What do you think?
Rate this book
Éminence: Cardinal Richelieu and the Rise of France
Chief minister to King Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu was the architect of a new France in the seventeenth century, and the force behind the nation's rise as a European power. Among the first statesmen to clearly understand the necessity of a balance of powers, he was one of the early realist politicians, practicing in the wake of Niccolò Machiavelli. Truly larger than life, he has captured the imagination of generations, both through his own story and through his portrayal as a ruthless political mastermind in Alexandre Dumas's classic The Three Musketeers.
Forging a nation-state amid the swirl of unruly, grasping nobles, widespread corruption, wars of religion, and an ambitious Habsburg empire, Richelieu's hands were always full. Serving his fickle monarch, he mastered the politics of absolute power. Jean-Vincent Blanchard's rich and insightful new biography brings Richelieu fully to life in all his complexity. At times cruel and ruthless, Richelieu was always devoted to creating a lasting central authority vested in the power of monarchy, a power essential to France's position on the European stage for the next two centuries. Richelieu's careful understanding of politics as spectacle speaks to contemporary readers; much of what he accomplished was promoted strategically through his great passion for theater and literature, and through the romance of power. Éminence offers a rich portrait of a fascinating man and his era, and gives us a keener understanding of the dark arts of politics.
Forging a nation-state amid the swirl of unruly, grasping nobles, widespread corruption, wars of religion, and an ambitious Habsburg empire, Richelieu's hands were always full. Serving his fickle monarch, he mastered the politics of absolute power. Jean-Vincent Blanchard's rich and insightful new biography brings Richelieu fully to life in all his complexity. At times cruel and ruthless, Richelieu was always devoted to creating a lasting central authority vested in the power of monarchy, a power essential to France's position on the European stage for the next two centuries. Richelieu's careful understanding of politics as spectacle speaks to contemporary readers; much of what he accomplished was promoted strategically through his great passion for theater and literature, and through the romance of power. Éminence offers a rich portrait of a fascinating man and his era, and gives us a keener understanding of the dark arts of politics.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2011
40 people are currently reading
517 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
November 23, 2019
The book ends up with Louis XIII, having just bidden the very last farewell with Richelieu, standing in front of his minister’s portrait by Philippe de Champaigne at Palais-Cardinal. Said portrait nowadays can be found in the building opposite to what used to be Palais-Cardinal – alongside with Louis’s own portrait and portrait of his mother Marie de Médicis, it hangs in the Louvre, in one of the few tourist forgotten halls. The grandeur of their world, if not their legacy, though, is still visible – you need nothing but a bit of imagination walking in the Palais-Royal garden to bring Louis’s notoriously brilliant minister to life, heading towards the Louvre across time and chattering crowds. If you’re as lucky as I was, reading this book in Paris, at the very heart of the described world, you’d find it almost flawless as rarely is the book about someone as grand as Richelieu so balanced and well written. However, if you, as most readers, I guess, read this book in your home somewhere far from Palais-Cardinal, you’ll notice the lack of context provided by the author. Blanchard throws his readers directly at the eye of the storm, assuming that everyone already knows who’s who and who wants what (not only in France and at Louis’s court, but across Europe). To give him credit, Blanchard at the same time managed neither to make his audience feel stupid or ignorant, nor to make his book a dull read for no one in particular because general audience would’v been bored by the end of he first chapter and academic audience would’ve found this book repetitive and not innovative enough to be captivating. It hardly can be someone’s first book about Richelieu as well. Let it be the second or the third, and it’ll be a brilliant and engaging one.
November 10, 2022
What a letdown 😫I thought the big R was so much more devious and shrewd. I got zero vibes on that one
July 17, 2025
not a single cat was mentioned, for one.
but apparently richelieu inherited a pet parrot from marie de medici.
but apparently richelieu inherited a pet parrot from marie de medici.
March 25, 2018
Biography of Cardinal Richelieu.
I can't speak to the accuracy or consistency of the book with others like it; I'm just starting on the period. This looked fun, but wasn't quite the thing. For one thing, don't start on the period with this book! You'd be lost; there are a lot of references to things that aren't clearly explained and I kept having to stop to look things up. I didn't feel that I gained a lot of insight into Richelieu's character. And the last chapter made a bunch of claims that the text didn't actually support and that pointed to a more gripping book.
I may read more by the author in the future; it feels like an early effort from a talented writer who needs to find their groove.
I can't speak to the accuracy or consistency of the book with others like it; I'm just starting on the period. This looked fun, but wasn't quite the thing. For one thing, don't start on the period with this book! You'd be lost; there are a lot of references to things that aren't clearly explained and I kept having to stop to look things up. I didn't feel that I gained a lot of insight into Richelieu's character. And the last chapter made a bunch of claims that the text didn't actually support and that pointed to a more gripping book.
I may read more by the author in the future; it feels like an early effort from a talented writer who needs to find their groove.
April 5, 2013
This is a biography of Cardinal Richelieu that focuses on his rise to power and the period when he was the powerful minister to King Louis XIII. It is a fascinating story of a supremely talented man in precisely the right place at the right time to make the most of his talents. The focus is clearly on Richelieu and his career, with less attention paid to the broader historical context or to the longer term impacts of his rule. It is also largely a descriptive account, worrying about what the facts and sources say for the critical incidents of his life. If is less concerned with the broader meanings of events, either at the time or later. It reads like an extended journalistic account of a great man. The book is well written and the story moves quickly.
While I enjoyed the book, I was hoping for more and found it a bit disappointing given my expectations. For example, Richelieu is often credited as spurring the growth and consolidation of the modern state, and the French state in particular. This general issue is little discussed in the book. Richelieu certainly fostered the consolidation of the French state but did he build the administrative capacity of the state? It appears that he did not not - he work was largely personal and focused on the relationships he had with the King and his other patrons and the success that he had in defeating the rivals to royal power. OK, but then he was the fixer for the patron that won, but how do you get from there to modern France? I have my ideas but some discussion would have been interesting. After Richelieu came Mazarin and Colbert and across those three you will see the administrative growth of the state, but you need to talk about it - it isn't obvious.
The role of religion is also important, but could have benefited from additional discussion. Was Richelieu anti-Catholic by allying with the protestants in the 30 years war or was he just practical? How were those alliances difference from the relatively conciliatory approach that he maintained towards protestants in France? The whole idea of raison d'etat versus practicality is not obvious either. The interest of state for him was linked to the position and legitimacy of the King, which was personal and religious as well as political. Getting to more modern ideas of statecraft is possible but needs some hints to the reader.
The personal nature of dynastic politics and intrigues is often hard to follow. There are lots of little states around Europe at the time, there are lots of individuals within France, all the names sound a bit similar and can be hard to follow. Thankfully, the author provides a listing of the characters that is very helpful. This aspect of the book brought up memories of Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII a hundred years earlier (and chronicled in Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies).
I would have liked to have more context on the 30 years war - which is highly complex. It would have lengthened the book but it would have helped put events like the Spanish invasion of 1637 in better perspective. I guess that was my biggest issue with the book. I have come to expect more perspective from a critical biography - more input from the author besides relating the details of the life story. There was less of that here than I had hoped there would be.
While I enjoyed the book, I was hoping for more and found it a bit disappointing given my expectations. For example, Richelieu is often credited as spurring the growth and consolidation of the modern state, and the French state in particular. This general issue is little discussed in the book. Richelieu certainly fostered the consolidation of the French state but did he build the administrative capacity of the state? It appears that he did not not - he work was largely personal and focused on the relationships he had with the King and his other patrons and the success that he had in defeating the rivals to royal power. OK, but then he was the fixer for the patron that won, but how do you get from there to modern France? I have my ideas but some discussion would have been interesting. After Richelieu came Mazarin and Colbert and across those three you will see the administrative growth of the state, but you need to talk about it - it isn't obvious.
The role of religion is also important, but could have benefited from additional discussion. Was Richelieu anti-Catholic by allying with the protestants in the 30 years war or was he just practical? How were those alliances difference from the relatively conciliatory approach that he maintained towards protestants in France? The whole idea of raison d'etat versus practicality is not obvious either. The interest of state for him was linked to the position and legitimacy of the King, which was personal and religious as well as political. Getting to more modern ideas of statecraft is possible but needs some hints to the reader.
The personal nature of dynastic politics and intrigues is often hard to follow. There are lots of little states around Europe at the time, there are lots of individuals within France, all the names sound a bit similar and can be hard to follow. Thankfully, the author provides a listing of the characters that is very helpful. This aspect of the book brought up memories of Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII a hundred years earlier (and chronicled in Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies).
I would have liked to have more context on the 30 years war - which is highly complex. It would have lengthened the book but it would have helped put events like the Spanish invasion of 1637 in better perspective. I guess that was my biggest issue with the book. I have come to expect more perspective from a critical biography - more input from the author besides relating the details of the life story. There was less of that here than I had hoped there would be.
August 11, 2016
This is my second time through this book. The first time I read it, this time I listened to it. It is by far one of my two favorite books on Cardinal Richelieu.
French History is a passion of mine and the Cardinal is my favorite to read about. I have read countless books on Louis XIII and Richelieu and it never gets old. Cardinal Richelieu is an extremely complex person to write about. Why? Because it's easy to make him a hero or a villain depending on the agenda of the author. Blanchard's book does a great job walking the tightrope and not falling either to the left or right. Cardinal Richelieu was a Man of God, Statesmen and Warrior all rolled into one. It's hard sometimes to see him in the role of a Cardinal because it seems most of the time he was at war with the Hapsburg's or running France for Louis XIII. He resembles a Prime Minister more than a Cardinal.
Some people might know him as the villain in Duma's "The Three Musketeers" but that is really just a character not the real Richelieu. He is more complex than presented in Duma's work. So if you are interested in learning about the man who pretty much created modern statecraft and rose the bar for France to make it an early modern powerhouse then look no further than this book. It's a great introduction to the reign of Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu.
French History is a passion of mine and the Cardinal is my favorite to read about. I have read countless books on Louis XIII and Richelieu and it never gets old. Cardinal Richelieu is an extremely complex person to write about. Why? Because it's easy to make him a hero or a villain depending on the agenda of the author. Blanchard's book does a great job walking the tightrope and not falling either to the left or right. Cardinal Richelieu was a Man of God, Statesmen and Warrior all rolled into one. It's hard sometimes to see him in the role of a Cardinal because it seems most of the time he was at war with the Hapsburg's or running France for Louis XIII. He resembles a Prime Minister more than a Cardinal.
Some people might know him as the villain in Duma's "The Three Musketeers" but that is really just a character not the real Richelieu. He is more complex than presented in Duma's work. So if you are interested in learning about the man who pretty much created modern statecraft and rose the bar for France to make it an early modern powerhouse then look no further than this book. It's a great introduction to the reign of Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu.
June 21, 2018
This is a once over lightly, but for the general reader, it's a slog. There is a lot on the Cardinal's military career (conflict here?) and how he dispatched with his rivals, but little on how he earned his reputation for statecraft.
January 30, 2019
As a history of the politics of France at the time, this is excellent. As a biography of Cardinal Richelieu, not so much. You learn more about the power struggles while the Cardinal remains a somewhat mysterious figure.
December 31, 2015
I couldn't connect well with this biography, despite enjoying the subject. The writing style seemed a bit stilted, and the biography itself read like a string of dates with corresponding events. Perhaps this is a great work of history -- Blanchard certainly respects his primary sources. Not a terrible book, but nothing very spectacular either.
May 24, 2019
ცნობილი გამონათქვამი esse quam videra საფრანგეთის სამეფო კარს ნამდვილად არ შეეფერება, ალბათ მსგავსი დოზით (მიმზიდველი) ხელოვნურობა სხვაგან არც მოიძებნება. საოცრად საინტერესოდ აქვს აღწერილი რიშელიეს მრავალი ისტორიული პირის ცხოვრება, მათ შორის ჰერცოგი დ'ანკრის, გრაფი ორსოს, მარგარიტა ვალუას, კარდინალი ჟუაიეზის, მადმუაზელ მონპასიეს და რაც მთავარია მარი დე მედიჩის. თუ ჩახლართული ურთიერთობები და ფრანგებისთვის დამახასიათებელი კეკლუცობისა თუ მამაცობის ყოველდღიური გამოვლინებები გაინტერესებთ ნამდვილად ამ წიგნს უნდა მიმართოთ. აღსანიშნავია ისიც, რომ საკუთრივ რიშელიე თავის თავზე ბევრ არაფერს წერს, ადამიანი რომელიც ქვეყანას დაახლოებით ნახევარი საუკუნის განმავლობაში მართავდა აქ კულისებში წარმოგვიდგება.
November 20, 2023
A short summary of the man and his era.
I admit I was hoping for a little bit more 'meat' to the story of Richelieu: the prelate who became the most defibibibg figure in pre-Louis XIV France.
The book is by no means perfunctory; its incredibly well researched, and is an important historical work for English-speakers, but the short length of the book holds it back. Similarly, the author writes well, but fails to bring the characters to life. I'm not asking for Dumas here, but the narration is remarkably dry for a story full of war, politics and subterfuge!
Overall, an acceptable but not spectacular biography.
I admit I was hoping for a little bit more 'meat' to the story of Richelieu: the prelate who became the most defibibibg figure in pre-Louis XIV France.
The book is by no means perfunctory; its incredibly well researched, and is an important historical work for English-speakers, but the short length of the book holds it back. Similarly, the author writes well, but fails to bring the characters to life. I'm not asking for Dumas here, but the narration is remarkably dry for a story full of war, politics and subterfuge!
Overall, an acceptable but not spectacular biography.
April 19, 2014
Not a bad book, but clearly biased in favor of His Red Eminence.
The good: It is very interesting to see how the first modern government (sorta) come to become. Cardinal Richelieu was the first modern Prime Minister, running the government while the Head of State (in this case Louis XIII, and, while he was too young to rule, his mother as regent) was free to banquet and hunt and chase favorites.
The book also did a good job explaining how Cardinal Richelieu's decision to ally with the Protestant Swedes against the Catholic Hapsburgs in Vienna and Spain prevented a long-term continuation of the wars of religion that had racked Europe in the generations previous. Political French self-interest trumped religious loyalty for the Cardinal. This led, on occasion, to his accompanying an army into battle against an opposing army, also lead by a Cardinal. Odd.
Cardinal Richelieu crushed the French Huguenots, forcing them to raze all defensive fortifications around their cities. But when he had his foot on their throat, he compromised and allowed them to retain religious freedom, leaving in place the Edict of Nantes.
The bad: I don't feel that I really have any sense of the man. What were his passions? He liked the theater apparently, but that is about it. Tn the final pages, the book says that he enjoyed theological discussions in the evenings. But this book doesn't allow the reader to feel that they know the subject.
Everyone seems to always be wanting to kill the Cardinal and all the population of France seems to have hated him. But the author never really explains why. Late in the book we are told that the high taxes to pay for the wars against the Hapsburgs and the Huguenots were resented. But we are never told of the deprivations that people suffered to meet the tax, how the tax was levied, and how it was collected, and if there was trouble in collection.
Apparently people also resented his ruthless execution of those who were caught trying to undermine his authority (usually by plotting to kill him). But this seems like the most logical and understandable part of him. If you want to maintain power, you have to maintain power by deposing those who try to oust you.
Maybe people didn't like him because he combined Church and State? The idea is never explored. But Popes had been doing this for a long time. Maybe it was because they thought he was usurping the prerogative of the Royal sovereign chosen by God? But the Cardinal offered to resign many times, each time being asked to stay by the Louis XIII--there were plenty of chances for the King to dismiss him had he wanted to do so.
So, it is a good book, but not a great one. Not up to the Manchester/Massie/McCullogh/Chernow standard. But not a waste of time either.
The good: It is very interesting to see how the first modern government (sorta) come to become. Cardinal Richelieu was the first modern Prime Minister, running the government while the Head of State (in this case Louis XIII, and, while he was too young to rule, his mother as regent) was free to banquet and hunt and chase favorites.
The book also did a good job explaining how Cardinal Richelieu's decision to ally with the Protestant Swedes against the Catholic Hapsburgs in Vienna and Spain prevented a long-term continuation of the wars of religion that had racked Europe in the generations previous. Political French self-interest trumped religious loyalty for the Cardinal. This led, on occasion, to his accompanying an army into battle against an opposing army, also lead by a Cardinal. Odd.
Cardinal Richelieu crushed the French Huguenots, forcing them to raze all defensive fortifications around their cities. But when he had his foot on their throat, he compromised and allowed them to retain religious freedom, leaving in place the Edict of Nantes.
The bad: I don't feel that I really have any sense of the man. What were his passions? He liked the theater apparently, but that is about it. Tn the final pages, the book says that he enjoyed theological discussions in the evenings. But this book doesn't allow the reader to feel that they know the subject.
Everyone seems to always be wanting to kill the Cardinal and all the population of France seems to have hated him. But the author never really explains why. Late in the book we are told that the high taxes to pay for the wars against the Hapsburgs and the Huguenots were resented. But we are never told of the deprivations that people suffered to meet the tax, how the tax was levied, and how it was collected, and if there was trouble in collection.
Apparently people also resented his ruthless execution of those who were caught trying to undermine his authority (usually by plotting to kill him). But this seems like the most logical and understandable part of him. If you want to maintain power, you have to maintain power by deposing those who try to oust you.
Maybe people didn't like him because he combined Church and State? The idea is never explored. But Popes had been doing this for a long time. Maybe it was because they thought he was usurping the prerogative of the Royal sovereign chosen by God? But the Cardinal offered to resign many times, each time being asked to stay by the Louis XIII--there were plenty of chances for the King to dismiss him had he wanted to do so.
So, it is a good book, but not a great one. Not up to the Manchester/Massie/McCullogh/Chernow standard. But not a waste of time either.
January 9, 2017
Well, towards the end of the book, I was pretty much willing him to die already.
This is my first, and for a long time likely only, dive into French history, and boy what a doozy!
For two physically ailing individuals, Louis XIII & Richelieu sure loved war making.
I have to say I slightly gave up on the war-related who-with-whys somewhere in the last quarter of the book. Trying to keep up with all the court & royal family intrigue was enough.
I suppose I expected less of that and more of Richelieu as a person. Of course you could argue that considering his job, bringing a lot of the war & court crap is inevitable in a biography of his, I just wish it had more of Richelieu on top of all that.
He does make his proper presence felt here and there - the garden strolls with his BFF, his love of theatre - but frankly I would have wanted much more of this. It's clear there is a fuckload of correspondence available from this time period, yet not enough of it ends up in the book. His family gets mentioned, every now and then - that he found prestigious jobs for them - but you can find pretty much no correspondence with them, or even who they were (apart from brother and niece(s)) - and I find the lack of all this a gross fault of the book.
As is, this is a book relatively swiftly relating the French history of the time of Richelieu's life - with an emphasis on him, but an emphasis too slight to deserve to be called a biography of this undoubtedly interesting person.
P.S. They were all a bunch of fucking drama queens (Richelieu resigned approx. 159 times during his service to the king), and it seems none of them were actually at any point drama queening abt anything important to their poor suffering subjects. A bit surprised the revolution didn't come sooner TBH. Jeezes.
P.P.S. I realise giving the book a 3/5 might seem a bit high after bitching about it in my review, but I do have to give credit where credit is due when it comes to the research, plus I did end up learning quite a few new things - even about Richelieu himself - that I had had no idea about before I started reading the book.
It gave me context, which is invaluable; what it didn't give me was what I wanted - a proper biography.
This is my first, and for a long time likely only, dive into French history, and boy what a doozy!
For two physically ailing individuals, Louis XIII & Richelieu sure loved war making.
I have to say I slightly gave up on the war-related who-with-whys somewhere in the last quarter of the book. Trying to keep up with all the court & royal family intrigue was enough.
I suppose I expected less of that and more of Richelieu as a person. Of course you could argue that considering his job, bringing a lot of the war & court crap is inevitable in a biography of his, I just wish it had more of Richelieu on top of all that.
He does make his proper presence felt here and there - the garden strolls with his BFF, his love of theatre - but frankly I would have wanted much more of this. It's clear there is a fuckload of correspondence available from this time period, yet not enough of it ends up in the book. His family gets mentioned, every now and then - that he found prestigious jobs for them - but you can find pretty much no correspondence with them, or even who they were (apart from brother and niece(s)) - and I find the lack of all this a gross fault of the book.
As is, this is a book relatively swiftly relating the French history of the time of Richelieu's life - with an emphasis on him, but an emphasis too slight to deserve to be called a biography of this undoubtedly interesting person.
P.S. They were all a bunch of fucking drama queens (Richelieu resigned approx. 159 times during his service to the king), and it seems none of them were actually at any point drama queening abt anything important to their poor suffering subjects. A bit surprised the revolution didn't come sooner TBH. Jeezes.
P.P.S. I realise giving the book a 3/5 might seem a bit high after bitching about it in my review, but I do have to give credit where credit is due when it comes to the research, plus I did end up learning quite a few new things - even about Richelieu himself - that I had had no idea about before I started reading the book.
It gave me context, which is invaluable; what it didn't give me was what I wanted - a proper biography.
January 13, 2016
Mixed feelings, as usual. I'm aware Richelieu is not the mustache-twirling villain Dumas would like us to believe he is (though now that I say that, I am absolutely certain he twirled his mustache), and so I was hoping for a more human look at him. Instead I got glimpses of him and a lot of 17th-century European history, which, if you are not aware, is the worst. It's endless wars fought by infinite factions which may or may not be religious and which will be different two weeks later. Difficult to keep track of and impossible to write about in any way that doesn't induce maps and charts and a lot of glassy-eyed "wait, what? Why do I care about this dead Swedish guy again??" So anyway, yes, statecraft, a unified France, fine -- not that that was given in-depth treatment, either -- but I wanted less about mercenary armies during the Thirty Years' War and more about That Guy Richelieu. That all said, what's there is pretty good, and Blanchard did as good a job as anyone at writing an overview of the grand war slog.
July 17, 2015
Interesting biography/history of the career of Cardinal Richelieu of Three Musketeers fame. I was pleasantly surprised that the conspiracies mentioned in the Three Musketeers were for the most part true, but of course without D'Artagnan.
I listened to the book on audio and it held my interest. The constant scheming and plotting between King Louis, his brother, his wife, and his mother was fascinating. There are 3 particularly gruesome executions described (the executioners unfortunately were fill-ins). The variety of names (Count this, Duc that, Marquise etc.), geographical places, and battles at time taxed my own knowledge of French geography and the Geopolitical situation (primarily the 30 Years War). This book is NOT of the Thomas Massie variety where EVERYTHING is explained, but you get the benefit of a significantly shorter book.
I listened to the book on audio and it held my interest. The constant scheming and plotting between King Louis, his brother, his wife, and his mother was fascinating. There are 3 particularly gruesome executions described (the executioners unfortunately were fill-ins). The variety of names (Count this, Duc that, Marquise etc.), geographical places, and battles at time taxed my own knowledge of French geography and the Geopolitical situation (primarily the 30 Years War). This book is NOT of the Thomas Massie variety where EVERYTHING is explained, but you get the benefit of a significantly shorter book.
April 9, 2013
A thorough overview of the architect of modern France that is hard to find in engish. The footnotes are outstanding and add quite a bit to an already interesting subject. I enjoyed it and while its not exhaustive it does give a very well done primer. It touches on some of the controversies of his tenor as well as mentions other historians points of view, while saying that this is a very positive review of the man and tends to defend him a bit. Well worth reading if your interested in the 30 year war or the history of France.
October 20, 2011
The audience for this book is definitely a reader who knows a lot more about 17th century European history than I do. It was interesting but I found myself constantly lost in the politics--Blanchard does seem to assume a lot of prior knowledge.
August 27, 2013
An excellent biography---very well-written and easy to read, as well as informative and thoughtful. I'd highly recommend this book as a biography or an easy window into the time when France developed into a prominent European power.
July 1, 2015
A triumph!
A smart, unbiased treatment of one of most misunderstood people in French history. Indeed it presents amazing insights into Louis XIII and his court, especially his mother Marie de Medici. A most read for those interested in 16th century history.
A smart, unbiased treatment of one of most misunderstood people in French history. Indeed it presents amazing insights into Louis XIII and his court, especially his mother Marie de Medici. A most read for those interested in 16th century history.
July 13, 2019
Few people can claim to be the founders of the modern French nation-state than Cardinal Richelieu, the Catholic cardinal, political mastermind, and continental strategist during the reign of Louis XIII. Blanchard admirably recounts the many twists and turns of the Cardinal's life and political fortunes, from confidante of Louis XIII's mother, Catherine de Medici, to minister and war strategist during France's involvement in the Thirty Years' War and its posture against the Habsburgs of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.
Historical figures from this period and earlier can be difficult to depict: the many centuries in-between us and them have left such figures shrouded, their cunning, candor, and difficulties smoothed over like the rocks along a river. Blanchard relates the facts supremely well, but one is left hungering for more knowledge, and more intimate knowledge, of this master political operator: how did he convince Catherine de Medici and Louis XIII to trust him so utterly? What led him to instill utter trust in others? How, in his mind, did he thread the needle of French leader and Catholic devotee?
Much of that is lost to time; Richelieu's achievements, however, continue to stand into the 21st Century.
Historical figures from this period and earlier can be difficult to depict: the many centuries in-between us and them have left such figures shrouded, their cunning, candor, and difficulties smoothed over like the rocks along a river. Blanchard relates the facts supremely well, but one is left hungering for more knowledge, and more intimate knowledge, of this master political operator: how did he convince Catherine de Medici and Louis XIII to trust him so utterly? What led him to instill utter trust in others? How, in his mind, did he thread the needle of French leader and Catholic devotee?
Much of that is lost to time; Richelieu's achievements, however, continue to stand into the 21st Century.
August 14, 2017
3.5 stars.
While I did learn something interesting information about a period I know not much about at all, at times I really struggled with this. Something about Blanchard's writing style meant that every now and then a sentence or a paragraph jarred my reading experience, or just didn't make sense. Often, I'd read things twice for understanding. Sometimes even then an over-simplified explanation still didn't really clear things up, or people who seemed to be of political importance kept randomly popping up without ever having a description of who they were or what they did.
I also felt that at times Richelieu himself took a backseat, with the focus instead being on events and other people, with a brief 'oh, and while all this was happening Richelieu was doing this...' thrown in every know and then.
So while generally a positive read, there were a few things that didn't quite work for me, and unfortunately I didn't really come away from Blanchard's book with a greater understanding of just how much of a 'political genius' Cardinal Richelieu appears to be.
While I did learn something interesting information about a period I know not much about at all, at times I really struggled with this. Something about Blanchard's writing style meant that every now and then a sentence or a paragraph jarred my reading experience, or just didn't make sense. Often, I'd read things twice for understanding. Sometimes even then an over-simplified explanation still didn't really clear things up, or people who seemed to be of political importance kept randomly popping up without ever having a description of who they were or what they did.
I also felt that at times Richelieu himself took a backseat, with the focus instead being on events and other people, with a brief 'oh, and while all this was happening Richelieu was doing this...' thrown in every know and then.
So while generally a positive read, there were a few things that didn't quite work for me, and unfortunately I didn't really come away from Blanchard's book with a greater understanding of just how much of a 'political genius' Cardinal Richelieu appears to be.
November 28, 2017
If I am more interested in this particular era and parts of this history, I would have read it faster. Éminence is definitely one of the best biographic and history 1600-1700 in France.
..." The kingdom of God is the principle of government, and, indeed, it is such a necessity that without this foundation, no prince can ever reign well and no state can be happy."...
The piece is definitely an important part of French history since Cardinal de Richelieu and King Louis XIII changed many fate of Parisian and also Europe. Wars, tragedies, and blood- this is also what makes this historical!
I would also like to praise the first English work of Blanchard ,for his great research on these countless events.
..." The kingdom of God is the principle of government, and, indeed, it is such a necessity that without this foundation, no prince can ever reign well and no state can be happy."...
The piece is definitely an important part of French history since Cardinal de Richelieu and King Louis XIII changed many fate of Parisian and also Europe. Wars, tragedies, and blood- this is also what makes this historical!
I would also like to praise the first English work of Blanchard ,for his great research on these countless events.
November 6, 2025
“So, to remain on more secure ground in this assessment of Richelieu’s genius, it seems that, above all, sense of opportunity, amazing decisiveness, and courage were the cardinal’s most extraordinary political qualities; these were the heroic traits that allowed him to succeed, often in spite of himself. What is striking in Cardinal Richelieu’s life is how he displayed this talent in settings both large and small. ”
Excerpt From
Éminence
Jean-Vincent Blanchard
This material may be protected by copyright.©️
I think in a way, all western politicians today are his intellectual descendants. That’s what makes him a great politician! Perhaps the greatest from the west!
Excerpt From
Éminence
Jean-Vincent Blanchard
This material may be protected by copyright.©️
I think in a way, all western politicians today are his intellectual descendants. That’s what makes him a great politician! Perhaps the greatest from the west!
May 23, 2022
More solid, concise history...although the speed of events in the second half makes for some head-spinning reading. What is surprising here is the revelation that Richelieu wasn't some laid back potentate, but someone constantly on the move, improvising, reacting, pre-empting. His was a harried life from the moment he entered public service, and I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did both physically & mentally.
February 24, 2024
Emocionante. Chega mesmo a impressionar um percurso e uma vida que fazem parte integrante da nossa História e repõe uma certa justiça. A imagem tenebrosa criada pelos românticos do século XIX serve os propósitos a que se destinam, ou seja entreter os ociosos. Certamente corrige, sem cosméticas, a memória coletiva de um grande estadista que procurou a todo o custo servir e servir-se. Uma simbiose como tantas outras. Um grande homem do seu tempo.
Obrigado.
Obrigado.
December 12, 2024
Very detailed and many characters. I had trouble tracking some of the main threads of the story. Also, I didn't detect a theme or general trends of Richelieu's life. There were times that I think the narrative got lost behind a major load of facts of names, places and major events. I came away a bit disappointed with more of a desire to know more about early modern France and the 30 years war then about the man himself.
May 30, 2022
I read this book on a trip to France, hoping to add to the trip by understanding a little more history but I found this book ultimately dull. The author covers a lot of ground but does really provide much insight into either the man on the events described. It reads more list of ..this happened, and then that happened... without much color.
June 6, 2023
A very cursory telling of the life of Richelieu. It seems to dive into detail where it doesn’t make sense to do to and glosses over potentially more interesting and important aspects. There is no real analysis behind the whys and effects of the events described. Little to no context is ever provided.
October 18, 2021
Well I think this is a good introduction to the man I wish there was a bit more detail on his philosophy to the conduct of Foreign Affairs and domestic affairs. However, if a person is looking for an overall view of the man this is a good book.
January 21, 2026
Great detailed book. I abandoned it halfway through, because my research interest was really about the beginning of his career (pre- la Rochelle) but what a guy! Will return to it another time (or so I tell myself)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews