In 3–5 sentences, compare the causes and effects of
constitutional monarchy in England with the causes and
effects of absolute monarchy in Russia. (4 points
The causes of constitutional monarchy in England were rooted in the political and religious conflicts of the 17th century. The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, where the power of the monarch was limited by a written constitution and a parliamentary system. In contrast, the causes of absolute monarchy in Russia were mainly driven by the desire for centralized power and control. The effects of constitutional monarchy in England were the safeguarding of individual liberties, the establishment of a strong parliamentary system, and the promotion of religious tolerance. On the other hand, the effects of absolute monarchy in Russia included the stifling of political dissent, the suppression of individual freedoms, and the perpetuation of serfdom and inequality.
The causes of constitutional monarchy in England stem from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which limited the power of the monarchy in favor of a parliamentary system. This move was driven by tensions between the monarchy and the nobility, as well as the desire for greater political representation. The effects of constitutional monarchy in England include the establishment of a more balanced power structure, protection of individual rights, and the development of a stable and democratic government.
On the other hand, the causes of absolute monarchy in Russia can be traced back to Peter the Great's consolidation of power in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. This was driven by a need for strong centralization and modernization in order to catch up with Western European powers. The effects of absolute monarchy in Russia included unchecked royal authority, limited political representation, and a lack of protection for individual rights.
In summary, the causes and effects of constitutional monarchy in England and absolute monarchy in Russia differ significantly. England's shift towards constitutional monarchy was driven by a desire for political representation and resulted in a balanced power structure and stable government. In contrast, Russia's adoption of absolute monarchy was driven by a need for centralization and modernization, which led to the concentration of power in the hands of the monarchy and limited protection for individual rights.
To compare the causes and effects of constitutional monarchy in England with absolute monarchy in Russia, one must consider their respective origins and consequences. In England, a constitutional monarchy emerged due to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which curbed the powers of the monarchy and established a system of limited rule. This shift allowed for the establishment of civil rights and parliamentary sovereignty, fostering political stability and facilitating economic growth. By contrast, absolute monarchy in Russia was the result of a long history of autocratic rule, where the monarch held absolute power. This centralized authority hindered the development of democratic institutions and created a vast gap between the ruling elite and the general population, leading to economic stagnation and social unrest.
To research and gather more in-depth information about the causes and effects of constitutional monarchy in England and absolute monarchy in Russia, one can start by consulting historical books, academic articles, and scholarly journals. These sources can provide a comprehensive analysis of the historical context, events, and implications of both systems of governance. Additionally, online databases such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, and academic libraries can be useful resources to access relevant literature on the topic. Finally, one can also explore primary sources such as government documents, speeches, and contemporary accounts to gain further insights into the causes and effects of these two forms of monarchy.