Just to warn everyone now this is gonna be a super long post.
Enlightened absolutism is something which upended the previous feudal parliamentary system. At the outset, it seems fairly stable. However, it couldn't hold. Already, liberals were talking of different systems, such as in Germany, where proto-nationalists discussed a restored united empire with a legislature. Things were changing. Furthermore, the fact that France, the centre of the enlightened despotic world, turned into the most radical country in the world, demonstrates something about its inherent weakness. Enlightened despotism struggles in periods in which rulers are stupid. I guess this depends per country, but I suspect by ~1850, liberalism will be a big thing as enough weak rulers show the weakness of the enlightened despotic system. How big is greatly dependent on more precise events.
Furthermore, countries like Corsica and the US were fairly radical already, so there were examples for reformers to look to. And note that Patriots, the Dutch equivalent to Jacobins, were becoming a big thing, and something similar was occurring in Liege, where the lower classes hated being ruled by bishops. The system was doomed and it would have to adjust to new realities.
Agree and disagree. Enlightened absolutism completely depended on the skill and willingness of the monarch. Ultimately it was a fad brought upon by the popularism of the ideals of Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu and to a lesser extent Locke. One could call it the first modern populist movement. But while it really couldn't last I wouldn't say the same for a system of absolute monarchy. However, success feeds revolution, so if the revolutionaries and liberals can't point to a success, then it's harder to make a popular appeal to oppose the established order. Though I suppose it depends on whether or not the Monarchs are willing to begin some minor reforms to act as safety valves to release the built up pressure.
Also I think I specified that the Revolutionary war failed or at least suggested it, so the U.S. is out as an example. Plus Corsica was conquered by France, so I wouldn't really call it a success. Though I agree that the Ecclesiastical states were on their way out.
I'd say things will be probably be fine for the next thirty or forty years, but it really depends on the individual countries and the rulers—their own personalities and how they rule will definitely have an effect on things. The beginning of the 19th century will probably be without any major upheavals, but I think as industrialization picks up, there will be issues and growing pains—workers rights will probably go hand in hand with political liberalization. Just as society had to adjust as it moved into early modern period, there will be adjustments as society modernizes and industrialization picks up pace. It's likely that monarchs might retain more power in the long run in some countries—maybe you get more systems in the end like the first German Empire and Austria-Hungary, where Parliament existed but executive continued to maintain much more power.
Definitely agree here. Though worker rights could happen with 19th century enlightened absolutism, so it could be detached from the revolutionaries/liberals. Ultimately though, I think Restoration France (as a start) and Germany (at the end) would be good examples of how the absolute monarchies could slowly liberalize.
The reason of French Revolution was that Ancien Regime France did not have serious Enlightened Absolutism reforms, like those of Frederick the Great´s Prussia, Maria Theresia´s Austria or Catherine the Great´s Russia. While having strong and enlightened middle class compared to those eastern powers.
France had powerful entrenched estate institutions, like Parlements. Which were strong enough to block, in 18th century, monarchy´s attempts at enlightened absolutism reforms, such as Frederick or Catherine successfully imposed on their weaker institutions. This allowed the powerful Third Estate´s opposition to be pent up and radicalized.
In the end, Napoleon was in an important sense an enlightened absolutist monarch. French Revolution and Napoleon made a lot of reforms that the enlightened absolutist reformers of the rest of Europe had done decades before.
Completely agree. I wouldn't call 18th century France very enlightened, despite the fact that many of the famous Enlightenment philosophers were French. There were no major reforms to be compared to Prussia, Spain, Austria or Russia. In fact the failure to pull off successful reforms was one of the causes for the revolution. For example, if the reforms at the end of Louis XV's reign against the Parlements had stuck, then Ancién Régime France would be in a much better position to survive.
And yeah, I'd definitely count Napoleon as the ultimate evolution of an Enlightened absolute Monarch.
The French and others in Europe backed Irish rebellions from time to time because they understood that their motivation was micronationalism, not republicanism, despite the labelling. They would have had concerns, but focussed on provincial separatism in their own realms (not wholesale revolution). The American “revolutionaries”? Well, they thought slavery was at least tolerable, so how bad/dangerous could they seem to an absolute monarchy?
Yes and no. I can't think of an Irish revolt sponsored by France in the 18th century that was backing any kind of republicanism. Yes some were backed for religious reasons in the 17th century and there were a few ideas to invade Ireland to force British troops away from the continent/Colonies, but never to create a republic. And America was dangerous in terms of colonies. It inspired the Spanish colonies and the surviving French colonies. I'm honestly surprised that the Spaniards were so blind as to not see the possibility that their own colonies could follow the Americans example.
The kingdom of Louis XIV didn’t have serious enlightened absolutist reforms? Seriously? For goodness sakes, France even exported its enlightened absolutist ideology to Spain!
France had parlements, that’s true, but those were essentially irrelevant - until the prelude to the French Revolution, of course, when they decided the king went too far. Before that, they had the power of student councils.
Maybe Louis XIV was somewhat enlightened (though considering his reforms were for the benefit of the state and had nothing at all to do with his subjects makes that augment a bit weak), but his successors definitely weren't. Neither Louis XV or Louis XVI were able (or honestly willing) to shut down the nobles like the Sun King did. And Spain didn't start enlightened absolutism until the 1740s under Fernando VI. I wouldn't credit that to the French. The major reforms under Felipe V yes, but they weren't really enlightenment inspired.
Also, simply not true. The parlements blocked many caused most of the issues with reforming the tax system (a major contribution to the revolution) and other reforms aimed at weakening the powers of the Church and nobility. If the parlements had remained neutered from 1715, France could have implemented major reforms that would have saved the Ancién Régime.
How much was Britain changing between 1689 and 1781? Even with French Revolution, absolutism was widespread outside Western Europe in period 1815-1848. Now eliminate French Revolution. There still is English Parliament, sure, but if France and other continental absolute monarchies have modestly successful enlightened absolutist reforms and French Revolution is averted, who might be the first serious revolution in Europe?
There's an argument by J.C.D. Clark that England had it's own Ancién Régime from 1688 - 1830; there was no major reforms during this era and Britain was effectively ruled by an Anglican-aristocratic hegemony. Parliament was dominated by the Aristocracy and gentry, hardly liberal leaders. Hell successful moderate reforms might mean that we never see a revolution in Europe. Unlikely? Sure, but still possible.
Due to socioeconomic changes a change of style of government would have to come sooner or later, either through a French style "glorious revolution" with the development of a constitutional government or through a revolution like OTL. A third possibility might be if the king were able to launch Napoleon style reforms and thereby get rid of much of the power of the nobility. Also, there is no reason to believe the industrial revolution would not create an urban working class also in this ATL. This would eventually create an additional need to change the style of government.
I agree that reform would eventually happen but the question is when. Russia lasted until 1905, for example, so it's entirely possible that some absolute monarchies could last into the 20th century.
The Dutch "Republic" will likely see the first serious revolution, as even IOTL well before the French Revolution it saw the Patriot Period, a low-level civil war that ended with foreign intervention. However, there were no real reforms in place and it was really a top waiting to blow. I suspect this would also be crushed by foreign intervention, resulting in a nasty cycle of repression and revolution. Perhaps it will end up with a Patriot victory, but I'm unsure. Another place is the Austrian Netherlands, which saw a revolt even IOTL at around the same time as France. Something similar occurred in Liege. Even without the French Revolution, there was enough steaming hatred of the system that it would have occurred anyways. These would also have been crushed by the authorities anyways.
And then there are places like Corsica and Ireland. So there's a clear pattern, with revolutions in smaller nations rather than the larger ones and less likely take control of countries, much less export the revolution France-style. Rather, there will be repression of popular revolt until it finally explodes.
I had kinda forgot about the Patriots. We could see foreign intervention but with mandated reforms. Not unlike the Allies restoring Louis XVIII but forcing him to grant a constitutional charter. Though the Flemish revolt/revolution was by and large due to Josef II's reforms. Also wouldn't call Corsica a good example sense France ultimately won and Britain did initiate reforms after the 1798 Irish rebellion, though they were haphazard.
Enlightened Despotism was untenable due to internal contractions, but non-enlightened monarchy wasn't.
Enlightenment was supported by monarchs of Europe as a way to stick it to aristocrats and centralize the state, increase their tax revenue.
However, enlightened despots run into trouble when they began to derive their legitimacy from social contract rather than divine rule. Low popularity polls are proof enough that one lost legitimacy from social contract. But proof that one lost divine mandate is harder to come by, because religious justifications are by definition non-disprovable.
Absolutism could last far longer if the monarchs compromised and rolled it back a little bit, giving some power back to regional nobles, who as beneficiaries of the system had vested interest in maintaining it. But by crushing regional nobility, they weakened social class that had reasons and means to defend the ancien regime. Bureaucrats who replaced them had no reason to defend monarchy, since their power would increase if it was replaced by republic or constitutional monarchy.
Enlightened reforms caused the revolution, not delayed them.
An interesting read on Enlightened Absolutism and one I hadn't considered. You might be correct on this. Though I think there's a middle ground between absolutist reforms and enlightenment inspired revolution.
I don't know, It all depends, but I'd say Absolutionism has the ability to last into the Mid 1800s. I don't know how America will be affected by this, but as technology improves, it will be increasingly harder for Absolute Monarchies to reign present. Unless their is some kind of large-scale faction too crush all republic revolutions in any European state, It can only last so far.
That would be the Concert of Europe. Though without the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars I'm not sure if such an organization/alliance would come into being.