I daresay that the real key to the rise of absolute monarchism was the de facto adoption of legal positivism over natural law. Hence the concept of “the divine right of kings” went from “I am king by the grace of God and must obey His law like everyone else” to “I was anointed king by God and therefore can do whatever I want”.
Obviously, the clergy and nobility, which had always held the king to the law, would disagree with that.
But if you punch me in the face, thereby violating my authority over my person, I have the authority to violate your person proportionately (the authority to aggress).
I don’t see it this way. What I’d say is that, by punching you in the face, I have therefore lost that portion of authority over my person with respect to you. So again, I don’t think it’s aggression if you punch me back.
I’m willing to concede that, but it would require a praxeological proof of legal theory/proportionality.
For practical life, however, the term would need to be preserved in both contexts as, if one were not careful, it would be easy to overstep the bounds of proportionality when not advised by courts.