The Experience of France and England in the 17th century demonstrates the intellectual and practical superiority of absolutism over constitutionalism. Absolutism in France was much more secure than Constitutionalism in England. Absolutism controlled all competing interest groups and organized all religious sects. Louis XIV had centralized power and control under his authority in France while Constitutionalism in England failed to create absolute monarchy. Constitutionalism in England dealt with James I, Charles I, and James II that led to a catastrophe.
Absolutism in France was much more secure than Constitutionalism in England because Louis XIV had powerful standing armies. Louis came to a decision to chaos and anarchy was absolute power. Absolute monarchs created standing armies recruited, paid, and trained by the state. The …show more content…
Louis bribed the provincial governors to elect him. He did this to ensure loyalty to the kings at all levels of government. He also had a three year term so that any governors, who were not loyal, would not remain in power. Louis centralized the government, and had absolute control over them. During the constitution in England, Charles I was the king in 1625 with limited powers. He followed his father’s footsteps; James I, and was a stubborn man where the Parliament disliked him. Charles suspended the Parliament when the Parliament did not grant him to raise the taxes. But Charles had to recall the Parliament for its support to finance the war in Ireland. This led to many problems. When the parliamentarians captured Charles I, they tried to negotiate with him, but he refused to compromise. The parliamentarians had no choice but to behead him. Therefore, Absolutism in France was much more secure than Constitutionalism in