..Marian Hailey
Dr. Paul Coker
History 1120, World History II
8 June 2018
Distinguishing Power and Authority: Some scholars have made a distinction between ‘power,’ the ability of state to coerce its subjects into some required behavior, and ‘authority,’ the ability of a state to persuade its subjects to do its bidding voluntarily by convincing them that it is proper, right, or natural to do so. What examples of power and authority can you find in these documents? How were power and authority related? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each from the viewpoint of ambitious rulers?
Power and authority are two similar yet distinctly different methods of conquest and rule and are used most successfully when employed together. The Mughal Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the French empire, and the Inca Empire all illustrate the way these methods worked in tandem in the way each state conquered and ruled during the Early Modern Era.
The main similarity, and almost a given, is that each of these states used power to conquer and a combination of power and authority to rule the newly formed empires. The only exception to this would be the Incas, who in some cases, were able to take over new lands without violence or harm based upon their reputation as a formidable fighting force. They ensured acceptance, peace, and even gratitude by providing the vanquished peoples food and supplies. (Strayer and Nelson 597) These same Incas however, used unhesitating coercion or force in conquest when necessary; as exemplified by the forced removal of an arbitrary number of the native people to other areas, most likely to prevent future rebellion. Not only did the conquered people lose their autonomy, but they also lost homes, neighbors, families, and all that was familiar to them. (Strayer and Nelson 597) It was with authority though, that the Inca left the existing chieftain or village ruler in place to foster good will and again, to curtail future rebellion. When possible, they did not destroy the homes and crops of the natives during battle and even released the captured once it was over. Life in many cases for the people in the conquered lands became better as the Incas took responsibility for them and provided what they needed. This made submission to a new empire a natural and good thing. (Strayer and Nelson 597)
The Mughal empire of India was ruled by Akbar from 1556-1605. During his reign, Akbar ruled with authority rather than power or force. The main problem he faced was a religious division between the vanquished Hindus and the ruling Muslims. His solution was to allow Hindus to practice their religion and even discouraged persecution and discrimination by Muslims. He had several Hindu wives and did not require them to renounce their faith or practice his. He was against some of the more harmful Hindu laws and customs like child marriages but did not forbid them. (Strayer and Nelson 580)
Jahangir, Akbar’s son and successor, was emperor from 1605-1627 and utilized both forms of government. His instituted several laws that commanded obedience rather than persuaded. One such law was the prohibition of any form of alcohol even though he himself was reputed to indulge in to excess. He also forced the entire empire to fast from meat for the entire month of his birth. These two proclamations asserted his supremacy and right to rule rather than anything the people would choose to do voluntarily.
Jahangir’s reign was not all about force and commanded obedience. He also did things that helped and encouraged the people he ruled. He rebuilt towns in deserted areas, he protected the merchants and common people from exploitation by officials, he built hospitals, and relaxed some of the penalties for crime. All of these things improved the lives of everyone living in India whether they were Muslim or Hindu. (Strayer and Nelson 592)
In contrast, Suleiman I, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1520-1566, leaned heavily on ruling with power rather than persuasion. The Flemish diplomat, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq during an audience with the Sultan said, ‘His air, was by no means gracious, and his face wore a stern though dignified expression.’ (qtd. in Strayer and Nelson 593) He goes on to describe having to walk backward so as not to turn his back to the Sultan, having to kiss his hand, and being physically restrained while being admitted into the Sovereign’s presence. The account made it clear that it was an intimidating event and a show of strength. (Strayer and Nelson 593)
The Ottoman military had a fearsome and renowned reputation that instilled feelings of loss and hopelessness in empires potentially vulnerable to conquest. The fighting men were known to be disciplined; they lived simply, practicing thrift and self-denial. Promotions and rank were dependent upon merit and skill rather than wealth, title, or birth status. This well disciplined and efficient force was more than capable of enforcing the will of the Sultan. This a perfect example of power at its most effective. In his letter to a friend, Busbecq sums it up with these compelling statements: ‘It makes me shudder to think of what the result of a struggle between such different systems must be; one of us must prevail and the other be destroyed’. Can we doubt what the result must be? …. When he has secured himself in that quarter, he will fall upon us with all the resources of the East. How ill prepared we are to meet such an attack is not for me to say.’ (qtd. in Strayer and Nelson 594)
Louis XIV of France was a different type of king who was aggressive and powerful in the extension and building of his empire but based his rule on a premise of divine right, ties of sentiment with the nobility, and emotional attachment with the common people. He undertook many ambitious campaigns to expand his territory, such as the War of Devolution in 1667 where he attempted to lay claim to the Spanish Netherlands and then the Franco-Dutch war in 1672 where he gained lands in Flanders. (Staff, History.com) The way he ruled his empire, however, was with authority, not power. Louis XIV relied upon displays of extravagance and splendor to create awe and wonder and to cement the authority of the monarchy and of absolutism or divine right to rule. His purpose was to tie the people to him with affection and mutually enjoyable amusements rather than fear. These displays were effective to outsiders and caused foreign visitors to see him as a powerful and much-loved monarch. (Strayer and Nelson 596)
It is evident that while these two methods are both effective ways to expand and to rule an empire, they are not infallible, and have both positive and negative aspects. The Ottoman Empire conquered and ruled with much power resulting in it being one of the most enduring and largest dynasties in world history. (Staff, History.com) However, the unforgiving nature of rule by power causes its own problems. One of the policies of the age was to execute every male sibling of a new successor to the throne to ensure fealty and prevent rebellion. (Strayer and Nelson 595) That speaks of forced loyalty rather than patriotism and of fear, intrigue, and betrayal rather than a peaceful and happy people.
Louis XIV on the other hand, ruled with pomp and splendor and extravagant public displays. He courted the favor of other nobles at court in order to pacify and unify them. However, the expense and sheer extravagance garnered criticism as well. (Staff, History.com) Absolutism or divine right was an ideal in which he fervently believed. His unrestrained actions birthed resentment and enemies for the King. In 1688 the Grand Alliance was formed in response to his attempts to expand his territories. This war led to a national debt that turned the tide of public opinion against him. He also repealed the Edict of Nantes which ended a period of religious freedom for the Protestant segment of the population. Millions of Huguenots fled the country taking their skills with them, further weakening the country and helping to end his reign of prosperity and peace. (Staff, History.com)
Power and authority, might and right, neither of these can function long term and with success individually. Power is designed for conquest and control; used too long, it becomes oppressive and breeds resentment and rebellion. Authority, on the other hand, is a weak tool during conquest, but is a necessity when consolidating an empire.
Works Cited
Staff, History.com. History.com. 2017. 8 June 2018.
‘. HIstory.com. 2009. 9 June 2018.
Strayer, Robert W. and Eric W Nelson. Ways of the World. Boston New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2016.