What do you think?
Rate this book
Louis XIII: The Just
In this fascinating biography, A. Lloyd Moote provides the first authoritative account of one of the most enigmatic figures of seventeenth-century Europe. Contrary of popular portrayals of the monarch as a hapless kind, Moote argues that Louis XIII was a ruler who powerfully shaped his people's destiny.
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
1 person is currently reading
102 people want to read
About the author
A. Lloyd Moote
8 books1 followerA. Lloyd Moote was an emeritus professor at the University of Southern California, and affiliated professor at Rutgers University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 8, 2026
Actual rating 3.5
This was a decent biography of Louis XIII. The author covers his life from beginning to end. Louis is shown as a responsible monarch who overcame many obstacles and succeeded in strengthening the French monarchy. While he was aided by Richelieu, it was the king who approved any decision made by the government. In some cases Louis’ bold actions helped save the situation as it happened when the Spanish army threatened Paris. Louis had a frail health and most of his life suffered from different illnesses. He was an artistically talented man. He loved music, he danced in the ballets, he painted portraits. We can look at some of them now. He was loved by his soldiers and mostly respected by his subjects. The nobles often plotted against the king and his chief adviser, cardinal Richelieu. Louis's response usually was "a traitor must die". This enhanced his reputation as a 'just' monarch.
The author dedicates one chapter to Louis’ childhood and he expands on the dauphin’s relationship with his parents and educators.
As usual with history books, certain characterizations by the author should be taken with a grain of salt. In addition, some passages seemed somewhat strange, for example when the author compared the looks of the child Louis with the looks of his parents, pretending that Louis gave a better impression. What? The very idea of comparing a young boy and adults isn’t serious.
This was a decent biography of Louis XIII. The author covers his life from beginning to end. Louis is shown as a responsible monarch who overcame many obstacles and succeeded in strengthening the French monarchy. While he was aided by Richelieu, it was the king who approved any decision made by the government. In some cases Louis’ bold actions helped save the situation as it happened when the Spanish army threatened Paris. Louis had a frail health and most of his life suffered from different illnesses. He was an artistically talented man. He loved music, he danced in the ballets, he painted portraits. We can look at some of them now. He was loved by his soldiers and mostly respected by his subjects. The nobles often plotted against the king and his chief adviser, cardinal Richelieu. Louis's response usually was "a traitor must die". This enhanced his reputation as a 'just' monarch.
The author dedicates one chapter to Louis’ childhood and he expands on the dauphin’s relationship with his parents and educators.
As usual with history books, certain characterizations by the author should be taken with a grain of salt. In addition, some passages seemed somewhat strange, for example when the author compared the looks of the child Louis with the looks of his parents, pretending that Louis gave a better impression. What? The very idea of comparing a young boy and adults isn’t serious.
July 16, 2011
Law school has destroyed my brain, so I think I am no longer capable of coherent, insightful reviews anymore (if I ever was).
I enjoyed this book because I am fascinated with:
1. all things France
2. the concept of royalty (as a person living several hundred years later in a country ostensibly founded on the express rejection of royalty), especially how a little kid can be KING, how a teenager can take his country to war, how a family controls an entire society and still has all this dysfunctional drama going on (which in turn affects the controlled society, as in Louis's overthrow of his mother and later thwarting of her and his brother's overthrow of him), how this person who has all this responsibility also has these really mundane things going on his life that are scrupulously monitored (like his bowel movements and his various obsessive loves), how politics and power/wealth hasn't really changed that much despite the fact that we've allegedly repudiated the concept of royalty (that part was really depressing)
3. how history is an uncertain, amorphous thing that "develops" in our collective thought according to whatever interpretations of it we are exposed to... For example, I (to the extent that I remembered anything from my World Civ class or thought about Louis Treize France at all, which was actually very little) only thought of this period of French history as Richelieu's France, that of the wily Cardinal who directed the imbecilic puppet King. (Seriously, Richelieu's name in my mind basically equaled "controlled France because the King was an ineffectual idiot.") And I went to college over ten years after this bio came out, which may mean that his thesis (that Louis XIII was in fact an equal partner in the direction of 17th century France and that, in fact, Louis the Just's personality and mores were instrumental in creating that France before Richelieu came along and even without Richelieu if he hadn't come along) has since been proven bullshit or just that the other conceptions of Richelieu and his power (and Louis's impotence) were too dominant to be deconstructed by one historian's (very admirable) research to the contrary... (which, again, was part of that whole fascination with how history is fluid and malleable and whatever "truth" there is to be found in it should never be taken as Truth).
4. really good biography, how difficult it must be, especially to go back and try to reconstruct a person, a personality, out of differing (often self-serving and even purposefully false) accounts that are hundreds of years old, to make us see the human who is playing (but also IS) the social role
5. WORDS. This was a delightfully verbose book, and I added so many words to my "Words I Like" list that it took up like 5 pages in my reading journal. (Some of them are duplicates and triplicates, no doubt, 'cause I was just too lazy to go back and search to see if I'd written something down already.) Some of the new ones from this book that hadn't come up on my list yet (probably because of the French connection, hahaha.): sobriquet, tableau, cortege (cortège), retinue, elan (élan), reconnoiter, seneschal, paulette, and, of course, coup d'état.
I enjoyed this book because I am fascinated with:
1. all things France
2. the concept of royalty (as a person living several hundred years later in a country ostensibly founded on the express rejection of royalty), especially how a little kid can be KING, how a teenager can take his country to war, how a family controls an entire society and still has all this dysfunctional drama going on (which in turn affects the controlled society, as in Louis's overthrow of his mother and later thwarting of her and his brother's overthrow of him), how this person who has all this responsibility also has these really mundane things going on his life that are scrupulously monitored (like his bowel movements and his various obsessive loves), how politics and power/wealth hasn't really changed that much despite the fact that we've allegedly repudiated the concept of royalty (that part was really depressing)
3. how history is an uncertain, amorphous thing that "develops" in our collective thought according to whatever interpretations of it we are exposed to... For example, I (to the extent that I remembered anything from my World Civ class or thought about Louis Treize France at all, which was actually very little) only thought of this period of French history as Richelieu's France, that of the wily Cardinal who directed the imbecilic puppet King. (Seriously, Richelieu's name in my mind basically equaled "controlled France because the King was an ineffectual idiot.") And I went to college over ten years after this bio came out, which may mean that his thesis (that Louis XIII was in fact an equal partner in the direction of 17th century France and that, in fact, Louis the Just's personality and mores were instrumental in creating that France before Richelieu came along and even without Richelieu if he hadn't come along) has since been proven bullshit or just that the other conceptions of Richelieu and his power (and Louis's impotence) were too dominant to be deconstructed by one historian's (very admirable) research to the contrary... (which, again, was part of that whole fascination with how history is fluid and malleable and whatever "truth" there is to be found in it should never be taken as Truth).
4. really good biography, how difficult it must be, especially to go back and try to reconstruct a person, a personality, out of differing (often self-serving and even purposefully false) accounts that are hundreds of years old, to make us see the human who is playing (but also IS) the social role
5. WORDS. This was a delightfully verbose book, and I added so many words to my "Words I Like" list that it took up like 5 pages in my reading journal. (Some of them are duplicates and triplicates, no doubt, 'cause I was just too lazy to go back and search to see if I'd written something down already.) Some of the new ones from this book that hadn't come up on my list yet (probably because of the French connection, hahaha.): sobriquet, tableau, cortege (cortège), retinue, elan (élan), reconnoiter, seneschal, paulette, and, of course, coup d'état.
June 10, 2025
This is a King that I regret to say left a blank space in my memory. I knew little of him when I picked up this book.
He was King Louis XIII of France from 1610 to 1643. The son of the assassinated King Henry IV of Navarre.
He is memorable for his reign during the Thirty Years' War, his close collaboration with Cardinal Richelieu, and their efforts to centralize royal authority and establish France as a leading European power.
It was a good book for sorting out the complex twists of all these fascinating French royalty family trees.
After Catherine de Medici, I often have to go and turn to my personal library to sort something out.
I sometimes get a chuckle thinking about my husband walk in and see me sitting on the floor with a pile of books.
He would say" Okay, what moldy old King has your attention this month?
Ah, he was always straight to the point.
It's a long book, but a very
thorough read on this King Louis XIII the Just.
He was King Louis XIII of France from 1610 to 1643. The son of the assassinated King Henry IV of Navarre.
He is memorable for his reign during the Thirty Years' War, his close collaboration with Cardinal Richelieu, and their efforts to centralize royal authority and establish France as a leading European power.
It was a good book for sorting out the complex twists of all these fascinating French royalty family trees.
After Catherine de Medici, I often have to go and turn to my personal library to sort something out.
I sometimes get a chuckle thinking about my husband walk in and see me sitting on the floor with a pile of books.
He would say" Okay, what moldy old King has your attention this month?
Ah, he was always straight to the point.
It's a long book, but a very
thorough read on this King Louis XIII the Just.
September 24, 2020
I had known pretty much nothing about Louis XIII (or the time period) before reading this book. This author did a commendable job in both the research & writing of this book, and making it accessible to readers starting from ground zero. He presented clearly both the popular myth of Louis XIII being simply the pawn of Cardinal Richelieu, and then using often times original documents (especially correspondence between the King & the Cardinal) deconstructs the myth to prove it was very much an example of an effective working team between the two. Moote also throws in enough background and insight for me to get a good grasp of both the times culture, structure, thinking, and threats they were facing in 17th Century France, as well as their perceptions and analysis of those threats, again through their correspondence. I learned far more about this time period than I had expected too, and while not an easy read, it was enjoyable. Now reading the historical fiction books by Alexander Dumas are even more enjoyable than they were before, because of all this real background info.
June 1, 2025
I haven't finished this one and am having trouble getting very far. It's an interesting subject. I think the writing style might be the reason. I'll persist, but in the meantime...
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews