HIST 102 #15 - Glorious Revolution to the Treaty of Utrecht

Hello, welcome back to Western Civilization 102. Our lecture series. Our topic today, from the Glorious Revolution to the Treaty of Utrecht. We've already discussed the age of Louis the 14th with Mr. Elliott in France. We've also discussed a lot about France when it came to absolutism with Dr. Price's lecture. But today, we'll focus, um, on the Glorious Revolution, which has to deal with England, and of course, the Treaty of Utrecht will encompass most of these major European countries in Europe.

Um, now, just to give you a little summary, a little overview, the Glorious Revolution. It's kind of odd to hear those two words put together, glorious and revolution. That's usually not the case, but in fact, it was for this instance. We already know that Queen Elizabeth died with no heir, and so her cousin, who was the King of Scotland, James the Sixth, will become the King of England, James the First. Same guy, different name, well, different number because he's Scotland and England. So he's both King of Scotland and England at the time. And you know, and you've learned in previous lectures about Divine Right absolutism, uh, that James felt he was kind of like God's Lieutenant on Earth, and he didn't have to listen to Parliament.

Um, but it doesn't really come to a head under James the First. It's actually, um, you know, James the First will cause problems in England, but when Charles the First takes over, he will stir the pot, so to speak. Charles the First will pretty much not call Parliament. He will tell Parliament, I don't need you. And Parliament's not exactly very happy about that, because it was Parliament that would give or approve money that would go to Charles. Because if you're having warfare or wars that are taking place, which he will during his reign, um, you need money, you need finances, and that was Parliament's job. Well, Charles is basically, and you'll learn more detail, of course, but Charles is basically going to say, I don't need you. I'll find, I'll raise the money on my own. And he does manage to do that.

He, he has his people looking at old laws and and customs, etc., trying to find something that he can bring back. For example, um, you were supposed to be knighted, I think, if you had so much land, and there was a fee involved. Well, people hadn't been doing that, so Charles gets all these people together and says, you owe this, you owe that. There was an emergency tax, it was called ship money. And there was this emergency tax that was placed on the coastal areas that they would have to pay in order to, to help the government and their defense. That was way back when we had the Norman Conquest and the Vikings were kind of creating havoc all over Europe before 1000 A.D. And so what Charles did was he made this ship money, he made the tax just for everybody, and it was an annual tax. So what I'm saying is, is he found loopholes, and he found ways around Parliament. And meantime, of course, Parliament is getting more and more angry that Charles is able to do this.

Now, um, when Charles is finally forced to summon Parliament back, one of the first things they do is say, you cannot get rid of us, you cannot dissolve us. It's not your job. And, uh, and we'll still, of course, have problems between Charles the First and Parliament. In fact, of course, we're going to see Civil War taking place. You've probably heard of this man's name, Oliver Cromwell. He led the, the Roundheads, those Puritan soldiers, Parliament, that were against the Royalists, which was, of course, Charles the First and, and his people. And so, you know, we have Civil War taking place in England.

The king will eventually be executed. He will, there will be a vote in Parliament, and that's a little dangerous, the fact that they executed him, um, instead of simply imprisoning the king. But some felt that it was best that if he did not exist on the earth at all, but that set a dangerous precedent right there.

Um, of course, under Cromwell, things weren't exactly fun in England. He was a Puritan, tried to get rid of Christmas, mandatory to go to church on Sundays. Eventually, when Cromwell dies, the English people are willing, are are just, they're kind of nostalgic for the Stuart monarchy and for the, the kings of old, I guess you could say, and they invite another Stuart, a member of the Stuart Dynasty, Charles II, during the Restoration period, to come back. And he was very charismatic. He definitely was not a problem under Charles II, too much. But his brother, when James comes to the throne, James II, we're going to have problems again. He has two grown daughters, Mary and Anne, and both his grown daughters are Protestant. But James II is Catholic.

Well, Parliament's like, in England is Protestant by now, okay? They've made the transition. England is Protestant. Problem is with, uh, James, of course, is when he dies, we have Mary and Anne, who are Protestant. So Parliament's like, we can, we can suffer James. But his wife gives birth to a son, and you know, with royalty, the son takes precedence over the daughters. And we know, and Parliament knew, that James II would have his son raised Catholic. And so now Parliament saw no end, and they saw what might become a problem as far as changing the country back to Catholicism. I don't know, maybe intolerance either way.

Parliament invites William and Mary to take the throne. Now, James II is not dead, he's still there. Parliament sends out an invitation. Here, you can have the throne. William and Mary accept. They're making their way to England. James II says, well, you know, he took his son, I think maybe he took the Royal Seal, and he fled to France. They all seem to go to France. If there's any problems in England, they end up in France, across the English Channel.

Um, so there's no bloodshed. William and Mary march into London. They have to accept some Parliament restrictions because we're no longer an absolute monarchy, we're a limited monarchy. And, uh, no bloodshed, which is why we call it the Glorious Revolution.

Now, of course, you're going to learn, uh, you know, more than just about the Glorious Revolution in this lecture, because you do make it up into the early seven, early 18th century with the Treaty of Utrecht. So let's just find out more about the Glorious Revolution all the way up into the Treaty of Utrecht.

[Music]

Thank you. Last time in Louie, Louie, oh no, say me, and we gotta go. I reintroduced Louis XIV on his own terms, hoping to eclipse the conventional American historical bias against the signature king, his France, and the French in general. This is an attitude, an interpretation that typically presents the 17th and 18th century from an English and anglophilic perspective. As Americans, we tend to draw our worldviews from our cultural heritage, our predominantly English language traditions, conventions, the literature, and institutions. Today, we'll take a further glimpse into Louis XIV with a topic title borrowed again from the classic rock and roll song "Louie Louie," as performed by The Kingsmen, which I hope you have YouTube and are humming right now, just as I am.

Today, with "Louie Louie, oh no, say me, and he got to go," we'll reconsider, uh, the Sun King rising, shining, and setting over European conduct in what is essentially the age of Louis XIV. Now, looking, we're going to be looking at Louis XIV as he felt he got to go through Europe, and in response, his enemies felt he just simply gotta go. On Louis's solar transit, it's usually intimidating in its detailing complexity, and causing some students to say, "Oh no," to Louis XIV's age. But if we rise and shine to the challenge, if we gotta, and in fact, do go to the text, to the literature, to the lecture, and to our own reasoning, we might come to a greater awareness and a more honest comprehension of Louis XIV and the age of Louis XIV.

I hope you did hunt up the movie "Vatel" along with "The Three Musketeers" and "The Man in the Iron Mask," and that you looked into the Google Arts project, the Palace of Versailles, for a visual feast of the world that Louis made and the, the world that made Louis. I hope you remember from last time that the French history, and this particular French king's history, really helped make Louis, Louis, just like in the, the Jim Morrison or The Doors famous song "Celebration of the Lizard." Louis left the chaos and disorder back there over his shoulder, survived the fraud, survived all of the, the dissolution of French power, um, but he would never forget the real deal threat to his friends, his throne, his power, that he witnessed as a young, a young child and man.

What Louis wants now is one France, one king, one state, one authority, one religion, each and every part safe and secure, and all his. Now, he's going to create a France in and for his own image and likeness, drawing on his strengths and compensating for his weaknesses. He really could say, even if he never did say, "L'état, c'est moi," "I am the state," because he reforms his friends, he creates a powerful army to push back the geographical limits of France to easily and natural defendable borders. He uses that army to win friends and influence enemies, and they use it only to control the independent regional aristocratic families who traditionally have threatened France's, uh, king, his power, his position, his prestige. He built and built and built and built the scrumptious passage of Versailles to keep an eye on those rural families as well. He required all the aristocrats to be dancing before his very eyes so he could see them, so he can control them. He also built Versailles to impress any and everybody with the taste, vision, accomplishments of this particular France and its solar king.

Now, he would permit no other sun to shine in France, and he ruthlessly crossed, crushed any and all rivals, beginning with the utter destruction of Fouquet, his financial minister. He replaces him with Colbert, who introduces the economic doctrine of mercantilism, in which he was designed to, to increase state power and prosperity by fostering self-sufficiency, by practicing a wise economy, and by influencing the influx of gold and silver into France through a luxury trade. Now, mercantilism is essentially state protectionism of managed, and not free trade at all. Now, all manner of French society was managed from the top down. It was absolute in everything, Louis's absolutism, Louis's control, Louis's direction. Now, Louis and Louis's France set the standard for all of France and all of Europe in almost any and everything. And surely, how to promote Louis and France, the two become synonymous terms, power and prosperity. Colbert reforms the, the tax collecting system to the most efficient, uh, effective, and even ruthless level, affording Louis the financial ways and means of excellence. Money is the root of all power.

Now, French administration is reorganized as well to improve Louis's state functions under the direct supervision of the king. Louis literally becomes the, the sun of France and begins to shine all over Europe, not just culturally, but diplomatically and militarily. But what sun signed for France is often sunburned from the rest of Europe. Though curiously, considering our, our almost habitual Anglo-philia, at first, in the early age of Louis XIV, France and England were rather friendly, and England basked in the, the warm sunshine and sunscreen of Louis's power and prosperity. And here's where the historical rubber meets the robe. Normally, it's here with the Glorious Reformation and, and, uh, Glorious Revolution in England that we begin to enhance this cycle of Franco-phobia, our dislike for the French, and cultivate the rise of Anglo-philia, our love and favoritism for the English perspective.

Now, certainly, the Franco-English, and please know this is not the Anglo-French relationship, has been stormy, but we got to remember all through history that France has been always the senior partner, and England a rather smallish kingdom way out on the extreme, away from the main currents of European history. The Caesars invaded and conquered England through France. The Normans invading conquered England through France, and medieval England is really the small pottage to a French supremacy. England's Henry VIII was terribly envious of France's Francis I of France. Now, the English Reformation does set the two countries at odds. England becomes Protestant, and France remains Catholic. But certainly, the later Stuart kings begin to dabble back and forth with Roman Catholicism, and the House of Stuart and the House of Bourbon become much tighter. The fair and fatal King of England, Charles I, had married Henrietta Maria of France, the daughter of Henry IV and of Marie de' Medici, so Louis XIII's, uh, parents, and Louis XIV's grandparents. Now, English Charlie's Queen Mary was devoutly, was a was a devout Catholic, and her family received, uh, support and and, uh, and finances by Louis XIV during the English Civil War.

Now, Charles I's son and heir, Charles II, after his father's execution or murder, his own exile, and the restoration of the Stuart kingdoms, continued to enjoy Louis's friendship and his, uh, funding. He signs the secret Treaty of Dover in 1670 as Louis's not-so-silent and secret ally and client king, promising to reconvert to Catholicism and restore religious freedom to, to England. Now, as a king with many, many, many, many, many lovers but no legitimate heir, Charles II of England watched his brother James's open Catholicism alienate the English. And after Charlie II died, and James II was expelled and replaced by his Protestant, uh, daughter Anne and her husband, William of Orange, in the Glorious, uh, Revolution, at this point, France and England become nasty and dynastic enemies with Louis XIV bankrolling all the rival Stuart heirs and claimants to the English throne against, uh, William and, uh, and eventually Mary.

We move, Orange would become one of Louis's greatest enemies, but at first, he was only a minor irritant, and with maybe a more of a family matter than a national issue. England wasn't an irritant, and this is what kind of colors our Anglo-philic, uh, perception of historical dominance and importance of the English. But it's really Spain, at least at first, which is more the more pressing family and national problem. Louis's main focus was always on France and on the continent, and expanding his borders, his children's possessions, and his power. And you might want to remember that Louis's first, and maybe maybe only wife, Maria Theresa of Spain, has a role here. To marry Louis, Maria had to give up all claims to the, the throne of her father, Philip IV, and promised her husband a large dowry. But in 1665, when Philip of Spain died, portions of his estate come up for grabs with his eldest daughter by his first marriage, Maria Theresa, the wife of Louis XIV, first in line for any royal, or daughter grabbing. Marie, and really Louis could grab because they could. Colbert's financial reforms, Minister of War Louvois' military reforms, and Vauban's defensive military architecture had given France and, and, um, given France and her king the edge in the true sport of kings, which is of course warfare.

Confusion over the inheritance of the French throne, a general confusion over Spanish power in Europe, affords Louis the opportunity to rise and shine once more in territory, and he launches what your text describes as the first of his major wars of aggression. You might pause a bit to consider exactly who was being aggressive here, or is this just really being asserted for your wife's rights? This first adventure is what we normally stall, style the War of Devolution, 1667 to 1668. In other words, who does Philip's estate devolve to? Maria Theresa had pressed her claims to Spanish territory, even though she gave up those claims when she married Louis XIV. But was it, was her denying of her claims ever going to hold up in a court of international law? Can you really renounce your inheritance, and can you renounce your inheritance rights of your children and your heirs? It might be too much to think of all of Louis's, uh, uh, legal reforms, the Code Louis, which becomes the Code Napoleon, which all its insistence on the inalienable rights of inheritance might have some, some, uh, origins in this real, a personal problem of Louis's family and his, his wife's inheritance.

Well, you know, anytime you, you divvy up property when somebody's done, anytime you have an estate pass, it's always kind of murky and kind of messy. And we need to remember too, that France and Spain have always been, uh, historical, uh, uh, uh, enemies, hostile neighbors, and rivals. France had always backed the Portuguese and the Dutch against, uh, Spanish, uh, squabbles. With Philip dead in 1665, and the dowry still unpaid since 1659, the Treaty of the Pyrenees and the marriage of Louis to Marie Theresa, Louis and Maria claimed particular territories as part of his wife's legitimate inheritance. He increased the size of his army to push these claims, and under his command, though actual leadership was provided by Turenne, his on-again, off-again vassal from the old friend days, Louis invaded the Spanish Netherlands and the not-yet-French Burgundy in 1667.

Now, French possession of those territories, uh, as inheritance, is very, very controversial, and it would dangerously have upset the balance of power in Europe by making France, uh, bigger, better, and richer. And England, Sweden, and the Dutch, all price and power, formed the Triple Alliance in 1668 to oppose Louis. Now, who's aggressive now? They threatened to enter the conflict with combinations with Catholic Spain to oppose Louis. So it's, it's other aggressions that we had to factor in here as well. They also threatened to, to honor rival claims to the confused Spanish inheritance by backing Leopold of Austria, who was also the Holy Roman Emperor. Now, Leopold was not holy, he was not Roman, and he wasn't much of an emperor, but he had a wife who was a, a Spanish princess as well, though his wife was a younger princess, and then Louis, Louis's Maria Theresa. But he could and did claim, uh, certain Spanish territories as well. In Spain, and Habsburg, and Austria could perhaps become Louis's most vexing enemies, and their combined power might have upset the balance of power too. So threatened, Louis agreed to the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended the war in 1668 with only modern concessions for, uh, Marie's claims in Louis's Spain.

Now, Louis then combined his own treasury, his diplomacy, and his own family ties to disrupt that Triple Alliance. He brought and bought out the English, uh, by the previously mentioned Treaty of Dover in 1670, which has military and loose aspects for almost all sides. In 1672, with the English out of the, the grand, this, uh, this particular alliance, England will join France against the Dutch. It will be done. We call the Franco-Dutch War. I remember the Dutch were economic rivals of, of England, and Louis always had his eye on Holland.

Well, Louis may have stood, may have stood down at Aix-la-Chapelle, but now he powers up aggressively. And his, I guess the really Turenne's Dutch War was, and this is a successful, widely so. You know, the Dutch cut their own dikes and fled their own countryside, and this action and French ferocity in Holland simply shocks all of Europe and brought in Louis's old devolutionary enemies, plus Germany's Brandenburg, all Protestant powers, saved Spain, on, on the Dutch side. Now, Turenne will attack through Germany, and his old partner in disloyalty, Condé, now fights for Louis in Alsace, which is sort of Germanized France, to write for Louis's wars of reunion. Armies marched and fought about with great abandon, with great ferocity, even atrocity on the French side, with Turenne eventually winning the battles but losing his life in 1675.

Louis has victories, but Louis's perhaps greatest loss here might have been with his heretofore popular with the Dutch as their ally against the English, and since the Dutch switched sides, and they now make peace with the English, this would eventually sort of elevate the cause of the House of Orange and bring William and his wife Mary later into the Glorious, into power in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. We really can't say Louis won or lost the war, but I guess you could say he really didn't lose it. Kabuki made certain minor advantages and advances in the, in the Peace of Nijmegen in 1679. But we need to be cautious here in assessing French accomplishments. Louis ends this war in a very, very strong position. France becomes the paramount military power in Europe, which is good, was also kind of bad. A Louis is always terrified most of Europe, though organizes themselves in alliances against Louis and against France. All parties are exhausted in this continual struggle, and peace was pretty welcome. But peace found Louis in greater power than ever. Truly didn't get Holland, but he did get Burgundy, thus growing France geographically. But peace also brought in William of Orange as William III of England and his husband, and brought him into power in promise as well, and he would rival Leopold as Louis's worst and deadly and forever enemy. And through this elevation of William, historians see him, English victory, but be wary of exaggeration. Louis really does well in this war.

Now, Louis's war, our focus here, and however destructive and, uh, significant they are, the real focus and fear of Europe was to the east, with the Ottoman Turks were roaring up through the Balkans and threatening Habsburg Vienna and all the rest of Christian Europe. Now, since Islamic navies and Ottoman armies were at war against the Spanish, Italian, and Austrian neighbors, rivals, and enemies of Louis XIV, Louis XIV cultivated an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude and refused to join any, in any new crusade to knock the Turks down and out.

Now, you really can't say this refusal to aid Austria is what brings the Austrian Habsburgs in against Louis, since Austria and France, although both Catholic powers, had always been enemies. But it does add one more diplomatic front for Louis and his generals to, uh, to deal with. However, by not aiding in the confrontation in combat against the Ottoman Turks, Louis helps keep the Ottomans on track toward Vienna, and every Spanish, every Italian, every Austrian soldier, sailor fighting the Turks are not fighting Louis's army and navy. So strategically, diplomatically, and militarily, it made real good sense for France to make this, this, uh, this change of attitudes. But it won Louis few friends in Europe and many considerable enemies in that he was at least being neutral against the feared and hated Ottomans.

So what begins as is war over the devolution of Spanish inheritance spills over into the, to the entire continent, and really across the face, the whole globe, with France soon rivaling all of her enemies, all of her rivals, in all climes, and by any means necessary. I suspect we do have to add in a religious factor here in all future alliances against Louis XIV, not that they were not already there already. When Louis repeals the Edict of Nantes in 1685, French Protestants, that we now style Huguenots, were given the choice by Louis of converting, Louis uses the term reconverting to Catholicism, or leaving his France. Many became Catholics, or became Catholics again, but a sizable minority fled France, fled France, relocated in Protestant territories, spreading their anger against Louis XIV and cultivating this image of French and Louis's religious intolerance. We might need to take that with some salt. Catholics have absolutely no rights in England, Scotland, or Ireland at this time, or in any other various Protestant states, and Louis's intolerance is a two-way street. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander, and we have to be aware of an English Protestant bias in our interpretation of history.

Now, with the Treaty of Nijmegen, Louis made peace, but he really was making ready for the next war. I mean, peace gives you enough breathing room to rearm, resupply, reinvigorate yourself for the next war that Louis knew he had to be fighting. He paused to rebuild the army and begin to, to prosecute more by other means in direct combat. He pushed back his frontier by diplomacy and by treaty. Now, it's the truth, though, that if a state has a big army, it wants to use that big army as a great plaything. And after resting up, Louis launches more what he, what he calls his Wars of Reunion, seizing normally French-speaking German cultural territories, such as Strasbourg. Now, this brings Spain back into combat, but only fitfully, because the Habsburgs are really worried about what the Ottoman Turks were about to do against Vienna. And so Louis gets, and Louis keeps all that he gobbles up. Now, there is no doubt about French aggression here, or about French accomplishments, and Spain begins her long decline when she can't really claim, uh, reclaim this debatable territory.

Now, France also challenged Spain in the overseas world for overseas colonies. She sort of muscled into the Caribbean, which the Spanish had called the Spanish Sea, and wanted to keep all European powers out. And France also claimed Northern North America as New France, and the mid-continental territories of North America were styled Louisiana, Louis's land. Now, Canada was rich in furs, particularly beaver, and that was used to make fashionable hats. Everybody had to have this spiffy hat, which was the perfect luxury good according to Colbert and Louis's ideas of mercantilism. You have a luxury good, it brings everybody's money, and France's treasury fills. So like or loathe France or Louis, uh, Louis in France could make all these spiffy hats that everybody simply had to have. War, not French cultural supremacy, really rules over Europe.

Now, having Canada also gave France a position on both sides of the North Atlantic. They were outflanking the English. It also gave French control of territory right to the north of New England and along the Eastern Seaboard of North America. Was hovering north over New England, was also sort of northwest, and preventing the expansion of England's, English colonial presence in North America. With Louisiana claimed and named and occupied, uh, for Louis, that put France to the west of New England and in control of the Mississippi River and of the American West. A Louis-kid block in the English. Louisiana, owned by France, also put France on the edge of the Spanish Sea, where she could intercept Spanish fleets loaded with silver bullion out of Mexico and Peru, that was making France rich and powerful. And even Louisiana could threaten the existence of a Spanish presence in Mexico. Louis could take Spain's New World wealth away. So France in the New World empowered France in the Old World and worried her enemies on both continents.

Now, well, all of Europe trembled, organized, and fought against England. France next made an alliance with the Ottoman powers. You again use his "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, and this was a tremendous shock in all of Europe that his Most Catholic Majesty, Louis XIV of France, was allied against all Christians in Europe with their their most ferocious Islamic threat. Now, this is brilliant, if ruthless, politics. Now, France and the Ottomans, in alliance, at least in theory, in partnership, can now open up two fronts against the Spanish and Austrian enemies. And this alliance also allowed France shipping, commercial access, and markets all along the Mediterranean Sea, blocked out by the Ottomans to any other European power. So France gets all sorts of pluses from this unusual alliance with the Ottoman Turks.

Now, Louis also sent diplomatic and trade missions overseas to India and to China, territories, interesting both England and Spain as colonial powers. France may have come into the Age of Exploration, colonization, a bit late, but in the age of Louis XIV, she enhanced her presence overseas, even as she enhanced her presence in Europe by pushing back the borders of France in Europe and by Spanish influence almost everywhere. Through his aggressive and assertive use of his army, navy, Louis continues to centralize his power in the expansive 1680s. As colonial ventures also expanded, Louis even, it was even buying the Muslims in and began to keep the Pope out of France. Now, the object here is to increase French power, not Roman Catholic power and presence and preeminence in in the kingdom, but also to, to show that it's Louis XIV that rules everything in France, including the, the, the Catholic Church. Now, in ways that have been ruinous to Henry VIII of, of England, Louis XIV of France successfully makes himself the head of the, of the, of the church in France. He, he is the head of the Catholic Church in France, not the Pope. At the same time, he's going to scatter the images of that head all across France itself. Massive public works projects advertised Louis personally by naming and renaming, constructed and reconstructed France with Louis this and Louis that, Louis streets, Louis plazas, Louis palaces, Louis, Louis, Louis, Louis. And he does this in much the same way that Louisiana was named Louis's land. This is all for the greater glory of the French, the greater glory of the king, the dedication of France with their king, Louis XIV. Versailles was lavished and relavished, if possible, in greater constructions that demonstrated Louis's power and France's abilities. At one point, the French army was brought in to dig these huge canals and founds almost overnight as an impromptu and lasting presentation and a testimonial of French expertise and Louis's will. You know, we normally focus the early modern period on the English Industrial Revolution, but it's French engineers, many of them military engineers, that accomplish these miraculous achievements in civil engineering. A true, we all, we see these constructs with stone, wood, water, and gardens as just more glitter for Versailles, but these build projects there could demonstrate what France could and would do, and you should not let the selected magnificence of Versailles for Louis, which you should be able to see if you're watching "Vatel" or you're Googling Versailles art, blind us to the, the reconstruction of all of France, which was accomplished by Louis XIV. French engineers would would dig these massive canals that would interconnect French rivers and even connect to the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea through France itself. And everywhere in Europe, people watch, they marvel at what the French can do, and they begin to copy the French and Louis like crazy. Even more, they might have feared Louis, but they grudgingly admired and copied everything he and France did. This was truly the age of Louis XIV. He is the measure of most, if not all, of what's truly great and was truly measured as excellence in Europe. France and Louis set the standard. Other powers always seem to operate in reaction to Louis's actions. And to all this excellent military and diplomatic and cultural accomplishments, now achieving such excellence was truly arresting, truly stupendous, but frighteningly costly. And as France got bigger and better, it also got scarier and scarier until Louis came to almost dominate Europe absolutely. His absolute power in France, by all appearances, grew by leaps and bounds, but we need to be cautious here and not see too much of what's really there. We've got to remember this is that France is really an early modern European state, and no matter how organized France is, basic constrictions of time and space must be remembered. Just because Louis says to do this doesn't mean that everybody does as he says. Now, he does keep the aristocrats under his eye at Versailles and in his armies, but that also implies that he has to do so, which should remind us that there remains considerable opposition, at least regionally, and obstruction of Louis's, uh, every wish and command. It's good to be the king, rings true, but only if you are really and completely obeyed. Absolute power doesn't mean absolute power. Beatings depend on, uh, actual consent and on actual force, and time and distance can overrule, uh, those, uh, pretensions. What Louis says that does not always make it so. There are limits of command, limits of absolutism. Wanting is not the same thing as having, but since Louis is in command, it always depends on the power, the actual power of the king's commands, the king's eye, and the king's hand on every aspect of Louis's France. He might order his gardeners about in Versailles, but that does not necessarily translate that everybody always obeys those orders. Sometimes the king's power doesn't go beyond the king's voice. That applies to the military and diplomatic directives as well. And you know, as every state grows, grows by leaps and bounds, interest rate always sets in. The king at Versailles might say, "Do this." Will everybody obey? Or will they obey in ways that match up to what Louis expects, or what Louis intends through his instructions?

Now, with the king as the vehicle for all advancement, ferocious partisanships begin to arise as men and women compete for the king's pleasure and the king's largest. By and large, Louis successfully represses his, uh, his domestic rivals, rivals in his family, rivals in his provinces, by his very presence. They were all sorts of folks in France who never really saw the king except maybe, maybe in all these public images in stone and bronze. And since the bulk of the, the built propaganda for Louis XIV was urban, and the bulk of the French population and nation was country, Louis remained an abstract to, to many, if not most Frenchmen, an abstract good, and an abstract bad for some. Bad, at all those taxes that that were on each and everything that was used to support that glory. Bad, and all those young and not-so-young men who were called up to serve in Louis's army. What was good for the royal goose was not necessarily good for the common gander. And this, there was this massive, a massive active and massive passive civil disobedience to much of what Louis ordered about in France. Things came out of Versailles, but they were not always obeyed. Folks conduct paying their taxes and avoid service in the army, crime and corruption, and simple human resistance and incompetence seemed to overwhelm almost everything the king and all the king's horses and all the king's men, Louis, Louis or not, had to make what you were supposed and expected to do. Sometimes you obeyed, sometimes you did not. There might have been absolutism in France in theory, but not always in fact or practice.

Couriers had to announce the king's will at a distance, had to get up, mount up, and get gone. But those very same couriers could be vexed by the courtiers who would reinterpret Louis's directives, who were always kind of jockeying for position by sabotaging what the couriers said and what other courtiers wanted to do. They squabbled among themselves all the time to rise in Louis XIV's, uh, expectations, not in all these ways that Louis really expected. There were all matters of frauds and, uh, and chicanery in procuring with the palace and the army needed. Generally, the ends justified the means, but the virtue was not necessarily rewarded. States were in, states are in perpetual warfare, as Louis's France surely was, or almost always corruptible and almost always corrupt. And since this is really the age of Louis XIV, as Louis aged, the famous "L'état, c'est moi" soon proved true in ways that were hard, sad, and ruinous. Louis aged rather well. What he did age, and the handsome young prince could not command the years. His son would eventually rise and shine, we would also set, even though his twilight was pretty long. Now, being vain, and honestly so, he was vain because he was handsome, he was charming, he had great abilities, but maybe he suffered, perhaps even to a greater extent, when he began to lose those looks, if not his charm and his abilities. He's born in 1638, and Louis, for all of his wealth and power, was susceptible to these slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, of simply being human. He might be the king, but he was a mortal man. He was as mortal as all men, and he was not eternally long young like the sun in the sky appears to be. He burned with a hard, gem-like flame. We began to burn out of the 20-something young king that all men, all women wanted to be with, and all men wanted to be like.

He lived in the early modern world, which had few of the even most common simple comforts of our post-modern paradise. Sanitation back then was indeed primitive. There were no bathrooms at Versailles. Folks used the stairwells and the doorways. Pure water was always an iffy thing. There's a reason the French drank so much wine. Their water would kill you. Now, bad sanitation leads to bad health, bad public health, bad private health. For Louis XIV and Louis XIV's son, king or not, was just as vulnerable to illnesses as the most reduced, passive, and the lowest private in his army. He lived in an urban setting, in this, sort of a very, uh, stuffy with people courted Versailles, always jammed, people coming in and out. He'd come into a very large army, and that put him in a continual demand of his attention, which put him in considerable risk of infection. All those people, all seeing the king, could make Louis sick. Now, particularly exposed him to fevers, malaria, and to cholera, of all the, the usual, uh, stresses and strains of the whole population is under that time. And Louis has many near-death experiences, exactly like everybody else did at this time.

Rather late in his life, he suffered from an anal fistula, which is as bad as it sounds. With crashable surgical procedures, the doctors just didn't know what to do to save the king's life. They consulted ancient texts, texts, the Greek and Roman authorities. They made experimental and specialized instruments to, to do the actual surgery. They practiced on lower-born patients, and then they operated on the king. Now, there were no painkillers at the time, and no antibiotics either. So Louis was operated on fully awake, and fully aware, and fully in pain. And because he was France, any illness had to be concealed as reasons of state security. They cut it into him at a very, very private and, uh, personal and painful place, but he was back, more or less, on his feet. He couldn't sit down the next day in these public events that required the king's presence. He was always the centerpiece, good or well, sick or not, he has to be there. He has this really strong constitution, and even as his post-operative pain, he presents himself as the king. Secret, well, he lived this life publicly. His life was very, very seldom private, and always the ceremony, always a celebration, always an event. If you look at Louis, if you looked at the movie "Vatel," you know, he rose and was even dressed and attended to publicly. His food was elaborately presented, but due to the location of the kitchens away from from where he ate, and the ever-present danger of poisoning by his enemies, which required a food taster to, to test Louis's food with their own lives, Louis probably never enjoyed a really hot meal his entire life. He moved around in royal state, but royal progress was not always progressively pleasurable. Rain, wind, snow, and dark of night really kept this king from his anointed rounds, but usually inconvenienced him, his family, and his entourage. Louis respected his wife, we did not love her in the, in the modern sense of marriage. He kept numerous mistresses who were on usually demanding of Louis's time and Louis's attention, and he probably never had a real sense any woman loved him as Louis, Louis, but rather as Louis the King. Life being life, and love being loved, he produced numerous illegitimate children, some of whom he loved to distraction, and even loved more than his legitimate heirs, and he had to find a place. It was done with children in a very rough and very, uh, damaging world. He was most attentive to their needs and their care, and perhaps, perhaps married a one overly protective governor of illegitimate brood. He murdered her secretly. He probably didn't marry her.

He lived a long life. He outlived all of his royal children, his legitimate children, his legitimate grandchildren, and most his legitimate great-grandchildren. As his fine legs gave out and he became gouty, as his hair thinned, there is some thought that the French sent his courtiers wearing all these elaborate wigs, that the, the beaver hat sat on because Louis, he was losing his hair. The king wore wigs, so everybody else does too. As his waist begins to thicken, all those not very cold but lavish meals, Louis began to think more and more about the next life. He was not only Catholic, but he turned increasingly to favor his old faith, his abandoned faith, as he grew older. And when he began to cross 50, a milestone in Europe where most people die at 37, he began to think of his soul as well as his power. And we might need to figure his revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the loss of Protestant, uh, freedom in France in 1685, as a function more of the old and getting older Louis XIV, and not just of Louis XIV, the absolute Catholic monarch. Perhaps he felt that all the things he had done, suppressing, uh, uh, uh, the Catholic Church in France, becoming the head himself, that maybe he needed some forgiveness. He had reduced the church, he'd become a serial adulterer, and probably he feared some accountability. So he does, at least, a gesture towards the Catholic faith. Uh, he led a sprinted life, no way around that, but he led a hard life. He was usually with his army. He might not command the battlefield directly, he was almost always present, sharing the trials and tribulations of the campaign itself, or he was always in court, he was always doing his duty.

At 50, he becomes embroiled in another war, the War of the League of Augsburg, the War of the League of Augsburg, 1689 to 1797, a pretty long war. It's hard to say who's really being the aggressive party here. There were problems over the secession of particular Franco-German territories, territories that Louis coveted, and the other European powers did not want to have at all. Habsburg Austria and Spain, Sweden, Saxony, and Bavaria all formed the League of Augsburg to oppose Louis XIV. And in this eight-year war, when Louis is going to start pushing 60, France fights to no real conclusion. She even has to abandon her claim to Louisiana for a while, and it doesn't do anything to follow up LaSalle's discovery. And Iberville will be sent over back to Louisiana to reclaim LaSalle's lost territory only when the war finally ends. France also has to finally face the, the impact of the loss of England as an ally and the rise to power of William of Orange as William III in the newly simultaneous English Glorious, uh, Revolution of 1688. Uh, Louis and France were now almost completely surrounded by enemies, and our resources and our reserves were stretched to the maximum level. Louis will continue to receive the deposed Stuarts and bankroll their exile and their continual efforts to return to power, but he does that because he wants to, quote, jab at the English under under William. He always wants to push forward this return of of James's or Charles's, uh, uh, uh, uh, sinister's power because, because he wants to keep the English jumping about. But all that does is force William of Orange to form more and, uh, powerful alliances. We call the Grand Alliance, and they're going to launch the War of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

Now, in this war, like the previous ones, like the previous ones, France loses lots of battles, but she seems in the war. But Louis's, uh, territorial, uh, advances into into Germany soon become a war of total, uh, total terror tactics, which horrifies the enemies and does much more to unite them against him than to make them want to go for peace or to make them even submit or to simply scare them out of fighting. Louis XIV, this is a very costly war, costly for Germany certainly, costly for Louis XIV as well. Now, France will end up winning on the battlefield, and she gains considerable territory on land, but Louis loses his navy at the Battle of the Hogue to a combined English and Dutch naval presence, and the war simply sort of winds down and ends with the Treaty of Ryswick. Now, Louis really wins the war, and he really wins the peace in that he successfully extends his territory by invasion and keeps the territory by negotiation. His only failure is that in brokering his winning peace, he recognizes William of Orange as William III of England and abandons the Stuart claim. It's his own family. This concession, amid all of Louis's undeniable victories on the battlefield and in diplomacy, has English and Anglo-American historians continually trying to to snatch victory out of their general defeat, as if the English tail wags a European dog.

Now, hard on the heels of the War of the League of Augsburg and the War of the Grand Alliance comes another war, the War of the Spanish Succession. Again, the problem here is, uh, is a family problem and a nationally based problem, and against Louis XIV's primacy in Europe. Charles II of Spain, mad and childless, was dying without an heir. There's an apocryphal story that you, that people tell all the time, that Charles of Spain was crazy. He imagined his wife was made of glass. He didn't make love to her because if he did, his embraces would break her glass body, and her, and her the shards of her glass body would cut him, and he would die. So he never makes love.

To his wife, he never has an heir, so he's mad because he's childless. He's childless because he's mad. Well, he knows he has no heirs, and all of Europe knows that. And all the old devolutionary, uh, claimers, Louis XIV and Leopold of Austria, both claimed the throne of their rivals through their wives, both Spanish Royal princesses.

Now, remember Maria Teresa, Louis' wife, had renounced her birthright, the Spanish throne, and her marriage, but, uh, not sure you can do that. And Spain never paid the dowry, so Louis is that agreement is off, and we have the right to claim the throne ourselves. France, or Louis XIV, says we have the right of Parma janitor, that our queen, as the eldest daughter of Philip IV, has more rights than Austria does, because their claim is based on the younger daughter of the old, the old, uh, and Wade did, uh, king of Spain. But everybody fights more to keep Louis out of power, but keep Louis from assuming control of of Spain or wealth or territories, and then over any territorial, uh, transmission by, uh, by inheritance. This is the war to keep Louis and France out of Spain.

Now, Charles, dying, has his moment of lucidity and chooses a Habsburg prince as his heir, then goes into madness, goes, uh, Adam at his comes back. There's no, no, I really choose Philip wants you as the heir to my throne, and as lovable as you was, Louis' grandson. So we got two choices, two different choices, two possible claimants. One acceptable to France, Philip. One unacceptable to France, Philip, uh, to Oscar Philip. And, uh, Phil Evangel was unacceptable to most of the rest of Europe. Everyone feared a French prince on the throne. Louis' grandson would really give Louis Spain's power. So we have the War of the Spanish Succession.

Now, Louis presses the claims of his grandson forward, invades Holland, recognizes, or re-recognized James Stewart of the Old Pretender to count the English in this, in this great struggle. And this opens up a, a first, second, and third front, uh, England, Scotland, Ireland against William of Orange and William III. Now, Austria invades Italy through Bavaria to open up another front against France. Uh, Louis has good soldiers and good generals, but England, Austria united now to keep Louis out, has better generals, better soldiers, and listeners fashion. They have better luck. Uh, Bavaria, because they were invaded by the Austrians, joins France as an ally. But together, Bavarian France lose the famous battle of Glen Helm, or Blenheim, if you're, if you're, uh, German, Lynn Hyman, Germany, Blenheim, and England, and Bavaria is occupied by Louisiana, the Duke of Marlborough, who leads the combined, uh, uh, uh, enemy force. He's the famous ancestor of Winston Churchill. Has a military star that begins to eclipse Louis' son. France loses the battles, loses more battles, but she still wins the war, though at a ferocious cost.

Nature seems to turn against Louis XIV in France, and though we now know that all Europe goes through this mini Ice Age, a winners come early and stay on disastrously long. Spring was late, and summer even later. Massive crop failures devastate France, particularly. And whenever bread disappears, France suffers. Louis' officers, administrators try to figure out some way to feed his army. They struggle to feed the, to feed the nation, and they fail to feed either. And famine brings on plagues, plagues bring on more famine, and famines and plagues across Europe. And 13 years of fighting brings on peace. Louis does not lose because he, that does not recognize that he has lost. He loses a battle, loses an army, raises another army, goes back in the battle. What Louis does is refuse to surrender, and he simply runs out the clock. France lost, France won, France lost, France win, but win or lose, France keep on fighting.

Leopold of Austria dies. His claimer to the throne of Spain becomes his heir to the throne of Austria. And other European power snake, maybe a combined Austria and Spain is a much threat as a combined France and Spain. So peace breaks out, and they sign the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. And at the end of the war is that, is that Louis gets what he wants, his grandson Philip, you become the next king of Spain. Victory points, or Century Louis. Now, the English get, uh, get Gibraltar. Louis promises never to support the, the Steward Pretenders again, uh, and those are usually held to be a great part by the British. You say, you see, we really win-win here. It's not, it's not Louis' victory. We got to be, uh, suspicious of that. Louis gets more territory for France, he gets return of territory for very allies, and he gets to put his grandson on the throne of Spain. Louis wins, but Louis dies in 1715. An old, but essentially victorious king. His 70 plus years of power making the only king the most Frenchman ever saw, and makes him the longest running king in European history.

So what's the lesson here? How do we assess Louis XIV? Your text states it implies that he left France and Europe ruined, but is that so, or just another bit of Anglo-philia and Francophobia? Probably it takes two to tango. France fights, but so does your enemies. It's sort of a, he hit me first argument, and we really have to trace causation to who's really at fault here. Is it Louis? His fault that France is devastated, that Europe is devastated, are because it's continual war, and this, uh, this global freezing at almost each and every turn? English and American historians say yes, it's Louis' fault. But I suspect that's they're looking for their own perspective, and not of Louis, not of Louis' France. And now the age of Louis XIV, because Britain, uh, wins the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, though it's suffering like all of Europe, wins the, uh, the, the French any war 50 years later, and inspires the American Revolution a hundred years later, because we have no kings in America. We sometimes tend to see the, the ascendancy of a parliamentary and, uh, Republican virtue, and the failure of Louis, Louis' France, and Louis' absolutism. But is that a fair measure? Louis passes on his kingdom intact to his legitimate heir, and his country stays afloat for another hundred years. Is Louis and supposed absolutism at fault here for all the bad things that happened in France and happened to Europe later? Didn't Louis win? Didn't he expand his friends these greater borders? Doesn't he imprint his values on Europe? Cussed both ways in good and bad perspectives. I think just like the man in the Iron Mask, we haven't imagined two kings of France, Louis, one good, one bad, both Louis XIV, depending on your perspective and how you choose to see it. Louis remains the Colossus. The dances and prances and marches and fights across Europe, across the continent. Everyone there turns their face to the Sun King. It's what he does, and what they react to. They, uh, they are imitating Louis, they are fearing Louis, they are fighting Louis, they are mimicking Louis, they're regarding Louis. He sets the standard. Is this really not the truly the age of Louis XIV, and is that good or is that bad from whose perspective? What do you think? Viva Roy.

Okay, so we've been focusing on European mostly politics during this age. For our next lecture, we're going to kind of switch gears a little bit and talk about the first Scientific Revolution, um, which obviously plays an extremely important role in not only the society of this time but of course our society today. You know, a lot of people were very suspicious, they believed that, um, you know, magic or curses, I mean, there was a lot of, um, supernatural explanations for certain things. But when we had this first scientific revolutions, people start understanding about their, their the nature around them, which will play an integral role in even the politics because we have what's called The Age of Enlightenment that we'll talk about in, in a future lecture. And this all ties together, this first Scientific Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, all of the topics that we will discuss in future lectures. Until next time.