Richelieu was a very determined and motivated man. He was very focused on obedience and peace among the people. He was also somewhat behind his time in some of his thoughts. During all of his work, he consistently aimed for himself to be a great nobleman, so that he could stand as an example for the grands that he punished. In this aspect he did in fact live as one. For example, he maintained companies of guards and owned a summer home. Some of his thoughts were somewhat behind his time. This can be seen as he believed men were set in their ways because of the class they were born into. He focused on restoration rather than revolution. This vision of the past is obvious in that he “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality” (p. 186). Richelieu’s views of the monarch were easy to connect with and thus very realistic for many people. He viewed the monarch as a father to the people. When the people misbehaved it was as if the children had, and thus the responsibility of the monarch. He felt that a strong monarch was necessary. If the people, no matter what their stature in society, disobeyed and rebelled against him, they were traitors and needed to be punished. Richelieu was a man who put the order and obedience of the people to the monarch much above most else. The people were extremely important to him, but if they disobeyed, he felt harsh measures towards them was the only fitting action.
Cardinal Richelieu was a very intelligent man, who believed in the divine right of the king; with the nobility, clergy, and common people under his power. He believed that by combining the royal power, he could destroy opposing factions. Through his energy and passion, Richelieu was able to influence and transform France into a centralized state. It all started through his upbringing, where he was surrounded by a “family possessed of ambition and of a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown” (187). Because of the beliefs that he was exposed to during his youth, he was driven by the desire to serve the king. He had this traditional belief that everyone played a specific role in a state. Every group had something to contribute to society: the clergy through prayer; the nobility with arms under the control of the king, and the common people simply to obey the divine rule. He believed that the king’s role was to promote peace and order in society. Richelieu also believed that all those who opposed the king should be severely punished. He considered all rebels to be traitors. “Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken” (191). In addition to being passionate towards the king and state, he also was known for his love of literature and the arts. He himself, wrote a number of political works, and promoted the careers of writers, as well as founding the French Academy. He was a frequent theatergoer, which he loved. Cardinal Richelieu was a passionate and ardent man, whose beliefs and ideas helped in empowering France. He believed that the king was to keep social order, while being served by all those beneath him. He considered all members of the state as servicemen to the king, and all those who opposed him were to be severely punished. And he even had an artistic side to him, as he was known as a patron of art!
Kimmil. How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
Absolutism, according to the reading, was a policy formed mostly out of the fiscal crisis. It’s power was seemingly a desperate one, a series of “innovations” to raise revenue and establish a new ruling order that would raise up the state from its lapse in overall prosperity. The wealth and prestige of the nobility was falling, and society was unsure of how to deal with the small agricultural evolution in the countrysides. Kimmil agrees with certain other scholars when he states: “attempts to resolve this fiscal crisis engendered a crisis of political legitimacy when traditional social arrangements were abridged to garner further revenues.”
Absolutism seemed to be absolute only to the point where the monarchy could attach himself to the state in that the other parties would and could form sufficient alliances to overthrow that absolute government.
The plan to convert the pays de’etat into pays d’election would have brought about much administrative contorl over outlying provinces in France controlled by hereditary nobles, but this project was abandoned when it became clear that provincial parlements, laboring classes, and hereditary nobility would counter that measure. For this reason, Richelieu withheld himself as a wave of popular uprising (pre-Frondes) posed problems for the regime. Similarly, England warily circumvented the issues of abolishing the Welsh language and religious diversity—trying to impose absolute power over these issues would have prompted serious popular uprisings that would have threatened the status quo.
The way the absolutist state was kept up also seemed a little shaky and not as firm or absolute as one would have liked. Motives in absolutism seem to call for contradictory action. For example, Richelieu had to both ally with the strong aristocracy in order to protect the monarchy against a strong bourgeoisie, but it was equally important to undermine the legitimacy of the nobility become the ruling class in the current monarch’s stead.
French and English absolutism were similar in many respects. They were both a response to the fiscal crisis. Both monarchies recognized the importance of the aristocracy while undermining their autonomous position in politics. In their methods of raising revenue to save the treasury and pay debt, the two governing regimes both employed many of the same taxes. England turned to old and newer, more encompassing taxes and fines on nobility and knighthood. Royal taxation often was followed by land enclosure. Both monarchies also turned to selling noble titles for money.
And yet, there were crucial differences as well. The French bureacracy that enough muscle to attack the higher nobility, whereas the English Stuart government could only jab at the lesser nobles with fees and fines. Also, Kimmil encompasses the differences that led to the Stuart absolutism getting thwarted far faster than the monarchy in France in the term “relative backwardness”. The English monarchy had a massive bureacracy with no standing army and a local taxation system caused it to be weaker than the French monarchy, which was strong enough to fight with centralized bureacratic agents sent to undermine other local social groups in the nation. However, the French fought off opposition by politically excluding them, which led to a mass rebellion in the 1800’s. The English monarchy, Kimmil states, was much weaker than the English economy, whose development had nutured the growth of groups strong enough to challenge the existing regime. This led to the English government restricting agricultural growth that was beneficial to many of its citizens, thus alienating it from its people’s favor. French absolutism government could readily absorb these economic changes. The countryside, in particular, and the way the monarchy handled the developments happening there with enough resilience to withstand revolution, determined the failure or success of the governing ruler. Urban capitalists, too, were a differing force against the French and English backdrops. While, in France, capitalist elements sought royal protection against local and regional power, capitalism was against the Stuarts in England.
These defining features Kimmil mentions, often compounded together, finally lead to the overthrow of the English absolute monarchy and the preservation of French absolutism, until it is then totally razed by the culminated feelings in the French Revolution.
Richelieu was a man who was motivated to do great things for French society, and he based his general opinions on the belief that the king has the divine right to rule over the people. His social policies were rooted in historical views rather than a utopian vision, mainly focusing on restoration rather than revolution or renovation. He believed that men acted in prescribed ways because of the station, be it noble or base, into which they were born. This belief was reflected in his own upbringing. He was born into a family possessed with ambition and a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown. Although he was a part of the first estate, he had the ambition to lead the life of a great nobleman. From his experience growing up he developed a desire to serve the king and he maintained the belief that everyone in society played a role for the common good. He developed an analogy which compared the king to a father who would be forced to assume the responsibility of the peoples’ (children’s) misbehaving ways. He also felt that the people had no right to rebel against the monarch and that they were traitors and deserved to be punished if they did. Once Richelieu was able to obtain power he devoted a great deal of his attention to war and diplomacy. He believed that external war and diplomacy were linked to internal affairs and that while Frenchmen had power to rebel, a strong foreign policy could not be pursued. Overall, Richelieu’s beliefs and ideas helped develop France into a centralized state led by a king who kept social order and was served by the people beneath him.
Richelieu was an extremely ambitious and very motivated man. Loyalty was also one of his defining traits. His first duty was to the king and country. He was very focused on obedience of the people to their king, for the prosperity of the kingdom. Richelieu was also a humble man and rarely was vain. He was also somewhat behind his time in some of his thoughts and often looked back to the past for inspiration. With this in mind I would say that he was a reactionist. During all of his work, he consistently aimed for himself to be a great nobleman by earning the favor of the king. This was so that he could set an effective example for the grands and others that he punished. He served his duty to the king faithfully and never fought for power, as a good nobleman should. For these actions he also maintained some of the privileges of a noble man. For example, he maintained companies of guards and owned a summer home. Some of his thoughts were somewhat behind those of modern thinkers at the time. He often looked to the past an idealized it. This can be seen as he believed men were set in their ways because of the class they were born into. He focused on restoration of these older methods rather than revolution. In this way he could be considered a reactionist. This vision of the past that he saw was “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality”. Richelieu’s views of the monarch were easy to understand at the time but not often in the favor of the noblemen’s to follow. He viewed the monarch as a father to the people of the nation. When the people misbehaved it was as if the children had, and thus the responsibility of the monarch to punish them and set things right. He felt that a strong monarch was necessary for this and a weak one would simply be overthrown. If any one, even noblemen, rebelled against the king they were to considered traitors and punished as such. Richelieu was a man who put the loyalty and obedience of the people to the monarch much above most else. The people were extremely important to him, but if they disobeyed the king, he felt any necessary measures towards them could be taken.
The first thing that distinguishes Richelieu is his ability to see the necessities of a situation. He saw beyond some of the petty issues that confined the actions of some of his colleagues. This is shown by his ability to gain respect and help from those of other religions. Although he was distinctly Catholic, Richelieu was able to see beyond some of the conflicts between his religious devotion and those of others and seek help from Protestants. This in itself shows quite a bit about his insight as to the future of his government and his people. I say his people, of course, because the King was able to see the brilliance in his character as much as we do now. Richelieu was devoted beyond comprehension to the success of his government and strove to make the French government as powerful as it can be by making it more centralized and stable. For the Europe of the Enlightenment Era, it was not out of the ordinary. Quite the contrary, actually; it can be considered more archaic than anything. He thought that the more refined form of government was one that had already passed, and that to make the government prosper once more, an old way of thinking was needed. By limiting the power of the nobility and creating a more highly centralized monarchy, Richelieu essentially proved that not all Enlightenment thinking had to be a Liberal endeavor and that not all of the old ideas about a central power were a hindrance. Richelieu was also very devoted to the arts. One of his distinctive loves was writing, with which he penned the Political Testament. From some outside research I did on him, Richelieu seemed to be particularly fond of Titian and other Renaissance artists, which might also stem back to his reactionary style of thinking.
Richelieu was an interesting man, he was very hung up on the idea that how you acted was a reflection of the class in which you were born into, and he began trying to work his way up to the noble class, so he could see how they thought, because their ideas and thoughts were different because they were from a different class. Because he believed you thought only the same as how you were brought up he denied his parents, being of the lower nobility, Richelieu lived mostly in poverty, and he blamed his parents for this. His major ideas were that rebellion and revolution were not a good way to go about things, but rather by restoring things back to the way they were. He seems to me a very stubborn man, in that he passed while he still believed he had restored France back to the way it was, which he believed was better. Richelieu believed in the nobility in a more historical sense, that they were peaceful and courageous, and served the monarch for the good of all. Where as in reality, the nobility was mostly greedy members of society who served with their own intentions in mind rather than the intentions of others. He saw the upper class, and the monarch as a scolder, the one who keeps wrong-doers in line. He also realized that without a great family estate to back him that he would have to earn the money to become a great nobleman on his own, through earning the kings favor. This showed that he held the nobility in the greatest regard, and yearned to be at the same level as them, no matter what it took. You could consider this one of two ways, one that he was greedy, and wanted the money and power, or two that he was ambitious and wanted the power and money he would gain by being in the upper nobility and be able to use it to help others.
Richelieu was obviously a very ambitious and driven man. As a lower noble at the beginning of his life, he showed his outstanding endurance rising up to a very high political position under Louis XIII. Throughout his career he demonstates many instances that show he is a self motivated person. Although Richelieu claims “It is to my glory to be exposed to everyone for the service of the king. Thank God, what consoles me is that I have no personal enemies, and that I have never offended anyone save in the service of the State, where I will never cede, no matter what happens to me.” I believe that he was more of a self serving individual then one that gave everything to the state. When Richelieu was attempting to control the nobles for the King, he was really attempting to keep them under his own control. Richelieu was a man who liked power and he worked very hard to get it. He realized that he had to make various concessions to nobles to keep his power and he did such as in the case of Prince de Conde. He gave Conde command of the armies to gain support among the grands. However Conde didn’t do expressly what the king ordered and Rouchelieu held back his anger. Rouchelieu knew he needed friends to stay in power. He also showed self centeredness during his attack of La Vieuville. By accusing La Vieuville of being to soft, Richelieu created an avenue for himself to move up. He constantly on the lookout for more power. Another instance of selfishness occurred with Gaston d’Orleans. Gaston, the heir to the throne had been involved with some of the noble revolts. Richelieu knew that he could not offend Gaston or if the king died Richelieu would be executed. So Richelieu gave Gaston power and watched him closely, protecting his life and his power. In conclusion I believe that Richelieu was a self-centered man who only looked after himself and not for his country as he claimed. He did work for his country but really he wanted more power.
Cardinal Richelieu was an idealistic man who had great faith in the noble class and their duty to serve the king. He was the type of man who would wish for a return to “the good old days” when supposedly a powerful monarch strictly governed a society that was explicitly separated into the three classes (estates). A man of the noble class himself, Richelieu believed that the king should have a firm grip over the nobles. He was a believer in absolutism in order to ensure peace and tranquility for all the king’s subjects. While recognizing its sources, Richelieu was not tolerant of any kind of rebellion to the king. He sought not to reform contemporary society, but to restore a system of the old days with no second thoughts about using military strength against disobedient nobles. Once made Cardinal, Richelieu was manipulative and successful in winning the confidences of important figures. By dedicating himself to the cause of absolute state and monarchy he was able to dominate the king himself. He was careful to a degree with France’s foreign policy, attempting to make sure that no civil war within the country would break out before making moves on the European stage. Logical to his ideologies, Richelieu believed that noble privilege should not lead to political influence. In reality, the situation in France was far from Richelieu’s ideal. A few members of the noble class would always be attempting to encroach upon royal authority at one time or another. Richelieu, however, was a dedicated man who was unwaveringly solid in his beliefs of noble obedience to the state and monarch. Throughout his long career as a Cardinal and advisor, he would be remarkably consistent in his policies of “humbling the arrogance of the noblemen.”
How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
By definition absolutism is a form of government in which the ruler is a monarch who has complete power over and above the social classes. The aristocracy is subservient to the monarchy, providing political and military support, but at times challenging the authority of the monarch. The exact nature of the relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy really defines “how absolute is absolutism.” Monarchs realized that the aristocracy was an important source of political support, but also posed a potential risk to their power. The 17th Century was a period of social and fiscal crises “foreign wars, declining prices and economic stagnation, bad harvests, epidemics, and social upheavals” (Salmon, 1967:28). Ultimately it was an effort to resolve the pressures created by the fiscal crisis that resulted in the need for monarchs to redefine their relationship with the noble classes.
Cardinal Richelieu realized that the nobility was a powerful and vital economic and political group. He also recognized that the aristocracy’s provincial foundations of power, their advantaged status, their immunity from taxation, and their extravagant way of life threatened the centralized power of the monarchy. They could remain a ruling class only to the extent that they were subordinate to the king. In an attempt to weaken the power of the aristocracy, Richelieu encouraged competition between nobles and he restricted the power of the provincial governors by blending them with royal and military administrators.
Similarly the English Crown also sought to undermine the political independence of the aristocracy while acknowledging its importance. The sale of noble titles was conducted to raise funds while also weakening the status and honor of the noble class. To supplement revenues, the English monarch also imposed fines and taxes on the gentry class including fines for knighthood and ship money.
Absolutism in both France and England shared some similarities. In both cases, absolutism represented a restructuring of the relationship between the king and the aristocracy. The English revolution of 1640 to 1660 and the French Frondes that occurred from 1648 to 1653 were similar reactions to attempts by the monarchies to obtain the fiscal resources needed to resolve their fiscal crises. Monarchs in France and England both attempted to extract revenues from their subjects by imposing taxes, fines, and selling noble titles. Both French and English kings had to abandon certain initiatives such as Richelieu’s plan to convert pays d’etat to pays d’election and the elimination of the Welsh language and the termination of English religious diversity. There were serious revolts in both France and England in response to some of the measures implemented by the monarchies.
Nonetheless there were significant differences between the French and English monarchies. England had a more complex class system with several layers of nobility including the gentry classes. The monarchs in England attempted to resolve their fiscal problems at the expense of the gentry class rather than the aristocracy while the French kings confronted the highest nobles directly. The English monarch was unable to counteract the opposition from religious protesters, urban merchants and artisans, and rural gentry during the Revolution of 1640 to 1660. The balance of political power shifted and the rule of the monarch became more symbolic than powerful. While there was greater religious tolerance in England than in France, religious dissent was not the primary reason for the uprisings in France and England. Kimmil asserts that it was the “relative backwardness” of the English monarchy in contrast to the French monarchy and English economy that accounts for the different outcomes. England’s lack of a permanent army, its substantial bureaucracy, and its local taxation structure weakened the structure of its monarchy. The French monarchy was initially successful at overcoming local social groups through its use of centralized administrative agents, until these groups successfully defeated absolutism a century and a half later during the French revolution. Economic development in England, in particular the commercialization of agriculture, was a stronger force than the English monarchy. As a result the structure of the English government had to change to accommodate this economic progress. The French economy was inferior to both its monarchy and the English economy, so the political state was able to consolidate any economic changes.
Richelieu was a very idealistic, ambitious and somewhat self-centered and arrogant man. His goal as a young stallion was to rise from his warrior social class to become a noble man and eventually try to become the most important man in France. His ambition was clear as a young man because instead of wanting to follow in the footsteps of his father as a soldier, he decided to join the church. “Richelieu’s early aim of military grandeur had been thwarted by the exigencies of a destitute family, nevertheless he remained precociously ambitious, and even in the obscure Bishop of Lucon one sees a man totally identified with the monarch and the State.” (Ranum 186). Through his hard he slowly went up the ladder to success gaining favor with the monarchy. As he reached his highest position, his views were very counter-revolution and idealistic. His goal in life was to return France back to the “good old days”. However, looking back at his work in France, he actually did the reverse of what he wanted to do. Richelieu was for absolutism as he tried to limit their power early in his career. Due to his ambitious lifestyle and his idealistic views, he did things that were viewed as selfish and arrogant. In separate occasions he did things for the betterment for his legacy and his idealism. In one occasion, Richelieu allowed Prince Conde to command the armies against the Huguenots even though the king was against the prince leading the army due to his cruel actions. Overall, Richelieu was a very driven character whose idealism made into an self-centered and arrogant person.
Richelieu was a very interesting man who was very ambitious and determined. He firmly believed that everyone acted the way they did because of the class that they were born into. He was born into poverty, and he spent a large portion of his life trying to become a nobleman. Like many others in his family, he served the crown and eventually worked his way up. Many of Richelieu's ideas were based on the past, and he wanted to return to the ways of the past. Richelieu believed that the monarch should be extremely powerful, and ultimately believed in absolutism. Richelieu viewed the king as the "father" of the people so when they misbehaved it was the king's duty to punish them. It was his belief that the monarch was supposed to maintain peace, stablity and order among the people. He also believed that society should be based on obligation, service, and favor. Richelieu tried to fix the mistakes of the past once he gained enough political power to do so. Richelieu believed his greatest task was to concentrate on war and diplomacy. Richelieu was not only a man of politics but also of literature and art. He promoted writers' careers and wrote many political pieces. Cardinal Richelieu was a very passionate and motivated man who greatly empowered France. His ideas consisted of old beliefs and he thought the king should have absolute power. He believed that all men no matter what their rank were servicemen to the crown and anyone who disobeyed should be punished. Richelieu was very constant in his beliefs and he ultimately helped France in many ways.
A namesake that explicitly defines Cardinal Richelieu is a visionary. Born in France to a family royal to the crown Richelieu spent his whole life striving to achieve the same noble status and respect that his father and grandfather both achieved; through service to the crown. .Richelieu also embodied an interesting political stance, which can be obviously related to his fervent royalty to the crown, he is what one would pint point as a reactionary on the political spectrum. Richelieu firmly believed that the king had divine power to rule the people, and that these people who were being ruled acted the way they did, based on their status in society. Thus these “children” of France must be taught right and controlled by the divine father: the king. Richelieu, belonging to nobility himself, also stated fro a tighter grip on the nobility by the king. To Richelieu any sort of rebellion or attack against the monarch was condemnable and unacceptable. And the nobles being dominated by excessive emotionalism and devotion to honor in a Cornellian manner could not possibly act rationally and are left out of control. When presented the power of cardinal, and its status, Richelieu sought to use this power to dominate not only the nobility but the king himself. With intelligent thinking and plotting, he eventually took control of the entire French monarch; indirectly controlling the country. However, contrary to Richelieu’s vision, France was far from Richelieu’s views and goals. Leaving Richelieu nothing but a visionary. Richelieu was indeed a prominent figure in France, and absolutism history. Being fervently supportive of an absolute monarchy, he spent his whole life pursuing his vision, a vision of France returning to the past where things were, to Richelieu, better.
A namesake that explicitly defines Cardinal Richelieu is a visionary. Born in France to a family royal to the crown Richelieu spent his whole life striving to achieve the same noble status and respect that his father and grandfather both achieved; through service to the crown. .Richelieu also embodied an interesting political stance, which can be obviously related to his fervent royalty to the crown, he is what one would pint point as a reactionary on the political spectrum. Richelieu firmly believed that the king had divine power to rule the people, and that these people who were being ruled acted the way they did, based on their status in society. Thus these “children” of France must be taught right and controlled by the divine father: the king. Richelieu, belonging to nobility himself, also stated fro a tighter grip on the nobility by the king. To Richelieu any sort of rebellion or attack against the monarch was condemnable and unacceptable. And the nobles being dominated by excessive emotionalism and devotion to honor in a Cornellian manner could not possibly act rationally and are left out of control. When presented the power of cardinal, and its status, Richelieu sought to use this power to dominate not only the nobility but the king himself. With intelligent thinking and plotting, he eventually took control of the entire French monarch; indirectly controlling the country. However, contrary to Richelieu’s vision, France was far from Richelieu’s views and goals. Leaving Richelieu nothing but a visionary. Richelieu was indeed a prominent figure in France, and absolutism history. Being fervently supportive of an absolute monarchy, he spent his whole life pursuing his vision, a vision of France returning to the past where things were, to Richelieu, better.
Cardinal Richelieu, in Ranum's eyes, was a determined, ambitious, and intelligent man bent on creating a social equilibrium in France and making it one of the most powerful nations of the time. He looked to the past for answers, not to revolution or renovation. Richelieu was unwavering in his ideals that the nobility must be "peacefully and courageously serving the monarch (186)" invariably without hesitation or second thought. Many of his beliefs were rooted in the caste system, or assumption that a man is born into a certain class or estate which determines how he acts for the rest of his life. Richelieu was also very dogmatic when he claimed the monarch to be all-powerful and have divine right. A firm believer in absolutism, he stressed the need for the monarch to have complete control over the nobility.
Having acquired the political influence necessary, Richelieu expressed his loyalty by setting himself as an example of one of the trustworthy nobility. Working his way up the ranks, he became secretary of state. From this position he could advise the King personally and deem any rebellion among the grands treason. The only answer to this treason would be harsh punishment, as a father would punish misbehaving children. But Richelieu's journey would not stop at advising the King on matters such as these, he sought to control the kind and the nobility himself. Soon, through an indirect manner, France was under his jurisdiction, and in his mind, he had achieved the dream which he had chased after his entire lifetime. Unfortunately for him, his stubbornness and ignorance to the immediate world blocked him from seeing that what he had created was an opposite of the world he had dreamed.
It is clear that Richelieu was, first and foremost, a very ambitious man. And, as his father and grandfather alike, he worked to fulfill his ambitions through service to the crown. Although his forefathers did this through the military, he was prevented from this path by poverty. As a poor bishop, he knew the likelihood of becoming part of the Sacred College was slim without royal favor. To achieve his goals, this royal favor had to been gained, so he set out with such a purpose. Richelieu’s ambition is also apparent in his goal to become a nobleman. Richelieu essentially desired to advance in society. This demonstrates how important he felt a person’s station in society was- he thought that their station forever influenced the way each person would act throughout their life. Hence, he felt that power should rest in the higher class of society and devoted much of his life to strengthening the nobility. While he diminished the political rights of the Huguenots, he made them into more reliable citizens. However, he was more careful when it came to the rights of the nobility because he knew of their influential power in the French state. Under Richelieu’s guidance, the power of the monarchy was increased and strengthened. This shows that his ambitions carried him throughout his life by giving him the determination and the means to achieve the goals he set and the visions he created.
Kimmel: In "The mbivalence of Absolutism," Kimmil brings up the point that absolutism is not totally absolute because it is almost impossible for a leader to have complete control over his country. One reason why it is so difficult is because the nobles of a country have been in place for many years and are necessary, however are extremely difficult to influence and control. Absolutism cannot stay the main form of government for long in most countries for this reason. Most times it serves as a form of transition from one form of government to another. The differences of French and English absolutism lays in how the leader dealt with the nobility in their country. The French thought that it would be most benificial to have complete control over the aristocracy. Richielieu, who was the leader in France, put in plans to limit the power of the nobility in order for himself to have more control. The absolutism in France lasted longer than in England, but in the end it hurt the country more than helped it. It led to violent revolts known as Fronde and eventually to the French Revolution. Absolutism in England did not last as long, but it was a helpful transition into its next government, which had a larger reliance on Parliament. In some ways the absolutism governments in France and England were the same. They were both transition governments and they were both put in place to help the fiscal crisis. The countries were near bankrupcy when absolutism was put in place and it was there to have control over every part of the government in order to help the country. However, with this type of government, leaders got power hungry, which led to problems in the end. Absolutism ended in both countries and led to a new kind of government that worked better for each country and its people.
Kimmil. How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
Absolutism was not at all absolute. The government adopted this system because it they had come to realize that they needed a new system of government in order to keep themselves in power. This then opted absolutist governments to eliminate the private armies and set up professional ones. Thus, with a standing army, the government needed funds and they turned to the middle class for support through taxing. In essence, the government in the end was made up of middle class officials who bought their way in. Due to the increase in taxes, the lower class started to feel the effects thus in the end lead to revolutions led by the gentries. For both England and France, the idea of absolutism was great and it worked great in the short term. The reason was the large amounts of money that was coming in to the government. However, in the long the ever growing mixing of the middle class such as the merchants and the nobility class caused the gentry class to feel threatened and unwelcome. In addition, unwise spending for both France and England caused a greater deficit rather than any gain at all. For the French, they mostly focused on preserving the nobility and middle class and their own economy. However, with the rise income of the middle class, this caused a great rise in inflation, which caused the nobility to start losing money and in turn their power. Thus, this growing crisis with the nobility caused a confidence problem with the rest of the country; the nobility frightened by their loose of wealth took it out on their tenants or the lower class. This caused great social upheaval between the nobility and the lower class. Meanwhile the middle class, especially the merchants gained from the loose of the nobility thus themselves replaced them. While England experienced similar problems of the rise in prices and social rift, these problems however were much worse because the government especially Queen Elizabeth allowed the nobility to mistreat the lower class. Moreover, religion also had a major part to play between the ever-growing tension of the nobility and gentry classes. So, in the England and France's absolutist governments both had initial economic gains but that gain so turned against both the government, nobility and the lower class. Meanwhile the middle class gained so much from these loses. It is this economic lose which caused the growing social conflict which eventually turned into revolutions in both countries.
Among the more obvious and lucid descriptions of Cardinal Richelieu is that he was a staunch supporter of absolutism, which had been rooted and grounded in him from the ambition as well as the values harbored by his own family. Richelieu believed that the second estate should remain subservient and obedient to the monarch, yet this should not deprive the great noblemen of their prestige, wealth, and privileges (Ranum 197). He committed most of his life to bring to fruition a more powerful and efficient state as well as monarch, and to achieve what he believed was equilibrium and order in French society, even though it was antagonistic with aristocratic ideals of the past. One idea that discloses parts of Richelieu’s character was his belief that when the grands or aristocrats rebel against the monarch, they should be totally suppressed. He even goes on to equate rebels to inferior persons, which demonstrates how he was so strongly against rebellion and disorder in the French state. These ideas parallel more to that of Hobbes than any other 18th century philosopher, because he advocates the supremacy of the monarch. Now on the idea of preventing rebellion through the demilitarization or destruction of fortifications Richelieu seems to be domineering, imperious, and even tenacious in character. He stresses the need to suppress all rebellions of the second estate as a master would have suppressed a slave revolt. But Richelieu’s motive for the suppression of revolts was not so mush his want to depreciate the prestige and power of the noblemen, but more so to maintain social order in France (Ranum 197). Cardinal Richelieu also shows himself also to have much acuity and foresight. For example, Richelieu knew that there was a correlation between internal affairs and diplomacy. Therefore he ascertained that if the French nobility had the capacity to rebel against the state, then a strong foreign policy could not be readily pursued (Ranum 193). This demonstrates acuity and shrewdness, in that; he foresaw the repercussions of allowing rebellion to perpetuate in French society. In the beginning of Ranum’s essay and analysis, he asserts that Richelieu recommended a policy requiring total submission. Only armed force and imprisonment could control the rebellious mentality which had been allowed to form among the grands in the past. This is significant to explain what Cardinal Richelieu was like because it helps one to discover where he falls on the political spectrum. From the few sentences above, one can tell that he is definitely not retrogressive in thought, because a rebellious mentality had been allowed in the past, but rebellion must be not be tolerated according to Richelieu. Richelieu thus would not be retrogressive, but more liberal in that he is advocating change in the position of the second estate in French society, but not necessarily radical change. Furthermore, Cardinal Richelieu’s character is disclosed by his background, words, as well as actions. And from such, one realizes that some of the characteristics that comprise who Richelieu was include ambition, tenacity, imperiousness, liberalism more than retrogressive ideals, and foresight as well as acuity.
Richelieu was a very determined man. Throughout his life, he had a set of goals which he thought he was attaining. These goals of his were molded by the belief that people act a certain way due to the social class in which they are born to. He hoped by attaining his goals that he would help to better the political and social aspect of France. Richelieu believed to have made the social classes equal, while historians thought him to have destroyed the social structure. Richelieu was a very ambitious man. Being born to the lower class, he needed help from noblemen to help him achieve his goals of evening out the social structure. He wanted to "diminish the arrogance of great nobility." (pg 202). While Richelieu sought to create equality between the social classes, he still believed that the King had the divine right to rule. While Richelieu was a very intelligent man, his ideas were a little outdated. His ideal of the great nobleman with the lives of his aristocratic contemporaries contrasted greatly. Richelieu believed that he had forced the great nobility to accept its proper role in society. He didn't recognize that political power and social prestige were related. He believed that all commoners were under the command of the King and that they all should love him and pledge their allegiance to him. He demanded obedience to the state. Through this, Richelieu believed that rebellion would be eliminated. Richelieu was a very successful man, motivated by his many goals and ambitions to improve the political and social aspects of France.
Cardinal Richelieu was an idealistic and determined individual who had visions of restoring the role of the French nobility as dutiful servants of the monarchy. The source of these attributes can be traced back to Richelieu’s childhood. He grew up as a member of the first estate, yet “had the ambition to lead the life of a great nobleman” (187). He greatly desired to acquire this goal. His views on the monarchy can also be seen as products of his childhood ambitions. Because he was a member of the first estate, the only way to gain power was through favor from the crown. Richelieu was also a man who greatly wanted to fulfill his family’s legacy of determination and service to the crown. He eagerly waited for the day when he would gain approval from his ancestors in an age when dynastic temperament was important.
These elements of Richelieu’s life greatly shaped his visions for French society. He favored a strong monarch, one that set limits for his people. Richelieu saw “the king as the father of his people, and when they misbehaved, the responsibility was the king's” (190). He looked at society from a historical perspective, and commented on past events.
Overall, Cardinal Richelieu was perhaps too ambitious of a man. He thought constantly of his own visions for society and was somewhat self-centered. Individuals who disagreed with him, such as Comte de Montmorency-Bouteville, who opposed Richelieu’s suppression of dueling, were persecuted. In this case, Montmorency was executed, shocking all of the French nobility. In carrying out such policies, Richelieu strove to become a great nobleman, fulfilling his ambitions.
1) Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu? Richelieu was a very determined man who sought to make France a powerful nation. He grew up in a lower class noble family and focused on academics rather then war. King Henry IV chose him to become beishop and Richelieu's focus on academics soon averted to religion and power. Once Richelieu was in power, he transformed France into a strong state by restraining the power of the nobility, consolidating royal power, and crushing domestic factions. Richelieu also was a believer in absolutism to ensure peace and harmony for all the king’s subjects. Richelieu soon came to be known as an accomplished and storong leader, and was appointed chief minister. As chief minister he set two goals: to centralize the power of France and destroy the Habsburg power. Richelieu began to centralize France by trying to make the power umong the poeple equal. This made many powerful nobles turn against him. Along with this Richelieu was set on dividing the relgions in France. This caused more problems and hurt Richelieu when it came time for the thirty years war. Because he openly allied himself with the protestants, many people from the roman catholic church thought of him as a traitor. Although Richeieu lost some followers becuase of his relgious controversies, he was always set on doing what was best for France. His goals were to make France a stronger nation and to rid of the Habsburg dynasty. He was very focused on the past and trying to make France more like it was years before. He believed in a strong monarch and many people admired his ambition and his srtive to achieve absolute power.
Though Cardinal Richelieu is often looked at as a tyrant, he was an extremely smart man. He knew what he believed in (divine right of the king) and he knew that in order to unite France to his liking, he would need to unite royal power. Without a united government, how could one have a united country?
Richelieu was brought up close to the crown. He came from a “family possessed of ambition and of a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown” (187). Because this is what he was brought up to know, this is how he acted during his life. He believed that every individual person had a role in society, and that it was their duty as a citizen of France, to fulfill that duty. The role of the clergy was to pray, the nobility to produce soldiers, and the third estate to follow what they were told. Lastly, the Kings role was to keep structure and peace within society. Richelieu also believed that the king was the supreme power. Therefore, those who opposed him should be done away with. They were rebels, they were traitors, they were disrupting the peace of the country. “Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken” (191).
Richelieu, also loved the arts in all forms. He promoted the arts because he felt that the artists, musicians, actors and others were as much of a service to the king as were the noblemen and the commoners. Cardinal Richelieu had passion for many things from government to the arts. His desire to create a unified France allowed for France to become a stable major world power. His beliefs of a social order are still followed to an extent today. In conclusion, Cardinal Richelieu, though sometimes looked on in a bad light, can also be looked at as a major help to France and French society
Richelieu was a very dedicated and focused man. He wanted to be part of the nobility and wanted people to respect and follow the monarchy.
One of his beliefs was that people acted certain ways according to what social level they were born into. He believes that the nobility have better behavior. That they were born into a higher, better class and that they should and are more respected then other people born into lower classes. He believed that rebels, mostly from lower classes, were very bad. Rebels went against the king and the monarchy. He believed that was a bad thing and that most external conflicts started within a kingdom and/or country.
Also, Richelieu wanted to lead the life that the nobelmen had. He wanted to have that power and authority. He also had many visions that were idealistic. They did not challenge the wealthy's money, privliges or prestige either.
Overall, Richelieu was a man who wanted to be part of the nobility. He believed that they were the best people and the best social class. Finally, he did not like rebels who went against the monarchy because he was the kind of man who respected and believed in the monarchy.
Richelieu was a very great and noble man. He served the crown to achieve the noble status and respect that his grandfather and father achieved. He believed that the monarchy and king were all encompassing and that the people should all be under the ruler. He felt a strong Monarch was needed to control the people. Richelieu also believed any sort of rebellion, uprising and attack against the monarch was punishable and deemed traitorous. “Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken” (191). Richelieu was also a visionary who “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality” (p. 186). Richelieu spent his life envisioning France returning to the past to which Richelieu believed was better. Not only was Richelieu a well respected leader he was also loved literature and the arts. He funded careers of many writers and was an often seen at the theater. He also patronized many writers and was the founder of Academie de Francaise, A French Literary Society.
Richelieu was a man with many ambitions and a great motivation to achieve them. Born into a family of noble status, with a father and grandfather whom the crown favored, Richelieu too spent his life following in their footsteps by paying service to the crown. He believed that people acted in a certain manner based on the social class they were born into. With this being said, Richelieu wanted to strengthen the power of nobility, because he felt the power should rest in the hands of those higher in social standings. Based on his noble birth and family, it was easier for Richelieu to make his way to the top, but that does not mean he did not work hard to achieve greatness. From a young age he knew that if he wanted to make an impact on French society he would have to win royal favor, and he spent his entire life trying to achieve that. His hard work paid off when he was named Cardinal. Once in this position he manipulated the king and establishment, and in turn he had control over the king and nobility. His ideologies on how to rule were reactionary in nature, because he wanted to reform, restore, and renovate contemporary France into how it had been in the “good old days”, where the kings were successful and had absolute rule over the people. On the other hand, his views were not completely reactionary, because he demanded change instantaneously. Essentially Richelieu wanted to return France to how it had been in the past, but he did not want the change to occur in a gradual manner; it needed to be changed at once. In his mind, all people had a duty to the crown, and anyone who rebelled against it was seen as a traitor and would be punished. He formulated an analogy comparing the king to a father and his people to children by stating that if the children misbehaved, it was their father’s responsibility to deal with them. Richelieu was a visionary with an ambitious attitude that lead him straight to the top. His motivations resulted into an increase in his own power and that of the monarchy while he was named Cardinal. However, his vision of a reformed, restored, and renovated French society was not the outcome he intended. In the end, his arrogance and stubbornness obstructed him from seeing that the “vision” he had created was far the utopian society he had dreamed.
How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
According to “The Ambivalence of Absolutism” by Kimmel my interpretation is that absolutism is not so absolute. In order for a government to have absolute rule by definition means that the ruler is a monarch who as complete power over and above all other social class. By this definition absolutism is not absolute. This is because the monarch should never be challenged or have problems with the lower social classes not obeying him. According to Kimmel the monarch was challenged and the monarchs depended heavily on the lower classes. The monarch depended on the aristocracy to provided political and military support. Sometimes the aristocrats would challenge the monarch when they disagreed. This would jeopardize the monarch’s power. Absolutism is not so absolute if the monarch’s power can be challenged or even taken away because the aristocracy did agree of like the monarchs behavior. England and France shared some similarities. One example that comes to mind is how both France and England shared similar revolutions. The English Revolution of 1640 to 1660 and the French Revolution that occurred from 1648 to 1653. These two revolutions were similar because they were both attempts by monarchs to fix the governments debts by imposing new laws. For example the selling of noble titles, new taxes, and more fines. England and France were also quite different. England had a more complex class system. The new law they implemented to get out of debt were targeted at the 3rd estate or the so called lower class. But France’s monarch targeted and called out the highest of the aristocracy. England was also different from France because they couldn’t control religious groups from over taking the monarch during the revolution of 1640 to 1660. Also Kimmel states that England’s lack of a permanent army and weak taxation would hurt the monarch. France did not have a huge problem with religion and didn’t have religious tolerance like England.
In the 17th century, monarchs of European states aimed to centralize their power and create a strong government. The religious wars had ended, and monarchs now focused on establishing stable governments absolute power. By definition, absolutism meant that all the authority of a state rested in the hands of the monarch. Though the governments of France of England were termed “absolutist,” monarchs did not have complete power. Rather, there were various sources of opposition to the monarchs’ rule, including the nobility, and they had to find ways to control them.
The nobility was a threat to absolute power. Their local and regional bases of power, their exemption from taxes, and their independent military organizations went against the states’ goal to centralize power. However, they were also the foundations of the government, so the monarchs could not get rid of the aristocracy. The 17th century was also a time of economic crisis. The governments needed ways to generate revenues for their economic and political objectives; the aristocracy’s income was decreasing, and the governments had to help the aristocracy. In addition, monarchs could not get rid of the aristocracy because this would have injured the legitimacy of the Crown. Thus, the states had to undermine the power of the aristocracy and, at the same time, meet their demands. Both English and French states displayed the ambivalence of the relationship between the nobility and state, and both tried to alter the relationship.
The monarchs had to find a way to control the nobility, to help them, and to generate revenue. In France, the Duke of Sully developed several mechanisms of administration within the old structure. As Kimmel says, he “circumvented constraints on participation in capitalist trade and used the venal officeholders, increasingly secure as robe nobles because of the institution of the paulette in 1604, as a royal wedge against the autonomous powers of the aristocracy” (55). Cardinal Richelieu allowed the nobility to enter the state but yet undercut their power and made them dependent. Richelieu also implemented other tactics to centralize the government’s power, such as the recherche de la noblesse, the removal of governors who did not obey, and the selling of titles.
In England, monarchs also tried to find ways to remove various sources of autonomy and create revenue. Like his French counterparts, Cromwell tried to suppress local religious and political autonomy. To generate revenues, the English government sold titles, tried to limit enclosures, and implemented various fines and taxes. However, unlike the French, who tried to generate income from the aristocracy, the English moved against the lesser nobility. In both England and France, the aristocracy lost some power, but their privilege, generally, remained.
It was difficult, if not impossible, to establish control over such large nations as France and England. There would always be opposition and people questioning or in disagreement with the government, no matter how much the monarchs tried to centralize power. Also, as Kimmel points out, some of both Cromwell and Richelieu’s strategies were simply too radical to implement and would have caused much opposition. This left pockets of autonomy. For example, provinces still had their own laws and courts, and local officials could still obstruct those laws that they did not like.
There was also opposition from England’s Parliament and France’s Estates-General, who did not always agree with the monarch and who fought with the monarch for power.
Both English and French absolutism created opposition from merchants, artisans, and gentry, as well as from the aristocrats. The governments implemented taxes, and the nobility resisted interference with traditional exemptions for taxation. Thus centralization caused withdrawal of support from the nobility, leading to rebellions.
The outcomes of the rebellions exemplified another difference between France and England. France was stronger; it had a large bureaucracy and standing army, and so it was able to suppress the Fronde rebellion. England, on the other hand, was weak structurally. It had local taxes, no large bureaucracy, and no standing army,. England was also challenged by economic developments, while France was able to absorb and incorporate the changes. Thus, the English absolutism failed, and France would survive for another century.
Richelieu was an extremely ambitious man who strove for the best. He set goals for himself early on in life and worked very hard to achieve them. He was born to the first estate, in which his father and grandfather were both warriors defending the French monarchy. Early in life Richelieu was destined for military service, but soon his ambition changed to become a great nobleman. His vision of great nobility was idealistic and in support of absolute monarchies. He believed people acted in specific ways because of the classes they were born into. He supported restoration instead of revolution or renovation. This was proven by his efforts to bring France back to the way it was in the past. He also wanted to correct errors from France's past. He believed society should be limited by the state. His policy to strengthen the state held the king as the father of the people. When people misbehaved, it was the king's job to punish them just like a father would. Richelieu was also a man of peace. His main goal was to strengthen the nobility in general. He did this by keeping gentlemen from destroying each other. To prevent men from harming each other he banned dueling. To strengthen the nobility he tried to diminish its arrogance, but this led him to become an enemy of the nobility that he so deeply wanted to be a part of.
There are many different aspects in describing the type of man that Richelieu was. First of all, he was extremely optimistic. According to the “Richelieu and the Great Nobility” reading, he was an ambitious innovator and had dreams of going from the second military estate to being accepted with the grands. He had ideas of restoring the past governmental rule of France and emphasizing the class distinctions. Going along with this, he wanted all importance focused on the King. All estates should pay attention to the King and any who rebel would be severely punished. With these ideals in mind, Richelieu made his way to the first estate and became Cardinal to King Louis XIII. He did everything in his power to give full control to the King and begin foundations of Absolutism in France. With that being said, Richelieu cared so much about the King’s powers that he acted dangerously towards all who opposed his rulings. If any of the subjects in the King’s court rebelled and rejected the rules, they were immediately punished and considered traitors. According to Richelieu, those who had different views from the King were not tolerated. He believed that if nobles’ committed a crime against the King, their punishment should be far greater than their inferiors because their crimes go “directly against the state.” (Richelieu 195) From this idea, the nobles agreed with what Richelieu believed and he began to gain the nobility approval at first, but lost interest from the rest of the estates, which he completely neglected. Later on through the wars against the Spanish and Huguenots and the Montmorency executions, the nobility began to trust him less and less and eventually his views did not reflect those of the nobility. He was extremely optimistic man but eventually his optimism took him too far.
Kimmil. How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
By looking at history, it is evident that no one has been successful in absolute absolutism. Kimmil himself says that absolutism is too conceptually confusing. There are, however, three theories which try to define and explain absolutism. These theories include: absolutism is a feudal state, absolutism rose as the bourgeoisie rose, and that absolutism was first a capitalist state. All of these theories contradict themselves though, and they don’t consider certain elements which can alter the relationship between the ruling and the people who are being ruled. Therefore, countries have tried for absolute absolutism, but no one has fully accomplished absolute absolutism. Even if one believes they have achieved absolute absolutism there is always something that they do not have complete control over, meaning they do not have absolute absolutism.
France and Britain are different when it comes to their process in creating an absolute government. France directly attacked the aristocracy and tried to have competition between the nobles and weaken their power whereas Britain attacked the gentry class hoping it would indirectly affect the aristocracy. Britain also was in major debt, and so the need of revenues from the aristocracy was more pressing than France’s need. France was successful in diminishing the aristocracy’s power and was able to withstand uprisings from other small classes. Britain however, had a complex class system with various levels of nobility and a huge gentry class, meaning it had a lot of attacks from various people. Britain also experienced more religious problems due to attempts in absolutism. Despite these differences, both countries attempted to create a monarch with absolute power, but failed in creating a fully absolute government.
Cardinal Richelieu was Louis XIII’s chief minister from the years 1624 to 1642 who firmly believed in initiating policies which would ultimately lead to the escalation of the power of the monarchy of France. Richelieu was a firm believer in absolute monarchy or absolutism which meant that the ultimate authority in the state rested in the hands of a king who claimed to rule by divine right (Spielvogel 408). Richelieu’s, a part of the first estate, views on society were impacted in many ways since, he was born in a family possessed of ambition and of a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown (Ranum 187). The Cardinal was a key figure in the rising of a powerful French monarchy. Richelieu fortified royal authority in France by eradicating secretive/private armies, as well as the strengthening of Huguenot cities, and by the destruction of aristocratic schemes. Richelieu altered Huguenots into dependable subjects through abolishing the military as well as political rights of the Huguenots while preserving their religious ones (Spelvogel 408). Furthermore Richelieu crushed noble plots and conspiracies that aristocrats held against the monarchy of France. Thus putting an end to a major threat placed upon the monarchy. When it comes to the reforming and strengthening of the central administration of France, Richelieu used intendants or royal officials to execute orders of the central government in various provinces across the nation. However, this led to disputes and conflicts among the intendants and governors of the provinces. The power of the crown strengthened due to intendants, and their various successes against the provincial governors in most conflicts / disputes. Thus this proves that the contributions that Cardinal Richelieu made developed the emergence of a strong monarchy in France.
The 17th century was an era of crisis, economically, socially and politically. To Kimmil, absolutism was not that absolute, but rather a political system that tried but didn’t succeed in curbing these problems. Throughout the beginning pages of Kimmil’s argument he makes the stand that in general, conflicts between social groups and society led to somewhat ineffective and unproductive absolutism in Europe. The crisis was, “a crisis not of the constitution…but of the state, or rather of the relation of the state to society” (60). Kimmil believes this was a political crisis based on a fiscal crisis. As capitalism and international trade rose along with rivalry and war, the absolutist state couldn’t handle its new and considerable growth. Resolving this crisis is what led to absolutism not being absolute. For a ruler to be absolute, it effected class relations, especially in regards to the nobles and the monarchy. According to his paper, the absolutist state, “needed greater revenue to put down internal rebellion…it could not obtain this revenue without destroying the whole system of gentry privilege” (60). Therefore in order to be absolute, a ruler needed to debase the entire noble system, which through history was shown to be very difficult due to the power they wielded. In the beginning of his argument, Kimmil recounts different peoples’ views on the absolutist state. Anderson’s view is that the noble is the politically dominant class and controls the state, not the monarch, not exactly absolutism. Mousnier’s view is that absolutism generates conflict and the bourgeoisie would become powerful, not the monarch. Lastly Poulantzas believes absolutism rises from a capitalist state. All these contradictory theories create class conflict, making it hard for a monarch to rule by divine right without being questioned or overrun by class struggles. England and France were similar in that the idea of absolutism rose because of economic crisis, and a price rise. A fiscal crisis was evident in that England had a debt of over $3 million while France had a rising population, and rising prices. Also both England and France’s aristocracy was in conflict leading to class struggles. The status of the nobility was lowered, especially the rural nobility. In both England and France the fiscal crisis lead to royal taxation and as international trade rose, rural farmers lost their power to urban markets. Nobles were forced to sell land and their loss of power made them fight for power in both England and France. Both countries still wanted to recognize the importance of nobles but also lower their power at the same time. Both countries were also similar in that the monarchies wanted to protect the real aristocracy by rooting out the lesser nobility. France rooted out false nobles to see who wasn’t paying taxes, and England heavily taxed the lower nobility. Neither side really cared about the peasants or the lower classes, which led to a common cause between people, the challenging of absolutism. There were significant differences between England and France as well. England’s monarchy tried to tax the gentry, whose power was rapidly rising, while the nobility was weakening. France on the other hand believed themselves to be able to take down the nobility. In France, the Fronde arose because of a vast alliance the large group of people who opposed the king. However in this case absolutism was successful. France could retain its absolutist state because it could incorporate economic changes due to the commercialization of agriculture. The French monarchy couldn’t completely destroy their opposition and a century or so later, absolutism was wiped out. However England, unlike France, was not militarily or economically able to cope with a revolution. It had a local tax system and absolutism was weak, unlike Henry the XIV. The English revolution, “caused, ultimately, by economic developments which could not be absorbed within the old regime” (71). England could not adapt to a changing world economy. In England capitalist interests were against the Stuart Kings, while in France capitalists needed the royal protection, ensuring the survival of French absolutism in France. The final difference between the two was that because absolutism failed in England, it enabled the country’s economy to flourish later on, whereas France had “economic backwardness”, leaving France struggling in later years. Kimmil in his argument clearly explains that absolutism is not absolute because of competing powers wanting control. He shows this clearly in the examples of France and England.
1)Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu? Richelieu based much of his policies on historical references which tended to blur his views of the way the society functioned during his time period. Through his policies, one is able to see he was a very determined, consistent, and confident man. Though he was these things, he was not very popular with the nobility and tended to not see their dislike for him. To some, he may seem like a man with his head in the clouds. He believed that men act in prescribed ways because of the station, whether it is noble or base, into which they were born. He himself was born into a family of determined men that were not of royalty but each sought to make something of themselves. Richelieu became a nobleman through favors of the king. Many of his policies sought to restore rather than reform. He saw the nobility as peaceful and courageous men who always sought to serve their king. In reality, he was dealing with greedy men who were out for their own good. In order to return to a time where the nobles were peaceful and served their king unwaveringly, Richelieu began a policy of viewing the king as a father who was in charge of keeping his children, the nobility, in check. If the nobility rebelled, it was the duty of the king to suppress them. This also brought the king and Richelieu to deny the nobles some of the rights they thoroughly enjoyed to diminish their arrogance. These were things such as forcing them back to their country estates, denying them their rights to travel, and to serve the king personally. This angered the nobles resulting in revolts which Richelieu was trying to suppress in the first place. After reviewing Richelieu’s policies, one may see him as someone who doesn’t think his actions all the way through. He remains consistent in his policies and beliefs but in the long run, ends of defeating himself.
Absolutism was not very absolute at all. There are many theories regarding who absolutism benefits and who it hurts. Some people like Roland Mousnier believed that absolutism grew in direct corelation with the bourgeoisie. Therefore it is implied that he does not believe that absolutism arose as the higher class grew, but rather the middle class bourgeoisie. Theorists like him believe that as a result, absolutism was not implied upon in order to give the upper class more ruling power, but rather a phenomenon that just happened.
Furthermore, absolutism was not absolute because of the numerous limitations that the ruling class had. For example, King Louis XIV was a quintessential example for these limitations. He is very famous for his saying, "L'etat, C'est moi." (I am the state.) However, dude to the enormity of the French land, it was hard to establish control over it. He was many times opposed from the aristocracy the Estates General, for the EG controlled taxes.
Perhaps the biggest similarity between the French and British methods of achieving an absolutist state is that the relationship between the monarchy and aristocracy changed drastically. In both countries, the nobility rose and found the monarchy as its threat to them. Furthermore another major similarity between the two is that the leaders in both countries (Stuarts of England, Louis' in France) were descendants of previous leaders.
There are also great differences that separate the two apart. For instance, France was able to attack its higher nobility, whereas England was not very successful in it. Also, the way in which the two countries resolved their economic problems was a big difference that set them apart. Where the British tried resolving their fiscal problems through the gentry, the French directly asked the nobles.
Richelieu is a difficult man to classify. In many instances, his actions seem obvious, and yet they rarely reflect his own personal aims and beliefs. He was completely loyal to the State and yet undeniably politcally ambitious, often subtly directing the monarch in Richelieu's own desired course of action. He wished for a return to a past that did not exist, and in trying to simply strengthen and restablish aspects of society instead reformed it. He is famous for his harsh treatment of the grandes, and yet it was towards attaining this class that he constantly strived. Perhaps Ricelieu could merely be considered a product of the times, when so much of Europe was plunged into inner turmoil. Age-old traditions were being overturned and government was being redefined. The Thirty Years' War, the last religious was, was savagly raging; in England, civil war was at hand; and in France, power was scattered amongst a handful of the population, who did what they pleased and answered to no one. Is it so surprising then, that in the midst of this chaos, that Richelieu would recieve so many conflicting impressions? His own personal history no doubt contributed to this confusion. After living in poverty and watching the noblemen have a free rein, it was clear to Richelieu that wealth connotated security, power and a danger. It was also obvious that the only one with enough strength to make some sense of all the disorder was the monarch; and that to end the chaos entirely, the monarch needed the complete submission of his subjects. Therefore, in order to allow these two conflicting desires to coexist: the dream of the wealth and security of a grande, as well as the dream of the wealth and security of a state that could exist only if the king held all the power, Richelieu built his life around a false image of the past. The nobility should be allowed the full extent of their strength, so long as it did not conflict in any way with the State's. The State and monarch were inseperable, and it was 'traditionally' the nobleman's duty to serve both faithfully. As stated in the article, "[Richelieu's] aim was to restore order and obedience, not to diminish [the grandes] prestige or power." Of course, this was rarely the reality. In truth, while trying to subdue the rebellious nobles, serve the State, and promote his own position in court, the consequence of Richelieu's actions rarely corresponded with their intent. The grandes lost much of their freedom of movement and their power during this time, while Richelieu grew in importance. It is difficult to define Richelieu; a skilled politician, who nonetheless failed in instigating the truly necessary policies; someone who sacrificed everything for the power of State, and yet used the State to further his own power; an idealistic; self-delusioned; a hypocrite. Whatever kind of man he was, though, he was a symbol of the time...and of what was to come.
Cardinal Richelieu was an idealistic visionary who was fearless and possessed great determination. These characteristics led him to achieve a great status. Richelieu was born in France to a family with noble status and great ambition. He strived to achieve the same high ranking as his parents. Richelieu was a hard worker. His extensive service to the crown paid off when he was named Cardinal by Gregory XV. With this power he planned to control the nobility and even the king. Being manipulative, he was able to convince many important figures to agree with his policies. Richelieu’s social policies were based on historical rather than utopian visions. He was reactionary in nature. He wanted to restore France to its more absolutist times immediately. He favored a strong monarchy. Richelieu explained that each section of society should be contained within their limits by the State.
With his view of absolutism, he believed that all rebellions were to be suppressed by the king. He was strongly against disorder in the French State. He believed that the nobility was clearly the highest subjects of realm. However, if they rebelled, then he considered them traitors (191). At times he even hinted that they were inferior. One of the reasons why he was strongly opposed to rebellions was because he believed that anarchists inevitably made alliances with foreign powers. This might provoke a civil war. Many of Richelieu’s views were based on rebellions. Richelieu had an idealistic vision of great nobility. His vision included the aristocracy being content. Richelieu “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch” (186). He believed that with the aristocracy content, rebellion would stop. Another part of Richelieu’s policy contained unifying the domestic powers of France.
Richelieu gave great consideration to war and diplomacy. This is because he believed that they were linked to internal affairs (193). Richelieu’s foreign policy conveyed his fearlessness. He was fearless in making alliances with foreign Protestants. In fact he was once known as the “Cardinal of the Huguenots”. In defense of Protestants he said, “Many there are who differ with us in belief; I trust that we shall all be united in affection.” Although he defended the Protestants, since he was a cardinal he had much religious zeal. He conveyed zeal when converting many Protestants. Despite his sympathy, when he became Prime Minister of France, he said to the king, “I promised your Majesty that I would use all my ability, and all the power you would give me, to crush the Huguenot party, to lay low the pride of the nobles, to force all your subjects to do their duty, and to cause foreign nations to properly respect your Majesty’s name; and to effect these ends I insisted that I should have your entire confidence.” This quote conveys the part of Richelieu that is a tyrant.
Richelieu was indeed a great Cardinal and nobleman. His overall goal was to socially and politically reform France. He valued loyalty from the noble class to the king. If they rose against the crown he believed that they should be severely punished. Richelieu was successful in increasing the power of the monarchy, and his determination led him to continue reforming until his death.
So my opinion of Richelieu was that he was a smarmy, always wanting more, kind of guy. He had to be at the center of all ruling and when he wasn’t, he would crush all opposition like on page 192 when it said that “the king’s only recourse was to punish severely all rebels.” This is not a man who is going to listen to everyone’s ideas and then form a ruling; instead he will have his own opinion and stick with it no matter what happens. He was also easily hurt and it hurt him with his relationship with the grands, like when one duke wouldn’t do him a favor, every time that someone mentioned the particular duke again he would always bring up that one incident. Adding to his smarminess he was also a suck up to whoever was in charge, until finally there was a point in his career that he could be the man in charge, right hand man. (191) Finally, and not to say anything bad about Republicans, I believe that he would have definitely been a member of the Republican Party if he was alive today, because the paper continually mentioned that he was “nursing the visions of the good old days.”
Cardinal Richelieu was a highly ambitious and idealistic reactionary of a man, who looked to the past for guidance. Though a member of the First Estate, Richelieu had a dream of leading the life of a Great Nobleman. To achieve this end, he set out to gain the favor of the Crown. He rose quickly both politically and ecclesiastically, aligning himself with powerful people and eventually becoming an indespensible advisor to the King during the Thirty Years War. He had a tendency to put the ways of old on a pedestal, and retained a romanticized vision of the "good old days." He held onto grand ideas of Noblemen who lived richly, but served their King loyally, free of any squabbling with other Nobles. Throughout his career, he tried to restore what he thought were the ways of the past. As part of this, he held strongly to the idea of the divine right of Kings, and felt that all the Noblemen of France should be subservient to the King, whom he described as being the "father" of the nation, while his subjects were his "children." He felt that if any of the subjects misbehaved it was the duty of the King to discipline them, as a father would his children. "Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear," Ranum writes, "honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken.” As such, Richelieu never supported any form of rebellion, but rather attempted to effect his own reactionary change through the proper avenues with no violence or revolution of any sort.
1)Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu? Cardinal Richelieu was a very driven individual. He had a firm belief in absolutism- most likely due to his family- and had a strong motivation for pursuing his goals. Many of his ideas were based around the relationship between monarch and subject. “Rebellious subjects could not be tolerated by the crown, ‘because they usurp the royal authority and undertake to do only what belongs to the sovereign" (191). He also thought that a king had no duty to his people, rather that all “concessions made by the crown must always appear to his subjects as coming from the grace and favor of the monarch” (191). Furthermore, he noticed the straying of the French nobility from their duty to the monarch and wanted to restate the role of nobles to serve their king as best they can. Frequently straying to ways of old, he had the tendency to seem like he was living in the past. Also, a rahter outspoken man, he was quite a visionary and his actions led to the increased power of the French monarchy while also increasing his own personal power. He favored absolutism because he wanted peace among all of the subjects and had strong beliefs in the leadership of the king. On a more personal note, he was very fond of the arts and founded Academie de Francaise which was a French learned society.
When I hear the word Richelieu the first two words that come to mind are manipulation and trickery. I believe both these words are accurate assessments of the actions employed by the cardinal to achieve his personal agendas of greatness. He started off as a low mobility but through the winning of favor of various nobility he was able to ride up the royal ladder on the coattails of others. After much hard work he was able to to become advisor to King Louis XIII himself. Once he embedded himself in this position he began to use deceit and manipulation to sway the kings course of action. This is when My last shred of respect for the cardinal diminished. The disgusting selfishness and hunger for power which led him to alter situations that could possibly alter history. Perhaps if he had not advised the king to take the course of action that he did France would now be a superpower. The one thing that can be said for Richelieu however, is that he was absolutely unwavering in his political ideals and beliefs. There was no John Kerry style flip-flopping here. His main ideas are as follows, “Richelieu's views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects from the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bond between the king and his subjects was also broken. Rebellious subjects could not be tolerated by the crowii, "because they usurp the royal authority and undertake to do only what belongs to the sovereign." He followed this ideal his whole life and raged his continual war against the influential nobility when they tried to act up and rebel. He was indifferent to them when they were obedient. As time progressed Richelieu's manipulation of the king in regards to the decisions that he made became even more rampant. All people that were caught of breaking laws were prosecuted to the full extent of justice. The whole world was shocked when a brave noble who simply dueled was executed at the order of Richelieu. Its because of Richelieu's manipulation and trickery that he used to obtain his high power social position that i think that he was an all around snake of a man who should have taken an honest path to make the reforms he desired instead of doing it the dirty way.
Richelieu seems to me to be a very narrow-minded person who believes in much of the same things that Hobbes believed in. On the first page of the reading, it says that "He believed that men act in prescribed ways because of the station, be it noble or base, into which they are born." This clearly indicates that his views are firmly entrenched in the classic (and severely outdated) French class system, the very same system that would lead to the crown's ultimate demise. This is also something that he would mostly agree with Hobbes. Unlike Locke, Hobbes did not believe that the mind started as a tabula rasa, or blank slate. He also agreed with Hobbes that the best way to rule a country was through absolute monarchy. Hobbes just proposed it, however, whereas the Cardinal played the role of a monarch for many years. He seems to me to have a very bleak view of human life and he seems to also to rely very heavily on the bounds society sets, even though he himself broke them by becoming the de facto king in France for a number of years.
In the Kimmel article, “The Ambivalence of Absolutism,” there were many mentions of the theories of absolutism. But even though the article presents what Kimmel wrote, how absolute was absolutism? Thus in the end, we can determine that absolutism during the 17th centuries were not that absolute. By definition absolutism is a form of government in which the ruler is a monarch who has complete power over and above the social classes. However, with everything going on, the leaders wanted to ensure that they stayed in power even when the powers and titles are transitioning around. With absolutism, the government could be in control of everything including taxes which ended up in the middle class and lower class. The effects were felt when the middle class bought their own titles which lead to revolutions caused by the loss of status in the gentries. Now, as we take a look further into the article, we can see that the absolutist governments in France and England were similar. They both came in the times when there was a fiscal crisis. Absolutism came in so the government could control everything in order to help the country. By trying to help, each of them sought out the importance of the aristocrats while taking away their power in politics through the spread of purchasable titles. Thus, each country put in taxes which lead to revolts to turn the country to a better state which helped the people. Yet, as we look at the two states, through the similarities we can see the differences. Each of the leaders dealt with the nobility differently. In France, they thought it would be better for them to be in total control of the aristocracy while the English took a less forceful approach. Each lead to a different style of takeover and revolution such as the France lasting longer and having more violent revolts. The products too are different of what was going on as the French eventually broke out in revolution while the absolutism in England was more of a transition. With everything that Kimmel mentions, each country went through unique periods which lead to an a change in government in accordance to the people.
How absolute is absolutism? The absolutism of absolutism is a concept that has no absolutes as it is cause and effects are basically up for interpretation by those who are affected by it. Some such as Mousnier believed that the absolutist state grew out of mutual dependency of the state and the bourgeoisie upon each other. “The state needed the bourgeoisie for revenues as much as the bourgeoisie needed the state for protection (page 57).” It can be concluded though that growth of absolutism was stimulated by the decline of the feudal system. Further more, the growth of the middle class was also a key catalyst. As this class grew it became necessary to incorporate them into society in such a way that the place and power of the noble class was not disrupted. However, going back to the main idea that there are no absolutes in absolutism, this is only a theory. It is most accurate to say that absolutism was merely a social/political occurrence that grew from the demands and changes of that time period. France and England were two countries that greatly affected by absolutism. In both countries the nobility found themselves at odds with the monarchy, especially as more and more offices were sold to the bourgeoisie. However, the English king was much more successful at maintaining control than the French king as Louis XIV proclaimed himself supreme ruler over all of France, a body of land much to large for him to effectively control. The French on the other hand were far more successful in their rebellions against the nobility than the English who saw very few benefits from their revolts.
Richelieu was very confident is his political ideals. He stuck to the idea of nobility with a passion that could not be wavered. He believed in the chain of command that should not be broken or jumped. The king was ruler of all and should have his loyal followers surrounding him and doing nothing but supporting him. He was old-school in his time and enjoyed the believed the court life of the past. Given power by the king through his religous upbringing, he supported the crown with the utmost respect. Rebellions he viewed as ourageous and thought that all decisions made by the king shouldbe his and his alone. Overall, Richelieu believed in the king and his power of rule. He was old-school and supported his French government.
When you think of absolutism, you think of a form of government that has total control over its nation and what it does. But in fact what does absolutism actual do for a country. Well, there are many ideas about what absolutism actual is. One thought is that it was supposed to protect the capitalist development against the rebelling lower class. Another idea was that was going to bring the classes together and form a neutral class identity. Over time many different definitions have come up, but not one has been identitfied as the clear explanation. Therefore, absolutism isn't all that absolute. Depending on the situation one group is going to come out of the power struggle and take control. Either the economic groups or the traditional monarchy.
England and France are two perfect examples of this. In France the traditional monarchies came out on top, whereas in England the individual groups pushed for reforms and changes. Both France and England are very similar in this case, only differing in their outcomes. In the early 17th century both countries had come up with solutions that initially helped them, but as time went on failure began to rise. Each had started to generated additional funds for the royal treasury but at the same time nobility were begining to become diconnected. In both England and France changes had to be made in the relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy to try to utilize absolutism. Major struggle and revolt resulted from this.
In the end France was able to hold on to the traditional monarchy and minimal changes were made. But in England changes were being made and new ideas were coming about. Yes, the monarchy is still there, but the economy has changed and the nobility have become more involved.
Richelieu was a steadfast believer in the monarchy and believed there was no power greater than the monarchs. Richelieu saw no reason that all people could not live in harmony, and he demonstrated this through the rules he imposed upon others. Richelieu was able to climb his was to the top and manipulate the king in was that allowed him to transform France into a centralized state. As a child Richelieu was surrounded by a sense of loyalty to the crown and ambitions family whose sole purpose was service to the crown. He originated as a part of the first estate, but he dreamed of leading the life of a nobleman. His family instilled in Richelieu the value of serving the king and he believed that all people should work towards the greater good and serve their king without questions. He further developed his thoughts of service to the king by comparing society to a family. The king is the father, and the people are the children. As the father the king assumes all responsibility for the children’s bad behavior. As in families, if the children misbehave, they are reprimanded by the parents, or in this case, by the father. Richelieu knew in his heart that the royal family, but above all, the king was the most important people in society. They were not to be questioned and were to be obeyed. If a person should disobey the king, they would be punished. Another action that Richelieu believed needed to be followed by punishment was rebellion. He showed no mercy to rebellious subjects and he felt that the subjects had no right to rebel against the crown. The forms of punishments ranged, but all were delivered with the same message, obey your king. Richelieu, although a very noble man, never looked to the future and saw advancement, but rather wanted to look into the past for the answers, and bring France back to what they used to be. “Richelieu saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality”. He was not concerned with the problems that were in the past. Richelieu only saw the good and dreamed of restoring the old ways.
.jpg)
47 comments:
Richelieu was a very determined and motivated man. He was very focused on obedience and peace among the people. He was also somewhat behind his time in some of his thoughts.
During all of his work, he consistently aimed for himself to be a great nobleman, so that he could stand as an example for the grands that he punished. In this aspect he did in fact live as one. For example, he maintained companies of guards and owned a summer home.
Some of his thoughts were somewhat behind his time. This can be seen as he believed men were set in their ways because of the class they were born into. He focused on restoration rather than revolution. This vision of the past is obvious in that he “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality” (p. 186).
Richelieu’s views of the monarch were easy to connect with and thus very realistic for many people. He viewed the monarch as a father to the people. When the people misbehaved it was as if the children had, and thus the responsibility of the monarch. He felt that a strong monarch was necessary. If the people, no matter what their stature in society, disobeyed and rebelled against him, they were traitors and needed to be punished.
Richelieu was a man who put the order and obedience of the people to the monarch much above most else. The people were extremely important to him, but if they disobeyed, he felt harsh measures towards them was the only fitting action.
Cardinal Richelieu was a very intelligent man, who believed in the divine right of the king; with the nobility, clergy, and common people under his power. He believed that by combining the royal power, he could destroy opposing factions. Through his energy and passion, Richelieu was able to influence and transform France into a centralized state.
It all started through his upbringing, where he was surrounded by a “family possessed of ambition and of a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown” (187). Because of the beliefs that he was exposed to during his youth, he was driven by the desire to serve the king. He had this traditional belief that everyone played a specific role in a state. Every group had something to contribute to society: the clergy through prayer; the nobility with arms under the control of the king, and the common people simply to obey the divine rule. He believed that the king’s role was to promote peace and order in society.
Richelieu also believed that all those who opposed the king should be severely punished. He considered all rebels to be traitors. “Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken” (191).
In addition to being passionate towards the king and state, he also was known for his love of literature and the arts. He himself, wrote a number of political works, and promoted the careers of writers, as well as founding the French Academy. He was a frequent theatergoer, which he loved.
Cardinal Richelieu was a passionate and ardent man, whose beliefs and ideas helped in empowering France. He believed that the king was to keep social order, while being served by all those beneath him. He considered all members of the state as servicemen to the king, and all those who opposed him were to be severely punished. And he even had an artistic side to him, as he was known as a patron of art!
Kimmil. How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
Absolutism, according to the reading, was a policy formed mostly out of the fiscal crisis. It’s power was seemingly a desperate one, a series of “innovations” to raise revenue and establish a new ruling order that would raise up the state from its lapse in overall prosperity. The wealth and prestige of the nobility was falling, and society was unsure of how to deal with the small agricultural evolution in the countrysides. Kimmil agrees with certain other scholars when he states: “attempts to resolve this fiscal crisis engendered a crisis of political legitimacy when traditional social arrangements were abridged to garner further revenues.”
Absolutism seemed to be absolute only to the point where the monarchy could attach himself to the state in that the other parties would and could form sufficient alliances to overthrow that absolute government.
The plan to convert the pays de’etat into pays d’election would have brought about much administrative contorl over outlying provinces in France controlled by hereditary nobles, but this project was abandoned when it became clear that provincial parlements, laboring classes, and hereditary nobility would counter that measure. For this reason, Richelieu withheld himself as a wave of popular uprising (pre-Frondes) posed problems for the regime. Similarly, England warily circumvented the issues of abolishing the Welsh language and religious diversity—trying to impose absolute power over these issues would have prompted serious popular uprisings that would have threatened the status quo.
The way the absolutist state was kept up also seemed a little shaky and not as firm or absolute as one would have liked. Motives in absolutism seem to call for contradictory action. For example, Richelieu had to both ally with the strong aristocracy in order to protect the monarchy against a strong bourgeoisie, but it was equally important to undermine the legitimacy of the nobility become the ruling class in the current monarch’s stead.
French and English absolutism were similar in many respects. They were both a response to the fiscal crisis.
Both monarchies recognized the importance of the aristocracy while undermining their autonomous position in politics.
In their methods of raising revenue to save the treasury and pay debt, the two governing regimes both employed many of the same taxes. England turned to old and newer, more encompassing taxes and fines on nobility and knighthood. Royal taxation often was followed by land enclosure. Both monarchies also turned to selling noble titles for money.
And yet, there were crucial differences as well. The French bureacracy that enough muscle to attack the higher nobility, whereas the English Stuart government could only jab at the lesser nobles with fees and fines. Also, Kimmil encompasses the differences that led to the Stuart absolutism getting thwarted far faster than the monarchy in France in the term “relative backwardness”.
The English monarchy had a massive bureacracy with no standing army and a local taxation system caused it to be weaker than the French monarchy, which was strong enough to fight with centralized bureacratic agents sent to undermine other local social groups in the nation. However, the French fought off opposition by politically excluding them, which led to a mass rebellion in the 1800’s.
The English monarchy, Kimmil states, was much weaker than the English economy, whose development had nutured the growth of groups strong enough to challenge the existing regime. This led to the English government restricting agricultural growth that was beneficial to many of its citizens, thus alienating it from its people’s favor. French absolutism government could readily absorb these economic changes. The countryside, in particular, and the way the monarchy handled the developments happening there with enough resilience to withstand revolution, determined the failure or success of the governing ruler. Urban capitalists, too, were a differing force against the French and English backdrops. While, in France, capitalist elements sought royal protection against local and regional power, capitalism was against the Stuarts in England.
These defining features Kimmil mentions, often compounded together, finally lead to the overthrow of the English absolute monarchy and the preservation of French absolutism, until it is then totally razed by the culminated feelings in the French Revolution.
Richelieu was a man who was motivated to do great things for French society, and he based his general opinions on the belief that the king has the divine right to rule over the people. His social policies were rooted in historical views rather than a utopian vision, mainly focusing on restoration rather than revolution or renovation. He believed that men acted in prescribed ways because of the station, be it noble or base, into which they were born. This belief was reflected in his own upbringing. He was born into a family possessed with ambition and a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown. Although he was a part of the first estate, he had the ambition to lead the life of a great nobleman. From his experience growing up he developed a desire to serve the king and he maintained the belief that everyone in society played a role for the common good. He developed an analogy which compared the king to a father who would be forced to assume the responsibility of the peoples’ (children’s) misbehaving ways. He also felt that the people had no right to rebel against the monarch and that they were traitors and deserved to be punished if they did. Once Richelieu was able to obtain power he devoted a great deal of his attention to war and diplomacy. He believed that external war and diplomacy were linked to internal affairs and that while Frenchmen had
power to rebel, a strong foreign policy could not be pursued. Overall, Richelieu’s beliefs and ideas helped develop France into a centralized state led by a king who kept social order and was served by the people beneath him.
Richelieu was an extremely ambitious and very motivated man. Loyalty was also one of his defining traits. His first duty was to the king and country. He was very focused on obedience of the people to their king, for the prosperity of the kingdom. Richelieu was also a humble man and rarely was vain. He was also somewhat behind his time in some of his thoughts and often looked back to the past for inspiration. With this in mind I would say that he was a reactionist.
During all of his work, he consistently aimed for himself to be a great nobleman by earning the favor of the king. This was so that he could set an effective example for the grands and others that he punished. He served his duty to the king faithfully and never fought for power, as a good nobleman should. For these actions he also maintained some of the privileges of a noble man. For example, he maintained companies of guards and owned a summer home.
Some of his thoughts were somewhat behind those of modern thinkers at the time. He often looked to the past an idealized it. This can be seen as he believed men were set in their ways because of the class they were born into. He focused on restoration of these older methods rather than revolution. In this way he could be considered a reactionist. This vision of the past that he saw was “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality”.
Richelieu’s views of the monarch were easy to understand at the time but not often in the favor of the noblemen’s to follow. He viewed the monarch as a father to the people of the nation. When the people misbehaved it was as if the children had, and thus the responsibility of the monarch to punish them and set things right. He felt that a strong monarch was necessary for this and a weak one would simply be overthrown. If any one, even noblemen, rebelled against the king they were to considered traitors and punished as such.
Richelieu was a man who put the loyalty and obedience of the people to the monarch much above most else. The people were extremely important to him, but if they disobeyed the king, he felt any necessary measures towards them could be taken.
The first thing that distinguishes Richelieu is his ability to see the necessities of a situation. He saw beyond some of the petty issues that confined the actions of some of his colleagues. This is shown by his ability to gain respect and help from those of other religions. Although he was distinctly Catholic, Richelieu was able to see beyond some of the conflicts between his religious devotion and those of others and seek help from Protestants. This in itself shows quite a bit about his insight as to the future of his government and his people. I say his people, of course, because the King was able to see the brilliance in his character as much as we do now. Richelieu was devoted beyond comprehension to the success of his government and strove to make the French government as powerful as it can be by making it more centralized and stable. For the Europe of the Enlightenment Era, it was not out of the ordinary. Quite the contrary, actually; it can be considered more archaic than anything. He thought that the more refined form of government was one that had already passed, and that to make the government prosper once more, an old way of thinking was needed. By limiting the power of the nobility and creating a more highly centralized monarchy, Richelieu essentially proved that not all Enlightenment thinking had to be a Liberal endeavor and that not all of the old ideas about a central power were a hindrance. Richelieu was also very devoted to the arts. One of his distinctive loves was writing, with which he penned the Political Testament. From some outside research I did on him, Richelieu seemed to be particularly fond of Titian and other Renaissance artists, which might also stem back to his reactionary style of thinking.
Richelieu was an interesting man, he was very hung up on the idea that how you acted was a reflection of the class in which you were born into, and he began trying to work his way up to the noble class, so he could see how they thought, because their ideas and thoughts were different because they were from a different class. Because he believed you thought only the same as how you were brought up he denied his parents, being of the lower nobility, Richelieu lived mostly in poverty, and he blamed his parents for this. His major ideas were that rebellion and revolution were not a good way to go about things, but rather by restoring things back to the way they were. He seems to me a very stubborn man, in that he passed while he still believed he had restored France back to the way it was, which he believed was better. Richelieu believed in the nobility in a more historical sense, that they were peaceful and courageous, and served the monarch for the good of all. Where as in reality, the nobility was mostly greedy members of society who served with their own intentions in mind rather than the intentions of others. He saw the upper class, and the monarch as a scolder, the one who keeps wrong-doers in line. He also realized that without a great family estate to back him that he would have to earn the money to become a great nobleman on his own, through earning the kings favor. This showed that he held the nobility in the greatest regard, and yearned to be at the same level as them, no matter what it took. You could consider this one of two ways, one that he was greedy, and wanted the money and power, or two that he was ambitious and wanted the power and money he would gain by being in the upper nobility and be able to use it to help others.
Richelieu was obviously a very ambitious and driven man. As a lower noble at the beginning of his life, he showed his outstanding endurance rising up to a very high political position under Louis XIII. Throughout his career he demonstates many instances that show he is a self motivated person. Although Richelieu claims “It is to my glory to be exposed to everyone for the service of the king. Thank God, what consoles me is that I have no personal enemies, and that I have never offended anyone save in the service of the State, where I will never cede, no matter what happens to me.” I believe that he was more of a self serving individual then one that gave everything to the state. When Richelieu was attempting to control the nobles for the King, he was really attempting to keep them under his own control.
Richelieu was a man who liked power and he worked very hard to get it. He realized that he had to make various concessions to nobles to keep his power and he did such as in the case of Prince de Conde. He gave Conde command of the armies to gain support among the grands. However Conde didn’t do expressly what the king ordered and Rouchelieu held back his anger. Rouchelieu knew he needed friends to stay in power. He also showed self centeredness during his attack of La Vieuville. By accusing La Vieuville of being to soft, Richelieu created an avenue for himself to move up. He constantly on the lookout for more power. Another instance of selfishness occurred with Gaston d’Orleans. Gaston, the heir to the throne had been involved with some of the noble revolts. Richelieu knew that he could not offend Gaston or if the king died Richelieu would be executed. So Richelieu gave Gaston power and watched him closely, protecting his life and his power.
In conclusion I believe that Richelieu was a self-centered man who only looked after himself and not for his country as he claimed. He did work for his country but really he wanted more power.
Cardinal Richelieu was an idealistic man who had great faith in the noble class and their duty to serve the king. He was the type of man who would wish for a return to “the good old days” when supposedly a powerful monarch strictly governed a society that was explicitly separated into the three classes (estates). A man of the noble class himself, Richelieu believed that the king should have a firm grip over the nobles. He was a believer in absolutism in order to ensure peace and tranquility for all the king’s subjects. While recognizing its sources, Richelieu was not tolerant of any kind of rebellion to the king. He sought not to reform contemporary society, but to restore a system of the old days with no second thoughts about using military strength against disobedient nobles. Once made Cardinal, Richelieu was manipulative and successful in winning the confidences of important figures. By dedicating himself to the cause of absolute state and monarchy he was able to dominate the king himself. He was careful to a degree with France’s foreign policy, attempting to make sure that no civil war within the country would break out before making moves on the European stage. Logical to his ideologies, Richelieu believed that noble privilege should not lead to political influence.
In reality, the situation in France was far from Richelieu’s ideal. A few members of the noble class would always be attempting to encroach upon royal authority at one time or another. Richelieu, however, was a dedicated man who was unwaveringly solid in his beliefs of noble obedience to the state and monarch. Throughout his long career as a Cardinal and advisor, he would be remarkably consistent in his policies of “humbling the arrogance of the noblemen.”
How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
By definition absolutism is a form of government in which the ruler is a monarch who has complete power over and above the social classes. The aristocracy is subservient to the monarchy, providing political and military support, but at times challenging the authority of the monarch. The exact nature of the relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy really defines “how absolute is absolutism.” Monarchs realized that the aristocracy was an important source of political support, but also posed a potential risk to their power. The 17th Century was a period of social and fiscal crises “foreign wars, declining prices and economic stagnation, bad harvests, epidemics, and social upheavals” (Salmon, 1967:28). Ultimately it was an effort to resolve the pressures created by the fiscal crisis that resulted in the need for monarchs to redefine their relationship with the noble classes.
Cardinal Richelieu realized that the nobility was a powerful and vital economic and political group. He also recognized that the aristocracy’s provincial foundations of power, their advantaged status, their immunity from taxation, and their extravagant way of life threatened the centralized power of the monarchy. They could remain a ruling class only to the extent that they were subordinate to the king. In an attempt to weaken the power of the aristocracy, Richelieu encouraged competition between nobles and he restricted the power of the provincial governors by blending them with royal and military administrators.
Similarly the English Crown also sought to undermine the political independence of the aristocracy while acknowledging its importance. The sale of noble titles was conducted to raise funds while also weakening the status and honor of the noble class. To supplement revenues, the English monarch also imposed fines and taxes on the gentry class including fines for knighthood and ship money.
Absolutism in both France and England shared some similarities. In both cases, absolutism represented a restructuring of the relationship between the king and the aristocracy. The English revolution of 1640 to 1660 and the French Frondes that occurred from 1648 to 1653 were similar reactions to attempts by the monarchies to obtain the fiscal resources needed to resolve their fiscal crises. Monarchs in France and England both attempted to extract revenues from their subjects by imposing taxes, fines, and selling noble titles. Both French and English kings had to abandon certain initiatives such as Richelieu’s plan to convert pays d’etat to pays d’election and the elimination of the Welsh language and the termination of English religious diversity. There were serious revolts in both France and England in response to some of the measures implemented by the monarchies.
Nonetheless there were significant differences between the French and English monarchies. England had a more complex class system with several layers of nobility including the gentry classes. The monarchs in England attempted to resolve their fiscal problems at the expense of the gentry class rather than the aristocracy while the French kings confronted the highest nobles directly. The English monarch was unable to counteract the opposition from religious protesters, urban merchants and artisans, and rural gentry during the Revolution of 1640 to 1660. The balance of political power shifted and the rule of the monarch became more symbolic than powerful. While there was greater religious tolerance in England than in France, religious dissent was not the primary reason for the uprisings in France and England. Kimmil asserts that it was the “relative backwardness” of the English monarchy in contrast to the French monarchy and English economy that accounts for the different outcomes. England’s lack of a permanent army, its substantial bureaucracy, and its local taxation structure weakened the structure of its monarchy. The French monarchy was initially successful at overcoming local social groups through its use of centralized administrative agents, until these groups successfully defeated absolutism a century and a half later during the French revolution. Economic development in England, in particular the commercialization of agriculture, was a stronger force than the English monarchy. As a result the structure of the English government had to change to accommodate this economic progress. The French economy was inferior to both its monarchy and the English economy, so the political state was able to consolidate any economic changes.
Richelieu was a very idealistic, ambitious and somewhat self-centered and arrogant man. His goal as a young stallion was to rise from his warrior social class to become a noble man and eventually try to become the most important man in France. His ambition was clear as a young man because instead of wanting to follow in the footsteps of his father as a soldier, he decided to join the church. “Richelieu’s early aim of military grandeur had been thwarted by the exigencies of a destitute family, nevertheless he remained precociously ambitious, and even in the obscure Bishop of Lucon one sees a man totally identified with the monarch and the State.” (Ranum 186). Through his hard he slowly went up the ladder to success gaining favor with the monarchy. As he reached his highest position, his views were very counter-revolution and idealistic. His goal in life was to return France back to the “good old days”. However, looking back at his work in France, he actually did the reverse of what he wanted to do. Richelieu was for absolutism as he tried to limit their power early in his career. Due to his ambitious lifestyle and his idealistic views, he did things that were viewed as selfish and arrogant. In separate occasions he did things for the betterment for his legacy and his idealism. In one occasion, Richelieu allowed Prince Conde to command the armies against the Huguenots even though the king was against the prince leading the army due to his cruel actions. Overall, Richelieu was a very driven character whose idealism made into an self-centered and arrogant person.
Richelieu was a very interesting man who was very ambitious and determined. He firmly believed that everyone acted the way they did because of the class that they were born into. He was born into poverty, and he spent a large portion of his life trying to become a nobleman. Like many others in his family, he served the crown and eventually worked his way up. Many of Richelieu's ideas were based on the past, and he wanted to return to the ways of the past. Richelieu believed that the monarch should be extremely powerful, and ultimately believed in absolutism. Richelieu viewed the king as the "father" of the people so when they misbehaved it was the king's duty to punish them. It was his belief that the monarch was supposed to maintain peace, stablity and order among the people. He also believed that society should be based on obligation, service, and favor. Richelieu tried to fix the mistakes of the past once he gained enough political power to do so. Richelieu believed his greatest task was to concentrate on war and diplomacy.
Richelieu was not only a man of politics but also of literature and art. He promoted writers' careers and wrote many political pieces.
Cardinal Richelieu was a very passionate and motivated man who greatly empowered France. His ideas consisted of old beliefs and he thought the king should have absolute power. He believed that all men no matter what their rank were servicemen to the crown and anyone who disobeyed should be punished. Richelieu was very constant in his beliefs and he ultimately helped France in many ways.
A namesake that explicitly defines Cardinal Richelieu is a visionary. Born in France to a family royal to the crown Richelieu spent his whole life striving to achieve the same noble status and respect that his father and grandfather both achieved; through service to the crown. .Richelieu also embodied an interesting political stance, which can be obviously related to his fervent royalty to the crown, he is what one would pint point as a reactionary on the political spectrum. Richelieu firmly believed that the king had divine power to rule the people, and that these people who were being ruled acted the way they did, based on their status in society. Thus these “children” of France must be taught right and controlled by the divine father: the king. Richelieu, belonging to nobility himself, also stated fro a tighter grip on the nobility by the king. To Richelieu any sort of rebellion or attack against the monarch was condemnable and unacceptable. And the nobles being dominated by excessive emotionalism and devotion to honor in a Cornellian manner could not possibly act rationally and are left out of control. When presented the power of cardinal, and its status, Richelieu sought to use this power to dominate not only the nobility but the king himself. With intelligent thinking and plotting, he eventually took control of the entire French monarch; indirectly controlling the country. However, contrary to Richelieu’s vision, France was far from Richelieu’s views and goals. Leaving Richelieu nothing but a visionary. Richelieu was indeed a prominent figure in France, and absolutism history. Being fervently supportive of an absolute monarchy, he spent his whole life pursuing his vision, a vision of France returning to the past where things were, to Richelieu, better.
A namesake that explicitly defines Cardinal Richelieu is a visionary. Born in France to a family royal to the crown Richelieu spent his whole life striving to achieve the same noble status and respect that his father and grandfather both achieved; through service to the crown. .Richelieu also embodied an interesting political stance, which can be obviously related to his fervent royalty to the crown, he is what one would pint point as a reactionary on the political spectrum. Richelieu firmly believed that the king had divine power to rule the people, and that these people who were being ruled acted the way they did, based on their status in society. Thus these “children” of France must be taught right and controlled by the divine father: the king. Richelieu, belonging to nobility himself, also stated fro a tighter grip on the nobility by the king. To Richelieu any sort of rebellion or attack against the monarch was condemnable and unacceptable. And the nobles being dominated by excessive emotionalism and devotion to honor in a Cornellian manner could not possibly act rationally and are left out of control. When presented the power of cardinal, and its status, Richelieu sought to use this power to dominate not only the nobility but the king himself. With intelligent thinking and plotting, he eventually took control of the entire French monarch; indirectly controlling the country. However, contrary to Richelieu’s vision, France was far from Richelieu’s views and goals. Leaving Richelieu nothing but a visionary. Richelieu was indeed a prominent figure in France, and absolutism history. Being fervently supportive of an absolute monarchy, he spent his whole life pursuing his vision, a vision of France returning to the past where things were, to Richelieu, better.
Cardinal Richelieu, in Ranum's eyes, was a determined, ambitious, and intelligent man bent on creating a social equilibrium in France and making it one of the most powerful nations of the time. He looked to the past for answers, not to revolution or renovation. Richelieu was unwavering in his ideals that the nobility must be "peacefully and courageously serving the monarch (186)" invariably without hesitation or second thought. Many of his beliefs were rooted in the caste system, or assumption that a man is born into a certain class or estate which determines how he acts for the rest of his life. Richelieu was also very dogmatic when he claimed the monarch to be all-powerful and have divine right. A firm believer in absolutism, he stressed the need for the monarch to have complete control over the nobility.
Having acquired the political influence necessary, Richelieu expressed his loyalty by setting himself as an example of one of the trustworthy nobility. Working his way up the ranks, he became secretary of state. From this position he could advise the King personally and deem any rebellion among the grands treason. The only answer to this treason would be harsh punishment, as a father would punish misbehaving children. But Richelieu's journey would not stop at advising the King on matters such as these, he sought to control the kind and the nobility himself. Soon, through an indirect manner, France was under his jurisdiction, and in his mind, he had achieved the dream which he had chased after his entire lifetime. Unfortunately for him, his stubbornness and ignorance to the immediate world blocked him from seeing that what he had created was an opposite of the world he had dreamed.
It is clear that Richelieu was, first and foremost, a very ambitious man. And, as his father and grandfather alike, he worked to fulfill his ambitions through service to the crown. Although his forefathers did this through the military, he was prevented from this path by poverty. As a poor bishop, he knew the likelihood of becoming part of the Sacred College was slim without royal favor. To achieve his goals, this royal favor had to been gained, so he set out with such a purpose. Richelieu’s ambition is also apparent in his goal to become a nobleman. Richelieu essentially desired to advance in society. This demonstrates how important he felt a person’s station in society was- he thought that their station forever influenced the way each person would act throughout their life. Hence, he felt that power should rest in the higher class of society and devoted much of his life to strengthening the nobility. While he diminished the political rights of the Huguenots, he made them into more reliable citizens. However, he was more careful when it came to the rights of the nobility because he knew of their influential power in the French state. Under Richelieu’s guidance, the power of the monarchy was increased and strengthened. This shows that his ambitions carried him throughout his life by giving him the determination and the means to achieve the goals he set and the visions he created.
Kimmel:
In "The mbivalence of Absolutism," Kimmil brings up the point that absolutism is not totally absolute because it is almost impossible for a leader to have complete control over his country. One reason why it is so difficult is because the nobles of a country have been in place for many years and are necessary, however are extremely difficult to influence and control. Absolutism cannot stay the main form of government for long in most countries for this reason. Most times it serves as a form of transition from one form of government to another.
The differences of French and English absolutism lays in how the leader dealt with the nobility in their country. The French thought that it would be most benificial to have complete control over the aristocracy. Richielieu, who was the leader in France, put in plans to limit the power of the nobility in order for himself to have more control. The absolutism in France lasted longer than in England, but in the end it hurt the country more than helped it. It led to violent revolts known as Fronde and eventually to the French Revolution. Absolutism in England did not last as long, but it was a helpful transition into its next government, which had a larger reliance on Parliament.
In some ways the absolutism governments in France and England were the same. They were both transition governments and they were both put in place to help the fiscal crisis. The countries were near bankrupcy when absolutism was put in place and it was there to have control over every part of the government in order to help the country. However, with this type of government, leaders got power hungry, which led to problems in the end. Absolutism ended in both countries and led to a new kind of government that worked better for each country and its people.
Kimmil. How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
Absolutism was not at all absolute. The government adopted this system because it they had come to realize that they needed a new system of government in order to keep themselves in power. This then opted absolutist governments to eliminate the private armies and set up professional ones. Thus, with a standing army, the government needed funds and they turned to the middle class for support through taxing. In essence, the government in the end was made up of middle class officials who bought their way in. Due to the increase in taxes, the lower class started to feel the effects thus in the end lead to revolutions led by the gentries.
For both England and France, the idea of absolutism was great and it worked great in the short term. The reason was the large amounts of money that was coming in to the government. However, in the long the ever growing mixing of the middle class such as the merchants and the nobility class caused the gentry class to feel threatened and unwelcome. In addition, unwise spending for both France and England caused a greater deficit rather than any gain at all. For the French, they mostly focused on preserving the nobility and middle class and their own economy. However, with the rise income of the middle class, this caused a great rise in inflation, which caused the nobility to start losing money and in turn their power. Thus, this growing crisis with the nobility caused a confidence problem with the rest of the country; the nobility frightened by their loose of wealth took it out on their tenants or the lower class. This caused great social upheaval between the nobility and the lower class. Meanwhile the middle class, especially the merchants gained from the loose of the nobility thus themselves replaced them. While England experienced similar problems of the rise in prices and social rift, these problems however were much worse because the government especially Queen Elizabeth allowed the nobility to mistreat the lower class. Moreover, religion also had a major part to play between the ever-growing tension of the nobility and gentry classes. So, in the England and France's absolutist governments both had initial economic gains but that gain so turned against both the government, nobility and the lower class. Meanwhile the middle class gained so much from these loses. It is this economic lose which caused the growing social conflict which eventually turned into revolutions in both countries.
Among the more obvious and lucid descriptions of Cardinal Richelieu is that he was a staunch supporter of absolutism, which had been rooted and grounded in him from the ambition as well as the values harbored by his own family. Richelieu believed that the second estate should remain subservient and obedient to the monarch, yet this should not deprive the great noblemen of their prestige, wealth, and privileges (Ranum 197). He committed most of his life to bring to fruition a more powerful and efficient state as well as monarch, and to achieve what he believed was equilibrium and order in French society, even though it was antagonistic with aristocratic ideals of the past.
One idea that discloses parts of Richelieu’s character was his belief that when the grands or aristocrats rebel against the monarch, they should be totally suppressed. He even goes on to equate rebels to inferior persons, which demonstrates how he was so strongly against rebellion and disorder in the French state. These ideas parallel more to that of Hobbes than any other 18th century philosopher, because he advocates the supremacy of the monarch.
Now on the idea of preventing rebellion through the demilitarization or destruction of fortifications Richelieu seems to be domineering, imperious, and even tenacious in character. He stresses the need to suppress all rebellions of the second estate as a master would have suppressed a slave revolt. But Richelieu’s motive for the suppression of revolts was not so mush his want to depreciate the prestige and power of the noblemen, but more so to maintain social order in France (Ranum 197).
Cardinal Richelieu also shows himself also to have much acuity and foresight. For example, Richelieu knew that there was a correlation between internal affairs and diplomacy. Therefore he ascertained that if the French nobility had the capacity to rebel against the state, then a strong foreign policy could not be readily pursued (Ranum 193). This demonstrates acuity and shrewdness, in that; he foresaw the repercussions of allowing rebellion to perpetuate in French society.
In the beginning of Ranum’s essay and analysis, he asserts that Richelieu recommended a policy requiring total submission. Only armed force and imprisonment could control the rebellious mentality which had been allowed to form among the grands in the past. This is significant to explain what Cardinal Richelieu was like because it helps one to discover where he falls on the political spectrum. From the few sentences above, one can tell that he is definitely not retrogressive in thought, because a rebellious mentality had been allowed in the past, but rebellion must be not be tolerated according to Richelieu. Richelieu thus would not be retrogressive, but more liberal in that he is advocating change in the position of the second estate in French society, but not necessarily radical change.
Furthermore, Cardinal Richelieu’s character is disclosed by his background, words, as well as actions. And from such, one realizes that some of the characteristics that comprise who Richelieu was include ambition, tenacity, imperiousness, liberalism more than retrogressive ideals, and foresight as well as acuity.
Richelieu was a very determined man. Throughout his life, he had a set of goals which he thought he was attaining. These goals of his were molded by the belief that people act a certain way due to the social class in which they are born to. He hoped by attaining his goals that he would help to better the political and social aspect of France. Richelieu believed to have made the social classes equal, while historians thought him to have destroyed the social structure. Richelieu was a very ambitious man. Being born to the lower class, he needed help from noblemen to help him achieve his goals of evening out the social structure. He wanted to "diminish the arrogance of great nobility." (pg 202). While Richelieu sought to create equality between the social classes, he still believed that the King had the divine right to rule. While Richelieu was a very intelligent man, his ideas were a little outdated. His ideal of the great nobleman with the lives of his aristocratic contemporaries contrasted greatly. Richelieu believed that he had forced the great nobility to accept its proper role in society. He didn't recognize that political power and social prestige were related. He believed that all commoners were under the command of the King and that they all should love him and pledge their allegiance to him. He demanded obedience to the state. Through this, Richelieu believed that rebellion would be eliminated. Richelieu was a very successful man, motivated by his many goals and ambitions to improve the political and social aspects of France.
Cardinal Richelieu was an idealistic and determined individual who had visions of restoring the role of the French nobility as dutiful servants of the monarchy. The source of these attributes can be traced back to Richelieu’s childhood. He grew up as a member of the first estate, yet “had the ambition to lead the life of a great nobleman” (187). He greatly desired to acquire this goal. His views on the monarchy can also be seen as products of his childhood ambitions. Because he was a member of the first estate, the only way to gain power was through favor from the crown. Richelieu was also a man who greatly wanted to fulfill his family’s legacy of determination and service to the crown. He eagerly waited for the day when he would gain approval from his ancestors in an age when dynastic temperament was important.
These elements of Richelieu’s life greatly shaped his visions for French society. He favored a strong monarch, one that set limits for his people. Richelieu saw “the king as the father of his people, and when they misbehaved, the responsibility was the king's” (190). He looked at society from a historical perspective, and commented on past events.
Overall, Cardinal Richelieu was perhaps too ambitious of a man. He thought constantly of his own visions for society and was somewhat self-centered. Individuals who disagreed with him, such as Comte de Montmorency-Bouteville, who opposed Richelieu’s suppression of dueling, were persecuted. In this case, Montmorency was executed, shocking all of the French nobility. In carrying out such policies, Richelieu strove to become a great nobleman, fulfilling his ambitions.
1) Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu?
Richelieu was a very determined man who sought to make France a powerful nation. He grew up in a lower class noble family and focused on academics rather then war. King Henry IV chose him to become beishop and Richelieu's focus on academics soon averted to religion and power. Once Richelieu was in power, he transformed France into a strong state by restraining the power of the nobility, consolidating royal power, and crushing domestic factions. Richelieu also was a believer in absolutism to ensure peace and harmony for all the king’s subjects. Richelieu soon came to be known as an accomplished and storong leader, and was appointed chief minister. As chief minister he set two goals: to centralize the power of France and destroy the Habsburg power. Richelieu began to centralize France by trying to make the power umong the poeple equal. This made many powerful nobles turn against him. Along with this Richelieu was set on dividing the relgions in France. This caused more problems and hurt Richelieu when it came time for the thirty years war. Because he openly allied himself with the protestants, many people from the roman catholic church thought of him as a traitor. Although Richeieu lost some followers becuase of his relgious controversies, he was always set on doing what was best for France. His goals were to make France a stronger nation and to rid of the Habsburg dynasty. He was very focused on the past and trying to make France more like it was years before. He believed in a strong monarch and many people admired his ambition and his srtive to achieve absolute power.
Though Cardinal Richelieu is often looked at as a tyrant, he was an extremely smart man. He knew what he believed in (divine right of the king) and he knew that in order to unite France to his liking, he would need to unite royal power. Without a united government, how could one have a united country?
Richelieu was brought up close to the crown. He came from a “family possessed of ambition and of a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown” (187). Because this is what he was brought up to know, this is how he acted during his life. He believed that every individual person had a role in society, and that it was their duty as a citizen of France, to fulfill that duty. The role of the clergy was to pray, the nobility to produce soldiers, and the third estate to follow what they were told. Lastly, the Kings role was to keep structure and peace within society. Richelieu also believed that the king was the supreme power. Therefore, those who opposed him should be done away with. They were rebels, they were traitors, they were disrupting the peace of the country. “Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken” (191).
Richelieu, also loved the arts in all forms. He promoted the arts because he felt that the artists, musicians, actors and others were as much of a service to the king as were the noblemen and the commoners. Cardinal Richelieu had passion for many things from government to the arts. His desire to create a unified France allowed for France to become a stable major world power. His beliefs of a social order are still followed to an extent today. In conclusion, Cardinal Richelieu, though sometimes looked on in a bad light, can also be looked at as a major help to France and French society
Richelieu was a very dedicated and focused man. He wanted to be part of the nobility and wanted people to respect and follow the monarchy.
One of his beliefs was that people acted certain ways according to what social level they were born into. He believes that the nobility have better behavior. That they were born into a higher, better class and that they should and are more respected then other people born into lower classes. He believed that rebels, mostly from lower classes, were very bad. Rebels went against the king and the monarchy. He believed that was a bad thing and that most external conflicts started within a kingdom and/or country.
Also, Richelieu wanted to lead the life that the nobelmen had. He wanted to have that power and authority. He also had many visions that were idealistic. They did not challenge the wealthy's money, privliges or prestige either.
Overall, Richelieu was a man who wanted to be part of the nobility. He believed that they were the best people and the best social class. Finally, he did not like rebels who went against the monarchy because he was the kind of man who respected and believed in the monarchy.
1) Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu?
Richelieu was a very great and noble man. He served the crown to achieve the noble status and respect that his grandfather and father achieved. He believed that the monarchy and king were all encompassing and that the people should all be under the ruler. He felt a strong Monarch was needed to control the people. Richelieu also believed any sort of rebellion, uprising and attack against the monarch was punishable and deemed traitorous. “Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken” (191). Richelieu was also a visionary who “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality” (p. 186). Richelieu spent his life envisioning France returning to the past to which Richelieu believed was better.
Not only was Richelieu a well respected leader he was also loved literature and the arts. He funded careers of many writers and was an often seen at the theater. He also patronized many writers and was the founder of Academie de Francaise, A French Literary Society.
Richelieu was a man with many ambitions and a great motivation to achieve them. Born into a family of noble status, with a father and grandfather whom the crown favored, Richelieu too spent his life following in their footsteps by paying service to the crown. He believed that people acted in a certain manner based on the social class they were born into. With this being said, Richelieu wanted to strengthen the power of nobility, because he felt the power should rest in the hands of those higher in social standings.
Based on his noble birth and family, it was easier for Richelieu to make his way to the top, but that does not mean he did not work hard to achieve greatness. From a young age he knew that if he wanted to make an impact on French society he would have to win royal favor, and he spent his entire life trying to achieve that. His hard work paid off when he was named Cardinal. Once in this position he manipulated the king and establishment, and in turn he had control over the king and nobility. His ideologies on how to rule were reactionary in nature, because he wanted to reform, restore, and renovate contemporary France into how it had been in the “good old days”, where the kings were successful and had absolute rule over the people. On the other hand, his views were not completely reactionary, because he demanded change instantaneously. Essentially Richelieu wanted to return France to how it had been in the past, but he did not want the change to occur in a gradual manner; it needed to be changed at once. In his mind, all people had a duty to the crown, and anyone who rebelled against it was seen as a traitor and would be punished. He formulated an analogy comparing the king to a father and his people to children by stating that if the children misbehaved, it was their father’s responsibility to deal with them. Richelieu was a visionary with an ambitious attitude that lead him straight to the top. His motivations resulted into an increase in his own power and that of the monarchy while he was named Cardinal. However, his vision of a reformed, restored, and renovated French society was not the outcome he intended. In the end, his arrogance and stubbornness obstructed him from seeing that the “vision” he had created was far the utopian society he had dreamed.
How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
According to “The Ambivalence of Absolutism” by Kimmel my interpretation is that absolutism is not so absolute. In order for a government to have absolute rule by definition means that the ruler is a monarch who as complete power over and above all other social class. By this definition absolutism is not absolute. This is because the monarch should never be challenged or have problems with the lower social classes not obeying him. According to Kimmel the monarch was challenged and the monarchs depended heavily on the lower classes. The monarch depended on the aristocracy to provided political and military support. Sometimes the aristocrats would challenge the monarch when they disagreed. This would jeopardize the monarch’s power. Absolutism is not so absolute if the monarch’s power can be challenged or even taken away because the aristocracy did agree of like the monarchs behavior.
England and France shared some similarities. One example that comes to mind is how both France and England shared similar revolutions. The English Revolution of 1640 to 1660 and the French Revolution that occurred from 1648 to 1653. These two revolutions were similar because they were both attempts by monarchs to fix the governments debts by imposing new laws. For example the selling of noble titles, new taxes, and more fines.
England and France were also quite different. England had a more complex class system. The new law they implemented to get out of debt were targeted at the 3rd estate or the so called lower class. But France’s monarch targeted and called out the highest of the aristocracy. England was also different from France because they couldn’t control religious groups from over taking the monarch during the revolution of 1640 to 1660. Also Kimmel states that England’s lack of a permanent army and weak taxation would hurt the monarch. France did not have a huge problem with religion and didn’t have religious tolerance like England.
In the 17th century, monarchs of European states aimed to centralize their power and create a strong government. The religious wars had ended, and monarchs now focused on establishing stable governments absolute power. By definition, absolutism meant that all the authority of a state rested in the hands of the monarch. Though the governments of France of England were termed “absolutist,” monarchs did not have complete power. Rather, there were various sources of opposition to the monarchs’ rule, including the nobility, and they had to find ways to control them.
The nobility was a threat to absolute power. Their local and regional bases of power, their exemption from taxes, and their independent military organizations went against the states’ goal to centralize power. However, they were also the foundations of the government, so the monarchs could not get rid of the aristocracy. The 17th century was also a time of economic crisis. The governments needed ways to generate revenues for their economic and political objectives; the aristocracy’s income was decreasing, and the governments had to help the aristocracy. In addition, monarchs could not get rid of the aristocracy because this would have injured the legitimacy of the Crown. Thus, the states had to undermine the power of the aristocracy and, at the same time, meet their demands. Both English and French states displayed the ambivalence of the relationship between the nobility and state, and both tried to alter the relationship.
The monarchs had to find a way to control the nobility, to help them, and to generate revenue. In France, the Duke of Sully developed several mechanisms of administration within the old structure. As Kimmel says, he “circumvented constraints on participation in capitalist trade and used the venal officeholders, increasingly secure as robe nobles because of the institution of the paulette in 1604, as a royal wedge against the autonomous powers of the aristocracy” (55). Cardinal Richelieu allowed the nobility to enter the state but yet undercut their power and made them dependent. Richelieu also implemented other tactics to centralize the government’s power, such as the recherche de la noblesse, the removal of governors who did not obey, and the selling of titles.
In England, monarchs also tried to find ways to remove various sources of autonomy and create revenue. Like his French counterparts, Cromwell tried to suppress local religious and political autonomy. To generate revenues, the English government sold titles, tried to limit enclosures, and implemented various fines and taxes. However, unlike the French, who tried to generate income from the aristocracy, the English moved against the lesser nobility. In both England and France, the aristocracy lost some power, but their privilege, generally, remained.
It was difficult, if not impossible, to establish control over such large nations as France and England. There would always be opposition and people questioning or in disagreement with the government, no matter how much the monarchs tried to centralize power. Also, as Kimmel points out, some of both Cromwell and Richelieu’s strategies were simply too radical to implement and would have caused much opposition. This left pockets of autonomy. For example, provinces still had their own laws and courts, and local officials could still obstruct those laws that they did not like.
There was also opposition from England’s Parliament and France’s Estates-General, who did not always agree with the monarch and who fought with the monarch for power.
Both English and French absolutism created opposition from merchants, artisans, and gentry, as well as from the aristocrats. The governments implemented taxes, and the nobility resisted interference with traditional exemptions for taxation. Thus centralization caused withdrawal of support from the nobility, leading to rebellions.
The outcomes of the rebellions exemplified another difference between France and England. France was stronger; it had a large bureaucracy and standing army, and so it was able to suppress the Fronde rebellion. England, on the other hand, was weak structurally. It had local taxes, no large bureaucracy, and no standing army,. England was also challenged by economic developments, while France was able to absorb and incorporate the changes. Thus, the English absolutism failed, and France would survive for another century.
Richelieu was an extremely ambitious man who strove for the best. He set goals for himself early on in life and worked very hard to achieve them. He was born to the first estate, in which his father and grandfather were both warriors defending the French monarchy. Early in life Richelieu was destined for military service, but soon his ambition changed to become a great nobleman.
His vision of great nobility was idealistic and in support of absolute monarchies. He believed people acted in specific ways because of the classes they were born into. He supported restoration instead of revolution or renovation. This was proven by his efforts to bring France back to the way it was in the past. He also wanted to correct errors from France's past. He believed society should be limited by the state. His policy to strengthen the state held the king as the father of the people. When people misbehaved, it was the king's job to punish them just like a father would.
Richelieu was also a man of peace. His main goal was to strengthen the nobility in general. He did this by keeping gentlemen from destroying each other. To prevent men from harming each other he banned dueling. To strengthen the nobility he tried to diminish its arrogance, but this led him to become an enemy of the nobility that he so deeply wanted to be a part of.
What Kind of Man was Richelieu?
There are many different aspects in describing the type of man that Richelieu was. First of all, he was extremely optimistic. According to the “Richelieu and the Great Nobility” reading, he was an ambitious innovator and had dreams of going from the second military estate to being accepted with the grands. He had ideas of restoring the past governmental rule of France and emphasizing the class distinctions. Going along with this, he wanted all importance focused on the King. All estates should pay attention to the King and any who rebel would be severely punished. With these ideals in mind, Richelieu made his way to the first estate and became Cardinal to King Louis XIII. He did everything in his power to give full control to the King and begin foundations of Absolutism in France.
With that being said, Richelieu cared so much about the King’s powers that he acted dangerously towards all who opposed his rulings. If any of the subjects in the King’s court rebelled and rejected the rules, they were immediately punished and considered traitors. According to Richelieu, those who had different views from the King were not tolerated. He believed that if nobles’ committed a crime against the King, their punishment should be far greater than their inferiors because their crimes go “directly against the state.” (Richelieu 195) From this idea, the nobles agreed with what Richelieu believed and he began to gain the nobility approval at first, but lost interest from the rest of the estates, which he completely neglected. Later on through the wars against the Spanish and Huguenots and the Montmorency executions, the nobility began to trust him less and less and eventually his views did not reflect those of the nobility. He was extremely optimistic man but eventually his optimism took him too far.
Kimmil. How absolute is absolutism? In what way were England and France similar? Different?
By looking at history, it is evident that no one has been successful in absolute absolutism. Kimmil himself says that absolutism is too conceptually confusing. There are, however, three theories which try to define and explain absolutism. These theories include: absolutism is a feudal state, absolutism rose as the bourgeoisie rose, and that absolutism was first a capitalist state. All of these theories contradict themselves though, and they don’t consider certain elements which can alter the relationship between the ruling and the people who are being ruled. Therefore, countries have tried for absolute absolutism, but no one has fully accomplished absolute absolutism. Even if one believes they have achieved absolute absolutism there is always something that they do not have complete control over, meaning they do not have absolute absolutism.
Britain and France were similar, because both of their leaders wanted to incorporate the aristocracy into its state while still allowing it to maintain its social status. The aristocracy had became a class which did not adhere to state regulations such as taxes, and were living a luxurious life. During the 16th Century though, the noble’s income and prestige began to decline as the bourgeoisie brought higher and higher revenues to the state, meaning the aristocracy was not doing anything to benefit the state. Both leaders, (for France it was Richelieu, and for Britain, Thomas Cromwell) realized they needed the help of the aristocracy in order to oppress any uprisings against the crown from other social groups, so they couldn’t get rid of the aristocrats or deprive them of their status for fear of upsetting them. Both countries viewed absolutism as a restructuring of relationship between the king and aristocracy, and they wanted to make sure the aristocracy knew they were inferior to the crown. Both leaders did however implement new programs to try to gain some revenue from the aristocracy. Both countries sold aristocratic and knight titles to get quick money. France limited the power of provincial governors and made them independent of the crown, they introduced a “false noble” program to deter out anyone pretending to be a noble in order to escape taxes. Britain introduced fees for denying knight ship, they increased taxes, and limited enclosures that had allowed the gentry class to become more independent. Both leaders thought of implementing restraints on things which threatened their power (Richelieu wanted to transform pays d’état into pays d’election and Cromwell wanted to abolish the Welsh language and religious diversity) but they never went through with these ideas for they knew they would meet too much opposition which would hurt their power. Both countries took these actions to strengthen the state and the aristocracy’s dependence on it while still allowing the aristocrats to maintain their status.
France and Britain are different when it comes to their process in creating an absolute government. France directly attacked the aristocracy and tried to have competition between the nobles and weaken their power whereas Britain attacked the gentry class hoping it would indirectly affect the aristocracy. Britain also was in major debt, and so the need of revenues from the aristocracy was more pressing than France’s need. France was successful in diminishing the aristocracy’s power and was able to withstand uprisings from other small classes. Britain however, had a complex class system with various levels of nobility and a huge gentry class, meaning it had a lot of attacks from various people. Britain also experienced more religious problems due to attempts in absolutism. Despite these differences, both countries attempted to create a monarch with absolute power, but failed in creating a fully absolute government.
Cardinal Richelieu was Louis XIII’s chief minister from the years 1624 to 1642 who firmly believed in initiating policies which would ultimately lead to the escalation of the power of the monarchy of France. Richelieu was a firm believer in absolute monarchy or absolutism which meant that the ultimate authority in the state rested in the hands of a king who claimed to rule by divine right (Spielvogel 408). Richelieu’s, a part of the first estate, views on society were impacted in many ways since, he was born in a family possessed of ambition and of a tradition of fulfilling it by service to the crown (Ranum 187). The Cardinal was a key figure in the rising of a powerful French monarchy. Richelieu fortified royal authority in France by eradicating secretive/private armies, as well as the strengthening of Huguenot cities, and by the destruction of aristocratic schemes. Richelieu altered Huguenots into dependable subjects through abolishing the military as well as political rights of the Huguenots while preserving their religious ones (Spelvogel 408). Furthermore Richelieu crushed noble plots and conspiracies that aristocrats held against the monarchy of France. Thus putting an end to a major threat placed upon the monarchy. When it comes to the reforming and strengthening of the central administration of France, Richelieu used intendants or royal officials to execute orders of the central government in various provinces across the nation. However, this led to disputes and conflicts among the intendants and governors of the provinces. The power of the crown strengthened due to intendants, and their various successes against the provincial governors in most conflicts / disputes. Thus this proves that the contributions that Cardinal Richelieu made developed the emergence of a strong monarchy in France.
The 17th century was an era of crisis, economically, socially and politically. To Kimmil, absolutism was not that absolute, but rather a political system that tried but didn’t succeed in curbing these problems. Throughout the beginning pages of Kimmil’s argument he makes the stand that in general, conflicts between social groups and society led to somewhat ineffective and unproductive absolutism in Europe. The crisis was, “a crisis not of the constitution…but of the state, or rather of the relation of the state to society” (60). Kimmil believes this was a political crisis based on a fiscal crisis. As capitalism and international trade rose along with rivalry and war, the absolutist state couldn’t handle its new and considerable growth. Resolving this crisis is what led to absolutism not being absolute. For a ruler to be absolute, it effected class relations, especially in regards to the nobles and the monarchy. According to his paper, the absolutist state, “needed greater revenue to put down internal rebellion…it could not obtain this revenue without destroying the whole system of gentry privilege” (60). Therefore in order to be absolute, a ruler needed to debase the entire noble system, which through history was shown to be very difficult due to the power they wielded. In the beginning of his argument, Kimmil recounts different peoples’ views on the absolutist state. Anderson’s view is that the noble is the politically dominant class and controls the state, not the monarch, not exactly absolutism. Mousnier’s view is that absolutism generates conflict and the bourgeoisie would become powerful, not the monarch. Lastly Poulantzas believes absolutism rises from a capitalist state. All these contradictory theories create class conflict, making it hard for a monarch to rule by divine right without being questioned or overrun by class struggles.
England and France were similar in that the idea of absolutism rose because of economic crisis, and a price rise. A fiscal crisis was evident in that England had a debt of over $3 million while France had a rising population, and rising prices. Also both England and France’s aristocracy was in conflict leading to class struggles. The status of the nobility was lowered, especially the rural nobility. In both England and France the fiscal crisis lead to royal taxation and as international trade rose, rural farmers lost their power to urban markets. Nobles were forced to sell land and their loss of power made them fight for power in both England and France. Both countries still wanted to recognize the importance of nobles but also lower their power at the same time. Both countries were also similar in that the monarchies wanted to protect the real aristocracy by rooting out the lesser nobility. France rooted out false nobles to see who wasn’t paying taxes, and England heavily taxed the lower nobility. Neither side really cared about the peasants or the lower classes, which led to a common cause between people, the challenging of absolutism.
There were significant differences between England and France as well. England’s monarchy tried to tax the gentry, whose power was rapidly rising, while the nobility was weakening. France on the other hand believed themselves to be able to take down the nobility. In France, the Fronde arose because of a vast alliance the large group of people who opposed the king. However in this case absolutism was successful. France could retain its absolutist state because it could incorporate economic changes due to the commercialization of agriculture. The French monarchy couldn’t completely destroy their opposition and a century or so later, absolutism was wiped out. However England, unlike France, was not militarily or economically able to cope with a revolution. It had a local tax system and absolutism was weak, unlike Henry the XIV. The English revolution, “caused, ultimately, by economic developments which could not be absorbed within the old regime” (71). England could not adapt to a changing world economy. In England capitalist interests were against the Stuart Kings, while in France capitalists needed the royal protection, ensuring the survival of French absolutism in France. The final difference between the two was that because absolutism failed in England, it enabled the country’s economy to flourish later on, whereas France had “economic backwardness”, leaving France struggling in later years. Kimmil in his argument clearly explains that absolutism is not absolute because of competing powers wanting control. He shows this clearly in the examples of France and England.
1)Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu?
Richelieu based much of his policies on historical references which tended to blur his views of the way the society functioned during his time period. Through his policies, one is able to see he was a very determined, consistent, and confident man. Though he was these things, he was not very popular with the nobility and tended to not see their dislike for him. To some, he may seem like a man with his head in the clouds. He believed that men act in prescribed ways because of the station, whether it is noble or base, into which they were born. He himself was born into a family of determined men that were not of royalty but each sought to make something of themselves. Richelieu became a nobleman through favors of the king. Many of his policies sought to restore rather than reform. He saw the nobility as peaceful and courageous men who always sought to serve their king. In reality, he was dealing with greedy men who were out for their own good. In order to return to a time where the nobles were peaceful and served their king unwaveringly, Richelieu began a policy of viewing the king as a father who was in charge of keeping his children, the nobility, in check. If the nobility rebelled, it was the duty of the king to suppress them. This also brought the king and Richelieu to deny the nobles some of the rights they thoroughly enjoyed to diminish their arrogance. These were things such as forcing them back to their country estates, denying them their rights to travel, and to serve the king personally. This angered the nobles resulting in revolts which Richelieu was trying to suppress in the first place. After reviewing Richelieu’s policies, one may see him as someone who doesn’t think his actions all the way through. He remains consistent in his policies and beliefs but in the long run, ends of defeating himself.
Absolutism was not very absolute at all. There are many theories regarding who absolutism benefits and who it hurts. Some people like Roland Mousnier believed that absolutism grew in direct corelation with the bourgeoisie. Therefore it is implied that he does not believe that absolutism arose as the higher class grew, but rather the middle class bourgeoisie. Theorists like him believe that as a result, absolutism was not implied upon in order to give the upper class more ruling power, but rather a phenomenon that just happened.
Furthermore, absolutism was not absolute because of the numerous limitations that the ruling class had. For example, King Louis XIV was a quintessential example for these limitations. He is very famous for his saying, "L'etat, C'est moi." (I am the state.) However, dude to the enormity of the French land, it was hard to establish control over it. He was many times opposed from the aristocracy the Estates General, for the EG controlled taxes.
Perhaps the biggest similarity between the French and British methods of achieving an absolutist state is that the relationship between the monarchy and aristocracy changed drastically. In both countries, the nobility rose and found the monarchy as its threat to them. Furthermore another major similarity between the two is that the leaders in both countries (Stuarts of England, Louis' in France) were descendants of previous leaders.
There are also great differences that separate the two apart. For instance, France was able to attack its higher nobility, whereas England was not very successful in it. Also, the way in which the two countries resolved their economic problems was a big difference that set them apart. Where the British tried resolving their fiscal problems through the gentry, the French directly asked the nobles.
Richelieu is a difficult man to classify. In many instances, his actions seem obvious, and yet they rarely reflect his own personal aims and beliefs. He was completely loyal to the State and yet undeniably politcally ambitious, often subtly directing the monarch in Richelieu's own desired course of action. He wished for a return to a past that did not exist, and in trying to simply strengthen and restablish aspects of society instead reformed it. He is famous for his harsh treatment of the grandes, and yet it was towards attaining this class that he constantly strived.
Perhaps Ricelieu could merely be considered a product of the times, when so much of Europe was plunged into inner turmoil. Age-old traditions were being overturned and government was being redefined. The Thirty Years' War, the last religious was, was savagly raging; in England, civil war was at hand; and in France, power was scattered amongst a handful of the population, who did what they pleased and answered to no one. Is it so surprising then, that in the midst of this chaos, that Richelieu would recieve so many conflicting impressions? His own personal history no doubt contributed to this confusion. After living in poverty and watching the noblemen have a free rein, it was clear to Richelieu that wealth connotated security, power and a danger. It was also obvious that the only one with enough strength to make some sense of all the disorder was the monarch; and that to end the chaos entirely, the monarch needed the complete submission of his subjects. Therefore, in order to allow these two conflicting desires to coexist: the dream of the wealth and security of a grande, as well as the dream of the wealth and security of a state that could exist only if the king held all the power, Richelieu built his life around a false image of the past. The nobility should be allowed the full extent of their strength, so long as it did not conflict in any way with the State's. The State and monarch were inseperable, and it was 'traditionally' the nobleman's duty to serve both faithfully. As stated in the article, "[Richelieu's] aim was to restore order and obedience, not to diminish [the grandes] prestige or power."
Of course, this was rarely the reality. In truth, while trying to subdue the rebellious nobles, serve the State, and promote his own position in court, the consequence of Richelieu's actions rarely corresponded with their intent. The grandes lost much of their freedom of movement and their power during this time, while Richelieu grew in importance.
It is difficult to define Richelieu; a skilled politician, who nonetheless failed in instigating the truly necessary policies; someone who sacrificed everything for the power of State, and yet used the State to further his own power; an idealistic; self-delusioned; a hypocrite. Whatever kind of man he was, though, he was a symbol of the time...and of what was to come.
Cardinal Richelieu was an idealistic visionary who was fearless and possessed great determination. These characteristics led him to achieve a great status. Richelieu was born in France to a family with noble status and great ambition. He strived to achieve the same high ranking as his parents. Richelieu was a hard worker. His extensive service to the crown paid off when he was named Cardinal by Gregory XV. With this power he planned to control the nobility and even the king. Being manipulative, he was able to convince many important figures to agree with his policies. Richelieu’s social policies were based on historical rather than utopian visions. He was reactionary in nature. He wanted to restore France to its more absolutist times immediately. He favored a strong monarchy. Richelieu explained that each section of society should be contained within their limits by the State.
With his view of absolutism, he believed that all rebellions were to be suppressed by the king. He was strongly against disorder in the French State. He believed that the nobility was clearly the highest subjects of realm. However, if they rebelled, then he considered them traitors (191). At times he even hinted that they were inferior. One of the reasons why he was strongly opposed to rebellions was because he believed that anarchists inevitably made alliances with foreign powers. This might provoke a civil war. Many of Richelieu’s views were based on rebellions. Richelieu had an idealistic vision of great nobility. His vision included the aristocracy being content. Richelieu “saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch” (186). He believed that with the aristocracy content, rebellion would stop. Another part of Richelieu’s policy contained unifying the domestic powers of France.
Richelieu gave great consideration to war and diplomacy. This is because he believed that they were linked to internal affairs (193). Richelieu’s foreign policy conveyed his fearlessness. He was fearless in making alliances with foreign Protestants. In fact he was once known as the “Cardinal of the Huguenots”. In defense of Protestants he said, “Many there are who differ with us in belief; I trust that we shall all be united in affection.” Although he defended the Protestants, since he was a cardinal he had much religious zeal. He conveyed zeal when converting many Protestants. Despite his sympathy, when he became Prime Minister of France, he said to the king, “I promised your Majesty that I would use all my ability, and all the power you would give me, to crush the Huguenot party, to lay low the pride of the nobles, to force all your subjects to do their duty, and to cause foreign nations to properly respect your Majesty’s name; and to effect these ends I insisted that I should have your entire confidence.” This quote conveys the part of Richelieu that is a tyrant.
Richelieu was indeed a great Cardinal and nobleman. His overall goal was to socially and politically reform France. He valued loyalty from the noble class to the king. If they rose against the crown he believed that they should be severely punished. Richelieu was successful in increasing the power of the monarchy, and his determination led him to continue reforming until his death.
So my opinion of Richelieu was that he was a smarmy, always wanting more, kind of guy. He had to be at the center of all ruling and when he wasn’t, he would crush all opposition like on page 192 when it said that “the king’s only recourse was to punish severely all rebels.” This is not a man who is going to listen to everyone’s ideas and then form a ruling; instead he will have his own opinion and stick with it no matter what happens. He was also easily hurt and it hurt him with his relationship with the grands, like when one duke wouldn’t do him a favor, every time that someone mentioned the particular duke again he would always bring up that one incident. Adding to his smarminess he was also a suck up to whoever was in charge, until finally there was a point in his career that he could be the man in charge, right hand man. (191)
Finally, and not to say anything bad about Republicans, I believe that he would have definitely been a member of the Republican Party if he was alive today, because the paper continually mentioned that he was “nursing the visions of the good old days.”
Cardinal Richelieu was a highly ambitious and idealistic reactionary of a man, who looked to the past for guidance. Though a member of the First Estate, Richelieu had a dream of leading the life of a Great Nobleman. To achieve this end, he set out to gain the favor of the Crown. He rose quickly both politically and ecclesiastically, aligning himself with powerful people and eventually becoming an indespensible advisor to the King during the Thirty Years War.
He had a tendency to put the ways of old on a pedestal, and retained a romanticized vision of the "good old days." He held onto grand ideas of Noblemen who lived richly, but served their King loyally, free of any squabbling with other Nobles. Throughout his career, he tried to restore what he thought were the ways of the past. As part of this, he held strongly to the idea of the divine right of Kings, and felt that all the Noblemen of France should be subservient to the King, whom he described as being the "father" of the nation, while his subjects were his "children." He felt that if any of the subjects misbehaved it was the duty of the King to discipline them, as a father would his children. "Richelieu’s views were perfectly clear," Ranum writes, "honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects of the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bonds between the king and his subjects was also broken.” As such, Richelieu never supported any form of rebellion, but rather attempted to effect his own reactionary change through the proper avenues with no violence or revolution of any sort.
1)Ranum. What kind of man was Richelieu?
Cardinal Richelieu was a very driven individual. He had a firm belief in absolutism- most likely due to his family- and had a strong motivation for pursuing his goals. Many of his ideas were based around the relationship between monarch and subject. “Rebellious subjects could not be tolerated by the crown, ‘because they usurp the royal authority and undertake to do only what belongs to the sovereign" (191). He also thought that a king had no duty to his people, rather that all “concessions made by the crown must always appear to his subjects as coming from the grace and favor of the monarch” (191). Furthermore, he noticed the straying of the French nobility from their duty to the monarch and wanted to restate the role of nobles to serve their king as best they can. Frequently straying to ways of old, he had the tendency to seem like he was living in the past. Also, a rahter outspoken man, he was quite a visionary and his actions led to the increased power of the French monarchy while also increasing his own personal power. He favored absolutism because he wanted peace among all of the subjects and had strong beliefs in the leadership of the king. On a more personal note, he was very fond of the arts and founded Academie de Francaise which was a French learned society.
When I hear the word Richelieu the first two words that come to mind are manipulation and trickery. I believe both these words are accurate assessments of the actions employed by the cardinal to achieve his personal agendas of greatness. He started off as a low mobility but through the winning of favor of various nobility he was able to ride up the royal ladder on the coattails of others. After much hard work he was able to to become advisor to King Louis XIII himself. Once he embedded himself in this position he began to use deceit and manipulation to sway the kings course of action. This is when My last shred of respect for the cardinal diminished. The disgusting selfishness and hunger for power which led him to alter situations that could possibly alter history. Perhaps if he had not advised the king to take the course of action that he did France would now be a superpower. The one thing that can be said for Richelieu however, is that he was absolutely unwavering in his political ideals and beliefs. There was no John Kerry style flip-flopping here. His main ideas are as follows, “Richelieu's
views were perfectly clear; honor and privilege were held in trust by the subjects from the king; if that trust was broken by disobedience, the personal bond between the king and his subjects was also broken. Rebellious subjects could not be tolerated by the crowii, "because they usurp the royal
authority and undertake to do only what belongs to the sovereign." He followed this ideal his whole life and raged his continual war against the influential nobility when they tried to act up and rebel. He was indifferent to them when they were obedient. As time progressed Richelieu's manipulation of the king in regards to the decisions that he made became even more rampant. All people that were caught of breaking laws were prosecuted to the full extent of justice. The whole world was shocked when a brave noble who simply dueled was executed at the order of Richelieu. Its because of Richelieu's manipulation and trickery that he used to obtain his high power social position that i think that he was an all around snake of a man who should have taken an honest path to make the reforms he desired instead of doing it the dirty way.
Richelieu seems to me to be a very narrow-minded person who believes in much of the same things that Hobbes believed in. On the first page of the reading, it says that "He believed that men act in prescribed ways because of the station, be it noble or base, into which they are born." This clearly indicates that his views are firmly entrenched in the classic (and severely outdated) French class system, the very same system that would lead to the crown's ultimate demise. This is also something that he would mostly agree with Hobbes. Unlike Locke, Hobbes did not believe that the mind started as a tabula rasa, or blank slate. He also agreed with Hobbes that the best way to rule a country was through absolute monarchy. Hobbes just proposed it, however, whereas the Cardinal played the role of a monarch for many years. He seems to me to have a very bleak view of human life and he seems to also to rely very heavily on the bounds society sets, even though he himself broke them by becoming the de facto king in France for a number of years.
Absolutism in the 17th Century.
By William Si
In the Kimmel article, “The Ambivalence of Absolutism,” there were many mentions of the theories of absolutism. But even though the article presents what Kimmel wrote, how absolute was absolutism? Thus in the end, we can determine that absolutism during the 17th centuries were not that absolute. By definition absolutism is a form of government in which the ruler is a monarch who has complete power over and above the social classes. However, with everything going on, the leaders wanted to ensure that they stayed in power even when the powers and titles are transitioning around. With absolutism, the government could be in control of everything including taxes which ended up in the middle class and lower class. The effects were felt when the middle class bought their own titles which lead to revolutions caused by the loss of status in the gentries.
Now, as we take a look further into the article, we can see that the absolutist governments in France and England were similar. They both came in the times when there was a fiscal crisis. Absolutism came in so the government could control everything in order to help the country. By trying to help, each of them sought out the importance of the aristocrats while taking away their power in politics through the spread of purchasable titles. Thus, each country put in taxes which lead to revolts to turn the country to a better state which helped the people.
Yet, as we look at the two states, through the similarities we can see the differences. Each of the leaders dealt with the nobility differently. In France, they thought it would be better for them to be in total control of the aristocracy while the English took a less forceful approach. Each lead to a different style of takeover and revolution such as the France lasting longer and having more violent revolts. The products too are different of what was going on as the French eventually broke out in revolution while the absolutism in England was more of a transition.
With everything that Kimmel mentions, each country went through unique periods which lead to an a change in government in accordance to the people.
How absolute is absolutism?
The absolutism of absolutism is a concept that has no absolutes as it is cause and effects are basically up for interpretation by those who are affected by it. Some such as Mousnier believed that the absolutist state grew out of mutual dependency of the state and the bourgeoisie upon each other. “The state needed the bourgeoisie for revenues as much as the bourgeoisie needed the state for protection (page 57).” It can be concluded though that growth of absolutism was stimulated by the decline of the feudal system. Further more, the growth of the middle class was also a key catalyst. As this class grew it became necessary to incorporate them into society in such a way that the place and power of the noble class was not disrupted. However, going back to the main idea that there are no absolutes in absolutism, this is only a theory. It is most accurate to say that absolutism was merely a social/political occurrence that grew from the demands and changes of that time period.
France and England were two countries that greatly affected by absolutism. In both countries the nobility found themselves at odds with the monarchy, especially as more and more offices were sold to the bourgeoisie.
However, the English king was much more successful at maintaining control than the French king as Louis XIV proclaimed himself supreme ruler over all of France, a body of land much to large for him to effectively control. The French on the other hand were far more successful in their rebellions against the nobility than the English who saw very few benefits from their revolts.
Richelieu was very confident is his political ideals. He stuck to the idea of nobility with a passion that could not be wavered. He believed in the chain of command that should not be broken or jumped.
The king was ruler of all and should have his loyal followers surrounding him and doing nothing but supporting him. He was old-school in his time and enjoyed the believed the court life of the past.
Given power by the king through his religous upbringing, he supported the crown with the utmost respect.
Rebellions he viewed as ourageous and thought that all decisions made by the king shouldbe his and his alone.
Overall, Richelieu believed in the king and his power of rule. He was old-school and supported his French government.
When you think of absolutism, you think of a form of government that has total control over its nation and what it does. But in fact what does absolutism actual do for a country. Well, there are many ideas about what absolutism actual is. One thought is that it was supposed to protect the capitalist development against the rebelling lower class. Another idea was that was going to bring the classes together and form a neutral class identity. Over time many different definitions have come up, but not one has been identitfied as the clear explanation. Therefore, absolutism isn't all that absolute. Depending on the situation one group is going to come out of the power struggle and take control. Either the economic groups or the traditional monarchy.
England and France are two perfect examples of this. In France the traditional monarchies came out on top, whereas in England the individual groups pushed for reforms and changes. Both France and England are very similar in this case, only differing in their outcomes. In the early 17th century both countries had come up with solutions that initially helped them, but as time went on failure began to rise. Each had started to generated additional funds for the royal treasury but at the same time nobility were begining to become diconnected. In both England and France changes had to be made in the relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy to try to utilize absolutism. Major struggle and revolt resulted from this.
In the end France was able to hold on to the traditional monarchy and minimal changes were made. But in England changes were being made and new ideas were coming about. Yes, the monarchy is still there, but the economy has changed and the nobility have become more involved.
Richelieu was a steadfast believer in the monarchy and believed there was no power greater than the monarchs. Richelieu saw no reason that all people could not live in harmony, and he demonstrated this through the rules he imposed upon others. Richelieu was able to climb his was to the top and manipulate the king in was that allowed him to transform France into a centralized state.
As a child Richelieu was surrounded by a sense of loyalty to the crown and ambitions family whose sole purpose was service to the crown. He originated as a part of the first estate, but he dreamed of leading the life of a nobleman. His family instilled in Richelieu the value of serving the king and he believed that all people should work towards the greater good and serve their king without questions. He further developed his thoughts of service to the king by comparing society to a family. The king is the father, and the people are the children. As the father the king assumes all responsibility for the children’s bad behavior. As in families, if the children misbehave, they are reprimanded by the parents, or in this case, by the father.
Richelieu knew in his heart that the royal family, but above all, the king was the most important people in society. They were not to be questioned and were to be obeyed. If a person should disobey the king, they would be punished. Another action that Richelieu believed needed to be followed by punishment was rebellion. He showed no mercy to rebellious subjects and he felt that the subjects had no right to rebel against the crown. The forms of punishments ranged, but all were delivered with the same message, obey your king.
Richelieu, although a very noble man, never looked to the future and saw advancement, but rather wanted to look into the past for the answers, and bring France back to what they used to be. “Richelieu saw the nobility peacefully and courageously serving the monarch, and it was this vision which became for him a historical reality”. He was not concerned with the problems that were in the past. Richelieu only saw the good and dreamed of restoring the old ways.
Post a Comment