Complete 4 page APA formatted essay: Question -- 1.Download file to see previous pages... However, it was made a cakewalk for him in the light of what his predecessors, especially Richelieu had alread

Complete 4 page APA formatted essay: Question -- 1.

However, it was made a cakewalk for him in the light of what his predecessors, especially Richelieu had already accomplished. Still, he deserves to be complimented for his ability in reading quickly the invisible price tag attached to those who could challenge the absolutism that he envisaged and also for the shrewd, though unethical, strategies that he invented to pacify the aristocracy and to eliminate the remnants of feudal power, if any. By the use of pensions and privileges as decoys, he created circumstances in which loyalty became an obligation. To weaken the members of the noble elite further, he addicted them to luxury and indulgence at the Palace of Versailles. That also drastically reduced the time they would spend in their own estates. It was ‘Sankin-kotai’ in disguise. It is just that the system of alternate attendance was formalized as ‘Sankin-kotai’ by the Tokugawa Shoguns whereby the feudal lords were required to spend at least half of their time in Edo, the capital of the Shogun empire (Beasly 272). Louis XIV is often praised in history for ‘recognizing talent’ because during his reign, several high positions were filled with commoners. Though their credentials do not have to be doubted, it needs to be observed that he had a distinct advantage in having them there: they were easy to get rid of. A clear parallel between him and the Shogunate becomes apparent here, if we recall how Ieyasu allowed outsiders to assume the position of vassals. Just as Louis XIV exercised control over the nobles by making them have to remain under his scrutiny, Ieyasu’s successors Hidetada and Iemitsu vigorously pursued the land reallocation strategy by which they could impose order on Japan’s feudal lords (Beasly 130). The system was justified on the basis that it would ensure ‘good governance’ while the actual rationale was exercise of control. There is, however, one major difference between what transpired in France and Japan during that time. In France, Richelieu went about ‘bringing back all the King’s subjects to their duty and to elevate His Majesty’s name to the point where it belongs’ (Richelieu 11). He did that indeed. In this process, all his wicked deeds notwithstanding, he always considered himself a servant of the King and never attempted to surpass the King’s authority. Incidents like the Day of Dupes bear testimony to the fact that he remained secondary to the King. In the Japanese history, what we see is the second tier becoming stronger than the first, since the Tokugawa Shoguns, who had total control over the country, were not the emperors of Japan (Beasly 132). They were given the charge of the country’s administration by the legitimate emperor, but for all practical purposes, until the Meiji Restoration, for about two-and-a-half centuries, they wielded absolute power (Beasly 203). Undisputedly, it is Richelieu to whom the lion’s share of the credit legitimately goes. As Bismark was to Germany and Metternich was to Austria, so was Richelieu to France, a one-man-army, so much so that during his nearly two-decade-tenure, the history of France was synonymous with his biography.