If you re-read what I wrote, you may find that we are in agreement with respect to your first point. I am indeed saying that Tsar Nicolas's actions were absolutist in that he equated the state's safety with his own.
With respect to your second point, I posit that an action in the interest of self- or power-preservation can very well be absolutist. For instance, Louis XIV brought the nobility (i.e. those most likely to overthrow him: Coffin, 540) to Versailles so that he could better preserve his power. If you were trying to say that preservative efforts are not by definition absolutist, we are in agreement.
But, to qualify my conveniently cryptic comment that the Concert of Europe and the new idea of legitimacy following from it were "almost absolutist in nature," I will enumerate the reasons why I said this.
1. The Concert of Europe promised safety, security, and order at some cost to personal (in this case, state-related) freedom.
2. Just as Tsar Nicolas took the assault on the state to be an assault on his person, the Concert of Europe viewed an attack on a state of Europe as an attack on Europe in its entirety; thus the power in Europe was centralized and personified.
3. Legitimacy and authority both stem from the Concert.
No comments:
Post a Comment