To this, modern history laboriously replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books.
To this question historians reply that Louis XIV’s activity, contrary to the program, reacted on Louis XVI.
But why did it not react on Louis XIV or on Louis XV—why should it react just on Louis XVI?
If the conditions under which power is entrusted consist in the wealth, freedom, and enlightenment of the people, how is it that Louis XIV and Ivan the Terrible end their reigns tranquilly, while Louis XVI and Charles I are executed by their people?
Is the ferment of the peoples of the west at the end of the eighteenth century and their drive eastward explained by the activity of Louis XIV, XV, and XVI, their mistresses and ministers, and by the lives of Napoleon, Rousseau, Diderot, Beaumarchais, and others?
Then listen: "Louis XIV was a very proud and self-confident man; he had such and such mistresses and such and such ministers and he ruled France badly.
There are no more uses of "Louis XIV" in the book.
Show samples from other sources
During the French Revolution, I got worried about my boy Louis XIV, the Sun King, then went down to check on him and found out he had died seventy-five years earlier.
Rick Riordan -- The Trials of Apollo
The door’s lock and hinges are so big and antiquarian, they must be Louis XIV.