialization; absolutist states could efficiently mobilize resources for modernization but often did so in top-down ways that did not distribute benefits widely.
- Social structure: constitutionalism empowered representative elites and gradually wider publics; absolutism often entrenched social hierarchies and centralized control.

Illustrative examples
- England (constitutional trajectory): From Stuart attempts at absolutism → Civil War → limited monarchy → Glorious Revolution → Bill of Rights (1689). Result: growing parliamentary supremacy, legal protections, commercial expansion.
- France (absolute trajectory): 17th–18th c., Louis XIV’s centralization (“L’état, c’est moi”), professional bureaucracy, large army, and heavy taxation of third estate. Result: strong state but fiscal/social strains culminating in Revolution (1789).
- Russia (absolutist modernization): Peter the Great centralized power and forcibly modernized the state and army; long-term effect: stronger state but continued autocracy into modern era.
- Netherlands and Swedish examples show mixed paths where merchant power or parliamentary bodies limited absolute rule earlier.

Short conclusion
Constitutional monarchies typically arose where social forces (merchants, parliaments, legal traditions) could constrain rulers; their effects were legal limits on power, protection of property, and gradual political liberalization. Absolute monarchies arose where rulers successfully centralized authority (often to meet military/fiscal needs); their effects were efficient state-building and strong central control but also repression, fiscal strain, and sometimes revolutionary backlash. Both forms were responses to the same pressures of early modern state formation (war, taxation, commerce), but they solved the tensions in opposite ways with different long-term political and social outcomes.