What do you think?
Rate this book
The Life of Louis XVI
A thought-provoking, authoritative biography of one of history’s most maligned France’s Louis XVI
“The definitive contribution to our understanding of Louis XVI as a man and a monarch.”—P. M. Jones, English Historical Review
“Monumental. . . . Scholars probing the mysteries of the late Old Regime and French Revolution will be working in its shadow for many years to come.”—Thomas E. Kaiser, Journal of Modern History
Louis XVI of France, who was guillotined in 1793 during the Revolution and Reign of Terror, is commonly portrayed in fiction and film either as a weak and stupid despot in thrall to his beautiful, shallow wife, Marie Antoinette, or as a cruel and treasonous tyrant. Historian John Hardman disputes both these versions in a fascinating new biography of the ill-fated monarch. Based in part on new scholarship that has emerged over the past two decades, Hardman’s illuminating study describes a highly educated ruler who, though indecisive, possessed sharp political insight and a talent for foreign policy; who often saw the dangers ahead but could not or would not prevent them; and whose great misfortune was to be caught in the violent center of a major turning point in history.
Hardman’s dramatic reassessment of the reign of Louis XVI sheds a bold new light on the man, his actions, his world, and his policies, including the king’s support for America’s War of Independence, the intricate workings of his court, the disastrous Diamond Necklace Affair, and Louis’s famous dash to Varennes.
“The definitive contribution to our understanding of Louis XVI as a man and a monarch.”—P. M. Jones, English Historical Review
“Monumental. . . . Scholars probing the mysteries of the late Old Regime and French Revolution will be working in its shadow for many years to come.”—Thomas E. Kaiser, Journal of Modern History
Louis XVI of France, who was guillotined in 1793 during the Revolution and Reign of Terror, is commonly portrayed in fiction and film either as a weak and stupid despot in thrall to his beautiful, shallow wife, Marie Antoinette, or as a cruel and treasonous tyrant. Historian John Hardman disputes both these versions in a fascinating new biography of the ill-fated monarch. Based in part on new scholarship that has emerged over the past two decades, Hardman’s illuminating study describes a highly educated ruler who, though indecisive, possessed sharp political insight and a talent for foreign policy; who often saw the dangers ahead but could not or would not prevent them; and whose great misfortune was to be caught in the violent center of a major turning point in history.
Hardman’s dramatic reassessment of the reign of Louis XVI sheds a bold new light on the man, his actions, his world, and his policies, including the king’s support for America’s War of Independence, the intricate workings of his court, the disastrous Diamond Necklace Affair, and Louis’s famous dash to Varennes.
528 pages, Paperback
First published May 31, 2016
36 people are currently reading
226 people want to read
About the author
John Hardman
15 books10 followersJohn Hardman is one of the world’s leading experts on the French Revolution and the author of several well-regarded books on the subject. He was formerly lecturer in modern history at the University of Edinburgh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
December 18, 2025
Impossible Situation
King Louis XVI of France and Navarre is undoubtedly an important figure in human history. The French Revolution was a monumental event, it changed the world and Louis was caught up in this. He was at the apex of the Ancien Régime, but as John Hardman shows he was not its greatest advocate. Hardman unlocks knowledge of Louis and his reign in ways no other English speaking historian has managed. This is in part due to the finding of previously ‘lost’ letters written by Louis to his minister Vergennes. For me Louis deserves a revisit and a place on our shelves. As Hardman shows he was not lazy or unintelligent. He was also a kindly man, who wanted to avoid bloodshed if he could. He could make inspired decisions, such as those he made around foreign policy, or in his foresight. However, he was indecisive, Hardman attributes this to the system he reigned in, he was used to counsel from ministers. He was also one of contradictions, he hated war but waged it, he loved England but fought against it, he was prophetic but could also be mundane. This is the work on Louis we needed.
But, this book has huge problems. Hardman’s style is almost unreadable in parts. The sentence structure is confused and wordy. Complicated phrases and words are thrown in way too often which break the flow of the book. Only someone such as Roy Jenkins can pull off this style and unfortunately Hardman is not a great writer or wordsmith. Also he leaves in Latin and French phrases without interpreting them, what do these mean? What was Louis or someone else saying? What does Hardman think about this? This completely detects from the narrative and as such dilutes the interesting and usually inaccessible history Hardman is trying to tell. As a result this medium length book (447 reading pages) took me a really long time to read. This is why regret as when it came to the downfall of the monarchy, Louis’ imprisonment, trial and execution I saw what the French had lost. A brave and dignified man, who embraced the constitution imposed on him.
Louis was far better a person than Napoleon. His downfall was perception as Hardman shows. He was too much tied with the belief that Marie Antoinette was a spendthrift (even though Josephine spent way more) and was a poor public speaker. He struggled to connect with wider audiences and notables. When it came to one on one with his countrymen, rich or poor, he came into his own. Napoleon was able to captivate his followers and showed his genius on the battlefield. When monarchism returned to the foray in 1797, the situation became ripe for Napoleon to seize power two years later. The major cause of the collapse of his regime was the deficit. Louis understood finance but did not impose budgets. He also contributed to it through rebuilding the navy and waging war in the American War of Independence. Independence would have happened without French help, and abstaining from the conflict would likely have not impacted international prestige either way. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unable to turn over the deficit and increasing it through loans massively damaged his reputation.
Hardman is unclear how support for the monarchy withered away. But what is clear is that the king fell into an impossible situation where he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. He was almost too centralist to have the full backing of the émigrés or the far left side of the table. The flight to Montmedy did not even damage monarchy as is traditionally thought, it simply polarised it. What is a shame is that Louis left no legacy. He is not seen as a martyr king or developed a cult following. All his brother King Louis XVIII offered was a memorial on his burial site. In conclusion, this book has a lot to offer and I feel the real Louis has been fairly exposed. Hardman understands his subject and the context of his time. However, through the difficult writing style the points are not clearly made and I am unsure of what point Hardman was trying to make. As such, the layers of the revolution and how Louis could not win in the end, are still difficult to comprehend. Overall, a frustrating read.
King Louis XVI of France and Navarre is undoubtedly an important figure in human history. The French Revolution was a monumental event, it changed the world and Louis was caught up in this. He was at the apex of the Ancien Régime, but as John Hardman shows he was not its greatest advocate. Hardman unlocks knowledge of Louis and his reign in ways no other English speaking historian has managed. This is in part due to the finding of previously ‘lost’ letters written by Louis to his minister Vergennes. For me Louis deserves a revisit and a place on our shelves. As Hardman shows he was not lazy or unintelligent. He was also a kindly man, who wanted to avoid bloodshed if he could. He could make inspired decisions, such as those he made around foreign policy, or in his foresight. However, he was indecisive, Hardman attributes this to the system he reigned in, he was used to counsel from ministers. He was also one of contradictions, he hated war but waged it, he loved England but fought against it, he was prophetic but could also be mundane. This is the work on Louis we needed.
But, this book has huge problems. Hardman’s style is almost unreadable in parts. The sentence structure is confused and wordy. Complicated phrases and words are thrown in way too often which break the flow of the book. Only someone such as Roy Jenkins can pull off this style and unfortunately Hardman is not a great writer or wordsmith. Also he leaves in Latin and French phrases without interpreting them, what do these mean? What was Louis or someone else saying? What does Hardman think about this? This completely detects from the narrative and as such dilutes the interesting and usually inaccessible history Hardman is trying to tell. As a result this medium length book (447 reading pages) took me a really long time to read. This is why regret as when it came to the downfall of the monarchy, Louis’ imprisonment, trial and execution I saw what the French had lost. A brave and dignified man, who embraced the constitution imposed on him.
Louis was far better a person than Napoleon. His downfall was perception as Hardman shows. He was too much tied with the belief that Marie Antoinette was a spendthrift (even though Josephine spent way more) and was a poor public speaker. He struggled to connect with wider audiences and notables. When it came to one on one with his countrymen, rich or poor, he came into his own. Napoleon was able to captivate his followers and showed his genius on the battlefield. When monarchism returned to the foray in 1797, the situation became ripe for Napoleon to seize power two years later. The major cause of the collapse of his regime was the deficit. Louis understood finance but did not impose budgets. He also contributed to it through rebuilding the navy and waging war in the American War of Independence. Independence would have happened without French help, and abstaining from the conflict would likely have not impacted international prestige either way. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unable to turn over the deficit and increasing it through loans massively damaged his reputation.
Hardman is unclear how support for the monarchy withered away. But what is clear is that the king fell into an impossible situation where he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. He was almost too centralist to have the full backing of the émigrés or the far left side of the table. The flight to Montmedy did not even damage monarchy as is traditionally thought, it simply polarised it. What is a shame is that Louis left no legacy. He is not seen as a martyr king or developed a cult following. All his brother King Louis XVIII offered was a memorial on his burial site. In conclusion, this book has a lot to offer and I feel the real Louis has been fairly exposed. Hardman understands his subject and the context of his time. However, through the difficult writing style the points are not clearly made and I am unsure of what point Hardman was trying to make. As such, the layers of the revolution and how Louis could not win in the end, are still difficult to comprehend. Overall, a frustrating read.
July 22, 2016
3.5 stars
Hardman's Louis XVI is not the stupid, lazy, or tyrannical caricature that he is sometimes made out to be. Instead he is an intelligent man, stricken with indecisiveness, and adversely affected by the tumultuous times in which he lived. Hardman makes clear and effective use of available source material. Not only does this provide interesting and valuable support for his arguments, it enlivens the text with a wealth of contemporary voices.
However, one issue with Hardman's writing is that he often seems to tack on a last sentence to a paragraph that doesn't fit with the rest of it or that assumes a wider understanding. For example, the first one I noticed was during a conversation on the use of the cachet to exile ministers. The final sentence was 'but it would be an exaggeration to draw parallels with Beria's Russia' [location 861]. Were we talking about Beria's Russia? No. Had it been mentioned before? No. Perhaps there is a well understood academic argument that the use of cachet during this period is similar to Beria's Russia but a general reader may not know that and for me, it left me feeling like i'd been left out of a conversation. Hardman also infers emotional responses that seem beyond the scope of the evidence. In talking about Louis' behaviour during the seance royale of 19th November, Hardman states that after an outburst Louis 'must have felt throughly ashamed when he got back to his apartments' [location 5411]. Must he? Did he? Or does Hardman think he should have? I'm not sure. Considering the Orleans was exiled to his estates for chiding Louis about his decision and that this was not immediately rectified, i'm not sure shame entered into it. These are just some of the examples that came to mind while reading. In any case, despite these issues, it is clear that the book is a well-researched, comprehensive biography.
Many thanks to John Hardman, Yale University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
Hardman's Louis XVI is not the stupid, lazy, or tyrannical caricature that he is sometimes made out to be. Instead he is an intelligent man, stricken with indecisiveness, and adversely affected by the tumultuous times in which he lived. Hardman makes clear and effective use of available source material. Not only does this provide interesting and valuable support for his arguments, it enlivens the text with a wealth of contemporary voices.
However, one issue with Hardman's writing is that he often seems to tack on a last sentence to a paragraph that doesn't fit with the rest of it or that assumes a wider understanding. For example, the first one I noticed was during a conversation on the use of the cachet to exile ministers. The final sentence was 'but it would be an exaggeration to draw parallels with Beria's Russia' [location 861]. Were we talking about Beria's Russia? No. Had it been mentioned before? No. Perhaps there is a well understood academic argument that the use of cachet during this period is similar to Beria's Russia but a general reader may not know that and for me, it left me feeling like i'd been left out of a conversation. Hardman also infers emotional responses that seem beyond the scope of the evidence. In talking about Louis' behaviour during the seance royale of 19th November, Hardman states that after an outburst Louis 'must have felt throughly ashamed when he got back to his apartments' [location 5411]. Must he? Did he? Or does Hardman think he should have? I'm not sure. Considering the Orleans was exiled to his estates for chiding Louis about his decision and that this was not immediately rectified, i'm not sure shame entered into it. These are just some of the examples that came to mind while reading. In any case, despite these issues, it is clear that the book is a well-researched, comprehensive biography.
Many thanks to John Hardman, Yale University Press, and Netgalley for this copy in exchange for an honest review.
August 8, 2018
The goal of revisionist history should be to find the truth, rather than to exalt the subject. It seems from Hardman's work that Louis XVI doesn't deserve the reputation he has earned, but it also seems clear that he doesn't deserve Hardman's adulation.
And worse, Hardman often gets bogged down in extraneous and often voyeuristic details – the deep dive into the Affair of the Queen's Necklace, for example, or the way he peers into the King's bedroom and wedding night. These details are definitely part of history, but so many of them in a single text feels like too much. It makes it feel more like a gossip rag than a serious historical work.
Hardman draws a lot of comparisons between Charles I and Louis XVI, which of course makes sense – executed kings (what a foursquare category!) – but also draws on Louis' relationship to Charles and seems to attribute many of his actions to that descent.
Probably the biggest flaw was that in his attempt to write a hagiography of Louis, he paints everyone around him as various shades of traitorous, venal, or otherwise unpleasant. Marie Antoinette fares better than she often does, but Hardman repeats 18th century smears uncritically; Louis' advisors surely couldn't have all been awful.
And the focus on Louis' personal "goodness" or "grace" shifts the spotlight from the real questions of the era: whether or not the King had a good defense at his trial, is the existence of a king right? Hardman seems to argue "yes," based mostly on the fact that he thinks Louis was a good person, which isn't the point of the Revolution. The reporting on the desire for freedom is colored by the knowledge of what happened, supposedly for the sake of freedom, but Hardman barely acknowledges that the People did have reasonable grievances. He focuses almost entirely on Louis' experience in prison and how hard it was for him and his family – not the politics that put him in prison, or the grain shortages, or the tax situation in larger France.
On a less consequential note, Hardman often has turns of phrase that aren't exactly bad, but seem out of place, and there's a reference to the Iraq war of 2003 as showing that benevolent foreign policy doesn't exist is almost definitely out of place.
And worse, Hardman often gets bogged down in extraneous and often voyeuristic details – the deep dive into the Affair of the Queen's Necklace, for example, or the way he peers into the King's bedroom and wedding night. These details are definitely part of history, but so many of them in a single text feels like too much. It makes it feel more like a gossip rag than a serious historical work.
Hardman draws a lot of comparisons between Charles I and Louis XVI, which of course makes sense – executed kings (what a foursquare category!) – but also draws on Louis' relationship to Charles and seems to attribute many of his actions to that descent.
Probably the biggest flaw was that in his attempt to write a hagiography of Louis, he paints everyone around him as various shades of traitorous, venal, or otherwise unpleasant. Marie Antoinette fares better than she often does, but Hardman repeats 18th century smears uncritically; Louis' advisors surely couldn't have all been awful.
And the focus on Louis' personal "goodness" or "grace" shifts the spotlight from the real questions of the era: whether or not the King had a good defense at his trial, is the existence of a king right? Hardman seems to argue "yes," based mostly on the fact that he thinks Louis was a good person, which isn't the point of the Revolution. The reporting on the desire for freedom is colored by the knowledge of what happened, supposedly for the sake of freedom, but Hardman barely acknowledges that the People did have reasonable grievances. He focuses almost entirely on Louis' experience in prison and how hard it was for him and his family – not the politics that put him in prison, or the grain shortages, or the tax situation in larger France.
On a less consequential note, Hardman often has turns of phrase that aren't exactly bad, but seem out of place, and there's a reference to the Iraq war of 2003 as showing that benevolent foreign policy doesn't exist is almost definitely out of place.
January 24, 2020
This got 1 star from me because there's a bit of totally unnecessary transphobia included in this. It's 2 or 3 sentences but cringeworthy.
This was extremely detailed and informative. I found the tone to be quite dry.
At the same time I almost felt overwhelmed by facts and characters.
This biographer clearly is fond of Louis XVI. Which is understandable given he researched and has been updating this book for decades. That requires a type of passion and dedication.
The historian continually compares Louis to Casandra from Greek mythology. Which I found odd and not at all fitting. Cassandra was ignored because she was a powerless woman. No one listened to her and she had no political power in which to take advantage of her foreknowledge.
The exact opposite is true of Louis. He was the King and as such was being looked to with his words being acted on. Several times he seemed to know he was making the wrong choices but he made them anyway. He was a dysfunctional King, ultimately he died for it. His struggles don't compare to the powerless because he always was in a position of great power. 🤦🏽♀️
This author is continually looking for ways that Louis is not responsible for his own choices and behaviors; it's annoying.
I like that this biography really gives an inside view to the man Louis was. He wasn't a bad guy all things said.
Unfortunately Louis was King and not a 'guy' at all. As a result he has to be judged from the POV of a ruler.
He had failed and was continuing to fail his people, being a nice person inside doesn't excuse mismanagement that results in starvation.
Peasants lives aren't less valuable and important than royal lives.
Louis lived and dined in outrageous splendor as his citizens starved. He had control of the countries resources and did not make sure that they were distributed in such a way as to avoid mass deprivations. Peasants were nice folks too.
So to be indignant at Louis' treatment is to value his life above those he was neglecting and those who died from his neglect. I'm not gonna do that.
He absolutely is responsible.
Being King requires responsibility to one's subjects.
I think Louis forgot that to his detriment.
Was he was worse than other monarch's? No but that's irrelevant.
All oppression is inherently bad.
There is no 'lesser evil' or 'better oppression'.
When a person, group or nation oppresses others they can't later complain about retaliation.
Rich people can't be innocent in situations like this. They set the taxes that keep the poor, poor. He has to be held accountable for the dysfunction of his country.
This was extremely detailed and informative. I found the tone to be quite dry.
At the same time I almost felt overwhelmed by facts and characters.
This biographer clearly is fond of Louis XVI. Which is understandable given he researched and has been updating this book for decades. That requires a type of passion and dedication.
The historian continually compares Louis to Casandra from Greek mythology. Which I found odd and not at all fitting. Cassandra was ignored because she was a powerless woman. No one listened to her and she had no political power in which to take advantage of her foreknowledge.
The exact opposite is true of Louis. He was the King and as such was being looked to with his words being acted on. Several times he seemed to know he was making the wrong choices but he made them anyway. He was a dysfunctional King, ultimately he died for it. His struggles don't compare to the powerless because he always was in a position of great power. 🤦🏽♀️
This author is continually looking for ways that Louis is not responsible for his own choices and behaviors; it's annoying.
I like that this biography really gives an inside view to the man Louis was. He wasn't a bad guy all things said.
Unfortunately Louis was King and not a 'guy' at all. As a result he has to be judged from the POV of a ruler.
He had failed and was continuing to fail his people, being a nice person inside doesn't excuse mismanagement that results in starvation.
Peasants lives aren't less valuable and important than royal lives.
Louis lived and dined in outrageous splendor as his citizens starved. He had control of the countries resources and did not make sure that they were distributed in such a way as to avoid mass deprivations. Peasants were nice folks too.
So to be indignant at Louis' treatment is to value his life above those he was neglecting and those who died from his neglect. I'm not gonna do that.
He absolutely is responsible.
Being King requires responsibility to one's subjects.
I think Louis forgot that to his detriment.
Was he was worse than other monarch's? No but that's irrelevant.
All oppression is inherently bad.
There is no 'lesser evil' or 'better oppression'.
When a person, group or nation oppresses others they can't later complain about retaliation.
Rich people can't be innocent in situations like this. They set the taxes that keep the poor, poor. He has to be held accountable for the dysfunction of his country.
December 8, 2019
Having struggled through 30% of it, I am now throwing in the towel and abandoning it.
It's the writing. Firstly it's full of untranslated French and Latin phrases - fine for other historians of the period I'm sure, but not for the general reader. I was constantly either having to google translations or missing the point.
Secondly it jumps back and forward in time constantly, full of phrases like "such-and-such a person would be loyal/disloyal to Louis in (name a future year) as we shall see". Why not just wait till we get there and tell us then?
Thirdly, and perhaps this ARC was put out before editing was finalised, but it's full of repetitions and grammatical errors. I quote just one "sentence" as an example... "This expensive fiasco, cost one hundred million livres and leading to recriminations from Spain, who thought France had deliberately sabotaged it." This is not a sentence, it's a series of fragmentary phrases jumbled together and failing to come to a grammatical conclusion. I found this intolerable to read. Academics should surely be able to write grammatically, and if they can't, then that's what editors are for.
And lastly, it contains so much detail that it fails to ever provide any kind of narrative thrust - it constantly jumps from subject to subject, person to person, leaving them all in the end as a kind of undifferentiated blur.
An interesting subject, clearly minutely researched, but let down by the poor writing style.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Yale University Press.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
It's the writing. Firstly it's full of untranslated French and Latin phrases - fine for other historians of the period I'm sure, but not for the general reader. I was constantly either having to google translations or missing the point.
Secondly it jumps back and forward in time constantly, full of phrases like "such-and-such a person would be loyal/disloyal to Louis in (name a future year) as we shall see". Why not just wait till we get there and tell us then?
Thirdly, and perhaps this ARC was put out before editing was finalised, but it's full of repetitions and grammatical errors. I quote just one "sentence" as an example... "This expensive fiasco, cost one hundred million livres and leading to recriminations from Spain, who thought France had deliberately sabotaged it." This is not a sentence, it's a series of fragmentary phrases jumbled together and failing to come to a grammatical conclusion. I found this intolerable to read. Academics should surely be able to write grammatically, and if they can't, then that's what editors are for.
And lastly, it contains so much detail that it fails to ever provide any kind of narrative thrust - it constantly jumps from subject to subject, person to person, leaving them all in the end as a kind of undifferentiated blur.
An interesting subject, clearly minutely researched, but let down by the poor writing style.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Yale University Press.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
February 10, 2017
Very unreadable. Does provide a largely unbiased portrayal of a man so often vilified in the media. Not sure whether the political focus of the novel was appropriate for a biography? It felt like a history of the politics of the time as opposed to the biography of a man. Small niggling errors present throughout; and rather surprising errors. All-in-all it reads like a textbook of pre-Revolutionary France and not as a biography of Louis XVI.
October 3, 2025
Rather than my words I provide you the words of the very fine Historian of this period, Munro Price, on this biography:I
"In the autumn of 1792, a few months after Louis XVI’s overthrow, the historian, geographer and ex-priest Jean-Louis Soulavie arrived at the abandoned palace of Versailles with official permission to examine the former king’s archives. In the library on the fourth floor of the royal apartments, just below the smithy where Louis indulged his hobby of making locks, Soulavie found a mass of precious papers, including Louis’s correspondence with his ministers and agents and perhaps even a secret political diary. Nine years later, a few of these documents found their way into Soulavie’s six-volume history of Louis’s reign, the first ever published. The rest, however, disappeared, the result of hurried auctions and straightforward theft during the Terror. Filling this gap is the major challenge faced by Louis XVI’s biographers.
"Another problem is one of the king’s own making. Louis XVI raised taciturnity to an art form. Before 1789, this had been a tactic to prevent pressure from his ministers, and during the Revolution it became necessary for his personal safety. Shortly before his death, he even remarked, ‘I would rather let people interpret my silence than my words.’ Ironically, when he did address some last words to his people at his execution, they were drowned out by a drumroll and only half a sentence was heard.
"Bringing to life such an enigmatic and elusive character is a formidable task. John Hardman accomplishes this with immense subtlety and skill. He has already written one excellent biography of Louis, which appeared on the bicentenary of the king’s death in 1993. His latest, however, is greatly expanded: broader in scope and considerably more detailed. There are two reasons for this. The first is that, finally, some of the papers examined by Soulavie have resurfaced – 171 of Louis’s letters to his long-serving foreign minister Vergennes, which at a stroke quadruple the existing number. These were published in 1998. The second is that, after a long period of neglect, historians have returned to the field of 18th-century French politics and some important new works have appeared. The materials are now in place for a fuller portrait of Louis XVI than at any previous time.
"As a result, Hardman is able to dispel many of the myths that have gathered about the king since his death. Contrary to what hostile contemporaries, echoed by many historians, claimed, Louis was very far from stupid or lazy. He was gifted at mathematics and geography, and fascinated by the sea – his reign saw a remarkable rebuilding of the French navy. He also spoke Latin, Italian and, surprisingly, English, the language of France’s hereditary enemy. Throughout his life he was alternately fascinated and repelled by Britain’s political system and commercial power. He is probably the only French ruler to have had a subscription to The Spectator. Louis’s flaw was not stupidity but sometimes paralysing indecision, a product of heredity, early bereavements and the stultifying ritual of Versailles. Its effects were memorably summarised by his younger brother, the future Louis XVIII: ‘Imagine a set of oiled billiard-balls that you vainly try to hold together.’
"This indecision, however, was much less apparent before than after 1789. Indeed, the greatest importance of the newly available letters to Vergennes is in showing how effective Louis could be, particularly in foreign policy, the traditional business of kingship, when seconded by a minister he trusted. This is clearest in Louis’s most crucial decision before the Revolution, to intervene on the side of the Americans in their struggle against Britain. This had enormous consequences: it brought the United States into being but saddled France with a war debt that four years later pitched the monarchy into terminal financial crisis. Louis later claimed that he regretted the decision. In the course of eighty fascinating pages that shed much new light on this turning point in the American War of Independence, Hardman shows that ultimate responsibility was the king’s.
"The next crucial question that Hardman tackles is that of Louis XVI’s attitude to the French Revolution. Here again, the problem of sources resurfaces. This time it can be traced directly to the king: in the days before the crowd stormed his Paris residence, the Tuileries, and dethroned him in August 1792, he ordered bonfires to be made of compromising documents in the palace courtyard. As a result, a central mystery remains about Louis’s policy after 1789: was he to any extent prepared to compromise with the Revolution, or was he secretly determined to crush it, by force if necessary, and restore the old regime? On the sparse evidence available, historians have come to sharply differing conclusions, with the majority arguing that he was unwilling to make any real concessions. Hardman, however, is convinced that Louis was in fact willing to do so, at least during the Revolution’s first two years, until its growing radicalism alienated him. For Hardman, the king was genuinely prepared to act as a constitutional monarch in partnership with the revolutionary National Assembly, provided that certain royal prerogatives were retained.
"The problem with testing this hypothesis is that, three months into the Revolution, Louis and his family became virtual prisoners of the people of Paris, so from then on he was unable to express his opinions freely. This is why the ‘flight to Varennes’, the royal family’s dramatic escape attempt from Paris in June 1791, is so important – it was the moment during the Revolution when Louis came closest to being able to proclaim his true feelings about it. The evidence for what the king actually planned to do had the escape succeeded is – once again – fragmentary, but it has recently been re-examined and become a subject of lively debate. Hardman argues that Louis’s intention in leaving Paris was simply to find a place of safety from which to negotiate openly with the revolutionaries, rather than fight them. I am more sceptical. Had the flight to Varennes succeeded, the two dominating influences on the king would have been his wife, Marie Antoinette, and his ‘prime minister designate’, the baron de Breteuil, neither of whom had any intention of compromising. The likely result of the royal family reaching safety would have been civil war, which generally inclines no participant to moderation.
"John Hardman sheds much light on the enigma of Louis XVI’s attitude to the French Revolution, but in the current state of research this problem cannot be fully resolved, and perhaps it never will be. His achievement is to provide an up-to-date, immensely erudite and compelling study, the fruit of a lifetime’s work on the king. It is also crisply, sometimes brilliantly, written. Hardman’s style is accessible, often witty, and he has a gift for putting complex issues in a nutshell. Louis XVI remains one of the crucial characters in modern history – as much for what he did not do as for what he did – and this is now the best biography of him in any language."
"In the autumn of 1792, a few months after Louis XVI’s overthrow, the historian, geographer and ex-priest Jean-Louis Soulavie arrived at the abandoned palace of Versailles with official permission to examine the former king’s archives. In the library on the fourth floor of the royal apartments, just below the smithy where Louis indulged his hobby of making locks, Soulavie found a mass of precious papers, including Louis’s correspondence with his ministers and agents and perhaps even a secret political diary. Nine years later, a few of these documents found their way into Soulavie’s six-volume history of Louis’s reign, the first ever published. The rest, however, disappeared, the result of hurried auctions and straightforward theft during the Terror. Filling this gap is the major challenge faced by Louis XVI’s biographers.
"Another problem is one of the king’s own making. Louis XVI raised taciturnity to an art form. Before 1789, this had been a tactic to prevent pressure from his ministers, and during the Revolution it became necessary for his personal safety. Shortly before his death, he even remarked, ‘I would rather let people interpret my silence than my words.’ Ironically, when he did address some last words to his people at his execution, they were drowned out by a drumroll and only half a sentence was heard.
"Bringing to life such an enigmatic and elusive character is a formidable task. John Hardman accomplishes this with immense subtlety and skill. He has already written one excellent biography of Louis, which appeared on the bicentenary of the king’s death in 1993. His latest, however, is greatly expanded: broader in scope and considerably more detailed. There are two reasons for this. The first is that, finally, some of the papers examined by Soulavie have resurfaced – 171 of Louis’s letters to his long-serving foreign minister Vergennes, which at a stroke quadruple the existing number. These were published in 1998. The second is that, after a long period of neglect, historians have returned to the field of 18th-century French politics and some important new works have appeared. The materials are now in place for a fuller portrait of Louis XVI than at any previous time.
"As a result, Hardman is able to dispel many of the myths that have gathered about the king since his death. Contrary to what hostile contemporaries, echoed by many historians, claimed, Louis was very far from stupid or lazy. He was gifted at mathematics and geography, and fascinated by the sea – his reign saw a remarkable rebuilding of the French navy. He also spoke Latin, Italian and, surprisingly, English, the language of France’s hereditary enemy. Throughout his life he was alternately fascinated and repelled by Britain’s political system and commercial power. He is probably the only French ruler to have had a subscription to The Spectator. Louis’s flaw was not stupidity but sometimes paralysing indecision, a product of heredity, early bereavements and the stultifying ritual of Versailles. Its effects were memorably summarised by his younger brother, the future Louis XVIII: ‘Imagine a set of oiled billiard-balls that you vainly try to hold together.’
"This indecision, however, was much less apparent before than after 1789. Indeed, the greatest importance of the newly available letters to Vergennes is in showing how effective Louis could be, particularly in foreign policy, the traditional business of kingship, when seconded by a minister he trusted. This is clearest in Louis’s most crucial decision before the Revolution, to intervene on the side of the Americans in their struggle against Britain. This had enormous consequences: it brought the United States into being but saddled France with a war debt that four years later pitched the monarchy into terminal financial crisis. Louis later claimed that he regretted the decision. In the course of eighty fascinating pages that shed much new light on this turning point in the American War of Independence, Hardman shows that ultimate responsibility was the king’s.
"The next crucial question that Hardman tackles is that of Louis XVI’s attitude to the French Revolution. Here again, the problem of sources resurfaces. This time it can be traced directly to the king: in the days before the crowd stormed his Paris residence, the Tuileries, and dethroned him in August 1792, he ordered bonfires to be made of compromising documents in the palace courtyard. As a result, a central mystery remains about Louis’s policy after 1789: was he to any extent prepared to compromise with the Revolution, or was he secretly determined to crush it, by force if necessary, and restore the old regime? On the sparse evidence available, historians have come to sharply differing conclusions, with the majority arguing that he was unwilling to make any real concessions. Hardman, however, is convinced that Louis was in fact willing to do so, at least during the Revolution’s first two years, until its growing radicalism alienated him. For Hardman, the king was genuinely prepared to act as a constitutional monarch in partnership with the revolutionary National Assembly, provided that certain royal prerogatives were retained.
"The problem with testing this hypothesis is that, three months into the Revolution, Louis and his family became virtual prisoners of the people of Paris, so from then on he was unable to express his opinions freely. This is why the ‘flight to Varennes’, the royal family’s dramatic escape attempt from Paris in June 1791, is so important – it was the moment during the Revolution when Louis came closest to being able to proclaim his true feelings about it. The evidence for what the king actually planned to do had the escape succeeded is – once again – fragmentary, but it has recently been re-examined and become a subject of lively debate. Hardman argues that Louis’s intention in leaving Paris was simply to find a place of safety from which to negotiate openly with the revolutionaries, rather than fight them. I am more sceptical. Had the flight to Varennes succeeded, the two dominating influences on the king would have been his wife, Marie Antoinette, and his ‘prime minister designate’, the baron de Breteuil, neither of whom had any intention of compromising. The likely result of the royal family reaching safety would have been civil war, which generally inclines no participant to moderation.
"John Hardman sheds much light on the enigma of Louis XVI’s attitude to the French Revolution, but in the current state of research this problem cannot be fully resolved, and perhaps it never will be. His achievement is to provide an up-to-date, immensely erudite and compelling study, the fruit of a lifetime’s work on the king. It is also crisply, sometimes brilliantly, written. Hardman’s style is accessible, often witty, and he has a gift for putting complex issues in a nutshell. Louis XVI remains one of the crucial characters in modern history – as much for what he did not do as for what he did – and this is now the best biography of him in any language."
November 27, 2019
This is a revisionist history about Louis XVI. It isn't a book about the French revolution. It doesn't talk about the third estate and their grievances that much at all. For that reason I cannot recommend it as a fundamental book for somebody looking to learn about the revolution like I did.
However, I did find it useful in ways that I was not suspecting. Since I did not know much about Louis at all, even what his critics have to say, the author's portrait of Louis has convinced me. Louis XVI seems to be a tragic character who's main flaw was lack of will and decisiveness. He wasn't lazy or stupid like his critics claim; I am not just basing that off of the author's opinions but on the primary sources in the book such as Louis' letters.
This book was a pretty hard read. It isn't very engaging and is sometimes confusing; the author takes it for granted that the reader has a solid foundation on the subject. A lot of important events are glossed over. The author really digs deep into the relationships between the ministers and the important people surrounding the king. It is informative but gets bogged down a little too much for my liking. There is plenty of primary resources such as letters from the relevant people which I found helpful.
I did not get what I was looking to gain from it but I still developed a deeper appreciation of Louis XVI and the forces that lead to the revolution. I would recommend this book to someone with a solid foundation in the French revolution; it is still useful to someone without it but the book cannot be fully appreciated on its own, even as a character study of Louis XVI.
However, I did find it useful in ways that I was not suspecting. Since I did not know much about Louis at all, even what his critics have to say, the author's portrait of Louis has convinced me. Louis XVI seems to be a tragic character who's main flaw was lack of will and decisiveness. He wasn't lazy or stupid like his critics claim; I am not just basing that off of the author's opinions but on the primary sources in the book such as Louis' letters.
This book was a pretty hard read. It isn't very engaging and is sometimes confusing; the author takes it for granted that the reader has a solid foundation on the subject. A lot of important events are glossed over. The author really digs deep into the relationships between the ministers and the important people surrounding the king. It is informative but gets bogged down a little too much for my liking. There is plenty of primary resources such as letters from the relevant people which I found helpful.
I did not get what I was looking to gain from it but I still developed a deeper appreciation of Louis XVI and the forces that lead to the revolution. I would recommend this book to someone with a solid foundation in the French revolution; it is still useful to someone without it but the book cannot be fully appreciated on its own, even as a character study of Louis XVI.
August 17, 2016
Very good, and for all the right reasons. Hardman has an impeccable grasp of the political intricacies that dominated the brief reign of the last absolute Bourbon monarch, and he stays away from speculation about Louis' family life. Marie Antoinette is important insofar as she affects appointments, and because the damage done to the monarchy through the Diamond Necklace Affair was enormous. Hardman stops short of calling the Queen an idiot, but he does regret her support or disapproval of Louis' various ministers. Louis was successful in body-blocking his meddling consort well into the 1780s, but began to capitulate to her advice in the immediate run-up to the Revolution.
Advice, or counsel, was at the heart of the absolute monarchy. The King was enmeshed in Byzantine protocol that made it difficult for his ministers to gain easy access to his person. Moreover, Louis was guarded by nature, reluctant to brook the kind of cabinet disputation that might have called forth better counsel. It is true that he would listen to both sides, and as Hardman points out, the King had an excellent grasp of economics and finances. But his unwillingness to make his own personal positions known until events forced them into the open led to gridlock within the governmental structure. Louis was unwilling to countenance the idea of a Prime Minister (although, again, he had an excellent grasp as to how the position operated for George III), and so Maurepas, who tried to function as one, was not allowed the freedom that might have assisted his work.
As I noted above, this is not the book for those who worry about Marie Antoinette's virtue. Hardman thinks that the Polignac faction were as much the King's friends as the Queen's, for example, and is quite generous in his estimation of what they cost the monarchy. Far from pushing the Queen into bad behaviors, they probably reined her in for him. Did Marie Antoinette have a physical affair with Fersen? Hardman dismisses the idea as unimportant. If it did become carnal, it was not for very long. However, they were undoubtedly emotionally intimate. The only importance was in regard to the flight to Varennes, which Fersen orchestrated.
Hardman does focus his attention upon the document Louis left behind for his subjects, a long screed that justified his action is leaving Paris. The King did not intend to flee his kingdom, but to relocate the royal establishment to Malmedy. The National Assembly would then convene away from the volatile capital, and cooler heads might prevail. By "cooler heads", Louis meant his own. The French would come to their senses, recognize the proper relationship between a monarch and his subjects, which Louis seems to have understood as father/child.
But long before Varennes, Louis had become a virtual cipher. He ceased to effectively reign on the October day he and his family were dragged from Versailles to Paris. The Revolution no longer needed him, something that the emigres realized far sooner than Louis. During his captivity, Louis XVI read a great deal about Charles I. I was intensely reminded of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, whose equally dopey wife was devoted to Marie Antoinette. Alexandra kept a copy of Vigee-Lebrun's study of the Queen and her family in her own private quarters; Louis installed a portrait of the executed King of England in his. And just as Nicholas II was a sphinx to his ministers, so was Louis. Both men retreated into silences, both were far happier in intimate settings --- Louis was probably the only King of France ever faithful to his Queen, as Nicholas was true to Alexandra. Each was aware of his consort's drawbacks in the political arena, but both were helplessly drawn into imbroglios rather than forcefully exclude them. And why? Because by the last years, Nicholas and Louis had no one else to counsel them.
And both men were estimable in the way they bore suffering. However . . . it simply cannot be denied that the French King and the Russian Tsar were manifestly unfit for their crowns. Louis, even more than Nicholas, was almost a child when his predecessor died. As I read the book, I had to keep reminding myself that a man in his early twenties was making decisions that governed the biggest country in Europe. By the time that Hardman reaches the climax of his political biography, which is not the fall of the Bastille but the collapse that began in 1787 when the bills for the aid to America's Revolution came due, the reader simply wants Louis XVI put out of his misery.
Which he was, in January 1793. Louis met his death with the same fortitude as his captivity. Any final words were drowned up by drumbeats from soldiers around the scaffold. There were some gruesome displays of lese-majeste with the enormous amounts of blood generated by the guillotine blade.
And then he was forgotten.
Advice, or counsel, was at the heart of the absolute monarchy. The King was enmeshed in Byzantine protocol that made it difficult for his ministers to gain easy access to his person. Moreover, Louis was guarded by nature, reluctant to brook the kind of cabinet disputation that might have called forth better counsel. It is true that he would listen to both sides, and as Hardman points out, the King had an excellent grasp of economics and finances. But his unwillingness to make his own personal positions known until events forced them into the open led to gridlock within the governmental structure. Louis was unwilling to countenance the idea of a Prime Minister (although, again, he had an excellent grasp as to how the position operated for George III), and so Maurepas, who tried to function as one, was not allowed the freedom that might have assisted his work.
As I noted above, this is not the book for those who worry about Marie Antoinette's virtue. Hardman thinks that the Polignac faction were as much the King's friends as the Queen's, for example, and is quite generous in his estimation of what they cost the monarchy. Far from pushing the Queen into bad behaviors, they probably reined her in for him. Did Marie Antoinette have a physical affair with Fersen? Hardman dismisses the idea as unimportant. If it did become carnal, it was not for very long. However, they were undoubtedly emotionally intimate. The only importance was in regard to the flight to Varennes, which Fersen orchestrated.
Hardman does focus his attention upon the document Louis left behind for his subjects, a long screed that justified his action is leaving Paris. The King did not intend to flee his kingdom, but to relocate the royal establishment to Malmedy. The National Assembly would then convene away from the volatile capital, and cooler heads might prevail. By "cooler heads", Louis meant his own. The French would come to their senses, recognize the proper relationship between a monarch and his subjects, which Louis seems to have understood as father/child.
But long before Varennes, Louis had become a virtual cipher. He ceased to effectively reign on the October day he and his family were dragged from Versailles to Paris. The Revolution no longer needed him, something that the emigres realized far sooner than Louis. During his captivity, Louis XVI read a great deal about Charles I. I was intensely reminded of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, whose equally dopey wife was devoted to Marie Antoinette. Alexandra kept a copy of Vigee-Lebrun's study of the Queen and her family in her own private quarters; Louis installed a portrait of the executed King of England in his. And just as Nicholas II was a sphinx to his ministers, so was Louis. Both men retreated into silences, both were far happier in intimate settings --- Louis was probably the only King of France ever faithful to his Queen, as Nicholas was true to Alexandra. Each was aware of his consort's drawbacks in the political arena, but both were helplessly drawn into imbroglios rather than forcefully exclude them. And why? Because by the last years, Nicholas and Louis had no one else to counsel them.
And both men were estimable in the way they bore suffering. However . . . it simply cannot be denied that the French King and the Russian Tsar were manifestly unfit for their crowns. Louis, even more than Nicholas, was almost a child when his predecessor died. As I read the book, I had to keep reminding myself that a man in his early twenties was making decisions that governed the biggest country in Europe. By the time that Hardman reaches the climax of his political biography, which is not the fall of the Bastille but the collapse that began in 1787 when the bills for the aid to America's Revolution came due, the reader simply wants Louis XVI put out of his misery.
Which he was, in January 1793. Louis met his death with the same fortitude as his captivity. Any final words were drowned up by drumbeats from soldiers around the scaffold. There were some gruesome displays of lese-majeste with the enormous amounts of blood generated by the guillotine blade.
And then he was forgotten.
June 13, 2021
In this revisionist account of Louis XVI’s life, the author seek to dispel the commonly known images of Louis, a stupid, lazy and impassive king. As the book shows, I got the impression that he was merely a man on a wrong place and a wrong time. I mean, he was studious, pious, and capable of bravery in some extraordinary situations. However, he was also uncharismatic, and most fatally, indecisive, which caused him his kingdom and finally, his head. However, the failings of his Kingdom, was not wholly caused by him, for his attempt to effect some kind of reform, mostly in finance and taxation, were met with staunch opposition by nobles and clergies, deeply entrenched in their tax-free privileges. The unwise decision to aid America in its revolution against the British without a way to finance the whole efforts other than through debts certainly also contributed. Within Louis’ circle also, the politicians were often too busy jockeying for power rather than trying to save the nation, a condition which was not helped by Queen Marie Antoinette’s constant political meddling, even forming her own clique. While his statesmanship left much to be desired, his personal qualities shined only when everything was beyond hope, a condition which Louis himself acknowledged in his superhuman bravery in facing the bloodthirsty, revolutionary mobs who bayed for his blood, literally and figuratively. After Louis’ head rolled into the basket and the book concluded, I give this book four stars, for it is certainly informative in shedding new lights on personage of Louis XVI, yet on many occasions following his mishaps sent me to boredom.
June 25, 2020
Far too opinionated for a history. Your goal when writing a historical biography should be to present the fact and let them speak for the subject. Hardman is not a practicing Historian and it shows: this books is laced with hyperbolic statements that I couldn't believe made it past the editor.
My favorite example is when he described a 'nauseating' experience he 'hopes' was apocryphal where the child Louis, at his father's deathbed, tells his father that his studies go by so quickly, despite the fact that we're told Louis didn't care much for them. Hardman is horrified by this 'lie', and tells us either it's apocryphal or that even as a kid, Louis was a compulsive liar and hypocrite. I don't think I need to read a book by a man so out of sync with human emotions not to ponder the third possibility: that kids lie about homework all the time, especially to make their dying father happy.
My favorite example is when he described a 'nauseating' experience he 'hopes' was apocryphal where the child Louis, at his father's deathbed, tells his father that his studies go by so quickly, despite the fact that we're told Louis didn't care much for them. Hardman is horrified by this 'lie', and tells us either it's apocryphal or that even as a kid, Louis was a compulsive liar and hypocrite. I don't think I need to read a book by a man so out of sync with human emotions not to ponder the third possibility: that kids lie about homework all the time, especially to make their dying father happy.
August 17, 2021
I started to read this book in the hope of learning to know the man behind the king, and the circumstances that lead to the scaffold. I come to know, though his own writings, others accounts of him and Hardman's analysis of these sources (their motives and history), the complex character of this shy, morally bound man. This book is however not the place to start, if you want to learn about the French Revolution, as Hardman only mention some of the biggest events in the Revolution only swift. In stead, he digs deeper into the process of writing the Constitution of France (a heavy matter), which for Louis as king, was more important, than the rumors and riots of the streets. It is a moving story of a man, who did his best for his people and prevent the coming war, but did so blotted for charisma and lies, and so pawed his own way to the scaffold.
Read
June 26, 2023DNF'ing at around 150 pages.
Fascinating subject matter, and a perspective I had not encountered before (i.e. a pro-Louis one, as it tends to be Marie Antoinette who gets the more sympathetic readings of the royal pair) - but I struggled enormously with the authorial style.
Hardman has clearly devoted much of his life to writing, rewriting, re-releasing and revising this book, but that seems to have worked against it in many ways; it feels like several books squashed in together, on top of each other, full of diversionary remarks, passages, alluding remarks, and at times a weirdly intrusive imposition of personal opinion and conjecture that broke from the otherwise fairly dry, analytical tone.
An admirable effort, but not one I, personally, am getting anywhere with.
Fascinating subject matter, and a perspective I had not encountered before (i.e. a pro-Louis one, as it tends to be Marie Antoinette who gets the more sympathetic readings of the royal pair) - but I struggled enormously with the authorial style.
Hardman has clearly devoted much of his life to writing, rewriting, re-releasing and revising this book, but that seems to have worked against it in many ways; it feels like several books squashed in together, on top of each other, full of diversionary remarks, passages, alluding remarks, and at times a weirdly intrusive imposition of personal opinion and conjecture that broke from the otherwise fairly dry, analytical tone.
An admirable effort, but not one I, personally, am getting anywhere with.
July 3, 2024
I was excited to have found this book at Waterstones in London. I looked forward to learning about Louis XVI.
I stopped reading at page 123. The author failed to present the subject in a way that I wanted to keep reading. The narrative up this page was dry.
A second peeve that I had with the narrative was the author’s frequent and liberal use of quotes in long paragraphs. It was difficult to find some pages where there were no quotes. I would have liked the author to ‘translate’ the quote paragraphs into his own writing.
Quotes can be useful since it allows me to hear the words from the persons. However, using quotes in this book was used poorly.
I do not recommend the book.
I stopped reading at page 123. The author failed to present the subject in a way that I wanted to keep reading. The narrative up this page was dry.
A second peeve that I had with the narrative was the author’s frequent and liberal use of quotes in long paragraphs. It was difficult to find some pages where there were no quotes. I would have liked the author to ‘translate’ the quote paragraphs into his own writing.
Quotes can be useful since it allows me to hear the words from the persons. However, using quotes in this book was used poorly.
I do not recommend the book.
August 13, 2022
The book is hard to read for someone who is approaching the French Revolution and its causes for the first time, but it has its perks. It goes beyond the surface and it shows the background moves and the complexity of the Ancien's régime politics. It may not change Louis XVI image for the best, but at least it contextualizes the King's actions. Louis XVI politics seems more coherent when it is related to its time and its context.
February 23, 2025
This read was such a mixed bag. What started off well with decent flow became increasingly tedious with only sporadic engaging passages. He does draw from French historian Jean Christian Petitfils, whose work I can almost guarantee would be way more engaging than this bio. I'm basing this on having read his French work on Louis XV (for my novel The Well-Loved Demon), and only wish that others could enjoy his approach should it become available in English.
November 30, 2020
Pretty good. Very detailed and quite dry, but a great biography of the king.
October 13, 2025
Some of this book was really good and some of it was just a slog. I really bit off more than I wanted to chew. I wanted to know some basics and ended up with an in-depth very scholarly tome.
July 18, 2016
This well documented, fine-grained account covers Louis’s childhood through his execution. The emphasis is on the king, not other revolutionaries. Hardman is especially adept with detailing the political machinations of the court. Although this is a serious work, he includes interesting anecdotes to whet the appetite. A discussion about the royal couple’s difficulty having sex was unexpected; a bit naughty, but tastefully done. Maurepas, the king’s chief minister, had the bedroom with the secret passageway to the king’s bedroom--instead of the queen. Louis took no mistresses. He had a passion for locksmithing, a crude sense of humor, was shy, and walked with a waddle. The king also read private mail and was noted for his snoring. I found the king’s imprisonment, trial, and execution especially interesting. The Life of Louis XVI overflows with information, brilliantly humanizing this much maligned and misunderstood king.
September 12, 2016
I went into this one with fairly high hopes, but was a little let down. While the book promised to be an in-depth look at Louis XVI, it spent far more time talking about the politics and political figures present during his reign, and less about the man himself. Of course you'd expect a focus on politics, that's a given. But I'd hoped for a little more than what I could get out of any Marie Antoinette biography.
If the political climate in France leading up to the French Revolution interests you, this could be perfect. If you were hoping to read about Louis as a father, a husband, a brother, and a human being, you may be left wanting a little more—certainly in the first half of the book. It's not that those aspects aren't present, they're just not as present as one might expect, hence the disappointment on my part.
(Aslo, pretty sure Louis' daughter's name was Sophie, not Louise.)
If the political climate in France leading up to the French Revolution interests you, this could be perfect. If you were hoping to read about Louis as a father, a husband, a brother, and a human being, you may be left wanting a little more—certainly in the first half of the book. It's not that those aspects aren't present, they're just not as present as one might expect, hence the disappointment on my part.
(Aslo, pretty sure Louis' daughter's name was Sophie, not Louise.)
July 14, 2016
Tremendously well informed. John Hardman offered some very interesting perspectives. I came across thinking that Louis -- a good and generous, albeit awkward, man -- was a fatalist. Hardman would have you believe that this was largely due to the King's sad upbringing. In my own mind, I've concluded that Louis was one of those unfortunate leaders who are in place at the time of a tectonic shift: try as they might, they are ground down as an old political system is crushed and buried by the new.
July 17, 2016
Probably the most comprehensive biography of Louis XVI. Scholarly and well researched at it heart, this book offers a fresh perspective on the doomed King of France.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews