The struggle for absolute power is reflected during the medieval age when William the Conqueror defeated Harold on the 14th October 1066 at the Battle of Hastings. During that month, William made it his first priority to gain control of the English treasury and then marched to London to crush the English resistance which was gathering around Edgar Atheling (Saxon heir to the English throne). William took London after devastating Edgar Atheling in early November and was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey on the 25th December 1066. In 1067 to establish an absolute monarchy and total control over England William distributed land to trusted Norman Barons to put down any sign of rebellion against Norman rule. This and the opposition of Edgar Atheling are the first signs that William the conqueror did not have absolute power, even though his name may suggest otherwise. The fact that the Duke had to have trusted barons scattered around the country to put down any sign of rebellion proves that he did not have absolute power. This is further supported in 1070 when the newly elected Barons began to quarrel and over-taxed and bullied the defeated Saxons. This provoked a revolt, depicting an image that the Saxons didn’t like or agree to Williams forced reign over the English. Even though William the Conqueror died in France due to his wounds received at the siege of Mantes, the fact that there was no conspiring against the king doesn’t prove that he held absolute power. William was able to adopt more power using the church for two main reasons, his brother was a bishop and the feudal system gave the church a lot of power. When in control of the church, William was able to strike fear into his opponents through sermons. He would use these as messages to convey fear that if the Saxons rebelled against the king they would go to hell. William may have been able to produce more power from these tactics, but the most prominent inference from this is that he didn’t have absolute power as not only did he have to try and scare the Saxons into not rebelling he wasn’t able to succeed when they rebelled in 1070. Furthermore, he also set the church against him when he allowed them no power and no bishop was allowed to visit Rome or correspond with the Pope without express permission. A further disproof of absolute power is the 1075 “revolt of the earls” which was during William’s absence that two earls (Ralph de Gael the earl of Norfolk and Roger de Breteuil, the earl of Hereford) conspired to overthrow William. The reason for the revolt is unknown; however it does strongly argue that William did not have absolute power as even his most trusted people conspired to overthrow him. Parallels can be drawn between the revolt and the death of Tutankhamen, as both could have been over-thrown by their closest servants. Tutankhamen could have been assassinated by his servants for greed as a main reason which was the same reason for the provoked revolt by the Earls – greed for wanting to rule England. Finally the most underlying factor that he did not have absolute power was that all non-Normans described him as “William the bastard” proving that all non-Normans disproved of him.
During the 1500s to the 1700s the most prominent absolute monarch was Louis XIV of France, he believed in the idea of Divine Right that God put him on the earth to rule. This meant that Louis ruled strictly and treated the people poorly and in turn many people had the idea of revolution developing inside their heads. Louis XIV or the sun king holds the distinction for being the longest ruling king in Europe after ruling for 72 years and 110 days. He began his ruling in 1661 after the death of his chief minister, the Italian Cardinal Mazarin. By the early 1680s Louis had greatly augmented the French influence around the world. Domestically, he successfully increased the Crown’s influence and authority over the church and aristocracy and thus consolidated an absolute monarchy in France. Louis died of gangrene at Versailles on the 1st September 1715, four days before his 77th Birthday. Louis may have been the closest to absolute power with the exception of the three wars that he partook in, furthermore, a larger hint that Louise may have been close to absolute power is what he advised to his heir on his deathbed; “Do not follow the bad example which I have set you”. From inference this could mean that Louis set a poor example of greed and hunger for more power by entering wars for vanity, Louis then declared his heir must apply himself ‘principally’ which provides a guess that he may not have applied himself to rule as the country lived in fear of him. The most overbearing argument that Louis may have had absolute power was that his reign lasted 72 years which could indicate that he was in control of the country and the people living there. More proof that Louis XIV had vast power was due to the lavish spending on the palace of Versailles, with an interior of diamond and gold. However, the first sign that Louis did not possess absolute power was the period of Enlightenment or the Age Of Reason between 1600-1700, people started telling of new ideas how the government could be run. There were few enlightenment thinkers; however their ideas were listened to causing people to protest against their king, removing a lot of his power. John Locke believed people had three natural rights, Life, Liberty and Property and believed it was the government’s duty to fulfil these rights due to the huge poverty whilst the king lived in diamonds. This can be linked with the Earls in Medieval England and the Pharaohs, all of the rulers lived in massive luxury compared to the people and all three were conspired against due to the people’s greed and wanting to escape poverty. A massive detraction from Louis’ power was Montesquieu; he declared that the government should be split into three branches so that the government was withheld from becoming too powerful, this disproves the power of Louis as he would now be on the same level as others in the Government. A comparison to Medieval England is Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Saxons wanted to vote in their king as many hated William as he wasn’t the true heir, Rousseau believed in the concept of voting and the absolute monarchy kept people from true freedom. This would further take the power of Louis pulling him away from absolute power. The enlightenment ideas affected the king’s power, he was criticized more and more, revolution was close and people began to fight for freedom and a change in their government. In general Absolute Power was never possible in France as the state was heavily centralised but the centralisation was largely ineffetive due to the strength of the nobility and clergy.
The most famous dictator of the modern age is Joseph Stalin of Russia and held office for 30 years before dying in 1953. In December 1929 on his fiftieth birthday Stalin was seen as the undiputed leader of the USSR after winning the power struggle by being under estimated and adopting different policies at tactical times. Stalin adopted many techniques to keep him as the undisputed leader of the USSR, he utilised soviet culture to control the younger generations, he collectivised agriculture to gain control of the peasants which generally meant if you controlled the peasants you could control the country. He then used the great terror and the purges to rid the soviet union of his opponents so that he believed he was undisputed and could claim absolute power over the russian empire. Although it can be argued that Stalin did have absolute power due to his position as General Secretary in the Politburo so he could allow his most trusted companions into the party, it could be see that the people only chose him over Trotsky because he was a peasant and a ‘people’s person’. In many ways, it seems that Stalin was closest to ruling with complete power, however it would mainly have been due to fear of opposing him due to his ruthlessness. However, due to this it could seem that he was the farthest away. Unlike the past monarchs and rulers, Stalin only made it to his position as dictator by nurturing fear within the country, during the purges he declared the ‘state of seige’ and soon people were frightened in to unmasking anyone and declaring that they were the enemy. Stalin would never have absolute power as he lived in paranoia. He had to purge the left and right of the party and put Bukharin, Rykov, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev on show trials to punish them for being against him. This proves that Stalin did no possess absolute power as he still had opponents that the people of Russia were voting for, they were not close to stalin on votes but the fact that they had support proves that he would never have absolute power. More over, the kirov affair when a man named kirov got more votes from the public than stalin proves strongly that there would never be absolute power as Stalin was only in his position due to the fear of the purges and propaganda impregnated within the soviet culture from a young age. More proof that Stalin was never going to hold absolute power over the USSR was the self-interest of the NKVD, when Stalin declared the ‘State of Seige’ pressure from below meant that people were only too happy to accuse others and this led to a rush of false accusations and a momentum of its own this is a theory that Stalin lost control of the terror and wasn’t in absolute power. Furthermore, the self-interest of the NKVD when rivalry amoungst divisions arose when one was arresting more than another led to a desire to raise the profile of the NKVD. This took the power out of Stalin’s control and soon the NKVD were controlling the people through fear and so power had shifted from Stalin to the NKVD which can be compared to William the Conqueror when he shifted power to the rich barons and the earls to keep the people in control so they cannot group and rise up. Finally, it can be argued that the distinct lack of power for Stalin was due to communism and having the people equal so that they were all similar. This proves that communism is the worst socioeconomic system devised as it allows the people to group en masse and detract from Stalin’s power.
In conclusion, it is true to say that over the years there have been many powerful dictators, absolute monarchs, kings and leaders however, over history there hasn’t been one empire or regime that hasn’t eventually crumbled and collapsed due to the loss or shift in power. I would be fair to say that absolute power is non – existent due to the different cultures and opinions that people carry through out the world and that the only absolute power is death. Furthermore, some could argue that absolute power has been obtained by leaders even if it was only for a minimal amount of time, however, it would be correct to say that absolute power has never existed as people will always conflict with opinions. In my view, there has never been a leader that has ruled with absolute power, I believe that inone way or another a person or organisation has detracted from the power or has worked against the will of the person who believes they are in control, in general the only absolute power is chaos.
by
screb (student)
