Mike Gerow

Bendel

Hon. World History

10/10/07

Machiavelli believed in a government leader that exhibited both lion-like qualities

and fox-like qualities. Lion-like qualities show utter power, and a defense for territory

that strikes fear into a leader’s enemies’ eyes. Conversely, fox-like qualities exhibit

subtle actions taken to achieve a larger goal: acting sneaky and clever to weave through

the traps of one’s enemies. Though Elizabeth I and Louis XIV exhibit political policies

that utilize Machiavelli’s ideas by employing lion and fox like practices through their

aggressive political actions and cunning means of solving daunting religious and political

problems, Elizabeth tends to show more fox-like qualities, while Louis tends to show

more lion-like qualities.

Despite Louis favoring more lion-like qualities, both Elizabeth and Louis

overcome enormous obstacles using their fox-like qualities. Perhaps Elizabeth’s most

important fox-like action was her combining of the Catholic Church and the Protestant

church into one Anglican Church.1 With great finesse, she satisfies both the Catholics

and the Protestants by drawing pieces from each religion. This action relieved England

of much of the friction between Protestants and Catholics and led to religious stability for

many years to follow. On the other hand, Louis XIV acted cleverly when dealing with

the nobles. Louis had decided to renovate the palace in the city of Versailles to make it

much more beautiful and rich. This attracted the nobles, who wanted a way to show their

wealth to the world. Nobles would live in this palace and compete with other nobles to
1
http://www.elizabethi.org/us/
be highest in the King’s favor, which made the nobles focus less on politics. Louis was

then able to reign uncontested (Littell 521). Conversely, Elizabeth proved to be wise

when she tried to make peace with her sister, Mary queen of Scotts, in 1560. This was

wise not only because Scotland was geographically close to England, but also because

Mary was also next in line to be the queen of England. This scared both Elizabeth and

the English people, as Mary was a devout Catholic, and the Anglican Church had already

become the prime church in England. Elizabeth was thoughtful of being in favor with the

Scots throughout this, though. Mary was kept in a tower in Elizabeth’s castle, where she

would be imprisoned until her death, 23 years later, in 1583 (204-205). This all brought

stability to the church in England, and also brought stability to the relationship between

England and Scotland, thereby accomplishing Machiavelli’s ultimate end: stability. This

is not to say that both of these great leaders did not have fierce lion-like qualities in

needed situations.

Both Elizabeth and Louis XVI showed aggressive qualities, but Louis tends to use

these tactics more often than Elizabeth. Louis XIV was known for being the pinnacle of

absolutist rule of France, even boasting that “[he was] the state” (Littell 519). In fact,

Louis was particularly defensive of his title, by making himself appear to be the “Sun

God,” making his subjects fear him as if he were truly a God (536). Under Louis’ real

absolutist government he had supreme control. This fear of Louis made radicals and

nobles afraid to act up, or point out the King’s wrongs, because doing so would be

considered speaking out against a god and the divine right of kings. Louis simply makes

the people believe that without Louis, there would be no prosperity or light at all.

Elizabeth shows these qualities too in her dealing with the want for reform in the
Anglican Church. With the harsher policies she passed, which required people to only

believe in the Anglican Church, and required uniformity among all churches, more

radical Protestants, along with Catholics, suffered from persecution. One such catholic, a

Jesuit missionary, was tortured on the rack in 1581 and subsequently died, while in 1587

a Puritan was executed for speaking about his religion in parliament (204). These two

acts seem harsh, as both of these people essentially still believed in Christianity, but if

one looks at the possible outcomes of either of these paths, it is plain to see why

Elizabeth wanted to scare the followers of these radicals as much as possible. First of all,

either way would have led to change, and therefore a lack of stability. Second, and most

important of all, the people of England would become split amongst themselves, and civil

war would most likely occur. Elizabeth chose the quick decisive action of striking fear

into anyone else who might think they can change the country. Louis proves to be more

lion-like, though, through his revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Louis had already begun

forced conversion of French Huguenots to Catholicism, but this revocation truly made it

legal under the state. With this revocation all Huguenots were forced to convert or be

exiled and all Huguenot churches were destroyed (541). It is unclear to an outsider why

Louis would revoke such an old Edict—the Edict of Nantes had been put into act by

Louis’ grandfather Henry IV. Under closer examination, a country with multiple

religions would not accomplish Louis’ goal of “one king, one law, one faith” (541). Also,

this would conflict with Machiavelli’s theories, as tolerance would make Louis appear

weak, and also the unification of religion would get rid of any tendencies for fighting

between either of the religions. Aside from all this, the move was a popular one among

aristocrats of the time and helped Louis gain favor among his people.
 Elizabeth’s ebbing towards fox-like qualities, and Louis’ leaning towards lion-like

qualities brought out two very different leaders, but both fit Machiavelli’s idea of a

perfect leader very well. Elizabeth and Louis are considered to be the most important

people of English and French history, and deservedly so. Their fox-like and lion-like

qualities helped them achieve this title and achieve Machiavelli’s ultimate end: stability.
 Works Cited

Beck, Roger B, et al. World History Patterns of Interaction. Evanston, Illinois: McDougal

Littell, 1999.

Thomas, Heather. Elizabeth R. 2007. 5 Oct. 2007 <http://www.elizabethi.org>.