Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu Essay

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.

They, like a fox, slyly gained political influence over the church by negotiating with the pope. They were given the ability to choose who would be the Church’s clergy and priests. This is extremely important to the throne, for with this capability, the monarch would be able to control the faith of their nation. Not only would they manage the finances and property of the people, but also the hearts. Another “fox-like” quality of the French monarchs is the astute way in which Edward IV and others conducted foreign policy. They focused on diplomacy when dealing with foreign affairs, which helped them to avoid expensive wars. This saved their nation a large amount of money, because instead of constant fighting, there was continual growth. In a similar manner to England, the French monarchy displayed sneaky characteristics by choosing from among smaller landowners and urban lawyers for a government council. By choosing these landowners and lawyers, the monarch received more financial support and power than they would have by choosing nobles and aristocrats. Along with the “fox-like” actions, France also showed “lion-like” characteristics with Edward, Richard III, and Henry VII who attempted to reinstate prominence, suppress the influence of the nobility, and demonstrate law and discipline a local level around France. By lessening the importance of nobles, the rulers gained control and started to rebuild the position of the monarch. They were fierce in their endeavors to gain power and enforce law in their nation. This, along with the newly established influence on the church and careful efforts to avoid expensive and unnecessary wars, showed how France both had “fox-like” and “lion-like”

First examining the past nine year to see that even though taxes were lowered he claims revenues have increased due to improved collection strategies(page,92). Colbert tells the king that he feels that the current ratio of taxation to the amount of money in circulation is too high. Therefore, he suggests the king do one of two things. Either decrease amount of tax and expenditures or to put more money into circulation in the realm. Colbert’s goal in the memorandum was to incite the king to introduce measures to promote economic development in France and to do so urging him to cut down the amount of money spent on war that is draining the wealth. This memorandum shows the juxtaposition of having a king in power who believed in extending his glory through warfare and later on the palace of Versailles. Therefore, much of Colbert’s suggestions were never implemented or he was even unable to achieve what he hoped they did.

Richelieu faced many problems when he took power of the King’s Chief Minister. As it says in The Sources of the West on page 9, he thinks that the Huguenots and nobles are a bad example that was “… so prejudicial to the welfare of this realm that even the best courts are effected by it…”. The Huguenots were such a problem since they had a huge influence on the French people and since they were rebellious to Richelieu’s rule. The nobles were a problem since he thought that they had too much power and would “… fail to serve the crown constantly and courageously with both their swords and their lives…” (page 10, 2nd paragraph). In the Political Testament, he said that the punishment

French minister Richelieu symbolized absolutism in many ways. With his policy of total subordination of all groups and institutions to the French monarchy, Richelieu worked to break the power of nobility. This is because French nobility’s selfish and independent ways went against the the crown’s goal to centralize the state. To break it Richelieu leveled castles, which were a symbol of feudal independence. He also destroyed aristocratic conspires, with speedy executions. In addition to this Richelieu’s genius is best reflected in the administrative system he established. Extending the use of royal commissioners, known as intendants giving them responsibility for justice, police, and finances in each of Frances 32 generalities or districts.

King Louis XIV believed that state authority rested in him alone. Therefore, he used the following methods to secure his position as absolute ruler. Louis manipulated those who attended his court through the use of strategically granting presents, honorable distinctions, highly favored positions, financial allowances, as well as threat of punishment if not pleased with any individual. Louis made his courtiers so dependent on him that aristocrats trampled one another so to be the ‘one’ to garner Louis’ attention and pleasure. Dignitaries fought to be seated closer to Louis, nobles wrangled for the right to hold as he got dressed, his mistresses did whatever was necessary to please their king. How one behaved, spoke, their mannerisms, their clothing…all these were keenly observed by the king and could change at any moment which kept his courtiers on their toes. A lapse in etiquette surely meant doom for the offender as nobody

One of the foremost political writings in the world is The Prince by Machiavelli. Living in the tumultuous political world of 16th century Italy, Machiavelli masterfully crafts a guidebook meant for those seeking political success. But how does it fare against a political system developed a full two-hundred years prior and far outside the sphere of influence on its author? Surprisingly well. In Hrafnkel’s Saga, Hrafnkel is the godi of Adalbol who faces the loss of his title following a devastating encounter with a farmhand. Hrafnkel is a clear example of a Machiavellian prince, as shown through the three major phases of his rule: his initial rise, his maintaining of that power, and his recovery of his power following a defeat.

This struggle centered on the rights of nobles; rights which they had historically maintained under the feudal system, but were increasingly being stripped away by the monarchy. This conflict between nobility and the crown was nothing new. It had existed under Louis XIII and continued into the regency period of Louis XIV’s rule under the direction of chief minister Cardinal Mazarin who followed a policy of expanding royal power. This desire for increased power for the monarchy was directly influenced by the period of conflict prior to Louis’s reign. These conflicts – the French Wars of Religion and the Fronde – had left an indelible mark on the minds of many in France and gave rise to the idea that an increase in royal power would help stabilize French society.

The Prince, written by Niccoló Machiavelli, is essentially a guide for to-be rulers on how to be successful, in running a state, monitoring political issues, and so on. The book is a handbook that was dedicated, as said by Machiavelli in the dedicatory letter, to Lorenzo de’ Medici, who was the governor of Florence at the time. Machiavelli discusses, in thorough detail, necessary characteristics that a leader should possess in order for him to become victorious in his reign. An important concept that Machiavelli address is how virtue and fortune connect and affect the ability of the ruler to keep power. In Chapter XVIII, he implicitly defines virtue as the qualities needed by a prince to rule effectively and in favor of the people.

The Prince was written by Niccolo Machiavelli in July 1513 and dedicated to Lorenzo De Medici as he considered it would bring stability during the political turbulence in Italy. The Prince is simple and its logic straightforward. These traits highlight Machiavelli’s need to provide practical, easily understandable advice on how people should be ruled but, he does not set forth a vision of what society would be like without a civil government.

In spite of these statements, not all of his instructions are as unethical as his critics have made them out to be. Later, in Chapter IX, he states that “a prince must have the friendship of the common people; otherwise he will have no support in times of adversity” (109). It is out of pragmatism, and not morality, that he makes this assertion. The good will and well-being of the people are conducive to maintaining order and may help preserve the prince’s position of power. First and foremost, however, is that preservation of power for the

In contrast to The Estates General and the Revolution of 1789, Ronald L. Hayworth’s The Inviolability Controversy in the Trial of Louis XVI presents a picture of the Revolution from the side of the King. In many ways Louis XVI is a tragic figure who was very much ruined by circumstances more than deeds. Louis XVI came to power when France was suffering from the excesses and mismanagement caused by Louis the XIV, in particular, and his son Louis XV. With the country practically bankrupted by his predecessors, Louis XVI had a need to tax the people. The government’s revenue needed to come from somewhere.

Machiavelli’s The Prince is just as applicable to the lives of leaders in the 1500’s as it is for leaders in modern times. Although any person who is in a position of authority might not say that they use Machiavellian tactics. Through their actions it is evident that the teachings of The Prince are still used on a global scale. Concepts such as safeguarding the state, and becoming wealthy, are just a few of the concepts that are beneficial to a strong government and reflected in current political situations at home and abroad.

The fifteenth century was a period known as the Renaissance, or the new birth, of many philosophers. One well-known Renaissance thinker, Niccolo Machiavelli, was one of those philosophers whose political views caused an uproar during earlier centuries. His view on effective leadership was rather harsh and not exactly adopted in the Italian society. As a Renaissance citizen, Machiavelli proved his writing skills through a number of works such as short stories, plays, and histories. His more popular works included those call the Discourses on Livy and The Prince-which will be described further more in this paper. Unlike fellow notable Renaissance men such as Leonardo de Vinci or Michelango, Machiavelli was not an artist but through his work The Prince, he has been made well-known across the western lands. This piece of work, for which Machiavelli is famous, or infamous for writing, explains in detail what a prince(name for the leader of a state) needs to do for successful leadership of his land. It is his debatable theories scripted in this work that some contribute to him the title of the first modern day philosopher of political science.

Machiavelli writes instructions on how one may gain and maintain power. The reader is provided with strategies that have been devised based on observation of the behaviors of various rulers and their varying