User:SouperAwesome/My sandbox: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
←Blanked the page |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
How fairly did Saint-Simon evaluate Louis XIV and the Sun King’s court? |
|||
How did Louis’s vanity influence royal policy? |
|||
In what ways was Louis XIV isolated from reality? |
|||
How did Louis control the ambitions of the French nobility? How did his methods compare to those of Richelieu? |
|||
Saint-Simon judged Louis XIV harshly, stating that the king was egoistic, spoiled and even unintelligent when majority of the nobles in his court liked him. Saint-Simon turns the king’s achievements and glory into success earned by other people. “The King’s intelligence was below the average,” the writer says of Louis XIV. He claims that the cleverness came from great people around him rather than himself. Even though Louis owned some of his success to others, he also deserved credit. Saint-Simon also claims that: “falseness, servility, admiring glances, combined with a dependent and cringing attitude, above all, an appearance of being nothing without him, were the only means of pleasing him.” He says that Louis was a self-centred man, and his subjects only falsely admired or complimented him to get their way. Actually, Louis had the power to deprive nobles of their authority, but was smart enough to use them to his advantage. The relationship between nobles and the king was a mutual co-dependency. |
|||
Louis XIV’s permanent residence was at Versailles, outside of Paris where nobles and ministers constantly surrounded him. He kept his higher-class subjects pre-occupied and entertained, and so splendour enclosed his life. He might have been isolated from reality as he only interacted with satisfied, wealthy people and never saw the true France. Those at his court could attempt to address their problems to the king, but they might have been more concerned with their own, personal troubles as wealthy people. |
|||
Louis XIV, learning from past examples, didn’t appoint one chief minister to aid him govern, but instead kept numerous ministers with say. By not having a chief minister, like past Cardinal Richelieu or Mazarin, the people couldn’t blame or accuse the one person for their troubles. The king’s vanity led to ministers having power and to Louis pampering the nobles to keep them happy and out of the way. Saint-Simon says: “that is what gave his ministers so much power, for they had endless opportunities of flattering his vanity.” Louis’ pride and egoism made way for a tactic used by ministers, who gained his ear by flattery and compliments. Ministers, who knew how to use the king’s selfishness for their own benefit, had a lot of influence. As well as ministers, nobles with the same ability to benefit from the king’s vanity could earn his patronage. Also, as Louis wanted to keep the nobles happy to maintain his own authority, he entertained and indulged the higher-class. |
|||
The king kept the French nobility below him, as he supported the traditional social system. Louis made sure his subjects knew that he was the final authority, with the “divine right of a king” and the nobles could only achieve their own means through him. Even though Richelieu didn’t hesitate to sacrifice the pleasure of nobles when it came to the concerns of the state, he, like Louis, supported a centralized system with the king as |
|||