Henry IV - Historum

**Qymaen** · January 7th, 2011, 09:28 PM

Can someone explain to me why Henry IV is considered such a great French King? I know he evoked the Edict of Nantes, but what else did he do?

**gaius valerius** · January 8th, 2011, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qymaen

Can someone explain to me why Henry IV is considered such a great French King? I know he evoked the Edict of Nantes, but what else did he do?

- Saved France from anarchy and turmoil, finally ended over 50 years of civil and religious wars that had been ravaging the country since the middle of the century.

- An absolutist sovereign that ruled with an iron fist dressed in a satin glove, he knew how to rule the nobility without giving them the feeling that their power was waning, that is the trademark of an able sovereign who knows his business.

Simply put, Henry IV put France back on the map again where Habsburg had kicked it out some 50 years before and France was back on the route to continental domination. That's the general gist of it, does it satisfy you or do you have other questions?

**Qymaen** · January 8th, 2011, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

- Saved France from anarchy and turmoil, finally ended over 50 years of civil and religious wars that had been ravaging the country since the middle of the century.

- An absolutist sovereign that ruled with an iron fist dressed in a satin glove, he knew how to rule the nobility without giving them the feeling that their power was waning, that is the trademark of an able sovereign who knows his business.

Simply put, Henry IV put France back on the map again where Habsburg had kicked it out some 50 years before and France was back on the route to continental domination. That's the general gist of it, does it satisfy you or do you have other questions?

Nope. Now I get it. Thanks.

**Edratman** · January 8th, 2011, 04:28 AM

Seems real good to me also, GV.

**pikeshot1600** · January 8th, 2011, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

- Saved France from anarchy and turmoil, finally ended over 50 years of civil and religious wars that had been ravaging the country since the middle of the century.

- An absolutist sovereign that ruled with an iron fist dressed in a satin glove, he knew how to rule the nobility without giving them the feeling that their power was waning, that is the trademark of an able sovereign who knows his business.

Simply put, Henry IV put France back on the map again where Habsburg had kicked it out some 50 years before and France was back on the route to continental domination. That's the general gist of it, does it satisfy you or do you have other questions?

GV,

I wouldn't go too far to the "absolutist monarch" model. Henri was a popular and strong willed king, but his unruly Noblesse was hardly tamed until the 1660s-70s.

It took the French Grands a couple of generations, and a couple of executions, plus the understanding that only by using their own capital and influence to maintain the army (in the 1630s-40s) could they remain relevant. However, the king needed them as much as they needed a royal army. (see David Parrot, Richlieu's Army , (Cambridge, 2001) and John Lynn, Giant of the Grand Siecle (Cambridge, 1997).

The Frondes of the 1650s hardly indicated that France was any sort of absolutist "state," and IMO it never really was. The pressures of interest aggregation among royalty and nobility, whose interests were essentially the same, always prevented it from becoming so. One had to accomodate the other on all important points.

I love this kind of stuff.

**gaius valerius** · January 8th, 2011, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeshot1600

GV,

I wouldn't go too far to the "absolutist monarch" model. Henri was a popular and strong willed king, but his unruly Noblesse was hardly tamed until the 1660s-70s.

It took the French Grands a couple of generations, and a couple of executions, plus the understanding that only by using their own capital and influence to maintain the army (in the 1630s-40s) could they remain relevant. However, the king needed them as much as they needed a royal army. (see David Parrot, Richlieu's Army , (Cambridge, 2001) and John Lynn, Giant of the Grand Siecle (Cambridge, 1997).

The Frondes of the 1650s hardly indicated that France was any sort of absolutist "state," and IMO it never really was. The pressures of interest aggregation among royalty and nobility, whose interests were essentially the same, always prevented it from becoming so. One had to accomodate the other on all important points.

I love this kind of stuff.

You're reading it wrong then. I know what you mean but that wasn't my point. My point was that Henry IV did have an absolutist policy but in no way was I saying that he achieved what Louis XIV achieved, basically though, Henry IV is the one that took up the policy of royal centralisation again which men like Richelieu and Mazarin would continue. My main point was stressing that Henry IV ruled his nobles with an iron (sort of) grip dressed in a satin glove, he did not needlessly provoke or brandish his power at the nobles in an unsophisticated way. It's one of the reasons why Henry is portrayed as such a good sovereign.

Cause I love this kind of stuff to.

PS: as for absolutism in practice, been over that a long time ago in another thread, but I agree.

PraiseGod_Barebones · January 8th, 2011, 06:12 AM

What made Henry such a great King is that he put the stability of France above personal prejudice by converting to Catholicism. He institutionalised religious tolerance in France that was later undone by subsequent monarchs and their advisers #cough# Richelieu. Aside from this he actually improved France's infrastructure by building highways, canals and creating more farming lands. In essence he was a pre-enlightenment enlightened despot. My favourite French leader.

Centrix Vigilis · January 12th, 2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PraiseGod_Barebones

What made Henry such a great King is that he put the stability of France above personal prejudice by converting to Catholicism. He institutionalised religious tolerance in France that was later undone by subsequent monarchs and their advisers #cough# Richelieu. Aside from this he actually improved France's infrastructure by building highways, canals and creating more farming lands. In essence he was a pre-enlightenment enlightened despot. My favourite French leader.

Here here. Agree. And they recently believe they found his head and will give it proper burial. see: FoxNews.com - Mummy Head (and Brain) Identified as Long-Lost French King

Athelstan · January 12th, 2011, 11:14 AM

I saw the 1994 film La Reine Margot recently and I think they portrayed Henry of Navarre as an opportunist and a bit of a weak character. He seems to change religion a couple of times and do a lot of hiding. The film ends before Henry becomes King of France so perhaps he changes his persona. I know it’s just a film but it is a French film. Maybe the 2010 film was better portrayal.

**gaius valerius** · January 12th, 2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athelstan

I saw the 1994 film La Reine Margot recently and I think they portrayed Henry of Navarre as an opportunist and a bit of a weak character. He seems to change religion a couple of times and do a lot of hiding. The film ends before Henry becomes King of France so perhaps he changes his persona. I know it’s just a film but it is a French film. Maybe the 2010 film was better portrayal.

His actions after his coronation clearly reveal the exact opposite. As for his actions up that moment, to me they show the caution required not to end up like a Henry III or a de Guise or Coligny.