Character discussion

Well, I figured it out by the late 18th century garments. Not so aware of its role in polish history. Wasn't he sort of a russian puppet, although a kind of reformist?

Edited by Frederick Roger

Is it King Stanislaw August?

giani:

Richelieu was a formidable intellect and servant of the Crown, but also a great gambler.  The intervention in Italy in 1629 against Habsburg moves in Mantua, and the declaration of war against Spain in 1635 were risky adventures as the French army was both poorly prepared and supplied, and also only experienced against Huguenot fortifications and against an English force badly handled off La Rochelle.

In order to have a substantial military force that had experience in the field, France hired the services of Duke Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar from the Swedish service in 1635.  Richelieu knew of the problems of the French armies, and gambled that this experienced force would be able to cover for the inexperience of the French and for the egos of the Marechals of France who specialized in quaralling with each other over precedence and matters of honor.  Noble rebellions also caused problems such as the affair of Cinq Mars in the 1630s.  (The french have always been the French.)   

Anyway, the French army was not really reformed until after the first two wars under Louis XIV...the "War of Devolution" in the late 1660s, and the Dutch War of 1672.  Richelieu was undoubtedly a great statesman, but Cardinal Mazarini had more impact on the rise of France after Richelieu's death in 1642.  Still, his reputation is deserved....a realistic politician who combined the legitimacy of Church and King, and who did "what had to be done" to preserve and empower France. 

He was a gambler, but some people are lucky, and sometimes it IS better to be lucky than good.

 

  

 

 

This picture is really amazing.

The character himself was mercyless, but he took a great part in making France what is it now.

One must always recall that Richelieu was supposed to become a soldier, having gone through training at the Academy, but the sudden death of his father, forced him to move to the clergy for economic reasons. 

Maybe we should distinguish between two kind of "great statesmen." There are the ones who are "great" because they are excellent, effective leaders for their countries, regardless of the ethics of their decisions.

Then we have the ones that are "great" because of how good the quality of life and liberty was under their power.

From what I hear, Richelieu was a "great statesman" under the first category.

This is an amazing painting of Richelieu.

Here we have Richelieu standing out from the regular soldiers and religious men. He is a hands-on leader that gets as close as possible to the action. Even though we may think that he is safe behind the battlefront and the battle works, he is still in danger: the spear closest to his body has been damaged by a cannon ball.

He looks deep in thought, as if he is absorbing and analyzing the battle. In contrast, the soldier to the left seems to be explaining the battle to the monks.

I like the detail of the monk holding his cardinal hat, hinting that the Church is Richelieu�s servant. For him, it was.

Do you know when the painting was done and who was the painter? It will explain a lot. Thanks for sharing this picture Frederick Roger.

he is one of those people (I have many of these) who I would have hated to liv eunder but can admire from a distance.

That is so true. Another one of mine is Peter the Great. He pushed Russia forward, but I still wouldn't want to live there.

He looks like real prince of the church and god of war in one. I guess it was his intention to look this way on the pictures.

I believe it to be a sea battle during the Siege of La Rochelle (1627-1628).

 

Originally posted by Genghis I would say it was because he was ruthless that he was a great statesman.

Much like Bismark