Yet, with just one king in between them, King Louis XVI was decapitated by revolutionaries and the French aristocracy that could be found was murdered en masse. This raises the question as to why the Sun King was so successful and why Louis XVI was so unsuccessful (The French Revolution happened on his watch, after all).
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the book on successfully obtaining and keeping power. I am currently researching the reigns of Louis XVI and Louis XIV and brushing up on Machiavelli's magnum opus, The Prince. I will evaluate the reign of Louis XIV and explain why he was so successful in Machiavellian terms. I will also look at the failures of Louis XVI, essentially asking what he could have done differently to prevent the French Revolution and keep his head.
So why should we trust Machiavelli? He was never a king. So how can he claim to know how to be a great king?
Machiavelli was the first political philosopher who moved away from conducting political science in the ideal (Looking at you, Plato!). Machiavelli moved away from looking for the ideal and instead focused on the practical. He focused on questions of how to secure political power. How do I make men willing to die and kill for me? How far can I abuse my people without them turning on me? As a ruler, is it better to be loved or feared? How should I occupy my time once I've taken power? The prior questions are all questions that Machiavelli answered in The Prince.
Therefore, despite never being a king, I believe Machiavellian philosophy will likely explain the success of Louis XIV and failures of Louis XVI.
Sources:
http://www.egs.edu/library/niccolo-machiavelli/biography/
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/the-prince/niccolxf2-machiavelli-biography
Michael! I think that I may be able to shed some light on why Louis XVI lost his head. Or at least, Foucault might. I'm interested in how a conclusion reached from a Machiavellian approach will defer from one that you would reach with an archaeological method. It seems that Machiavelli would have more of a top down approach while Foucault would have more of a bottom up approach. I am curious about your thoughts on your own methodology and why it would be more valid than Foucault's.
ReplyDeleteMichael! I think that I may be able to shed some light on why Louis XVI lost his head. Or at least, Foucault might. I'm interested in how a conclusion reached from a Machiavellian approach will defer from one that you would reach with an archaeological method. It seems that Machiavelli would have more of a top down approach while Foucault would have more of a bottom up approach. I am curious about your thoughts on your own methodology and why it would be more valid than Foucault's.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of success and failure is so hard because the terms are quite vague--so think about what you mean by success and failure--I better there are terms that work better. Interesting comparison though!
ReplyDelete