Absolutism: Richelieu And King Louis XIV

Compare and contrast the theories and practice of absolutism and constitutional monarchy during the 17th century.

At the beginning of the 17th century, France was a place of internal strife and bickering bureaucrats. The king, Louis XIII, had come to the throne in 1610 at the age of nine, leaving the running of the kingdom to his mother, Marie de Medici. One of her court favorites, Armand de Plessis de Richelieu, rose through the ranks, eventually gaining the title of Cardinal and becoming one of Louis’ key advisors and minister. His political manifesto, Political Testament, was a treatise for King Louis XIII that offered him advice mainly concerned with the management and subtle subjugation of the nobles and the behavior of a prince. Beneath all of the obeisant rhetoric, Richelieu was essentially writing a handbook for Louis XIII on how to survive

During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the

A form of government ruled by one person whose authority is not restricted by law or governing bodies is absolutism. It is arguable if this form of government can truly be successful due to its impression left throughout the course of history. Justification of absolutism by Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Benigne Bossuet, and analysis of Louis XIV rule reveal why absolutism in ineffective. Due to its removal of self-authority, vulnerability to a power, and the possibility of weakening a country make absolutism inefficient.

Louis XIV, the ruler of France from the late seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century, claimed, “I am the state.” He considered this to be absolutism. His goal, also acquainted with absolutism, was, “one king, one law, one faith;” Furthermore, Louis wanted to promote religious unity, royal dignity, and security of the state. In order to achieve this goal, he had to rule with a firm hand, laying down the law for all to see. Louis XIV’s absolutism fostered in four major parts: the building of Versailles to control the nobility, the breeding of a strong military, the improvement of France’s economy, and, while quite harsh, the brutal extinction of religious toleration.

Many rulers used absolutism in their countries. They believed rulers should have complete control over the country. Prince Machiavelli believed the best way to rule was to be feared and thought that the only way people would listen to him was if he was mean and scary. He thought if he was nice and loved then they would not fear him and end up taking advantage of him. (doc1) King James also believed absolutism was the way to go. He believed in divine right and that it was the only way to keep the country

During the 16th century to the 18th century, Monarchs in Europe used absolutism. Monarchs such as King Louis and Peter The Great used absolute tactics because they wanted to consolidate power from the nobility. They wanted to consolidate power from the nobility because they wanted to take the power they lost during the middle ages. King Louis and Peter the Great used all multiple means to reclaim power. They used their power to glorify themselves and their country. The practice of absolutism can be argued to have both positive and negative effects.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

The 16th and 17th centuries were a powerful time for European monarchies. Absolutism had taken hold, allowing Kings to have powerful rules over their states. This was due to the absolute monarchies that had taken hold and the belief in a divine right that kept them there. This allowed the countries under the rule of powerful monarchs to thrive and prosper. Absolute monarchies and the belief in a divine right to rule made absolutism a period of prosperity in 16th and 17th century Europe.

In the latter half of the 1600 's, monarchial systems of both England and France were changing. Three royal figure throughout history who all tried to establish a role of absolutism in their societies all of them had varying factors with the greatest success from least to greatest being Charles I, Louis XIV, and Peter the Great. Absolutism is a form of government where a king or queen rules with unrestricted powers. They are often followed in heredity by passing on the leadership through bloodlines. All over the world these bloodlines still exist except, that most of them only remain as a symbolic figure or a person of fame. A couple of monarchs that still rule are Brunei, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, the emirates comprising the UAE, and Vatican City.

During the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, absolutist leaders, mostly monarchs, controlled all aspects of a country as well as its citizens. This absolutist control would come to have a mostly negative effect on Europe as a whole, but some monarchs were not tyrants. Most monarchs were seen as gods in the eyes of their citizens, absolutist leaders were given reasons to be cruel from writings, but some monarchs were prosperous leaders and led their countries well.

During the reign of Louis XIV, France's stability and success was threatened by the power of the nobility. When Louis looked back at the Fronde, a nobility revolt that occurred during his childhood, he realized the thirst for power the nobility held, and as a result limited their power. To begin with, Louis forced the nobles to move to Versailles where they could cause less trouble, and Louis could keep a close eye on them. Louis achieved this by threatening to deny them their pensions if they didn't move. Louis also instituted heavy taxing for the nobles, in the form of a 10% income tax as well as a head tax. These measures prevented a Noble uprising during Louis' reign as king, and allowed France to develop positively as a country.

Intendants were to enforce royal orders and to weaken nobility’s influence. As the power of intendants grew so did the power of the centralized state. Richelieu also personally over saw the siege of the Huguenots after they revolted, and from then on fortified cities were eradicated. In addition, French foreign policy under Richelieu aimed for the destruction of the Habsburg territories surrounding France and supported enemies of the Habsburg’s. Richelieu acquired for Frances extensive rights in Alsace and Arras. He also extended literature through his efforts at centralization. The French academy (which standardized the French language and dictionary) was started by a group of philanthropists whom Richelieu was involved with. He (and later Louis XIV) also temporally solved France’s financial problems by securing the Cooperation of local elites. The central government shared the proceeds of tax revenue with local powers. Sometimes Richelieu’s polices contradicted Christian teachings but justified himself through “reason of state”. He also convinced Louis XIII to appoint Jules Mazarin, an Italian diplomat, as

During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France

Absolutism, where there is a person who has full political power over a country, rose in the 17th century due to the increase in surplus, mercantilism and the standing armies. Due to the increase in surplus in these countries, the government had more money to spend. Mercantilism also contributed to the economic growth of countries that adopted it. The increased money from these meant increased funding for standing armies. The standing armies gave the king an army without needing to call on the nobles, thereby lessening their importance and power, and heightening the king’s.