What do you think?
Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History
Richelieu and Olivares (Canto original series)
Cardinal Richelieu is one of the best known and most studied statesmen in European history; his Spanish contemporary and rival, the Count-Duke of Olivares, one of the least known. The contrasting historical fortunes of the two men reflect the outcome of the great struggle in seventeenth-century Europe between France and Spain: the triumph of France assured the fame of Richelieu, while Spain's failure condemned Olivares to historical neglect. This fascinating book by the distinguished historian J. H. Elliott argues that contemporaries, for whom Olivares was at least as important as Richelieu, shared none of posterity's certainty about the inevitability of that outcome. His absorbing comparative portrait of the two men, as personalities and as statesmen, through their policies and their mutual struggle, offers unique insights into seventeenth-century Europe and the nature of power and statesmanship.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
About the author
J.H. Elliott
70 books89 followersSir John Huxtable Elliott, FBA, was an English historian, Regius Professor Emeritus at the University of Oxford and Honorary Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford and Trinity College, Cambridge. He published under the name J.H. Elliott.
Elliott was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge. He was an assistant lecturer at Cambridge University from 1957 to 1962 and Lecturer in History from 1962 until 1967, and was subsequently Professor of History at King's College, London between 1968 and 1973. In 1972 he was elected to the Fellowship of the British Academy. Elliott was Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey from 1973 to 1990, and was Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford between 1990 and 1997.
He held honorary doctorates from the Autonomous University of Madrid (1983), the universities Genoa (1992), Portsmouth (1993), Barcelona (1994), Warwick (1995), Brown University (1996), Valencia (1998), Lleida (1999), Complutense University of Madrid (2003), College of William & Mary (2005), London (2007), Charles III University of Madrid (2008), Seville (2011), Alcalá (2012), and Cambridge (2013). Elliott is a Fellow of the Rothermere American Institute, University of Oxford, of whose Founding Council he was also a member.
Elliott was knighted in the 1994 New Year Honours for services to history and was decorated with Commander of Isabella the Catholic in 1987, the Grand Cross of Alfonso the Wise in 1988, the Grand Cross of Isabella the Catholic in 1996, and the Creu de Sant Jordi in 1999. An eminent Hispanist, he was given the Prince of Asturias Prize in 1996 for his contributions to the Social sciences. For his outstanding contributions to the history of Spain and the Spanish Empire in the early modern period, Elliott was awarded the Balzan Prize for History, 1500–1800, in 1999.
His studies of the Iberian Peninsula and the Spanish Empire helped the understanding of the problems confronting 16th- and 17th-century Spain, and the attempts of its leaders to avert its decline. He is considered, together with Raymond Carr and Angus Mackay, a major figure in developing Spanish historiography.
Elliott was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge. He was an assistant lecturer at Cambridge University from 1957 to 1962 and Lecturer in History from 1962 until 1967, and was subsequently Professor of History at King's College, London between 1968 and 1973. In 1972 he was elected to the Fellowship of the British Academy. Elliott was Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey from 1973 to 1990, and was Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford between 1990 and 1997.
He held honorary doctorates from the Autonomous University of Madrid (1983), the universities Genoa (1992), Portsmouth (1993), Barcelona (1994), Warwick (1995), Brown University (1996), Valencia (1998), Lleida (1999), Complutense University of Madrid (2003), College of William & Mary (2005), London (2007), Charles III University of Madrid (2008), Seville (2011), Alcalá (2012), and Cambridge (2013). Elliott is a Fellow of the Rothermere American Institute, University of Oxford, of whose Founding Council he was also a member.
Elliott was knighted in the 1994 New Year Honours for services to history and was decorated with Commander of Isabella the Catholic in 1987, the Grand Cross of Alfonso the Wise in 1988, the Grand Cross of Isabella the Catholic in 1996, and the Creu de Sant Jordi in 1999. An eminent Hispanist, he was given the Prince of Asturias Prize in 1996 for his contributions to the Social sciences. For his outstanding contributions to the history of Spain and the Spanish Empire in the early modern period, Elliott was awarded the Balzan Prize for History, 1500–1800, in 1999.
His studies of the Iberian Peninsula and the Spanish Empire helped the understanding of the problems confronting 16th- and 17th-century Spain, and the attempts of its leaders to avert its decline. He is considered, together with Raymond Carr and Angus Mackay, a major figure in developing Spanish historiography.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
February 1, 2013
This is justly considered a modern classic. France's Cardinal Richelieu is still famous. But who has heard of his rival, the chief minister of Spain, the Count-Duke Olivares? In the end, France won, Spain lost, and Olivares slipped into obscurity. Elliott's take is that Richelieu and Olivares were mirrors, facing very similar issues and trials, and both exemplars of their times. Their long struggle ended in a victory for Richelieu, but for Elliott, the result was not because of any deficiencies on Olivares's part, but because of Spain's inferior economic arrangements-- and France's victory was a close one.
This is an excellent introduction to the great Hapsburg/Bourbon rivalry that rearranged the powers of Europe, setting the scene for the age of colonization.
This is an excellent introduction to the great Hapsburg/Bourbon rivalry that rearranged the powers of Europe, setting the scene for the age of colonization.
October 17, 2019
One of the great masterpieces of history, J.H. Eliott's remarkable study of the struggle between The Count Duke of Olivares and Cardinal Richelieu, and thus, between Hapsburg Spain and Bourbon France, for the mastery of Europe is indispensable reading , not just for students history, but for students of politics as well.
March 27, 2025
Buen libro, pero un poco confuso de seguir. JH Elliott es un grandísimo historiador, pero los paralelismos son un poco... Sin mas... Podrian haber sido dos libros separados.
Read
June 12, 2024A rather good exercise in traditional historical research contrasting the biographies of two prominent politicians from the 17th century. Elliott manages to revindicate Olivares, a leader who had been disparaged and forgotten.
Both these men had similar ideas about how to improve the kingdoms they helped to rule. They wanted to reform society, especially financial and military reforms were incredibly important to them. Olivares for example attempted to create a national bank, managed to restructure Spanish debt and tried to shape the individual kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula into a single state. Additionally they both considered moral reforms to be essential, both for the ruling (administrative) classes, including the king himself(!), and the population at large. They also aimed to increase the reputation of their rulers, as this would theoretically prevent wars. Ironically, however, wars had to be won in order to improve said reputation.
War would herald the end of the these attempts at reform. The Spanish-French war of 1635-58 had had a type of prelude in the '1620's and was also taking place by proxy in the Thirty Years War in the HRE. The strains this conflict put on the budgets and the authority of the kings among the population made it impossible to continue with the reforms. Eventually the Spanish state essentially collapsed, with Catalonia and Portugal rebelling. This ended up costing Olivares his position. Richelieu died during this period and his successor Mazarin would have to deal with the opposition to Richelieu's authoritarian policies which ended up morphing into La Fonde.
Elliot criticizes the perspective that Richelieu was influenced by an ideology of raison d'état. He actually understood international politics from a profoundly Catholic perspective and attempted to justify his arguments in these terms. Louis XIII was supposedly the protector of Christianity and of the smaller kingdoms (which were oppressed by Felipe IV, for example in Italy in the late '1620's). He also legitimized expansionary claims with traditional arguments. In the alliances he made with protestants (which were necessary to protect Christendom from the Spanish) there were explicit clausules about the treatment of Catholics. These were generally not followed however and the treaties were roundly criticized in France. Elliot thinks there is clear proof that Richelieu's religious arguments were genuine.
A last interesting point to me is how the Spanish saw the French as threatening the coherence of the Spanish kingdoms by their attempts to break connections between them. The French, however, were afraid of being encircled by the Spanish and all of their separate possessions. This led them into conflict with each other.
Both these men had similar ideas about how to improve the kingdoms they helped to rule. They wanted to reform society, especially financial and military reforms were incredibly important to them. Olivares for example attempted to create a national bank, managed to restructure Spanish debt and tried to shape the individual kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula into a single state. Additionally they both considered moral reforms to be essential, both for the ruling (administrative) classes, including the king himself(!), and the population at large. They also aimed to increase the reputation of their rulers, as this would theoretically prevent wars. Ironically, however, wars had to be won in order to improve said reputation.
War would herald the end of the these attempts at reform. The Spanish-French war of 1635-58 had had a type of prelude in the '1620's and was also taking place by proxy in the Thirty Years War in the HRE. The strains this conflict put on the budgets and the authority of the kings among the population made it impossible to continue with the reforms. Eventually the Spanish state essentially collapsed, with Catalonia and Portugal rebelling. This ended up costing Olivares his position. Richelieu died during this period and his successor Mazarin would have to deal with the opposition to Richelieu's authoritarian policies which ended up morphing into La Fonde.
Elliot criticizes the perspective that Richelieu was influenced by an ideology of raison d'état. He actually understood international politics from a profoundly Catholic perspective and attempted to justify his arguments in these terms. Louis XIII was supposedly the protector of Christianity and of the smaller kingdoms (which were oppressed by Felipe IV, for example in Italy in the late '1620's). He also legitimized expansionary claims with traditional arguments. In the alliances he made with protestants (which were necessary to protect Christendom from the Spanish) there were explicit clausules about the treatment of Catholics. These were generally not followed however and the treaties were roundly criticized in France. Elliot thinks there is clear proof that Richelieu's religious arguments were genuine.
A last interesting point to me is how the Spanish saw the French as threatening the coherence of the Spanish kingdoms by their attempts to break connections between them. The French, however, were afraid of being encircled by the Spanish and all of their separate possessions. This led them into conflict with each other.
June 28, 2024
The contest between these two titans of seventeenth century statecraft has long been a fascination of mine, and here the much respected Hispanicist John Elliott compares and contrasts the personalities of the leading statesmen of France and Spain.
He provides much food for thought, seeing many similarities in the problems they faced and the solutions they devised, and asks interesting questions for historical interpretation, particularly about Richelieu.
For example he asks to what extent was the outcome of the contest determined by the choices made by the two protagonists, and asks whether France was bound to come out on top, Richelieu or not.
By implication this would beg the question of whether Spain was doomed, whatever Olivares did or did not do. Indeed, one of the contrasts Elliott notes is a profound fatalism in Olivares which reminded me of the attitude in Austria before the First World War.
Olivares's quote expressing that he would rather go down fighting than disappear tamely is eerily similar to pessimistic opinions voiced by Berchtold and others in Vienna.
I particularly admired Elliott's attempts to humanise the two rivals and to situate them in their own times, rejecting myths of Richelieu's profound genius in regards to natural frontiers or as a precursor of Bismarckian realpolitik.
The Cardinal certainly doesn't suffer for it, still easily being one of the greatest statesman of all time. But history has been very kind to Richelieu and much less kind to Olivares, who receives a sympathetic portrait here, as a subtle and creative minister who might have, if a few events had gone differently, been heralded as the great statesman in Richelieu's place.
At the beginning Elliott asks us to suspend our knowledge of hindsight, and to attempt to view the story in prospect. To view the two from the early 1620s when Richelieu had not yet succeeded and Olivares had not yet failed, at a time when it could have gone either way and the success of Olivares was a very real possibility.
Despite being less than two hundred pages, this is a wonderful book from one of Golden Age Spain's most influential historians.
He provides much food for thought, seeing many similarities in the problems they faced and the solutions they devised, and asks interesting questions for historical interpretation, particularly about Richelieu.
For example he asks to what extent was the outcome of the contest determined by the choices made by the two protagonists, and asks whether France was bound to come out on top, Richelieu or not.
By implication this would beg the question of whether Spain was doomed, whatever Olivares did or did not do. Indeed, one of the contrasts Elliott notes is a profound fatalism in Olivares which reminded me of the attitude in Austria before the First World War.
Olivares's quote expressing that he would rather go down fighting than disappear tamely is eerily similar to pessimistic opinions voiced by Berchtold and others in Vienna.
I particularly admired Elliott's attempts to humanise the two rivals and to situate them in their own times, rejecting myths of Richelieu's profound genius in regards to natural frontiers or as a precursor of Bismarckian realpolitik.
The Cardinal certainly doesn't suffer for it, still easily being one of the greatest statesman of all time. But history has been very kind to Richelieu and much less kind to Olivares, who receives a sympathetic portrait here, as a subtle and creative minister who might have, if a few events had gone differently, been heralded as the great statesman in Richelieu's place.
At the beginning Elliott asks us to suspend our knowledge of hindsight, and to attempt to view the story in prospect. To view the two from the early 1620s when Richelieu had not yet succeeded and Olivares had not yet failed, at a time when it could have gone either way and the success of Olivares was a very real possibility.
Despite being less than two hundred pages, this is a wonderful book from one of Golden Age Spain's most influential historians.
September 3, 2019
An interesting book for one who fell in love with Spanish history through reading John Elliott's biography of the Count-Duke (I wish he had pointed out in this one that Olivares wrangled a special dispensation never repeared so as to retain both titles instead of "losing" the lesser in favour of the greater) and I wish there were a completely new edition revised to include the latest information on both figures and the times they lived in. Reading the other book I had a mental image of Olivares guiding the "coach of state" down a dangerous mountain pass with barely any brakes left and the horses galloping blindly, doing his utmost to slow the inevitable crash at the bottom of the hill. This book doesn't quite paint it that way and it is possible that this is because of the moment it was originally written in; I think the greater part of Elliott's research came later but I'm not sure. What I AM sure if is my new interest in finding out more about Cardinal Richelieu's life because what I've read in this one reads VERY interestingly!
I was very lucky to meet John Elliott last november when he came to Marbella to take part in a series of conferences around the 40th anniversary of Spain's transition from dictatorship to constitucional monarchy. I was even luckier to have been able to abuse his good will asking him to sign several of his books that I've collected over the years. If you get a chance to meet him in person and listen to what he has to teach us, you will understand the world better.
I was very lucky to meet John Elliott last november when he came to Marbella to take part in a series of conferences around the 40th anniversary of Spain's transition from dictatorship to constitucional monarchy. I was even luckier to have been able to abuse his good will asking him to sign several of his books that I've collected over the years. If you get a chance to meet him in person and listen to what he has to teach us, you will understand the world better.
May 30, 2025
Este año quería empezar a leer libros relacionados con la Historia, que es precisamente lo que estudio y algo que me apasiona desde siempre. La Historia Moderna, es, junto con la Antigua, mi etapa favorita de la historia, y cuando mi profesor de la asignatura nos mandó leer este libro, decidí que tenía que comprarlo y que iba a estar muy invested en él.
No solo es un libro muy interesante dividido por capítulos que tratan puntos de vista sobre cosas muy específicas , lo cual lo hace más sencillo de entender y leer.
Es una forma muy fresca de leer sobre estas figuras históricas, ya que se hace a través de historia comparada, que no es una disciplina tan común y creo que debería estar más extendida.
Me ha encantado leerlo como fanática y como estudiante, lo recomendaría al 100%
No solo es un libro muy interesante dividido por capítulos que tratan puntos de vista sobre cosas muy específicas , lo cual lo hace más sencillo de entender y leer.
Es una forma muy fresca de leer sobre estas figuras históricas, ya que se hace a través de historia comparada, que no es una disciplina tan común y creo que debería estar más extendida.
Me ha encantado leerlo como fanática y como estudiante, lo recomendaría al 100%
July 6, 2026
Para ser un libro tan breve señala muy bien las principales políticas de Richelieu y Olivares así como sus pensamientos y vidas. Entiendo que es necesario ir alternando en explicar la vida de ambos ya que se necesita para poder compararlos mejor pero en ocasiones puede resultar lioso y más para alguien que desconoce el funcionamiento de la la Francia y la Monarquía Hispánica del siglo XVII con sus organismos propios y sus impuestos concretos. Aún así está bien redactado y ofrece comparaciones interesantes entre ambos teniendo en cuenta el contexto social, político y económico en el que se situaban.
January 10, 2026
great compare and contrast study of two consequential statesmen of the early modern period. do great men make the times, or do the times make great men necessary; was Richelieu simply better than Olivares, or were they equally capable but unequally fortunate; appreciated that elliott keeps the focus narrow while analyzing through multiple angles and axes.
July 20, 2022
« L'histoire s'avance malgré tout, elle n'attend jamais
ce qui est lâche, irrésolu, fiable ou spéculatif. »
A la fin de l'œuvre, je ne peux qu'évoquer cette citation.
Mais dans les poussières de l'histoire sont ensevelis
tant de rêves perdus et espoirs évanouis.
ce qui est lâche, irrésolu, fiable ou spéculatif. »
A la fin de l'œuvre, je ne peux qu'évoquer cette citation.
Mais dans les poussières de l'histoire sont ensevelis
tant de rêves perdus et espoirs évanouis.
June 20, 2024
An enjoyable reread of this innovative exercise in comparative history / biography. Still well worth a read for those with an interest in the great contest between France and Spain in the seventeenth century.
November 23, 2021
Bona comparació de les figures de Richelieu y Olivares. Ara a fer la ressenya per la uni.
February 8, 2022
« L’histoire s'avance malgré tout, elle n’attend jamais ce qui est lâche, irrésolu, fiable ou spéculatif. »
À la fin de l’œuvre, je ne peux qu’évoquer cette citation.
À la fin de l’œuvre, je ne peux qu’évoquer cette citation.
March 3, 2023
Imprescindible para conocer a estos dos personajes, cuyo antagonismo marcó la Europa del siglo XVII
January 28, 2013
If you like early modern European history, you'll enjoy this book. The book explains how
Spain fell from power and how France became the most powerful country, at the time. More
interesting than I though.
Spain fell from power and how France became the most powerful country, at the time. More
interesting than I though.
November 2, 2019
Un libro que muestra las similitudes de estos dos personajes históricos
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews