Based or cringe?
Just another run-of-the-mill pyscho who'd likely be an equally boring statesman if he were alive today. I think Macron may be his reincarnation.
>>9166641>Cardinal-Duc de RichelieuHe owes his Absolutist Glory to this Eminent Prelate-Statesman.
>>9166641cringe kingbased court music though
>>9166694Absolutely based Court music.t. Jean-baptiste Lully (unironically)
>>9166641Extremely based. Jealousy breeds Contempt as shown by some responses
>>9166641William III of Orange frustrated all his attempts to devastate and control Europe, so he was mostly a failure in his lifetime. He was a barbarous ruler as well, see what he did in the Palatinate.
>>9166641warmongering is always cringe, nice legs though
>>9166641fun fact about that painting, the pose he's standing in is not a natural one and would be quite difficult to hold for an extended period of time. He did that to show off his skill as a dancer.
>>9166685Breh you posted the wrong statesman
>>9166641Would be nothing without Giovanni Battista Lulli.
>>9166641Based as fuck. Some people don't know that's Charlemagne's sword "Joyeuse" on his hip.
>>9166790Can't forget Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Minister of Finance under Louis XIV. Thanks breh.
>>9166851>>9166828Thanks breh. Should have been this link for J-BC.
>>9166641Absolutely based. The zenith of France.
The unbounded extravagance we often associate with British royal culture was initially pioneered under Louis XIV in France. The rest of Europe was merely copying France. The massive wigs, the flamboyant clothing, the waterborne music festivals, all of this began with Louis.
>>9166641Pretty based, but king billy is even more based
>>9166641Some mistakes but overall based.
All monarchies are cringe. Any government where the executive is more powerful than the legislative is also cringe.
>>9167312Parliaments are cringe and utter failures.
>>9166641his death was kino https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hfq_sE_JTg
>>9167322Parliament is part of the reason why Britain became the world superpower and absolute monarchy is why King Louis ended up taking a shave. The more active and involved the population is, and the more say it has over political affairs, the less likely your country will lose its superpower status spending a century fighting back and forth between reestablishing the monarchy or reestablishing the republic. When peaceful change is made impossible by the establishment violent confrontation becomes inevitable. Read the Bible (Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty).
>>9167399Parliament in Britain was an oligarchic institutions that didn't involve the people beyond working like asses in the factories. King Louis ended up taking the shave because its bourgeoisie and a part of the nobility wanted to have the same pie as its British counterparts.
>>9167322A parliament beat you frogs
>>9167420Absolute Russia did.
>>9167312Good. It's not like Louis' legislative power was weaker than his executive one, they were all equally his. The Fifth Republic on the other hand...It proves that even the basis of your reasoning is flawed.
>>9167399>the less likely your country will lose its superpower status spending a century fighting back and forth between reestablishing the monarchy or reestablishing the republicWere do you think you are? This is a XVIIth century french monarch you're talking about, a Republic wasn't considered a serious idea for a country such as France (and this would continue until the Third Republic).>When peaceful change is made impossible by the establishment violent confrontation becomes inevitableThat's why peaceful change was made impossible under Louis XV and Louis XVI by the Parliament?
>>9166641Everyone talks about his wars but he was actually a really good statesman who made proper use of what richelieu built for him. He killed the h*bsburgs so he's enternally based
>>9166641He's one of those people who because he was around so long, such a big figure in his country's history and because of how dominant French culture was would be easily considered one of the all time great rulers but then you look and realize that he fucked up a lot militarily and basically only did a good job of turning every other country against France and never really thought about the future of the kingdom as a whole and just his own future and he was actually pretty sub-par overall.He basically created ballet as we know it though so good for him.
>>9166641>made dykes do opera to dab on the popeI'm gonna say based.
>>9166664>who'd likely be an equally boring statesman if he were alive todayStarting a bunch of wars, two of which involve most of Western and Central Europe, is hardly "boring".
>>9166641Cringe. He bankrupted France and caused a pretty huge famine because of his constant warmongering and autistic obsession with defeating the Habsburgs. Even by the standards of the time he cared more about personal aggrandizement than the well-being of his subjects.
>>9166641Based. France peaked under his rule, they won't see someone as based until Napoleon.
>>9169354Why was he based?And if all you have to say is he fought a bunch of wars then you're a military history retard that I won't take seriously.
>>9167830>He killed the h*bsburgs>last Spanish Habsburg dies of inbreeding>hon hon hon I deserve credit for that
>>9167830>but he was actually a really good statesmanHe started two wars in which he faced a huge coalition that outnumbered him and he only just managed to get a draw. He had no allies except tiny little Bavaria in one of those wars. Hardly a great statesman.
>>916935775 years of rule, and that's back when people had no clue what medicine was. Pulled all the nobles under his roof and centralized the government. Under his rule, France's influence grew exponentially, it became the glowing peak of European absolutism. And disregarding his military efforts is simply wrong.
>>9169387>75 years of ruleHe didn't start ruling in his own right until 1661, when he was 23 years old. Before that his mother and Cardinal Mazarin ruled in his stead because of his youth and inexperience. Even then he ruled for a long time, and his medical record is impressive. The guy suffered a lot but still kept going until the very end. But duration of rule isn't necessarily a positive by default.>Pulled all the nobles under his roof and centralized the governmentMuch of that centralisation had already been done by Richelieu, Mazarin and Anne. He merely put the final nail in the coffin and finalised it. It does a discredit to the decades of work done by these other people to give him all the credit for it.>Under his rule, France's influence grew exponentiallyTrue>it became the glowing peak of European absolutismAt the time this was praised, but forgive me if I don't heap praise on it now. Absolutism was not a good thing for anyone that wasn't the king and his government. Louis showed little interest in actually improving the well-being of his subjects; his many reforms of government, administration and the economy were merely done to make his rule more efficient.>And disregarding his military efforts is simply wrongThe two final wars of his reign saw France fighting a huge coalition that outnumbered them, with basically no allies, and his gains were severely limited compared to his goals. The second of these wars brought France to the verge of bankruptcy and induced a severe famine on the country that led to massive sufferings of the commoners. Even Louis himself realised how bad this was by the end of his life, and urged his heir not to be a warmonger like he had been.
>>9169404You're pretending like France under his rule was perpetually starving and bankrupt. He ruled over the period of unprecedented prosperity. Not only did France become the dominant player in Europe, but science and art were flourishing, and the economy was booming. Did it always go perfectly smoothly? No, but nothing ever is. Regardless, Louis XIV was an exemplary ruler, he's the person who defined what absolute monarchy is, and other monarchs followed by his example. He could've done better job with taxes, and the wars got overbearing by the end of his rule, but still. The Seven Years' War shows us that it could always have been much, much worse.
>>9169448Which reforms of his helped the commoners, specifically?I mean, maybe we have different values on things, but for me the prime goal of a leader should be to increase the well-being of his people.
>>9169286that story is fake
>>9169404>At the time this was praised, but forgive me if I don't heap praise on it now. Absolutism was not a good thing for anyone that wasn't the king and his government. Louis showed little interest in actually improving the well-being of his subjects; his many reforms of government, administration and the economy were merely done to make his rule more efficient.It's anachronistic, no one expected the king to improve the living conditions of its subjects, that wasn't a function. In spite of the absolute meme the state was much more shrinked that any modern democracy, it hadn't much room to improve the living of a vastly agrarian population.Anyway it must mentionned that during a famine (I don't remember which one) he sold part of Versailles ware for the relief of the poor. Also much of the criticism he drew toward the end of his reign was related to the fact he tried to tax the nobility to finance the war, so that its weight doesn't fall entirely on the third state. Unsurprisingly the nobles called him a tyrant for that.
>>9169522*that wasn't a regalian function
>>9169454The commoners were pretty fucked, not gonna lie. They paid for everything he did, and they did suffer for it. But you should remember that unlike an elected official, the king was a public servant. His role was to rule and push France to greatness, and push he did. He pushed so hard that most of Europe couldn't sit straight for decades to come.The value of rulers is not decided by their respect for commoners. Louis XIV made them pay for the Versailles, and he was called the Louis the Great. Marie Antoinette patronized the Société philanthropique, helped the poor families personally, and sold half of the royal flatware to pay for the grain to feed the starving, and that got her slandered and decapitated. And then the one who ordered her murder slaughtered an additional 50 thousand people for good measure, and some people still think that he dindu nuffin.
He wasn't much more of a warmonger than William or Leopold.
>>9169563Mate when you look at the big picture, besides his artistic patronage, his prestige and all, you can hardly consider him a great ruler.It may be anachronistic to judge a ruler according to the effect of his policies after he reigned, but his policies, his dismantling of the aristocracy for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and the concentration of manufacture in Paris, all laid the groundwork for the revolution.And giving him the credits for the booming economy is a bit far fetched, especially when it was Colbert and Mazarin who pushed the reforms and managed the budget, he was mostly surrounded by excellent statesmen.
>>9169683>And giving him the credits for the booming economy is a bit far fetched, especially when it was Colbert and Mazarin who pushed the reforms and managed the budget, he was mostly surrounded by excellent statesmen.Indeed, but that's what we always do when talking about great enterprises of any kind. It's easier to say that Steve Jobs built Apple, rather than "Steve Jobs and a bunch of other people, none of whom are remembered now, built Apple". It's not fair, but it is what it is.I don't think that Louis XIV was a good man, and considering his last words, he didn't think so either. I like thinking that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, despite being very much decent people, died for his sins. But you can't argue that he was a great man, seeing the scope of his achievements. And if those don't qualify him to be a great man, then no monarch in history was great.
>>9169683>And giving him the credits for the booming economy is a bit far fetched, especially when it was Colbert and Mazarin who pushed the reforms and managed the budget, he was mostly surrounded by excellent statesmen.Appointing great ministers is what you would expect of a great ruler.
>>9169563>His role was to rule and push France to greatness, and push he did. He pushed so hard that most of Europe couldn't sit straight for decades to come.He pushed so hard that he drained the treasury and almost bankrupted the kingdom, and caused thousands to die of starvation when the famine hit in the middle of a huge war he started and refused to end.Greatness doesn't mean shit when your people are suffering. I don't measure greatness in winning battles or conquering territory. That's aggrandizement. It's the ancient way of judging greatness. Henri IV was arguably the only French king of the ancien regime that gave a shit about the common people to any degree. Louis should have looked at him as a role model.
>>9169321>bankrupted FranceDo you realize how easy this was to do at the time? It would've been even more without a more centralized state. >caused a pretty huge famine Louis XIV didn't cause the climatic crisis of 1692-1693 and 1709, you're giving him too much credit. >Even by the standards of the time he cared more about personal aggrandizement than the well-being of his subjectsWhat do you do of the fact that he made Frondes an idea of the past so no more nobles rampaging the lands, helped to bring about Vauban's Pré Carré which made it so France was so well-defended ennemies would rarely fight past the frontier for the coming century, a stark contrast to what happened the past one, and cared about the colonies and marine which would soon bring an incredible commercial boom.
>>9167702>The Fifth Republic on the other hand...It proves that even the basis of your reasoning is flawed.Nice brainlet reply you fucking retard.
>>9166641Mon roi :)>>9166685>>9166828Both of them are equaly important in the rise of the sun king.
>>9167250it’s incredibly gay
>>9166641cringe.looks very gay and effeminate
>>9170330>The massive wigs, the flamboyant clothing, the waterborne music festivalsCopied but never equal.
>>9170330>>9170341cringe and heteropilled
>>9170330>t.ClothcelThis man right here would have banged your chick in the XVIIth century
>>9166641Based, one of my ancestors was one of his counsellors. Well, given the lenght of his reign he may have had tens or hundreds of them, but still.
>>9170573Colbert's or Louvois' faction?
>>9169971Midwit response, but so is the one you're arguing with.The harsh truth is that he neither cared about the people or lead France to greatness.
>>9170751No idea at all. My ancestor was part of the 'noblesse de robe' and held rather important duties in the kingdom beside his role as a counsellor, but I don't know which side he favoured.
>>9170341>very gayhe fucked more women than you ever will
I've heard it said that France only really had the military hegemony and treasury reserves in Louis XIV's early wars to satisfy his ambitions for French hegemony in western Europe. He didn't exploit those wars to the fullest extent however and tried to salvage some goodwill towards France from the other powers.By the time the Nine years' war or the war of the Spanish succession were being waged, the continent was more unanimous in opposing France and France no longer had the steady footing in its finances that Louis XIII's reign had bequeathed it. France could still wage wars against all other countries but its credit sharply declined, manpower had also shrunk and Britain was an ever-present factor that could blockade France's ports and chip at its income.France was still a self-sufficient giant and it could hunker down inside Vauban's pré-carré, breaking out into the Palatinate, Belgium here and there but no longer sweeping campaigns like in the Franco-Dutch war. France's enemies could not unseat her, but France neither could unseat them so we had bregrudging peace deals like at the close of the war of the Spanish succession.Anyways, is all this true? Should he have been more aggressive in the earlier wars? Was that, and Napoleon's early campaigns, the only true periods where French hegemony could've been achieved?
>>9166722Anglos still speaking about their king though no one gives a shit about him ayaaaaaa
In a recent lecture about him I attended he was portrayed as a pretty smart statesman.He came into power after the querelle and the kings position was pretty weak then.He took the court from Paris to Versailles and wanted all aristocrats to follow him and basically live at his court. The less you showed up at his, the less he respected you. And he was very good at remembering people and holding grudges.He couldn‘t constantly reward actual gifts to his confidants and substituted them with symbolic rewards. If he liked you, you could hold the torch while he undressed in the evening. And people fought over this privilege.With these gestures he could control and manipulate people, play them out against each other, humiliate them or win their favor.By this he greatly strengthened the French monarchy.
>>9171269>querelleWho calls it?
>>9167399You don't understand France. You know nothing about it. The french parliaments of the Ancien Régime, with the ridiculous and microscopic power they had, managed to destroy the monarchy as they always tried to. >When peaceful change is made impossible by the establishment violent confrontation becomes inevitable. Precisely, the parliaments were blocking any peaceful change in spite of the will of the king Louis XVI and his advisors, and that is why people started the Revolution.
>>9171269Most of the work of weakening the aristocracy was done by Richelieu, Mazarin and Anne. Louis merely finished the job. Give credit where it's due.
>>9166641Not the most based, but still very based
>>9171269Why any of this make him a good statesman again?
>>9171433From a machiavellian perspective he solidified his power greatly and supressed the internal danger that was the French aristocracy.He turned what was a dangerous class, the nobles of the sword, hurt by the loss of political power, taxes and the rise of the bourgeoisie, into inoffensive sycophant that flocked to his court and allowed him to rule France as he saw fit.
>>9166641I got to see one of Louis XIV's portraits in person and it was fucking retard huge. Literally 15 feet tall larger than life. I've never seen any other portrait that fucking huge.It was pretty based.
>>9171290The domestication of the Grands was an absolutely necessary step of letting the intendants work in peace, one cannot be without the other.
>>9166641Meh, the revoking the edict of Nantes was retarded in my opinion, overall a not terrible monarch, maybe he did spend a wee bit much in things not exactly necessary but in my opinion generally a meh statesman, competent enough staff too I guess
>>9171460The guy had an ego that was bigger than almost anyone else's in history, even by the standards of the era. Of course it'll be huge.
>>91715004chan on Louis XIV>Meh cringe he had an ego 4chan on Hitler >Lol he killed many people he's kinda the bad guy so he's cool based
>>9171521Odd strawmanI dislike both Louis XIV and Hitler, but for very different reasons
>>9171448Ah you mean he allowed the rise of the people who destroyed his dinasty and then France?Wow such a genius statesman.
>>9166641based on what?
>>9171550Irony is the tool of the dimwitted.Read the answer on this thread, also it did not happened during his reigns.
>>9171117I assume you're french then. Denis Richet wrote a pretty interesting book about the society, it centers around the ascension of a family (the Seguier) into the Noblesse de Robe. You get to see the relations between the different nobilities (robe-epee-finance), how a rather compact adminstration was made to work and the role of clientelism, and the divides that appeared (jansenists or jesuits? administrative monarchy or aristocratic monarchy?) especially in the Parliament.
>>9171241I normally think historians like Bainville exaggerate when they say France's history is the struggle for the Rhine border, but in Louis XIV's case it's more than justified.As for how he fared at it, well he did pretty well for metropolitan France, but not enough for the colonies. It's a little hard to judge because his sucessors took turns doing good or failling at the two most importants issues he left them with: Centralization and the marine. Louis XV was too late in his preparation for the SYW, while he solved the Parlement problem with the Maupeou reform, and left an incredibly pragmatic and ruthless minister for financial matters. Louis XVI on the other hand recalled the Parlements which plagued him when he decided to take up on reforming, but built with the help of Sartine a marine capable of securing his interests overseas.
>>9171290Yeah, that‘s very well possible, I only repeated the limited accounts I heard in that lecture
>>9171433He (and his predecessors, like this >>9171290 guy said) consolidated the position of the monarch and enhanced his power. If that was in the interest of the ‚state‘ or the ‚people‘ or whatever can be disputed. But I think you might be projecting your modern nationalist tendencies on history. Maybe his actions were detrimental to the french kingdom in the long run. But he still was skillful in improving his own position of power.
>>9166664Considering the absolute fucking state of the average western politician a modern Louis XIV would be at least a hundred times more interesting than any politician this day is.
>>9169499Charlie boy literally handed the Bourbons the throne of Spain on his deathbed as long as they kept it separate, not much of an accomplishment on Louis' part really.
>>9169454Idk if this is enough, but this is found on the Hall of Mirrors ceiling. It is Royal Piety and giving food to People during a famine.
>>9169454This is also on the Hall of Mirrors ceiling.It is public lighting and security for Paris after criminal activity was on the rise.
This is also on the Hall of Mirrors ceiling. It shows the she-wolf of Rome bending over apologetically. It is an allegory for an incident that happened in Rome with the Pope...http://www.historicalartmedals.com/MEDAL%20WEB%20ENTRIES/FRANCE/MAUGER-CORSICAN%20GUARD%20INCIDENT-BW571.htm>The city of Rome is painted bowing before France. She wears a helmet decorated with the Roman she-wolf, a large red dress and a shield inscribed with the emblem of ancient Rome: S [enatus] P [opulus] Q [ue] R [omanus] (the senate and the people Roman). The Roman she-wolf huddles at the feet of France, ears down, tongue sticking out. A figure with an expression of sadness on the face is visible behind the allegory of Rome: may be an allegory of Sadness, that of the Pope, of Rome or of the Corsicans "excluded forever from the custody of the Pope" (Rainssant 1687) .>The Corsican Guard was the personal guard for the pope, formed by Pope Clement VIII in 1603. Unfortunately, the Corsicans were rather intemperate, and in 1662, as a result of an insult to Pope Alexander VII by the Duke du Crequi, the French ambassador to the Papal States, the Corsican Guard led an attack against the French ambassador's Guard in Rome, leading to several deaths. This created an international incident. Louis XIV of France retaliated by dismissing the nuncio at Paris and forcing Alexander VII to disband the Corsican Guard. Louis also seized Papal Venaissin and Avignon, which was declared an integral part of the Kingdom of France. Alexander VII was also obliged to accept the very humiliating terms imposed upon him by the Peace of Pisa (1664). In fulfillment of this treaty, Cardinal Chigi, the pope's nephew, came to Paris in 1664 to tender the pope's apology to Louis. The guilty individuals were punished, the Corsicans were banished forever from the Roman States, and in front of the guard-house that they had occupied, a pyramid was erected in Rome, bearing an inscription that embodied the pope's apology.
>In 1668, with the accession of the new pope, Clement IX, and as a gesture of good will, Louis ordered the destruction of this humiliating pyramid.
This picture shows Louis XIV as a reformer, for Code Louis. Notice his foot on that criminal.Versailles Hall of Mirror ceiling was something of pride. It was like a museum for all of King Louis XIV's accomplishments. It meant so much to the French.
Here is King Louis XIV as the peacemaker.Also found in the Hall of Mirrors.
>>9166641By far the gayest period in men's fashion
Louis XIV going to war against Spain.
>>9173799I think the peruke wigs in that period and the Baroque were superior. They were long and epic. The later wigs were much shorter. They had decent fashion. ...Here is Louis XIV casting out financial harpies.
This is also on the Hall of Mirrors...This picture shows Louis XIV hospital for invalids. It was for veteran soldiers.
This is in the War Room.It has Louis XIV and France in the center.All around and little cherubs carrying around captured enemy standards, portraits of sieges, and captured enemy cities.
Here Louis XIV is in the center with France, wearing laurel.
Louis XIV was based af.His personal motto, Nec Pluribus Impar, was a thoroughly monarchist motto too. It means 'Not unequal to many', because a king is worth like a thousand men. Aristotle on royal virtue explains that a king must be like a whole rather than a mere part. When a king embodies the whole, nec pluribus impar, I'd say is the perfect motto. Many people look over Versailles and don't understand the glory. Kingly rule is household rule, and kings rule through the household. King Louis XIV's construction of Versailles is a good illustration of this. And it was a place of pride for French people.Many monarchs and rulers would build entire cities to show that they were like the whole rather than a mere part, that they had this royal virtue that Aristotle spoke of as the supreme rulers. Alexander the Great had Alexandria. Ramesses II had the city of Pi-Ramesses (meaning House of Ramesses). Rome was named after Romulus and I'm sure there is a story of him building it. Peter I had St. Petersburg. Constantine had Constantinople... This is a great theme among monarchs because of the story that the first founders were great benefactors, and that household rule is also extends to building cities.
Louis XIV crushing his enemies beneath his feet.
>>9171013>Calls other anons midwits for their responses>Comes up with the biggest midwit responseCongrats
The apotheosis of King Louis XIV is also a picture I like.Good night, you absolute king.
>>9173757>Corsican guard incident / Alexander VII/ Comtat Venaissin/pyramid monument >>9173904>"nec pluribus impar" motto>>9173997>Louis XIV - Fronde statueLocation and destroyed in Revolution of 1789?Fascinating historical details anon.
>>9174070Yes, I like Louis XIV.Although I bet his court was very tidy. People nearby him would have to hold in their piss for a long time and couldn't relieve themselves so easily. Louis XIV made ritual and ceremony his procedure. Went along the pattern of the Sun. This is also exemplary like Household rule... because kings are also personal rulers like shepherds.
This picture commemorates the great canal that was made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_du_MidiIt was an engineering marvel.
>>9174214I appreciate your contribution to this thread. God bless you anon. For bringing Glory and Justice to the Sun-King! Behold a most Christian King!
>>9171970>If that was in the interest of the ‚state‘ or the ‚people‘ or whatever can be disputedHe never did anything in the interest of the people. All of the many administrative and economic reforms during his reign was solely to make his rule more efficient and unchallenged. Whether any of his people benefited from this or not was merely incidental.
>>9166641>monarchistCringe and guillotine-pilled.
>>9175202/his/ is a monarchist board
>>9175312Considering that the majority of posters on here are American, no, it isn't.
>>9171621>I assume you're french thenYup. My ancestors hailed from Navarre (for long, his forefathers had been working as magistrates at the local Parliament). Thanks for the reading advice, I have not been studying this era since the day of my first year in superior education (IE 10 years ago).
>>9175376Yanks here are the biggest monarchists ever.
>>9175640As someone that lives in a country where we didn't violently rebel for years against a monarchy, and where we aren't indoctrinated with anti-monarchy lecturing for years at school.... I disagree with that statement.
>>9175312We could be friends.>>9175202Shut up, Robespierre.
Reminder that constitutional monarchy is the thinking man's form of government.
>>9175815Constitutional monarchy isn't a form of government.It is constitutionalism, implying mixed govt, but there is no 'constitutional monarchy' as a form of government--it is either monarchy or mixed govt, meaning you want the forms together (democracy, oligarchy, monarchy). Monarchy, that is a form of government.Constitutionalists are just royalists at best, because they sometimes feel monarchist rhetoric is too strong (let there be one lord, one king). They sometimes prefer oligarchy or democracy, because constitutionalists are like gender fluid for their mixed views. Sometimes they are feelin' democratic, sometimes aristocratic, maybe monarchic.Constitutionalists get one or two things right, though.
>>9173904>For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all statees, whether aristocratical, or oligarchical, or again democratical, are accustomed to put forward (for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although NOT the -same excellence-), but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would NOT be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed. The WHOLE is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in relation of the whole to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. >The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the RULES of the political science [code of conduct, perhaps], the citizens rule and are ruled IN TURN [term limits; taking their turn in being governed], then he is called a statesman.>for as household management is kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations>as if there were no difference between a GREAT Household and a small state
>>9176036Monarchs are personal rulers... because like shepherds, they guide their flock with their persona rather than being a mere institution. This is why King David was a shepherd. This is why Egyptian kings had the Crook and Flail royal regalia. This is why Mesopotamian kings had that title... and Greeks also thought of shepherds that way--personal rulers.They deliberate and rule through their person, unlike a mere institution.
>>9175815Constitutional monarchy is MINO (Monarchy In Name Only). You can have a parliamentary republic instead, it changes nothing at all.
>>9175849>Constitutional monarchy isn't a form of government.Well, it literally is. You might not like it, but it is. And it's great because it gets the best of both worlds.The best thing about monarchy is that we - humans - like to have a strong leader, a leader who's above the average man in every way. A king/emperor/whatever is not just a ruler, he serves as the manifestation of the people's spirit, someone chosen by divine right to lead the nation. It might sound like anachronistic mumbo-jumbo nowadays, but it still rings true. A nation with a monarch will always be more united than a republic.However, absolute monarchy is too fallible. When one person is in charge of everything and that person is weak, everything is fucked. Any serious government should be a meritocracy, and the people should always have some say in it so that their voices will be heard. And if things go badly, the people won't be able to just blame the monarch and start prepping the guillotines, since they're the ones voting here.A monarch gives people an infallible symbol of their national identity. Constitution gives them the power and representation of their interests. Currently, some of the happiest and most prosperous nations are constitutional monarchies - Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Japan, Great Britain, Australia. Even when, for example, Britain has political issues, people drinking in pubs can always raise their glasses to the Queen. It might seem like a small thing, but that's what national identity is in its core. On the other hand, you have the United States, tearing itself apart over leadership, people have no one to look up to, so it's all going to hell in a handbasket.
>>9176036>>9176048>>9173904Versailles was an accomplishment for Louis XIV because it exemplified household rule... and because it was like a great household. While Versailles was like a national museum for all of France, embodying the public authority and extraordinary virtue of Louis XIV.>>9176058It is mixed govt with a royal.It is not just monarchy from the constitutionalist perspective. It is also constitutional democracy. Also constitutional oligarchy--it is redundant to say constitutional anything because it is mixed.The US is a constitutional monarchy, but a truly limited one, because their monarch as term limits, if you think of it that way--but the US limited monarch isn't a royal, that is the big difference.There are such things as non-royal monarchs, like the Roman Emperors.Neither would I say absolute monarchy is its own form of government, but just monarchy. The absolutist case is that the monarch is absolved to act through their personal power in general instances where a law seems to lack... Absolute meaning absolved, not just a pure monarchy. Monarchy is monarchy at the end of the day. There is no 'absolute' or 'constitutional' forms of monarchy, because monarchy is the form.
>>9176094>The US is a constitutional monarchy, but a truly limited one, because their monarch as term limits, if you think of it that way--but the US limited monarch isn't a royal, that is the big difference.Monarchy is not about one dude being in charge, like a president. It's about someone being in power through divine right rather than an election. An elected official is a public servant (because he was elected by the public), while a monarch doesn't serve anybody.
>>9176117>Monarchy is not about one dudeMONarchy, the rule of one.Why does that trigger people?
>>9176126Read the whole post. The emphasis is not on "one" but "elected".
>>9176094That screencap was meant to be this screencap.>>9176140How do you feel about electoral monarchy?Venice and HRE?
>>9176154Hapsburgs turned their electoral monarchy into a hereditary one really quickly, so I don't think we should take it all too seriously.
>>9176180They were still elected, but you're right about one thing. When one family rules, like the Habsburgs, it is a shift towards monarchy... when multiple families take their TURN in ruling, it is more oligarchic. This could be the case for the US and Clintons/Trumps/Bush taking their turns ruling... but the US Presidency plays the part of a limited monarchy in a constitutional, mixed govt.It isn't royal monarchy, but it is a part of monarchy in a constitutional system.A constitution isn't just a piece of paper.
Le Bon Roy !
'Not only were great things done in his reign but he did them himself'.- Voltaire'He had his faults, the sun has its sunspotsBut it still remains the sun.'- From the verses of pere de la Rue'Physically he was magnificent, with his great height, clear-cut features, and grand air. The portraits of him in his youth with his own hair waving over his shoulders have a boyish charm which departed when periwig and pomposity came on the scene. He excelled in all outdoor sports and indoor accomplishments, danced well, fenced well, rode well, shot well, sang deliciously, played the guitar like a professional and managed the four horses of his caleche with consummate skill. In fine, a paragon -- "the most magnificent specimen of the Royal Creature", as he has recently been described.'- Maud CruttwellOne may not warm to Louis XIV, one may even detest him. But it is difficult not to respect, with his grandeur and his weakness, his glory and his mistakes, the king whom the German-born Protestant Leibniz described as 'one of the greatest kings who ever lived.' - Francois Bluche
La Salle and Louis XIV, supporting his exploration endeavors. La Salle would explore the Midwest and die in Texas from a shipwreck, I believe.
>>9176590He also helped orchestrate his political marriage and help him learn about the state and the common good. Louis XIV was in love with his daughter, I think.The amazing thing about Louis XIV was he chose not to have a prime minister after his death. There was a bit of shrewdness for his own merit.
>>9176590He was in his twenties when Mazarin died.>pic related, Louis XIV aged 24, I think
Louis XIV was also one of Europe's longest reigning royal monarchs, if not the longest.
>>9176684*maybe not for long when Queen Elizabeth II takes that spot.
>>9176621Mazarin you mean? Because if so then yes, but that was his niece, he had to stay in celibate after all. And the real date where he really began to be his own Prime Minister was 1691, when some of the most important characters of the reign already died. He became even more of a workaholic then he already was.
>>9176964>Mazarin you mean? Because if so then yes, but that was his niece, he had to stay in celibate after all.Yes. Niece, daughter, I mix them up.
>>9166641will they ever learn?
>>9169522>It's anachronistic, no one expected the king to improve the living conditions of its subjects, that wasn't a function.You're retarded. Looking after the wellbeing of his subjects and improving their lot was one of the things expected of a good king as God's vice regent on Earth.
>>9176691Hope she dies soon, i don't want a filthy anglo to take the spot.
>>9177153Why so much powerful people are like him is the greatest mistery in history
>>9177869Well it didn't happen under him due to the numerous wars and climatic crisis, but he certainly helped kickstart it. Security at the borders and inside was greatly enhanced, the textile industry and trade with the colonies boomed, french arts adn sciences gained a powerful grasp on all of Europe, and a codification of law happened on a scale that would not be toppled until d'Agusseau and the Revolution after him.