Capetian Kings of France

The 17th century of European history, colloquially known as the “Age of Crisis”, gave rise to a new form of government: absolutism. Religious wars, economic troubles, inflation, and new agricultural challenges such as the Little Ice Age wracked the nations of Europe and caused tremendous fear and uncertainty among the masses. Thus, as many felt that life itself was endangered, they were willing to accept the rise of a strong, independent ruler who might lead them from the darkness. In this way, absolutism emerged- a new form of monarchy based on a hereditary ruler with complete authority. Perhaps the most well known example of an absolute monarch in European history is Louis XIV, the ruler of France from 1643 to 1715.

During this period in French history, the nobility was starting to gain power and prestige, and this power presented the king with a problem: he needed to have strong nobles to strengthen his realm by extension. However, he still had to maintain power and his position of supremacy. Richelieu posits that the king must maintain a firm system of punishments and rewards:”Punishments and rewards are two quite necessary elements in the conduct of states. It is an ordinary allegation, but more true, and often repeated by all men, that rewards and punishments are the two most important tools of government available in a realm.” This system played on the honor obsession the nobility had, and strengthened the kingship at the same time. If one helped the king, they were rewarded with more honor and a higher position; if they resisted, they lost everything. This strengthened the kingship as well. Those he rewarded would be assets to the kingdom, while those he punished would serve as warnings to those who considered resisting.

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.

With a lock of nobles in Europe, Kings take control of more land and make more laws.

Who was King Henry VIII and who was King Louis XIV? How are they different and similar to each other? Well, one thing for sure, both of these rulers were Roman Catholics. Henry ruled England from 1491 to 1547 and Louis ruled France from 1643 to 1715. This essay analyzes the differences and the similarities between these two Roman Catholic kings. Henry VIII, compared to Louis XIV, was overall a ruthless monarch who wasn’t afraid to show off his greediness, abuse his power, or influence others with his clever political strategies. Louis XIV had the longest reign in European history (1643-1715). During this time he brought absolute monarchy to its height, established a huge and grand palace.

Louis XIV declared his goal was “one king, one law, one faith.” Analyze the methods the king used to achieve this objective and discuss the extent to which he was successful.

1) Describe the 3 estates of France. Who paid the taxes? Who held the wealth and power in France?

There were three kings named Clovis, Charlemagne, and Alfred. They were all successful during their reigns within Europe. However, King Charles was the best ruler according to the model of early medieval kingship. One may ask what the model of early medieval kingship is. Well, a ruler to be considered the best would have to be a great conqueror, warrior, and defender of Christianity. King Charles during his rule was able to ascertain all three of these prerequisites for being a great ruler. Therefore, I will compare and contrast him, and his reign, to Clovis and Alfred to support my statement. I will also touch on how audience’s perceptions may be misguided due to the king’s biographers. I will begin the next paragraph examining King Charles exploits and why he fits the criteria of the best ruler.

The church and the state had to contend with the growing influence of the Enlightenment and the need to strike a new balance with religion, a more utilitarian balance determined in large part by its own political rationalism. Power was held within the monarchy and the church. The monarchy of France and the Catholic Church were allies that were unbreakable. The King was the master of the temporal realm, while the Church under his protection ruled the spiritual realm. Kings derived their authority from God and stood immediately below him in rank. The monarchy had the support of the church and the church had the support of the monarchy. Power was based on morality and the church thrived on positive morality and the monarchy was proof of this morality. The balance between these two powers in France was equivalent to one another. The whole system

During the era of the late 16th and 17th centuries, a new idea of political thought was sweeping France: the idea of centralization of power and Absolutism. These ideas gave the vast majority of, if not all, of the political power and authority of government to the reigning monarch of France. Absolutism was brought to fruition by the likes of monarchs and noblemen such as Louis XIV and was backed by the idea of the right to rule by divine intervention. The theoretical basis for the idea of absolute royal authority in France was the idea of the right to rule by divine intervention.

The 16th and 17th centuries brought up the proposition of an absolute monarch, this is a ruler with total power over a country or territory. The idea of kings being chosen by God, or the divine right of kings, lead to absolutism, which was seen throughout Europe. Monarchs could be tyrants, they could take away the rights of their citizens. Monarchs could also be prosperous, improving their country economically, military, or gaining foreign alliances. Europe's absolute monarchs left the 16th and 17th centuries prosperous due to the fewer conflicts, the morals of monarchs, and everybody had an equal chance at upward-mobility.

The French Nobility has been around since the beginning of the Roman Empire. Similar to the Romans, the French organized their state around the nobility and the clergy, not taking into account the massive amount of commoners. The Third Estate was finally created centuries later to help bring order and give common people their own place within society. Charles Loyseau and Isabelle de Charriere are two prime sources that compare French nobility during the 17th and 18th century, leading up to the French Revolution. Charles Loyseau, both a jurist and legal scholar evaluates French society in his writing A Treatise on Orders. In the writing of his treatise, Loyseau describes the “social anatomy of France” in an

The Capetians had no effect on the government and society of France. They lacked both the charisma and ruthlessness that characterized some of the greatest medieval kings, and failed to inspire either awe or fear, much less respect. They only ruled small holdings in Ile-de-France and the Orléanais, which were plagued with disorder and rivals. The Capetian dynasty reigned over France from 987 to 1328, a period which met a lot of resistance and victories alike. In the long list of Capetian monarchs, Hugh Capet was the first of many to tarnish the reputation of the Capetians. He was presented as a weak and unimposing king, a territorial prince with little authority beyond his principality, and who only survived because of the incompetence of his opponents (Bradbury 72). Hugh had an inglorious reign, brief and without prestige. His unexceptional rule triggered the weak dynasty that is often associated with the early

The nobility of the Kingdom of France has been evaluated by various scholars of history. There is something to be said, however, for those who chronicled their impressions while living them in the 17th and 18th centuries. The excerpts of Charles Loyseau’s A Treatise on Orders, written in 1610, and Isabelle de Charriere’s The Nobleman, written in 1763 provide two very different glimpses on the French nobility from differing time periods. From these two accounts, it is clear that there was a marked shift in the way some viewed the nobility and their role in the operation of the French state. While Loyseau praises the nobility nearly wholeheartedly,

Feudalism is, thus characterized by political decentralization. The monarchs, having delegated such a substantial amount of authority to the nobles, were left essentially without any real power. The social order, which regulated virtually all of society, dictated the need for a king to maintain public peace. Thus, the monarchs remained in power, but only figuratively (Pirenne, pp. 147-150).