Most overated leader in history.

Henry VIII

Many historians consider Henry VIII as one of the finest monarchs in English history. He was an able diplomat, keen domestic administrator, political pragmatist and he set in motion religious events that would see England emerge as a military power, intellectual centre and defender of the Protestant faith. Overrated? Please.

Please tell me how these royal acts were historically overrated:

1. Diplomacy – Henry skilfully exploited his utter lack of diplomatic power as he skilfully maintained tricky alliances with Francis I and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. Henry’s army was not well matched to his continental rivals and he had to traverse the deadly diplomatic waters with skill (the Holy League allowed England to extend its rather weak influence onto European affairs). Many historians consider these skills and actions (especially Battle of the Spurs and Flodden Field) necessary to keep England a separate political entity during these years

2. Reformation – It’s entirely immaterial as to what Henry’s motivations where (his act was one of political pragmatism) as it doesn’t alter its historical significance. By forming the Anglican Church (and by introducing acts that not only safeguarded its survival, but helped eliminate domestic strife that engulfed the Continent) through contemporary legal means (The Act in Restraint of Appeal and the Supremacy Act).

The Birth of Anglicanism is arguably one of Western Civilization’s most significant actions. By splitting with Rome, Henry nationalized the Church, momentarily pacified religious extremists, distributed monastery land to middle and upper classes (although, by our standards, its not exactly equitable), provided a beacon to religious reformers in Europe, planted the seeds for future Scientific Revolution (the secularism of English society brought forth as a result of the Reformation clearly helped Newton, Bacon, Harvey), helped streamline and modernize economics (especially after the seizure of monastic landholdings) and help establish England as the largely stabilizing religious force during the Counter-Reformation.

3. Political Pragmatist – Henry was a shrewd politician (the Anglican Church is enough proof). He was a master tactician that both forever changed England’s religious landscape (and it’s future colonies in the Americas) and its perception of the crown. He knew (like most able monarchs did) that legislation (albeit 16th Century style) was a legitimacy tool that could gain him popular acquiescence and acceptance to his radical acts (see Act of Succession and Act of Treason).

Also as the ever-shifting Reformation political landscape in Europe moved, Henry maintained England’s safety by not solely allying himself with religious state counterparts (like the Germanic ones). By doing so, he maintained England’s sovereignty and insured its independence and that is not to be overrated.

In essence, Henry was a capable, pragmatic, revolutionary leader that not only transformed his realm domestically, but also maintained its independence in the face of superior foes and laid the foundation for a nationalized society, with a more modern bureaucracy and a culture that was ripe for the future English Renaissance and Scientific Revolution. He was a pre-Enlightenment leader whose historical context precluded such future nations as liberal-democracy, but Henry still followed the political rules of the day. Was he overrated? Nope.

One last point – whether you personally like Henry or the monarchical form of government means absolute squat. I don’t particularly like communism, but that doesn’t mean Karl Marx wasn’t one of most influential philosophers in recent Western history.

Louis XIV

And now onto what historians have called, “the Grand Century” and “Age of Magnificence” and what Voltaire (I’d love to see you prove Voltaire was wrong in this instance!) simply referred to “the Age of Louis XIV.” The very fact that one can even suggest that Louis XIV “The Sun King” was an overrated (I’d also be extremely interested in seeing how you demonstrate that history has made a grave error in applying his name as a milieu label) calls attention to a limited understanding of Western Civilization. His reign was the epitome of absolutism and under his tutelage France become the political, military, cultural and intellectual centre of Europe. Let’s see how you do with the following:

1. Cultural centre of Europe – Louis’ grandiose sense of style and patronage of the arts (French Classicism? Poussin?) made France the dominant cultural epicentre of Europe. France’s philosophers (philisophes during the Age of Reason), French Classicist painters like Pousinn’s paintings and Lully’s orchestral works, and Racine’s dramas were all helped and encouraged by Louis’s patronage.

In fact, Louis’ cultural dominance as a leader ushered in an era where French language would become the speech of international diplomacy. It also became, under Louis’ leadership, the new language of intellectual discourse – replacing Latin. Other nations tried to emulate the style and cultural progress of France, thus extending French influence beyond its geographical borders. The language inspired a cosmopolitan (see Buckler) European culture as the royal courts of Sweden, Poland, Russian and Germany not only spoke French, but they tried to model their intellectual pursuits on Louis’ style.

2. Versailles – many cotemporaries and present historians argue that this majestic palace complex became the symbol of absolutism and the epitome of French power. Versailles’ art and architecture placed its significance above all cotemporaries. It encouraged the French intelligentsia to develop architectural designs, artistic endeavours and it became an influential (see Peterhof and Frederick’s palace) – and more, importantly, intimidating – centre of political power.

Power of Versailles in aiding leadership

A) It linked and forced the nobility to the King’s absolutist initiatives. They had live at Versailles for part of the year (at the peril of losing social, cultural prestige) and this tied them to Louis

B) It also undermined – via court ceremonies – the nobility’s influence and power (see Saint-Simon’s famous tract). Certain individuals could be ostracized and this solidified Louis’ supreme governing ability

C) It intimidated foreign dignitaries – it wasn’t merely designed to be an experiment in opulence. It was also to act as an intimidation tool. This calculated showmanship allowed Louis a psychological edge in dealing with enemies and allies alike. As a result, Versailles became a symbol for rationalism and statesmanship

3. Centralization of State – Louis created a modern bureaucracy that not only promoted middle class interests; it ensured a more efficient state operation. He created three councils (they would oversee day-to-day operations): the Court of State, The Court of Finances and the Court of Dispatches. Each was responsible to Louis as he personally attended many (some historians like Newman, claim it was once a week) meetings and sessions.

Moreover, Louis limited terms of service for each department (3 years) and personally selected its members as a means of ensuring competency and depriving the nobility (they could be a threat, so Louis went to upper middle class) of its traditional power.

End product? Under Louis’s able leadership, the modern bureaucratic state was born that was staffed by salaried professionals whose loyalty was to the state.

4. Revocation of the Edict of Nantes – this move (while stripping Huguenots of religious freedoms) actually was an example of Louis’ pragmatic leadership ability as he united the Church in France with the state. This masterstroke was actually very popular (some historians claim it was his most popular act – the majority of the population liked it) with the contemporary populace, (obviously not Protestants) as many didn’t like the Edict (17th Century society actually wasn’t very tolerant of religious freedoms). Also, Louis believed that religious unity promoted national unity and this in turn minimized the threat of religious strife – he actually was promoting and ensuring security of the state.

5. Military Reforms – Louis made France into one of the most powerful military forces of the 17th century. Louis personally appointed not only the marshals of France, but also the all officers down to the rank of colonel (keep this mind as Louis’ wars will come into play later). The king’s personally appointed Secretary of War, Francois le Tellier – the future marquis de Louvois) utilized several methods for troop recruitment – dragooning, conscription and lottery. There was an ambulance corps, a food commissar, standardized uniforms and weapons, and a rational system of training and promotion.

End product? Under Louis’ leadership, the French military machine enabled one state to dominate the affairs of the European continent and in the process, revolutionize warfare.

5. Louis’ Military Campaigns – Louis’ ambitious territorial and political campaigns saw the acquisition of several towns (especially Lille), Strasbourg, some Flemish geography and an attempt to obtain the Spanish Crown. While he did make significant territorial gains, he failed to make the breakthrough in the Netherlands (the Dutch flooded the countryside).

Lastly, the economic reforms of Colbert allowed France to become an economic might that extended its colonial influences to Canada, Africa and Asia and established itself as a major manufacturing power (textiles). France developed, under Louis and Colbert, a merchant marine and also improved its infrastructure. Louis encouraged exploration and this furthered the might of French influence (La Salle)

History – both contemporaries and present – consider the Louis’ reign and leadership to be one of the most significant in Early Modern European history. To suggest otherwise, is both intellectually immature and factually incorrect.

Mustang,

Now those were good posts concerning Henry VIII. See how this is better than some twit claiming that Henry VIII was overrated because its their "opinion".