Power and Empire: Discussion of Richelieu’s Will and Testament
The 16th Century Europe was a time of rapid and unexpected changes. It was an era of revolution and discoveries. The first half of the century was concerned with Lutherism and Calvinism, Machiavelli’s political ideas were expressed in The Prince, and Magellan had circumnavigated the globe. In politics, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip of Spain had gained control over their countries’ thrones. In France, the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre had occurred. Roman Catholics took to the streets to murder Huguenots. In order to put an end to the religious conflict, the new French King, Henry IV (a former Huguenots) issued the Edit of Nantes which promoted religious freedom for all.
After Henry IV was assassinated, Louis XIII seized the throne. His prime minister was Richelieu, who was born to a noble, but later became impoverished in Paris. He was born as Armand Jean du Plessis on September 5th, 1585. Richelieu was educated for the military profession at the College de Navarre at a very young age. Then, he started his career as a bishop before the Mother-Queen of the young Louis noticed his potential for the government. He was appointed the Secretary of War and Foreign Affairs in 1616. Richelieu was named Cardinal in 1622, after forming an alliance with the Duc de Luynes. Soon, Richelieu was offered the position, Minster of State, and concluded an alliance with England upon marriage to Henrietta, sister of the English king. The formation of the French Constitution began in his hands. Richelieu was determined to implement his key idea: a powerful ruler was essential in a respectable and prospering nation. The administrative system which he established reflected his ideas greatly. He extended the use of royal commissioners and recruited new nobility and men for the army. France was divided into smaller districts which helped the government understand the needs of the local communities. Richelieu also supervised the collection of taxes, enforcing local news, and regulating activities such as trade. He aided with the preparation of the dictionary to standardize the French language. He felt that the reduction of the Huguenots independence would contribute to peace in France, and modified the Edit of Nantes. He also reduced the French debt by letting the central government share the proceeds of tax revenue with local government, but the monarchy never gained nay revenue. The king did not tax the wealthy, this resulted the debt in later years. After decades of trying to create a strong unified country, Richelieu died in his hometown on December 4th, 1642.
In Richelieu’s Political Will and Testament, he explained that a government must have a powerful monarch in order for it to become fully functional. Although, rulers had the power, they also needed to learn about respect and esteem. Rulers must gain the trust and love of their citizens. With these two elements, fear could be arouses and eventually could turn into hatred. As noted in the Political Will and Testament, “âÂ?¦it is very dangerous; instead of crating a reasonable fear, it inclines men to hate princesâÂ?¦” Hatred will cause the peaceful balance of rulers and citizens to shift; unhappy citizens will rebel, resulting in chaos. Civil wars will break out, forcing bloodshed and casualties. Besides power, fear, respect and esteem, Richelieu also suggested that rulers must keep any army by their sides at all times.
A century before, Niccolo Machiavelli was a man with similar views. He was born in Florence, Italy on May 3rd, 1469. He was concerned with practical politics. Through his book, The Prince, he sought to gain favor with eh Medici family of Florence; they were potential leaders of the unified Italy. He had entered the government as a bureaucrat and was soon occupied with diplomatic missions. During Machiavelli’s time, he met many important people who would impact his future life. One was Cesare Borgia, a cruel and cunning man, much like the one who was portrayed in his book. He though Borgia would be the perfect choice to unify Italy. Unfortunately, the Medici government and its citizens would not accept his ideas. Soon, Machiavelli was dismissed from his office. In 1527, he died due to health failures.
In response to Richelieu, I believe Machiavelli would have agreed with a few of his ideas. He would have approved the concept of a powerful monarchy, which the citizens look to for guidance and aid. The ruler would be able to promote the best interest of the country, expand the empire, as well as, let the nation prosper. The ingredient of fear would be needed to gain respect form the citizens. They would be able to follow orders without any disruptions. Machiavelli felt rulers should not mistreat their people because they are the ones who would assist him. However, if a ruler could not have both love and fear, Machiavelli would rather have the citizens fear. He makes the generalization that men are “âÂ?¦ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceived, they shun danger and area greedy for profitâÂ?¦.”
I agree with some key points in Political Will and Testament, I think in order for a government to be supported by its citizens, the ruler must be powerful. Power should not only control the government, but also be used to maintain the interest of the citizens. Respect is needed for the citizens to appreciate the monarch’s authority. In order to gain respect, he must show it to his people. I also believe that a nation’s power can be based on the performance of its army. Richelieu suggested that the king should consider an army by his side. The appearance of an army can determine if the monarch is capable of defending the citizens and the wealth of the nation. Citizens would become more confident in a well-equipped army compared to a sloppy one. They are assured when chaos occurs; the government has the ability to assist them. They are also willing to support their “caring” rulers since their tax dollars are spent toward the security of the national. All in all, Richelieu’s views were a perfect fit for an absolute monarchy. There was a sole ruler who would be loved and feared by his people. With the government stable and its people happy, he realized the ruler’s position would be assured. The civil wars would permanently end and France would prosper.
Although an absolute monarch might be the best choice for Richelieu and 17th Century France, I feel that a democracy is better today. An absolute may be the solution during times of corruption, when good and evil could not be defined easily. The sole ruler is needed to guide and protect his people. Although, in modern society, we need these elements, we also need a government where we have someone who can truly represent us. In a democracy, this can be fulfilled. We determine who will be out representative through elections. If they do not fulfill their duties, we can kick them out of the office in the next election. With a sole ruler, this is not allowed. The government will remain in the hands of someone we have no control of. Some people say that a democracy is the survival of the fittest. It might be true to a certain point, but if we work hard, don’t we earn more? Democracy is competition. There is no one out there telling us to step being good at something, so why don’t we improve on that? In an absolute monarchy, we are trapped within our society. We are old what to do and how to do it, one false move and our lives might end. Is that what we want?
In addition, I disagree with fear. If the monarch truly cares for his people, they will return the favor by supporting him in the future. Most times, fear will only create a barrier between the ruler and his people. There would be no solid understanding of each other. The monarch would be the authority, and the citizens would be too frightened to speak to him about their concerns.
Richelieu’s ideas made an important impact in French history he tried to promote French culture. He had formed an alliance with England, created the French Constitution, and established the administrative system. He also divided France into smaller districts to maintain smaller communities and enforced new laws. He supervised with the dictionary to standardize the French language and reduced the national debt. Richelieu’s ideas of a single powerful king as the only choice to unify and safeguard a government from corruption lasted until the French Revolution. France flourished in trade and its culture dominated Europe.
