During the period stretching from the 1550s to the 1800s, absolute monarchs ruled Europe, including both Louis XIV and Philip II in their individual provinces known as France and Spain. Each singleton was known as an absolute monarch, meaning their actions were not restricted by written law or by custom. Although each monarch claimed divine right, they lived drastically different lifestyles from one another. Philip stayed humble tucked away in a small palace in Spain as he was very pious, while Louis lived a luxurious lifestyle in the Palace of Versailles. Both absolute monarchs were able to do their jobs under each of their given circumstances and both of their lifestyle worked to each of their advantages. Their ruling techniques were quite comparable while on the topics of religion, military, and politics, however each approach ended with the similar outcomes but derived from different motives.
Although Philip II stayed humble, which in some cases would come off as a good characteristic, Louis XIV’s bravery and big ego helped him get ahead in the army. Yet each of them had flaws within their …show more content…
Despite absolute monarchs being around for about three centuries, they were not a commendable way of containing an empire. As it was learned in later years, democracies and elections were more valuable to a community because the voices of the people were then heard. Having an absolute monarch was hard, especially on the secondary classes. These emperors were controlling, demanding, and not willing to accommodate to the poor. The enlightenment came subsequently to Philip and Louis’s rule. This was where the civilians had a peaceful awakening to the thoughts of an altered democracy. The control of power being in the hands of the people helped all classes from the excessively rich, to the unbelievably poor and put a stop to the period of