Raison d’etat

Raison d’etat is the concept that the interests of the country justify political and diplomatic acts that would otherwise be reprehensible.1 Nicolo Machiavelli was a champion of this concept his political treatise “The Prince” was one such example. He expounded princely virtue as the willingness to overcome certain acceptable rules to perpetuate through either force or kindness the state. The French monarch Louis XI embodied a lot of qualities Machiavelli may have respected. Louis is an enigmatic figure, he is both praised and blamed; Louis XI has a new portrait for every new writer who discusses him. “Le roi araignée” or at least some portraits of him may show us a prince Machiavelli could like.

Louis ruled a France which was a “quivering mass of feudal principalities caught in a royal net; some of them restive, and eager to break their bonds.”2 The France of his father Charles had become even more feudal as the lords each acted as almost independent powers. The status quo of France during this period of peace between her and England was very precarious. Like Machiavelli Louis “not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.”3 Louis embarked on a mission to “overcome all his rivals.”4 Slowly, but surely our araignée succeeded in freeing France from fealty, but embarked her into the age of absolutism. That is the central debate most Historians still argue over, whether to judge him in the light of raison d’etat or to criticize the man who lead the vanguard of absolutism.

Qui nescit dissimulare, nescit regnare, a maxim that was well taken by Louis he knew that a prince “A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.”5Louis had to do what was best for not only the monarchy, but to accomplish his dream, a real France, a united France. De Commynes is said to be the architect of the plan at that saved the monarchs life from the maddened Charles the Bold. The plan was a horrendous humiliation, and it involved the breaking with the friends and allies he had supported in the Liege revolt, but in order to preserve his life, and to later finish with Charles, the monarch had to escape. Charles forced Louis to aid him in the razing of the city, and the ensuing massacre.

They often accuse Louis of being oppressive, and “though he oppressed his subjects himself, he would never see them injured by anybody else.”6During his reign the Nobles lead a revolt called “The League of the Public Wheel”, this revolt was lead by Charles the Bold, but the notables masked it under Louis’ brother the Duke of Berry. The nobles said it was a war for the people, though “the people were often the pretext, and always the victim.7The war ended poorly for Louis he had to sign an outrageous treaty, and pay a massive indemnity to the lords. Some of his most crucial lands were also seized. The War had been a farce by the nobles at the expense of the people, when it was over the nobles all took private gains and none cared for the plight of the people they had so claimed to be the righteous defenders of.

For Louis though the injury was not “so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”8He gave each lord what they had coming to them, many died in chains several fled. Machiavelli said that “Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot”9. Louis did both he “raised paupers out of filth into wealth”10, and struck lords into nothing. Louis was a bit of a pragmatic egalitarian, anyone who could be of service to him, and his monarchy would be. He spun a web of shrewdness and sagacity.11 In this web he caught all of France which then entered into a new age. Some refer to this absolutism as the edifice of despotism12, where others love him for his raison d’etat and the pragmatism in his politics.
Machiavelli wrote that it love and fear can hardly coexist so if you must chose between the tow fear is the far safer alternative. Louis knew this maxim, and he knew that in order to have the France of his dream he may have to do things that many did not approve of, but whether history looks at him as hero or villain is inconsequential to Louis. He lived in a France we will never know so any praise or blame falls on the deafest of ears. Like all leaders he was loved and hated. The only reason he is remembered for the hate rather than the love is most likely very simple, “Villains make better copy.”13