Yet out of this chaos stepped an extremely capable ruler—Charles I of Anjou. It is important to note, however, that while Charles was from Anjou he and his son regarded themselves as Hungarians. Under Charles and his son, Louis I, Hungary would experience a sort of golden age where its prestige and borders swelled. While much of the success of the Angevin golden age can be attributed, coincidentally, to the discovery of massive amounts of gold within the kingdom, many of the aforementioned factors that explain the success of Stephen likewise characterize the successes of Charles and Louis. This is logical, as the challenge faced by the Angevin’s in uniting a land divided by barons was not altogether different than that faced by Géza and Stephen, …show more content…
Historian Erik Fügedi notes that “a muster of the royal castellans shows that they came from the group of the Angevin kings’ most trusted fideles.” By recapturing castles that had been lost to royal authority after the Árpád dynasty, the Angevins reasserted control over the realm. This practice by Louis is certainly analogous to Stephen's reliance on the ispán to administer his realm. Furthermore, Louis, like Stephen, was blessed with a long life as he attempted to progress the work started by his father. Additionally, Louis was a deeply religious man who was inclined to fanaticism, which represents yet another characteristic he shared with Stephen. This again underscores the importance of religion as a unifying force in medieval …show more content…
This proclivity to adopt the institutions of Western medieval kingdoms is crucial to understanding the birth of Hungary, whether discussing Stephen’s unification of the Magyar tribes or the rapid growth in prestige that occurred under the Angevins. One such institution adopted by the Angevin kings was the royal residence: although previously kings spent much of their time traveling across the realm, Charles would build a royal residence at Visegrád, which would centralize his authority. Additionally, as Louis Heilprin notes, “[Charles] transplanted into Hungary one of the graceful institutions of Western Europe, that of chivalry.” Charles built up a goodwill with the nobility by granting nobles coats of arms, which helped support his military efforts. Charles benefitted further from the new Hungarian gold trade, as it was not only profitable economically, but almost certainly promoted the further diffusion of western institutions into Hungary. Like Stephen, the Angevins used a reliance on Christianity, castle-building, and an openness to western institutions to usher in a golden age for Hungary, where the population reached roughly three million people. By the end of Louis’ reign, he had expanded Hungary’s borders to include Poland through a dynastic union and had reached a point where he regarded himself as an equal of the French king or Holy Roman
He moved his court because he did not feel safe in Paris and could watch over his court officials due to living so close to one another. This piece certainly provides evidence of what Louis himself valued, but perhaps these attributes are needed to effectively rule with absolutism. Throughout this entire document, the author is implying how great Louis is as a person and an effective ruler. He even goes to list his issues: “All his faults were produced by his surroundings...soon found out his weak point, namely, his love of hearing his own praises” (Saint-Simon). Louis cared deeply regarding his personal image and these weaknesses do not seem that drastic, but according to him, “It was this love of praise which made it easy for Louvois to engage him in serious wars” (Saint-Simon). The text gives historians information about Louis’ love-affair with Mademoiselle de la Valliere, compelling his courtiers to spend more than they earned creating a dependency, and other interesting details regarding his life that are excluded in textbooks. Overall, this document provides a deeper insight to King Louis XIV personality and justifications for why he chose the actions he did. Duc de Saint-Simon, someone that resided at the Palace of Versailles, can provide information about a man that ruled with an iron fist over his
Prepubescence is an essential period in a child’s development. A person’s environment can alter their personality and affect them in ways that will remain throughout their lives. With Ivan and Charles, it is evident that the conditions they aged in factored into their frame of mind. Ivan, specifically, experienced multiple challenging incidents in his childhood. For example, when Ivan was three years old his father, Vasilly III, fell ill and passed away on February 4, 1533. His father recognized the futility of having an infant king rule a country, so he left a small council of nobles to rule. Similar to Ivan, Charles also had the inconvenience of inheriting the throne too early. Charles was only twelve years old when he was appointed king in September 1380, but he was not allowed to rule at first. In the early years of his reign his father arranged for his four uncles to rule until he was of age. To be entrusted with so much power at such a young age can be very stressful and the lose of a father figure proved to be traumatic in their later years. After Charles’ coronation, documents ceased to mention him until he finally took the throne around age 20. Ivan, on the other hand, devoted his life to education in his early years allowing him to document his experiences. Five years after his father passed away, Ivan’s mother was poisoned and killed. This left him, and his brother Iuri, in the care of the
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
The two lives of Charlemagne as told by Einhard and Notker are two medieval sources about the accounts of the life Charlemagne. Modern sources by Matthew Innes and Rosamond Mckitterick discuss how history was recorded during the medieval period and how it was suppose to be viewed in the early ages. Observing each of these sources helps get an understanding of how the writing of history is important in recorded history and how it affected how the history of Charlemagne was recorded.
Throughout the middle ages, many empires were working on expanding their territory, but it was not always a success unless they had the appropriate leadership to guide them in the right direction. The main empire that grew to extraordinary lengths is that of the Roman Empire. Through many conquests and battles and with an amicable government, it attained its fortune. However, on the other hand, there was another government that shared similarities with that of Rome; this was the empire of Charlemagne, otherwise known as the Carolingian Empire, but it failed to have a prosperous eternity.
In the Age of Absolutism, both England and France had strong absolute monarchies and leaders. Though Louis XIV, monarch of France, and Charles I, leader of Britain, both served as their country’s king and served in this role in different ways.
Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
When Louis the XIV began his rule in 1643, his actions immediately began to suggest and absolute dictatorship. Because of the misery he had previously suffered, one of the first things he did was to decrease the power of the nobility. He withdrew himself from the rich upper class, doing everything secretly. The wealth had no connection to Louis, and therefore all power they previously had was gone. He had complete control over the nobles, spying, going through mail, and a secret police force made sure that Louis had absolute power. Louis appointed all of his officials, middle class men who served him without wanting any power. Louis wanted it clear that none of his power would be shared. He wanted "people to know by the rank of the men who served him that he had no intention of sharing power with them." If Louis XIV appointed advisors from the upper classes, they would expect to gain power, and Louis was not willing to give it to them. The way Louis XIV ruled, the sole powerful leader, made him an absolute ruler. He had divine rule, and did not want to give any power to anyone other than himself. These beliefs made him an absolute ruler.
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.
Louis had a controller of general finances named Colbert, and he “reduced the annual treasury deficit by economies and more equitable, efficient taxation, although tax exemptions for the nobility, clergy, and some members of the bourgeoisie continued. Louis led many military attacks and wars to expand his territory and build up his economy. He started to tax the people and use this money to build palaces and other architectural structures. Louis added nobles to his army so they would not think that their power was declining. This also helped to strengthen his army and thus he led several military attacks to build his state. In the War of “Devolution (1667-1668) he claimed that those provinces had "devolved" by succession to his Spanish wife rather than to her half brother Charles II, who had inherited the Spanish crown.” By doing this, he received some valuable towns, and this helped to expand his territory. But Louis did not always win battles, there were a few times where his army was defeated. In 1683, Colbert died and several disasters happened thereafter. After several defeats, Louis XIV decided to settle down to a more “sedate
Charles V gained control of the Netherlands and many other countries when his father passed away. At the age of 16, his grandfather, Ferdinand II died, leaving Charles V as joint ruler of Castile and the full ruler of Aragon, Naples, and
The collection Two Lives of Charlemagne contains two different biographies of Charlemagne who was a king of the Franks and a christian emperor of the West in the 8th century. The first biographical account was written by his courtier Einhard who knew him personally and well. On the other hand, the second account was penned by Notker the Stammerer was born twenty-five years after the king’s death. Even though these two versions indicate the same king’s life, there were many differences between the two. Einhard’s writing focused on the emperor’s official life and his military campaign. However, Notker provided more of a perspective about the king’s legacy and seemed more hyperbolic as well as mythical. This paper will compare and contrast the
How far were the events in Scotland responsible for the failure of Charles I’s Personal Rule?
In order to gain the power he desired as an absolute monarch, Louis used a few key techniques that were very successful. His first and most necessary step to get all control was to take all of the nobles’ power, and make it so they were completely under his control. He first did this by taking the nobles’ positions of power, and either getting rid of them by doing it himself, or giving the jobs to loyal middleclass or some nobles who were completely loyal and under his control. Louis had very simple reasoning for doing this, which was that if the nobles had any power or control, they would have a better chance of overthrowing him, and that since there can only be so much total power, the more they had, the less ...
These types of decisions define why Louis XIII is an important example of the primacy of the king over all other sources of political and governmental power in the 17th century. Certainly, Louis XIII’s rise to power defines the lack of checks and balances that would typically be a part of a lesser monarchy in which the aristocracy could have an influence on governmental decisions. However, this was not the case with Louis XIII, since he had gained complete control over the government through military might and the wealth of the royal family. This historical example defines the primacy of the absolute monarch within the context of the king’s role in governing in 17th century