Louis XIV Topic 1 Fronde Causes Essay Points

Mazarin to blame for the Frondes; communication

Inability to communicate the reason behind his foreign policy objective of continued War with Spain post 1648 War unpopular & expensive under Richelieu, however intensified post 1642. By 1645 war had cost the crown 136million livres, leading to a further increase in taxation. Members of the nobility believed Mazarin to be enriching himself at the expense of the state, using continued war with Spain to mask this corruption. Whilst Mazarin did amass a personal fortune of 37million livres during his time as Chief Minister, embezzlement was not his motivation for extending war with Spain. He needed the French army to be in a position so that favourable peace terms could be achieved. However, Mazarin's inability to effectively communicate this to members of the parlements & nobility is a key failing point on his part, and one that adequately explains the timing of the conflict. The Frondes do not erupt until 1648 - 6 years after Richelieu's death, which makes it difficult for Mazarin's predecessor to receive the majority share of the blame. Therefore, whilst Mazarin dis inherit a situation that was very difficult, his ineffective statesmanship meant that he did not understand the importance of effectively communicating the reasons for his foreign policy, something that Richelieu had been able to achieve.

Mazarin not to blame for the Frondes; Richelieu's involvement in the Thirty Years War/ inherited an unworkable foreign policy

Inherited an impossible situation from Cardinal Richelieu 1636 Richelieu officially entered France into the Thirty Years War against the Hapsburgs, on the side of the Protestant nations War quickly bdcame expensive with military costs consuming 75% of state expenditure. By Richelieu's 1642 death the cost of war to the crown had reached 88million livres & as a result taxation on essential items such as salt had been increased dramatically; indirect taxes had almost doubled since 1630. These policies were already greatly unpopular under Richelieu's leadership, as shown by peasant uprisings in 1636 & 1639. This was an incredibly difficult situation to inherit & one that was made worse by Mazarin's inability to conclude the war due to lack of French sucess over the Spanish forces. However, how far Mazarin should be blamed for this decision, and the discontent it caused, is debatable as, had Mazarin cocluded peace with Spain in 1648 he would have failed in achiving Richelieu's aims for the war, such as destroying the Hapsburg threat. Therefore there is strength in the argument that Mazarin was not to blame for the Fronde, as he inherited a situation which made peace impossible. Had he concluded peace he would have had to make considerable concessions to the Spanish Hapsburgs & thus his decision to continue War was in the best interest of France, making it unfair to blame him for the conflict that resulted from the discontent experienced by continued War with Spain.

Mazarin to blame for the Fronde; short term domestic policies & not respected as a statesman

Mazarin's personal role in regards to domestic discontent within France in the short term - specifically in they year 1648 when Mazarin decided to exploit the Paulette, a tax paid by office holders for the privilege of passing their position onto their heirs. Whilst exploitation of the Paulette had happened under Richelieu, Mazarin's mismanaged the situation by attempting to pitch the sovereign courts against one another, whilst also antagonising les grandes. This can be seen as a crucial short term cause of the Fronde of the Parlements, and can be attributed to Mazarin's ineffective statesmanship. This is demonstrated further when we consider that one of Conde's key motivations for leading the Fronde of Nobility is arguably Mazarin's failure to reward him properly for his loyalty during the Fronde of the Parlements. Therefore not only is Mazarin to blame for the outbreak of the Fronde in 1648, but for the spread of discontent to different ranks of society, culminating with the Fronde of Nobility, and later, the Fronde of the Provinces. Whilst it is important to recognise the context of these decisions, it is hard to distance Mazarin from the blame. Mazarin was already facing resentment merely for not being French, and whilst he cannot be blamed for being Sicilian, his inability to recognise why this would make these decisions even more unpopular is a key failing on his part. This can be seen in the 6,000 Mazarinade pamphlets, directly attacking his poor leadership and close relations with Anne of Austria, distributed across Paris during the Frondes & the 1643 attempt made by the duc de Beaufort to overthrow the regency. Therefore, when long term resentment to French domestic policy is placed alongside short term policies implemented by Mazarin, it is difficult not to blame Mazarin for the Fronde.

Frondes causes introduction

The Frondes refers to the internal rebellions that took place during the regency period of Louis XIV, between the years 1648-53, when royal authority lay in the hands of his mother, Anne of Austria, and Chief Minister, Cardinal Mazarin. These rebellions can be divided into three a Frondes - that of the Parlements, Nobility & Provinces. Whilst the leaders of each Fronde had their own separate grievances, the one cause that united them together was dissatisfaction with the domestic & foreign policies of Cardinal Mazarin. Whilst the suggestion of an impossible situation having been inherited from Cardinal Richelieu, this explanation does not explain the timing of the Fronde, and does not place enough of the blame on Mazarin's inability to successfully communicate the reasons behind his domestic and foreign policy decisions.

Mazarin not the blame for the Frondes; Richelieu's domestic policies inherited

When considering the discontent caused by domestic policies in France, it could also be argued that Mazarin had inherited an impossible situation from his predecessor and thus does not deserve to be blamed for the Fronde. One of the key causes of discontent amongst the parlements were domestic policies implemented by Richelieu and continued by Mazarin. A key example of this was the use of Intendants who were the crowns 'eyes and ears' in the provinces & possessed the ability to appropriate office holders' power and profits. The restrictions placed on parlements & overruling of sovereign courts by the intendants had caused resentment under Richelieu, therefore it seems unfair to blame Mazarin solely for this policy. The same can be said for the sale of offices, a short term solution to royal debt that caused resentment by undervaluing existing posts and caused long term crown expenditure. These offices numbered at an unnecessarily high 40,000 posts by Richelieu's death. Furthermore his decision to exclude princes of the blood from influential positions in the government angered those most powerful in France. These policies were greatly unpopular under Richelieu's leadership, as shown by the 1642 Cinq-Mars assassination attempt, supported by Gaston duc de Orleans. It could be argued that Mazarin had no choice to employ these unpopular methods, in order to fight a cause started by Richelieu, and stop factional infighting at court. Therefore if we consider the resentment caused by these policies, it seems credible to attribute some blame for the Frondes Richelieu, as Mazarin was merely continuing traditional 17th century methods of government. This suggests that due to long term resentment experienced towards domestic policies, Richelieu also deserves some blame for the Fronde.