The proponents of absolutism in western Europe have reason to believe that their form of monarchical rule was fundamentally different although superior to what they saw as the “despotism” of Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The basis of this belief might sprout from the core differences of western Europe and eastern Europe. Western Europe seemed to be made up of mainly centralized monarchies who had the ability to control their territory and successfully employ and tax their populations to benefit the desires of the monarchs. Also, western Europe was not an egalitarian society yet was a fluid hierarchy. Its cities began to be increasingly important while the religious outlook decreased. All of these factors of absolutism might contribute to the
…show more content…
The 1649 law that gave “lords unrestricted rights over their serfs and establishing penalties for harboring runaways” was one of the cruel acts to attempt to control the area that could be seen as Russia’s despotism. There were also some positives with the Russian system, where the bureaucracy had 14 ranks where all people “had to start at the bottom and work toward the top” and this “allowed some people of non-noble origins to rise to high positions, a rarity in Europe at this time”. Although fluidity in western Europe present, this system allowed even immigrated slaves to attain high positions in government. In the Ottoman Empire, on the topic of an increase in religious outlooks, the law that prohibited Muslims from enslaving other Muslims, made this empire purchase and conquer Christian populations, which at first seemed horrible, but some rose to the top of the bureaucracy easily. Lastly, the Ottoman Empire although tolerant of other religions, was an “explicitly Islamic state.” There began “the millet system [which] created a powerful bond between the Ottoman ruling class and religious leaders, who supported the sultan’s rule in return for extensive authority over their own communities.” Just like in western Europe, the monarchs do eventually need help from other levels in society, and although the processes are different, the intent is very
The 1649 law that gave “lords unrestricted rights over their serfs and establishing penalties for harboring runaways” was one of the cruel acts to attempt to control the area that could be seen as Russia’s despotism. There were also some positives with the Russian system, where the bureaucracy had 14 ranks where all people “had to start at the bottom and work toward the top” and this “allowed some people of non-noble origins to rise to high positions, a rarity in Europe at this time”. Although fluidity in western Europe present, this system allowed even immigrated slaves to attain high positions in government. In the Ottoman Empire, on the topic of an increase in religious outlooks, the law that prohibited Muslims from enslaving other Muslims, made this empire purchase and conquer Christian populations, which at first seemed horrible, but some rose to the top of the bureaucracy easily. Lastly, the Ottoman Empire although tolerant of other religions, was an “explicitly Islamic state.” There began “the millet system [which] created a powerful bond between the Ottoman ruling class and religious leaders, who supported the sultan’s rule in return for extensive authority over their own communities.” Just like in western Europe, the monarchs do eventually need help from other levels in society, and although the processes are different, the intent is very