Many great individuals have existed throughout history, but there are also those people who were the exact opposite of “great”. Akbar the Great and Louis XIV were both significant figures in the period from 1450 to 1750. Akbar the Great of India was born on October 15, 1542, in India while his father, Humayun, was in exile and became emperor at the age of 14 after his father’s death, ruling over the Mughal Empire until his own death in 1605. Furthermore, Louis XIV of France was born on September 5, 1638, to the Hapsburg Spanish Queen Anne of Austria and Louis XIII, king of France. After his father died when he was four and a half, Louis XIV came to the throne and ruled under a mentor until he was the proper age, then continued ruling through absolute monarchy as the King of France until his death in 1715. While Akbar the Great was a great individual, Louis XIV was not, and this is evident through the similarities in the “caves/chains” of their lives, the differences between the “light” they saw and the “journey” they went on, and the ultimately significant differences between the “new societies” that they created in Mughal India and France.
First, the lives and reigns of both Akbar and Louis XIV were influenced by multiple factors that served as “caves/chains”, including religion and the conditions under which the two rulers came into power. Not only was Akbar raised an orthodox Muslim, but Muslims also dominated Mughal Indian government at the time when he was born and became emperor. Likewise, Louis XIV was born into the Catholic faith. Furthermore, both leaders inherited their positions from their fathers at a young age with unstable conditions in certain aspects of their empires. Both of these factors could have negati...
... middle of paper ...
... religious intolerance, and a continued resentment from the nobles. Overall, Akbar the Great had a positive impact on his empire and created a prosperous new society, whereas Louis XIV ruined France.
This cycle of Akbar and Louis XIV’s reigns clearly shows the initial similarities in their situations and the different directions that each individual took to change their societies, which ultimately revealed how Akbar the Great of India was a great individual, while Louis XIV was proven to have more of a negative impact on France. The fact that Akbar and Louis XIV had very similar “caves/chains” made it interesting to contrast the rest of their lives and see how they each had a different view of the issues they were faced with and methods of ruling over their empires, which ultimately determined that Akbar the Great was a great individual and that Louis XIV was not.
The French revolted due to political, economic, and social injustices. Politically, the government was a mess. An absolute ruler can only be beneficial to the people if they cater to
Naming yourself a great leader isn't the same as establishing the respect of a great leader from the people you rule, for example, Queen Nzinga was able to rule sufficiently and protect her kingdom from, slavery, constant wars, famine, and bankruptcy, whereas Louis XIV, although creating a new society failed at providing such fortifications. In 1663, when Louis XIII had passed away, five year old Louis XIV had to take up the throne, and although he made immature and unreasonable decisions, he later made his mind up to make a more centralized state. For this reason there were constant wars with foreign countries and domestic civil strife. Louis XIV’s most acknowledged decision was the employing of John Baptiste Colbert as Minister of Finance, under whom the French economy flourished, hence creating a centralized and fortified state for the first half of his reign. However, later in his reign, due to extravagant wars, and continuous financial problems, Louis XIV’s new society collapsed. Similarly, Queen Nzinga took over the throne after the death of her brother in 1623, fought many battles and wars, however, was able to keep up a strong centralized and government, and was able to protect her people from the Portuguese for as long as she lived.
nation. In order to become a true absolute ruler Louis xiv needed to make sure
... left France bankrupt. Louis had to compromise—he and his heirs could never combine the Spanish and French crowns, but his grandson would be king.
After the Reign of Terror, Napoleon Bonaparte rose to authority. When he was in power, Napoleon only kept some of the ideas that were used in the French Revolution. For example he was for equality, but disregarded liberty. Napoleon started many wars for France, in hopes of gaining land. France did win some land, but more times than not France lost the wars, putting them into extreme war debt.
One way in which they were different was in their personalities. Louis XIV was a pleasant individual, whose “great qualities shone more brilliantly by reason of and exterior so unique and incomparable as to lend an infinite distinction to his slightest actions” (Document 2). He was a personable being and had “the very figure of a hero” (Document 2). Lastly, he was sympathetic and “showed a natural kindness of heart and a sense of justice” (Document 2), making him a great ruler and an even better person.
The palace of Versailles was built by King Louis XIV of France and the Escorial was built by King Philip II of Spain. The two kings each had their differences about their beliefs on how to rule, yet there are some similarities. Louis XIV believed in showing off his power and being open. Philip II was a simplistic guy devoted to Catholicism. They both had military to spread their beliefs and ideas. Despite the kings’ beliefs, their palaces reflected their ideals.
During the 16th and 17th centuries a new type of ruling emerged as a result of unorganized government called royal absolutism. This type of government was seen in many European countries including France and Russia where King Louis XIV and Peter the Great ruled respectively. Both had ways of ruling that were similar to each other and different to each other. Politically, economically and socially both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were similar to and different from how they ruled and what their reign resulted.
Louis XIV is considered the “perfect absolutist” and he has been said to have been one of the greatest rulers in France’s history. He came up with several different strategic plans to gain absolute
The more positive things Louis XIV could do for a person, the more that person liked him (or at least pretended to like him), such as Madame de Motteville’s and Jean-Baptiste Colbert. On the contrary, if Louis XIV had more of a negative effect on a person’s life, the less that person liked him, such as the peasants and Esprit Fléchier.
Of all the absolute rulers in European history, Louis XIV of France was the most powerful, and the best example because of his successes, being able to continue his complete control even after failures, his ability to be able to use France’s money in any way he wanted, such as the Place of Versailles, taking away the nobles power, and his ability to delegate impotant jobs to smart yet loyal people.
With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country, France, from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.
In short, the reign of King Louis XIV had a disastrous impact on France. His liberal spending, appointing of easily controlled people to court, revoking the freedom of religion, and poor decision making sparked the economic burdens and resentment of the aristocracy that were major factors in the French Revolution and the eventual downfall of the French monarchy.
Politically, Louis was corrupt because of his greed. He fought costly wars--in the high numbers of casualties and monetary encouragement--at the drop of a hat. His country was the most powerful, and was very populous. His armies were large in size at peacetime, and even larger in wartime. Their strength, though, was no match for the failure Louis faced in wars. His wars left France almost bankrupt. He wanted larger borders, went to any extent to get them, but lost all of the three times he tried.
...les of being a great ruler. They ruled in completely different styles, but nevertheless, they both had an extreme passion, the ability to inspire and they were both honorable and fair.