Were absolute monarchs like dictators?

Question

If not, what were the differences?

Answer 1

Pretty much. Of course, the time and place in which they ruled made a difference in exactly what power they had and how it was exercised.

A few ruled exclusively, not taking advice from anyone else.
Others had councils of elders, or other special advisors.
The Bible records that the Pharaoh of Egypt had an advisor (named Joseph, who was an Israelite.) from whom he took plenty of advice. However, in most cases, the monarch was not bound to follow any advice.

Beginning in 1216, the king of England (John) had a Parliament, comprised of the richest, most powerful nobles, without whose approval the king (in theory) could do nothing.

By the 17th Century several of the more enlightened monarchs had Privy Councils. The concept of the constitutional monarchy began in 1689 in England when William III and Mary II (husband and wife) were installed as joint monarchs by the Parliament of Great Britain and ruled according to certain parameters laid down in the Act of Settlement.

In the present time, the king of Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarch

Answer 2

Not at all! Just think of the French Revolution: The king wanted to raise more taxes. If he had had absolute powers he could have done so without parliament. But he had to call it and then a great part of the members of parliament made the first moves for revolution. Or in Prussia: The king wanted to raise something similar to today´s value added tax. But the nobility with its estates in the countryside did not allow the new tax (Assise) outside of the towns. Therefore all Prussian towns had walls until early in the 19th century, when they had no longer military value. But the walls and gates were needed to control the goods entering the towns.

Answer 3

Your question itself gives the answer. When you have absolute power naturally you become dictator because there is nobody to question your actions. The monarch have the advantage of the people's continuous respect and fear carried over by generations of monastic rule.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

Yes, very much so. However, they also argued that they had a right to rule, usually a God given right.

Answer 6

substantial modifications - in comparison to numerous different 2, Charles i replaced into not linked with any political party, and had not "risen for the period of the ranks" to alter into chief. As a King, he finished his place with the aid of heredity, and because no-you may % their mom and father, this replaced into used to justify the doctrine of "Divine marvelous" - God dedcides that a baby would be born right into a Royal succession, and it incredibly is blasphemy to make any attempt to alter this. further, it replaced into subsequently the "will of God" that he could be succeeded with the aid of certainly one of his infants - the eldest son, in the English and Scottish custom. In England, there replaced into additionally the unusual challenge that, besides as being Head of State, the King replaced into additionally Head of a undeniable religious enterprise - the "Church of england" - which meant that he could not be expected to realize the different form of Christianity. It replaced into his enforcement of this which aroused resistance with the aid of such adult adult males as Cromwell, who replaced into against any enofrced religon, and for "liberty of sense of right and incorrect". (This replaced into why Cromwell hence additionally adversarial Parliament whilst it tried to enforce Presbyterianism,) there is according to hazard case for seeing a similarity in Stalin, on the grounds that "Marxist/Leninist Communism" replaced into in certainty a "faith", even inspite of the shown fact that a godless one. There are basically approximately no comparisons with Hitler.