Machiavellian Ruler: The Sun King Louis XIV

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.

Louis XIV turned France around from an unorganized feuding country to one of the most organized, powerful, innovative monarchies in Europe. In addition, he managed to advance civil equality among the people by turning all the people into his loyal subjects (Norton, p.175). How did he do all this? The armed forces that had formerly been a private enterprise who had been fighting against each other or had hired themselves out for payment, was taken over and consolidated into one entity fighting, by the king for the king. He made war an activity of the state which produced peace and order in France while strengthening the fighting power of France against other states (Norton, p.175). In addition, he put soldiers in uniform, taught them how to march in step and housed them in barracks which assisted them in becoming more susceptible to discipline and control (Norton, p.175). There was now a hierarchy in place and was able to get a greater degree of government control that put him on the top as the commander in chief of the army due to his power and the creation of the first large civilian administration (Norton, p.176). This was the first time that ministers of war consisted of civilians and this grew the armies power exponentially. Louis XIV also overhauled the grandeur of France when he took an old village Versailles and turned it into the palace of Versailles that became known as one of the most splendid marvels in Europe so much so, that it became the envy of lessor kings.

From the 14th century into the 17th century of European history, a cultural revolution took place. The renaissance came to Europe and pushed out old middle age ideals and brought in new humanistic ones. The renaissance brought new cultural ideas, new ways of learning, new art, and new standards of how to rule a Kingdom. Kingdoms were coming and going fast at this time, rulers were slipping under the pressures of expanding rule and it seemed that a new kingdoms were continuously being conquered. The guidelines set up in Machiavelli’s The Prince, help to define what makes up a good and bad leader in terms of the new Renaissance ideals.

Of all the absolute rulers in Europe, by far the best example of one, and the most powerful, was Louis XIV of France. Although Louis had some failures, he also had many successes. He controlled France’s money and had many different ways to get, as well as keep his power, and he knew how to delegate jobs to smart, but loyal people.

He socially showed he was higher up than the people of Russia by inflicting his personal beliefs on the people. Shown in document 7, King Louis XIV demonstrated how he manipulated the public with spies and courts. He also displayed his great persuasion over the people by spreading his habits through France. Absolute maintained and justified their power militarily as shown in documents 1 and 2. A strong army was a large factor in achieving power.

Absolutism created a time of prosperity throughout the 1500s and the 1600s. At this point of history, absolutism was an efficient way of running a government. Absolutist leaders were vigorous, assertive and a potent symbol of authority. The amount of growth in countries such as Russia was both efficient and effective because the power of authority was concentrated into one person’s hands. Absolutism enabled Peter the Great to modernize and adapt Russia for war, commerce and industrial growth. Additionally, absolutism gave people a powerful leader they needed to trust in and depend on for their country's sake. This type of regnant is most evident King James I of England and King Louis XIV of France. For example, King James I of England

Kings James I expressed in document 2 a King has the means to, “raise low things and to make high things low”. He embraced civilians were so confident in their monarch, they should have power to affect important decisions. King James was an English ruler when people believed in the divine right of kings. King Louis XIV had a common view, a trusted monarch can decide the tasks of the alternative members, revealed in document 3. He understood if a king is honorable, then there is no issue with him executing significant decisions.

Once the seventeenth century began, western civilization became based upon bounds. In a structured and shared-power system known as limited monarchy, rulers either became hastened within their bounds or exploded from them. As the British Isles were frustrated in the religious, political, and national voices going unheard, England developed a Protestant-run nation in conjunction with Scotland as a bounded country in 1707. Their Parliament would make their decisions, distribute the country’s wealth, and stand for the rights of individuals. The model of one man who could not be chained to a Parliamentary system was France’s King Louis XIV. His reign begins in 1643 which brings about the genuine definition of an absolute monarchy and it’s faults. Absolutism was a practice built heavily within the Middle Ages, it would include Kings as the primary shareholders of their land, partnerships with nobles and their Churches. It would prove unsatisfactory for most kingdoms as they failed under civil war and invasion until the seventeenth century shines a new importance on superior command. Through the strife of religious reformations and international conflicts, absolutism grants those in kingship unlimited power. King Henry IV had brought France from fifteenth century centralization and the Reformation’s civil war to cleanse the people’s doubt in their King. The Bourbons built a monarchy for the ages with their grandson Louis XIV, and Boy-King in 1643. Utilizing absolutism to accept

No one had any say but him. He felt like he could do whatever he wanted to the Protestants and that’s what began his religious reign of terror and destruction. The document referred to the Huguenots and said, “Their churches were torn down, their gatherings forbidden, their children made to attend mass” (Document 3). Even though this made Protestants very upset and angry, King Louis XIV did not care. He did what he thought was best which is a great example of absolutism.

During the 16th and 17th centuries it is clear and evident that the centralization of power, or the absolutism in and hierarchy, does in fact induce stability in society, however, it is also evident via the given readings that absolutism also had its flaws which were later proved to be its downfall. It essentially all boils down a single concept of the people versus government. This is evident in the history of the French prior and leading up to the Révolution. In addition to, the monarchy of the English under King James VI and I’s rule. As complicated as the nature of government is, when power or authority is concentrated excessively into a single point, the society will crack by that very same point if a healthy relationship between citizen and ruler is not established. One cannot expect to bully and undermine one’s citizens without considering the possibility that one day they will rise up against him or her and “religious” masks can only be worn for so long before people recognize the hypocrisies present within them. Both of these truths are evident as seen in the given texts. Specifically, with The Great Cat Massacre, On The Social Order and Absolute Monarchy, by Jean Domat, and Trew Law of Free Monarchies, King James VI & I.

Louis XIV didn?t follow the path of his father, who was a great leader. One of Machiavelli?s principles was to follow in the path of a great leader, and try to imitate those who are most excellent.

Although Louis XIV, also known as Louis the Great, brought death and destruction through his wars, there are many positive aspects of his reign, such as the creation of Versailles and the building of France’s national army. He did what had never been done before. He changed the lifestyle and the attitude of France by creating one of the most powerful monarchies ever to be built and at the same time, reassured all the nobility and other wealthy groups of their political and social standings. He made it clear that he was the final decision maker yet he still needed the help of the nobility and other authorities.

Louis XIV, France’s Sun King, had the longest reign in European history (1643-1715). During this time he brought absolute monarchy to its height, established a glittering court at Versailles, and fought most of the other European countries in four wars. Although his reign had some negative aspects; on balance, Louis’ reign was primarily a benefit to France.

Louis XIV had a passion for glory and used it to fight four wars because he was motivated by personal and dynastic considerations.

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince