[Revised]
18th Century Rulers
I. Introduction: An
Enlightened Age?
The 17th century began on the brink of chaos--but it did not end
that
way. By the end of the 17th century, order had been restored
to
many areas of European life. In England, an agreement on limited
government brought an end to political strife, while in France the
development of absolute monarchy brought an end to instability. In
the
intellectual arena too, men like Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Descartes,
and
Bacon had helped establish solid foundations for the advancement of
knowledge.
Building on these foundations, the people of the next century (the
18th
century) were able to make tremendous strides in the intellectual
arena--and the were quite aware of their achievements. In
looking
back over his century, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant said it
had
been an age of "Aufklarung," enlightenment--and modern scholars
typically
agree. Textbooks call the 18th century "The Enlightenment" or
"The Age of Reason."
In many ways, this is an excellent way to remember this
period.
Knowledge increased dramatically in this period, the kind of
knowledge that fills encyclopedias. Sciences like chemistry
(which had
hardly existed before the 18th century) began to take off with the
work
of men like Lavoisier and Priestly. Knowledge of history
improves
dramatically with the rise of historians like Gibbon and
Voltaire.
Yet despite the dramatic increases in human knowledge, plenty of
problems remained. War doesn't go away. Slavery (if
anything)
increases during this period. Superstitions abound. All
the ills that plagued mankind persisted and sometimes even
intensified. Even Immanuel Kant admitted that, while the 18th
century was in some ways an age of enlightenment, it was not a very
enlightened age. One can see clearly the mixture of
enlightenment and folly when one looks at the rulers of this period.
II. France
For the first years of the 18th century, France was still ruled by
Louis XIV (1643-1715). You already are familiar with
some of
the postives and negative associated with this man. He is the
one
who made absolute monarchy work for France, reducing the chances of
civil war. He made France the strongest country in Europe in
both
military and economic terms. However, he took away French
religious liberty, revoking the Edict of Nantes and persecuting
Calvinists. Even Catholics were in trouble if they were not
the
right sort of Catholic.
Louis created further problems for France by being a bit too
ambitious. He wanted to make sure that a member of his family,
the Bourbons, held the throne of Spain rather than one of the
Hapsburgs--and was willing to fight to make sure this
happened.
On the other hand, other European nations felt this would make
France
too strong, and they were prepared to fight to make sure the
Hapsburgs
continued to rule Spain. The result was the War of Spanish
Succession (1701-1714), a long, bloody war that cost thousands of
French lives and the equivalent of millions of French dollars.
At
the battle of Blenheim alone, France lost 20,000 men, and at
Malpaquet
they lost 12,000. Total casualties on all sides: perhaps
400,000
killed. Not as bad as the 30 Years' War, perhaps, but still
pretty miserable. France lucked out at the end, and the Peace
of
Utrecht (1713) the war did provide for a Bourbon on the Spanish
throne. But the war was a near disaster for France.
Louis XIV was at least competent, and there were positives to make
up
for some of the negatives. France wasn't so fortunate in its
next
ruler, Louis XIV's great-grandson, Louis XV (1715-1774).
Louis XV wasn't really expected to become king. His
grandfather (also named Louis!) was supposed to succeed to the
throne. He had been tutored by Bossuet with that end in mind, and he
probably would have made a decent king. But "The Great
Dauphin" caught smallpox and died in 1711 (age 49). Never got
a chance to be king. Now headed to the throne was Louis XV's
father, Louis, Duke of Burgundy. He caught measles in February
1712, the doctors bled him, and he died (age 29). Louis
XV's older brother (and his mom) also caught measles. They
were bled by the physicians, and in March of 1712 they both died
too.
Louis XV was fortunate. His nurse insisted that he not be
bled, and so he's the one descendant of Louis XIV still alive when
his great-grandfather dies in 1715.
Louis' reign began when he was five years old, and one might have
expected that the French nobles would once again use the opportunity
to
get back some of the power they had lost. But this time it was
clear that, once Louis XV did rule himself, he would rule as an
absolute monarch, one with no check on his authority [Phillipe II, Duke or Orleans,
served
as regent until 1723 when Louis XV directly took power. This
would make Louis only thirteen when he rules without a
regent. What's interesting it that Louis XIV made sure that
there would be a sort of committee working with Phillipe II, I
would guess an attempt to prevent the kinds of problems that had
happened during his own mother's regency.]
Things went well during the regency, and they still went well when
Louis directly took power in France. He had a good and, at
first, very happy marriage (a wife he choose from a list of 99
eligible princesses) with whom he had 10 children (8 girls, 2 boys,
one boy dying young--but at least there was an heir). The
first years of Louis' reign had more ups than downs, and he seems to
have deserved his nickname: Louis the Beloved. There were ups
and downs in the wars, and some trouble with religion, but, for the
most part, France seemed to be on the right track.
Unfortunately, Louis and his wife lost something of their earlier
close relationship, and, with his wife no longer willing to share
his bed, Louis turned his eye on other women. The first and most
famous of his mistresses
was Madame de Pompadour. For a time, this woman had Louis
wrapped
around her little finger, and Louis would do whatever she
said.
Not necessarily a bad thing, because, most of the time she pushed
Louis
in a positive direction. The problem was, however, that no
mistress is going to maintain her influence forever. Louis
eventually moved on to a new mistress--and now a new woman (Madame
Du Barry) had Louis
wrapped around her little finger--for a time. And then there
is a whole series of other mistresses. What happens at this
point is that, every time the king changes his mistresses, there
will be a
major change in who holds the positions of power and influence in
France.
Thus what should have been a very stable system has
become completely unstable. As a result, France doesn't do so
well. France loses the Seven Years War (and its American
phase,
the French and Indian War) and, as a result, loses its possessions
on
the New World--a bad blow to France economically. The
Seven Years War also gave Britain the upper hand over France in
India, a part of the world where French and British interests had
been competing for several decades.
Further, the cost of the wars, financial mismanagement, and
wide-spread corruption meant a considerable loss of confidence in
the French government, and domestic affairs were becoming
unstable. France was headed toward a
bloody revolution. Louis saw it coming, and did nothing about
it. "Apres moi, le deluge." Louis is supposed to have
said. "After me, the
flood."
And, whether he actually said this or not, the flood did come: Louis
XVI, the weak, indecisive successor of
Louis XV ended up losing his throne and his life--and poor France
ended
up going through a horrible period of turmoil we'll talk about
later--the French Revolution.
Absolute monarchy wasn't working out for France as well as one might
have hoped. But woe to those nations that didn't have strong
kings! Spain has two weak monarchs in a row--and ends up
losing
its New World colonies and its importance in European affairs in
general. A short time earlier, Spain had been wealthy and
powerful! For Poland, things were even worse. In earlier
European history, Poland had been the heart of a powerful
empire.
In the 18th century, though, limitations on the Polish king
prevented
him from acting in an emergency...and Poland ceases to exist, carved
up
by aggressive neighbors, Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
So what's the answer? Most Europeans thought they needed
strong
leaders, but strong leaders who would use their powerful to the
benefit
of their people. One needed an "enlightened despot" as some
textbooks put it. But can their be such a thing? Can a
despot, an absolute ruler ever use their power well? Well,
maybe.
III. Prussia
Two rulers of Prussia show the possible advantages of strong
rulers--but also the negative side of absolute monarchy as well.
Frederick William I (1713-1740) made clear his claim to absolute
authority. "One must serve the kin with life and limb, with
goods
and chattels, with honor and conscience, and surrender everything
except salvation. The latter is reserved for God.
Everything else is mine."
Frederick William in some ways used his power well. He created
a
more effective bureaucracy for Prussia. Like Louis XIV, he
recruited members of the rising middle class for government
service. He also made sure they attended to business, putting
together 35 chapters of regulations for bureaucrats. Miss a
meeting, and you lose six months pay. Miss another meeting,
and
you are fired. Frederick William also improved the Prussian
army,
making it the 4th largest army in Europe. But he was proud of
this army, and didn't want to see it damaged. And so, unlike
many
other 18th century rulers, Frederick William *did not* use his
army too much--rather enlightened in his approach.
An all around good guy? Well, in some ways. But
Frederick
William knew that if his reforms were to last, he needed a properly
prepared successor. And , unfortunately, it didn't look like
his
son, Frederick (later called Frederick the Great) was going to be
the
time of man who could do the job. Frederick William was
a
big man (270 pounds), and he carried himself like a military
officer. He wanted his son to be like him. But young
Frederick wasn't so interested in military affairs. He was
more
interested in poetry, and playing the flute. Trying to dive
this
sissy stuff out of Frederick's life, Frederick William became
abusive,
so much so that, a the age of 16, Frederick decided to run away from
home, taking a trusted friend with him. But, when your
dad
is king of Prussia, you don't get far. Frederick and the
friend
are caught and brought back. And since both young men had
junior
officer commissions, their running away was dessertion. While
Frederick watched, his best friend was executed.
Generally, experiences like this leave lasting psychological
scars--and
Frederick the Great (Prussian King 1740-1786) was in fact scarred
for
life in many ways. But he was still quite an effective ruler
for
Prussia. He reformed the schools, giving Prussia the best
educational system in Europe. He reformed the courts,
eliminating
bribery and torture. He moved toward religious
toleration.
He encouraged the arts, continuing to play the flute and
corresponding
with leading intellectual figures like Voltaire. And, on top
of
that, he made the Prussian army even more effective than it had
been--the best trained army in Europe: for, as it turned out,
Frederick
was a much more capable military figure than his father, a man who
Napoleon himself called a military genius. He was also
tremendously brave: he had several horses shot out from under him,
and
yet he continued to lead his men into battle himself. He
strengthened Prussia greatly, annexing Silesia, Saxony, parts of
Poland, and other territory critical to Prussian success. The
trouble was, Frederick didn't know where to stop: his aggressive
policies provoked a coalition against him, and, had it not been for
a
tremendously lucky chain of events, every good thing he had done for
Prussia might have been for nothing with Prussia left helpless at
the
hands of victorious enemies. Also, Frederick's reliance on the
military meant that his reforms were less far-reaching than they
might
have been. He needed the support of the Junkers, the old
landed
aristocracy of Prussia, and the backbone of his officer core.
Because of this, Frederick did little to improve conditions for the
peasants of Prussia. The Junkers were allowed to treat the
peasants any way they liked.
IV. Austria-Hungary
Perhaps the two most enlightened rulers of the 18th century were two
members of the Hapsburg family, the rulers of Austria-Hungary, Maria
Theresa and her son Joseph II. Maria Theresa took the Austrian
throne in 1740 at the age of 23 and continued to rule until her
death
in 1780. She was particularly adept at the old Hapsburg
strategy
of strengthening her dominions through diplomacy and strategic
marriages. Maria had 16 children--lot of extra princes and
princesses running around--including 11 daughters--all of whom she
named "Maria"! Maria Theresa arranged marriages for her
children
that would help Austrian diplomacy. One daughter, Marie
Antoinette, was married off to the future king of France, Louis XVI,
thus helping smooth over potential conflicts with the
Bourbon's.
Maria Theresa did what she could to help the peasants of
Austria,
and, for the first time, she made sure nobles would pay their fair
share of taxes. Maria Theresa also maintained the most moral
court in Europe, making sure that, both in terms of personal life
and
public conduct, those around her set the proper tone for her people
as
a whole. She encourage the arts, and particularly
music. Gluck, Haydn, and Mozart all products of Maria
Theresa's
Austria--a sign that something very right was going on. But
probably the most enlightened thing Maria Theresa did was her
handling
of the succession problem. In 1765, she associated her son,
Joseph II, with her on the Austrian throne. For 15 years,
Joseph
worked alongside his mother, and so, when Maria Theresa died, her
place
was taken by a man as prepared as he could possibly be to build on
his
mother's achievements.
Joseph II certainly did continue where his mother had left
off.
He improved the educational system of Austria. He instituted
complete religious toleration, the first ruler in Europe to do
so. He liberated the serfs of Austria. He moved toward a
policy of free tried, thus stimulating the Austrian economy.
He
made sure that nobles who committed crimes would be punished just as
severely as anyone else. Altogether, he issued mover than
17,000
laws and decrees, trying to improve every aspect of life in
Austria. Nevertheless, he was not nearly as effective as he
might
have been. His own people fought him every step of the
way.
Even the serfs complained about being liberated! So
discouraged was Joseph that he asked for this epitaph. "Here
lies
Joseph II who was unfortunate in everything he undertook."
V. Russia
I have note yet talked about Russia much in this class for very
good
reason. For all it's potential power, Russia in the 16th and
17th
centuries was a backward country, not very important in European
affairs--scarcely a European country at all. Russia became
an
important player in European affairs largely thought ht work of
two
important leaders, Peter the Great at the beginning of the 18th
century, and Catherine the Great at the end of that century.
Peter the great became sole ruler of Russia in 1689
and ruled until his death in 1725. His main focus was to
Westernize Russia. He wanted his people to look like Western
Europeans, forcing them to shave off their old-fashioned Orthodox
-style beards and to adopt the European fashion of being
clean-shaven. He forced his people to adopt Western European
clothing styles likewise.
Peter also wanted his Russians to think like Europeans. He
created the first secular schools for Russia. He also
simplified
the Russian alphabet, making it easier for people to learn to read
and
write. This also made possible the introduction of the
printing
press, and, under Peter the Great, Russia gets its first printed
books
and newspapers.
Peter wanted his Russians to organize like Western
Europeans.
He divided Russia up into 50 administrative districts, each with
an
administrative headquarters authorized to organize local
affairs.
He created for himself a new capital, the westward-looking St.
Petersburg, in place of the backward-looking Moscow. He also
opened up
careers in Russian civil service to people of talent, regardless
of
birth. And he opened up these positions to talented
foreigners as
well, looking particularly to the German speakers of Europe for
help in
bringing about the reforms he wanted.
Peter wanted his people to adopt Western technology. He
started
the Russian shipbuilding industry, and soon Russia had both a
merchant
marine and a navy--both sources of great long-term benefit of
Russia. He likewise improved the Russian infrastructure,
building
roads, canals, harbors, etc.
An all around good guy? Not quite. One problem was he
was enormously impatient. If he wanted a change, it was made
overnight, regardless of the difficulty. In building St.
Petersburg, he worked thousands of people to death, not giving the
workers adequate food or clothing, and just replacing the workers
with
new recruits when the old ones died.
An example of Peter's
impatience:
"In
Leyden,
Peter visited the famous Dr. Boerhaave ... He also visited
Boerhaave's dissection theater, where a corpse was lying on a
table
with some of its muscles exposed. Peter was studying the corpse
with
fascination when he heard grumbles of disgust from some of his
squeamish Russian comrades. Furious, and to the horror of the
Dutch, he
ordered them to approach the cadaver, bend down and bite off a
muscle
of the corpse with their teeth."
Source: Peter the Great: His
Life
and World, by Robert K. Massie, Ballantine New York 1980.
He was an enormously cruel man as well. He was big and
strong--no bad thing sometimes. Peter used his strength to
good
effect as an amateur dentist. But he also used his strength
to
beat people to death. And sometimes, he would take red-hot
iron
pincers and pull out the nostrils of anyone who made him mad.
He discovered a conspiracy among the Streltsy regiment, the
palace
guard. He rounded up 1000 members of the regiment (not
caring if
they were guilty or not) had them killed, and then refused to let
the
bodies be buried. When his wife protested, he sent her away
to a
convent and never saw her again. His son was not so
lucky.
After an argument, Peter had his son throne into prison, and
beaten
with knotted ropes--a beating so bad, the young man didn't
survive.
For his people as a whole, there were worse problems. Peter
was constantly at war: only 13 months of peace in the 26 years of
his
rule. While Russian territory expanded as a result, the price was
enormous. Taxes went up 500% during his reign. Peter taxed
everything: beards, coffins, bees, etc.
And on top of all that, Peter died without naming a
successor.
What could be more foolish than to make all these changes and not
make
sure there was someone to continue those changes when you were
gone?After Peter's death, there was a period of some confusion in
Russia. But, much later in the century, another great ruler
set
about finishing the task Peter had begun, the task of Westernizing
Russia.
Catherine the Great (1762-1796) was a German princess, married at
the age of 15 to the future Peter III. Peter took over as
Czar
toward the end of the Seven Years' War against Frederick the Great
and
the Prussians. Russia had essentially won the war, but Peter
III
made himself very unpopular by simply calling the whole thing off:
he
admired Frederick the Great, and wasn't going to take advantage of
the
Russian victories. Catherine and her lover (a man named
Grigory
Orlov) staged a coup,and, since Peter III had made himself so
unpopular, this was applauded by the Russian people.
Catherine proved in some ways a very capable ruler. She
sponsored theatrical and musical events, and deserves credit for
starting Russia toward greatness in theater and music. She
started free schools and free hospitals, and much more.
[I
haven't
been able to find online editions of Catherine's plays, but
here's a
nice article summarizing her dramatic works.]
Perhaps the best way to summarize is by looking at a list
Cathrine
herself compiled:
Governments create: 29
Cities built:
144
Victories
78
Treaties
30
State edicts
88
Other edicts
123
Total:
492
This list highlights things Catherine really did do well.
Russian forces did win many victories in battle, and, unlike Peter
the
Great, Catherine new when to negotiate rather than fight.
Also,
Catherine really did do much to reform Russian laws. We have
one
copy of Catherine's laws that's 1200 pages long--with 600 pages in
her
own hand! Very different from our lawmakers who don't even
read
the bills they pass, much less write them out word for word!
But notice the strangeness of this list. Catherine totals
up
all sorts of unrelated things, and comes up with a total:
492.
But 492 what? Apparently, "492 good things that I have
done." Now who compiles such a list? An egotistical
person? I would suggest that it's more likely someone with a
real
self-image problem. Why would Catherine have had such a
problem? Well, there's her role in the death of her husband
Peter, and the likelihood that her first-born son and heir to the
Russian throne wasn't Peter's kid at all. And then there are
the
21 lovers we know of, and the probably dozens more we don't know
about.
We know that Catherine felt bad about her promiscuous lifestyle
(her
letters to her lovers show this), and it seems that Catherine has
fallen into a terrible pattern that (unfortunately) is becoming
more
and more common. She takes a lover, gets a temporary high
from
the new affair, but when that wears off, has to move on. She
takes a new lover, getting a temporary high and, once again, when
that
wears off, moves on. The lows get lower and lower, and she
finds
herself desperately needing that new lover to make her feel good
about
herself. Or, perhaps something else. Maybe she can
prove
that she is a good human being by being the best ruler she can
be. Catherine does seem to have been trying to make up
for
her unhappy private life by throwing herself into her work as
ruler.
But there is a problem with this type of personality.
Typically, these kind of people have very fragile egos and can't
abide
criticism. So it was with Catherine. The barest hint
of
criticism from a newspaper, and the paper was closed down.
Only
one paper was still publishing at the end of Catherine's
reign.
Also, people of this personality type tend to be focus more on
appearance than reality. Catherine wanted to appear to be a
champion of the serfs, sponsoring an essay contest on how best to
improve conditions for them. But shed didn't actually do
anything
to help the serfs, and when there wasn't a revolt among the serfs,
she
crushed it perhaps even more harshly than another ruler would have
done.
And then there's the very strange relationship with
Potemkin.
Potemkin, one of Catherine's many lovers, still played an
important
role in Catherine's government even after she had moved on to
other
lovers. Potemkin knew Catherine wanted to think Russia was
doing
well, and so, whenever Catherine toured the country, he would go
on
ahead of her, setting up model villages (Potemkin villages) so
that
Catherine would see only what she wanted to see: healthy peasants,
healthy animals, good crops, well-maintained farms. Such a
trick
wouldn't have worked unless Catherine wanted to be deceived--and
here's
the problem with a person like Catherine. They so want to
believe
they are doing a marvelous job, that they just don't want to look
at
the true conditions of their people.
On top of all this, Catherine's immoral lifestyle completely,
alienated her from her son Paul. So much did Paul come to
hate
his mother, that, when he took over in 1796, he was determined to
undo
everything his mother had done. Only the fact that Paul died
young prevented him from erasing his mother's achievements
entirely. A great mistake on Catherine's part to so alienate
her
son and heir that he was determined to reverse everything she had
done.