Pros And Cons Of The Enlightened Despots

Europe during the late 1600s through the 1700s was filled with new thinkers, known as “philosophes”, and new ideas. The philosophes were not held back by the beliefs of tradition or superstition. They believed in science, progress, liberty, and the freedom of speech. From these new ideas, which (for the most part) originated in Paris, France, came a period known as “the Enlightenment” and thus from this period emerged a new group of rulers known as the “Enlightened Despots”. A despot was an absolute ruler who usually exercised their power in a cruel or harsh manner. These “Enlightened Despots” were despots who ruled by the Enlightenment principles of reason, natural law, happiness, progress, and liberty. However, even though they were called the

The Enlightenment introduced new forms of government and political thinking such as the ideas of Hobbes and Locke. If the despots really had been enlightened they would have started to introduce these new forms, and give all of their subjects representation, not just the nobles. Joseph II is perhaps the best argument that the Enlightened Despots did make political reforms in favor of the people. While it is true that Joseph attempted to reform in favor of the serfs, it is also true that he acted far too quickly and essentially shoved political and social reforms down his subjects’ throats. This caused peasants to riot and many of his reforms were abolished. Joseph II ended up dying as a hated man. Catherine the Great did not even try to make reforms in favor of the people. In 1785 she freed her nobles of both military service and taxes. In 1781, despite making some positive political reforms, such as getting rid of his rigid class system, Frederick the Great found it necessary to employ soldiers to spy on his citizens to make sure they did not have illegal roasted