Beginning in the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire entered a long, slow period of gradual decline from power that would ultimately culminate in the dissolution of the Empire at the end of World War One. Much like the contemporaneous Habsburg Austrian Empire, the Ottoman Empire faced two intertwined and fundamental problems: its vast size made it very difficult for the central authority to effectively govern the entire Empire. This problem was worsened by the vast ethnic and religious diversity that existed within the Empire. Although the Ottoman government was extremely tolerant of religious and ethnic minorities, it was nevertheless quite difficult to communicate effectively with all the Empire’s separate ethnic and religious groups, many of whom did not share the same political values or even speak the same language as their Ottoman rulers. The central Ottoman government, which was ruled by a sultan (aka king), was secular in nature but depended greatly on Islamic religious authorities (known as “Ulama”) for administrative advice and policies that were consistent with the values of the Empire’s most numerous religious group, Islam. This dependence would become an obstacle to continued progress within the Empire, as the government increasingly relied on religious policies and rejected the many technical, scientific, and military innovations that were then emerging in Western Europe. This rejection would ensure that whenever military conflicts broke out between the Ottomans and any of the various European states, the Ottoman army would find themselves equipped with less advanced weaponry and outdated military tactics than those used by their opponents.

In 1643, five year old Louis XIV was officially crowned King of France but of course, given his very young age, he did not actually rule the country himself. Instead, two ministers/advisors, Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin, would govern in the young king’s place until 1661, when he reached the age of twenty-three. During this time, France experienced several instances of social upheaval, many of which were provoked by Mazarin’s attempt to take away some of the traditional privileges (such as tax exemptions) enjoyed by the nobility. In response, great numbers of these aristocrats joined together to rebel against the French crown. Known as the “Fronde,” these protests broke out many times between 1649 and 1652. Louis was greatly influenced by the “Fronde,” which he viewed as a consequence of his ministers’ weak and inept handling of the unruly nobles. The young king was determined to never allow unrest such as the “Fronde” to reoccur. In his eyes, the best course of action was for him to set himself up as an absolute monarch, one who would not tolerate rebellions, protests, or dissent but would also rule fairly and firmly. When he was finally able to assume the throne and rule independently in 1661, Louis immediately embarked on a campaign to increase his power as monarch. He handled the nobles with subtlety and grace, working to erode their power base and prove his superior standing while also managing to keep their loyalty and their political involvements under his firm control. As long as the aristocrats would agree to respect his position as King, he was prepared to allow them to retain their traditional privileges and local spheres of authority.

By the middle of the eighteenth century, the power structure of the European continent had begun to settle and coalesce. Five countries would emerge as the dominant players – England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria (while the United Provinces of the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden all fell from power). These top five nations achieved their high status thanks to their military prowess and prosperous economies; a few of these countries also gained in prestige due to their establishment of overseas colonial empires. For the duration of the century, the successive leaders and/or governments of these five nations would engage in near-constant competition against one another. Quite often, these struggles took place through economic means, such as the accumulation of new wealth or the cultivation of new foreign businesses or lands. These rulers also believed that having a strong national military force was absolutely essential (the better to intimidate the opposition), and so they engaged in massive recruitment campaigns and tried to obtain the latest weapons and supplies.

King James I of England (who came to the throne after the death of Elizabeth I) was immensely unpopular amongst both Parliament and the general mass of his own subjects. The King’s unpopularity was due to many factors, several of which stemmed from his overall attitude. As a monarch, James was a firm believer in the notion of divine right and so he had an intense dislike for any consultation or cooperation in his decision making process. This disdain extended directly to Parliament – as per English law, Parliament was only permitted to assemble if the monarch instructed it to, which James had absolutely no intention of doing. So, instead of obtaining money from Parliament, James chose to raise the necessary funds through “impositions,” which were customs taxes placed on trade items. Naturally, the members of Parliament did not at all appreciate being cut out of the nation’s legislative and economic processes. James also turned a blind eye to corruption within his tight circle of court friends, many of whom engaged in scandalous behavior that horrified the English citizenry. These problems were further compounded by the King’s harsh treatment of the Puritans, whom he firmly shunned from the Anglican Church (this led to religious dissenters leaving the country in droves). Throughout this whole process, James seemed either entirely ignorant or completely unconcerned by his people’s growing suspicion and dislike of him, which didn’t exactly endear him to them any further. Perhaps the final straw came in 1604, when James made a peace deal with the Spanish government. This agreement was followed by the arranged marriage of James’s son, Charles, to a prominent Spanish princess. These alliances with Catholic Spain, which had traditionally been England’s arch enemy, caused outrage amongst a great deal of the English population, many of whom began to doubt their King’s loyalty to both the Anglican faith and to the English crown.

In seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, two methods of government emerged as the most popular amongst leaders: parliamentary monarchies and political absolutism (aka absolute rule). Both of these structures emerged as a consequence of the same factor – namely, changes in the evolution of warfare. During the late sixteenth and all through the seventeenth centuries, new innovations in weapons rapidly developed, which in term inspired the creation of new training and fighting tactics so that soldiers could make the best use of their new weaponry. Such expansive changes always carry a monetary cost and the price of many of these particular elements (especially new weapons) was very high indeed. Rulers knew that if they wanted to rise to international power – and then hold on to that power – they would need to obtain these new weapons, re-train their troops, and re-organize their armies. This required gaining new wealth, mainly through increased taxation and confiscation – which are never popular among any nation’s citizens. Consequently, those monarchs who were able to rule with an iron fist, by putting down their people’s resistance, turning a deaf ear to popular protests, and enforcing their will upon their population were able to amass enough money to properly equip their armies to meet the new challenges of warfare. In essence, more money made more wars possible, which in turn increased a country’s power. Countries which operated along parliamentary monarchial systems, like England, in which the ruler could make no big decisions without the consent of a Parliament, mostly failed in this task. It was the absolute monarchs, such as King Louis XIV of France, who succeeded most dramatically in this quest. These developments, successes, and failures would substantially impact the course of European history over the coming decades.

When studying seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, the United Provinces of the Netherlands stand out as completely unique amongst all other countries. What set the Netherlands apart was its governmental structure – unlike most of its European counterparts (which favored monarchy or some similar sort of centralized power), the Netherlands was a republic. This was no accident – generally speaking, the Dutch despised monarchy (which they associated with the Spanish King Phillip II’s brutal invasion of their land) and they didn’t want to give up their independent ways. So, while a central government, called the States General, was established in The Hague, all decisions were made in cooperation with each of the seven provinces, which retained quite a few freedoms. Only in severe times of military distress would the Netherlands ever depart from this system: central authority would temporarily be ceded to a few military commanders but their power was always revoked as soon as the fighting stopped.

After the English dictator Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, England was both relieved and quite desperate. Motivated by the numerous sufferings, restrictions, and deprivations which they had endured under Cromwell, the English people decided that their best course of action would be return to their previous form of government: parliamentary monarchy. To that end, in 1660, the monarchy, both Houses of Parliament, and the Anglican Church were officially restored. As their new ruler, Parliament and the army asked Charles II, the son of the executed Charles I, to return to the country (he had fled after his father’s death) and become King. Charles II agreed and he became the new King of England in 1660. The original conditions of political life were all restored: England was once again a Parliamentary monarchy, with hereditary rulers, an official Anglican Church, and a Parliament which served at the king’s pleasure.

The concept of Shari'a Law outlines a list of codes and laws drawn directly from the Qu'ran and the teachings of Mohammed. Because of their religious basis they are an example of a theocracy. Shari'a law still remains a governing force in most Islamic nations.

Fortunately, not every Western European ruler believed in the necessity of religious conflict – some genuinely believed that every person should be free to practice their chosen religion, while other monarchs endorsed religious toleration out of more pragmatic means (civil unrest was always a threat to a ruler’s continued reign). Monarchs who enforced religious toleration and kept their country out of religiously motivated conflicts were known as “politiques.” The most successful “politique” was Queen Elizabeth I of England. Elizabeth took over the country after the death of her half-sister, Mary I, whose violent hatred of Protestantism had led her to institute a brutal repression of all English Protestants. Mary had hundreds of Protestants imprisoned, tortured, and executed, despite the increasingly horrified opposition of her Catholic subjects. These policies earned her the nickname “Bloody Mary.” When Elizabeth came to power, she immediately knew that she had to heal the social strife and wounds that her sister’s repression had caused throughout England, especially since there were grumblings of a potential dynasty change or even a revolt. So, Elizabeth adopted the principles of “politique,” endorsing religious toleration for all English citizens, ending government-sanctioned persecution of Protestants, and thereby strengthening social and political unity.

Louis XIV moved the capital to the new opulent palace of Versailles in 1682, where it remained until the royal family was forced to return to Paris in 1789 at the beginning of the French Revolution. Versailles remains a powerful symbol of the 'absolute monarchy' period of French political history.