@@chaseboday I worked construction for several years to pay for college, and I guarantee you they couldn't do it in 13 months today. Safety measures and Union restrictions would easily drag this job out to 2 or 3 years, even with modern equipment. Ultimately, those are both good things, but they definitely make jobs take much longer than it would take without.
Vaux-le-Vicomte knocked it out of the park! It's remarkable to think that it happened in only 13 months. My favorite building in Paris (that I’ve been to) is also 17th century, the hôtel Salé that is today home of Musée Picasso. I suppose the 17th century is masked by the 18th century era of Versailles.
Versailles, the idea of a royal palace with magnificent gardens surrounded by hunting grounds not far from the capital but not in the heart of it, came to Louis XIV out of envy. His father-in-law, Philip IV of Spain, had one: the Buen Retiro Palace (the current Retiro Park in Madrid is just a part of those magnificent gardens). What Louis took from Fouquet were the designers of the building and the gardens: Le Vau, Le Brun, and Le Nôtre.
Love this channel and French history documentaries is there anyway that you all could voice over and do a cover of the kings of France centuries of history documentary that will be absolutely amazing only found about three episodes translated in English and would love to see the full series
Had Louis XIV not arrested and confiscated Vaux he would have been an idiot. To build all of the chateau and the landscape in a mere 13 months meant Fouquet was spending state funds like a fire hose. But in an age when the state, the man who is king and the finances were balled together in a sometimes unintelligible mesh of bills, receipts, routine graft and bribery, Louis did the right thing and tried to control the massive hemorrhage of funds that went into this place. The first SCOTUS chief justice, John Marshall, said "taxation is the power to destroy". Kings can't just tax a country to death. France had similar principles as the english Magna Carta. As much as Vaux is a masterpiece and still beautiful, it was built and paid for using thousands of workmen and artisans (possibly even some of their lives), millions, no doubt, of man hours and served as a supremely arrogant monument to a man who thought he could pull the wool so conspicuously over the king's and his cabinets eyes. But maybe that doesn't really describe the situation? Such a monumental display of abuse of trust and power must have been intended to be conspicuously displayed to the King or Fouquest would never have held the grand open house and amusements. Otherwise Fouquet was crazy? Or was he (and maybe the king as well) too young and naive - maybe like SBF - with great skills as a financial administrator but operating in a relative vacuum of law and proper accounting procedures? Or what the king didn't yet understand about government was being displayed to him by people who did? There must have been an enormous reaction to the scandal of Vaux at the Louvre that forced the young Louis XIV to wake up, grow up, and attempt to regulate the taxation of the state better. It would not have been the "jealousy" of Louis XIV that caused him to arrest Fouquet and confiscate the estate. That was only for a few decades actually as the estate was returned to Fouquet's descendents. It had to be a sense of responsibility. His other ministers would have insisted. But doesn't it make you wonder how none of the king's men seemed to have known the project was underway? How did they not hear about it? How could any project so large - involving so much manpower and material not been noticed by everyone for hundreds of miles around? The King must have known all the time or the king was purposely kept in the dark? The King might have really wanted it built? It fostered the arts and provided massive employment opportunities. It created a gusher of money like an oil well. It spurred the economy for miles around and helped to bring prosperity to the vicinity like a WPA project. Perhaps it gave him a chance to conspicuously display the long arm of the state he wanted to consolidate and develop? In other words, to have the cake of opulence and to eat the results under more responsible and honest control of his later finance ministers like Colbert. Is it possible Fouquet also knew what he was doing all along and knew the way he spent state funds was going to get a massive reaction and spur reform? How much foresight did any of the main characters in this financial and architectural drama really possess?
Le pare bottes de l'enceinte dans un château permet de préserver les seules issues de sorties comme la hauteur du sur plafond entre les murs d'étages en étages pour que seul le propriétaire puis décider des changements qu'il en attend ou selon qu'il a souhaité; D'ailleurs, ne dit-on pas lorsqu'on est propriétaire, que nous le sommes à vie?
The gate looks kindof similar. Was a mistake for Fouquet to invite Louis XIV there. It made him jealous of Fouquet's wealth, and wonder did he get it from corruption, as Colbert was telling him.
Hey ! "Château" and "Castle" don't exactly have the same meaning. In France, from the late XV° century, "châteaux" were not necessary built for military purpose. That is why you can find there many aristocratic properties called "châteaux" without any defensive structure. On another hand, you can't use the word "palais" (English : palace) because in France, as in Italy, a "palais" is always an urban residence. The best example I can give you that shows the difference between French and English is that, in French, Versailles is called "Château de Versailles" (when it was built, the château was in the countryside), and in English "Palace of Versailles".
@@clevelandaeromotive also, it does seem kinda built for some assault? Not the heavy military form, but withstanding at least some level of peasant uprising? Or at least scaring those away
@@wednes3day dear, the reflecting pools are only designed to pay homage to a “moat”. They are less than a meter deep. All other architecture which may appear as a suggestion to battlements are simply non-functioning homages. We see the same at Neuschwanstein in Germany. Also, not a castle.
@@epluribusunum1460 if video footage gets included in the film that contains blasphemy then it should at least be bleeped out to avoid it being heard. Hate speech is unacceptable.
16th-17th century to build palace in 13months?? That’s impossible, that masterpiece was very meticulously built, nobody in history of that palace would prove it. No evidence
It took 18 months to finish the outside of the castle. The interior of the castle then had to be built. In total, the castle took 5 years to build, which is roughly the equivalent of skyscrapers today.
13 months is insane.
Even by modern standards!
@@chaseboday I worked construction for several years to pay for college, and I guarantee you they couldn't do it in 13 months today. Safety measures and Union restrictions would easily drag this job out to 2 or 3 years, even with modern equipment. Ultimately, those are both good things, but they definitely make jobs take much longer than it would take without.
@@Andernol No they were paid for a contract not by the hour, here is the difference.
Thank you Mr. Narrator - finally a narrator who can pronounce French names! Nicely done - mille mercis.
Except for "Paris."
Massive thank you.
Beautifully simple explanation of Fantastically complicated subject.
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Vaux-le-Vicomte knocked it out of the park! It's remarkable to think that it happened in only 13 months. My favorite building in Paris (that I’ve been to) is also 17th century, the hôtel Salé that is today home of Musée Picasso. I suppose the 17th century is masked by the 18th century era of Versailles.
Versailles, the idea of a royal palace with magnificent gardens surrounded by hunting grounds not far from the capital but not in the heart of it, came to Louis XIV out of envy. His father-in-law, Philip IV of Spain, had one: the Buen Retiro Palace (the current Retiro Park in Madrid is just a part of those magnificent gardens). What Louis took from Fouquet were the designers of the building and the gardens: Le Vau, Le Brun, and Le Nôtre.
Very interesting.
I wish more of the film included views of the interior.
Just a few minutes into this and so impressed! Great intro, tantalizing! Can't wait to see what the wheel in the dome does, I wish I already knew!
That Cardinal’s eyes moved at 5:48 👀 Creepy! Otherwise wonderful documentary! Thank you!
A superb programme.
Wonderful introduction by a professional documentary channel 😊
Well done and in-depth background information ! Excellent 51:59
Love this channel and French history documentaries is there anyway that you all could voice over and do a cover of the kings of France centuries of history documentary that will be absolutely amazing only found about three episodes translated in English and would love to see the full series
i first saw this chateau in the James Bond movie “moonraker”
Had Louis XIV not arrested and confiscated Vaux he would have been an idiot. To build all of the chateau and the landscape in a mere 13 months meant Fouquet was spending state funds like a fire hose. But in an age when the state, the man who is king and the finances were balled together in a sometimes unintelligible mesh of bills, receipts, routine graft and bribery, Louis did the right thing and tried to control the massive hemorrhage of funds that went into this place.
The first SCOTUS chief justice, John Marshall, said "taxation is the power to destroy". Kings can't just tax a country to death. France had similar principles as the english Magna Carta.
As much as Vaux is a masterpiece and still beautiful, it was built and paid for using thousands of workmen and artisans (possibly even some of their lives), millions, no doubt, of man hours and served as a supremely arrogant monument to a man who thought he could pull the wool so conspicuously over the king's and his cabinets eyes. But maybe that doesn't really describe the situation?
Such a monumental display of abuse of trust and power must have been intended to be conspicuously displayed to the King or Fouquest would never have held the grand open house and amusements. Otherwise Fouquet was crazy? Or was he (and maybe the king as well) too young and naive - maybe like SBF - with great skills as a financial administrator but operating in a relative vacuum of law and proper accounting procedures? Or what the king didn't yet understand about government was being displayed to him by people who did?
There must have been an enormous reaction to the scandal of Vaux at the Louvre that forced the young Louis XIV to wake up, grow up, and attempt to regulate the taxation of the state better. It would not have been the "jealousy" of Louis XIV that caused him to arrest Fouquet and confiscate the estate. That was only for a few decades actually as the estate was returned to Fouquet's descendents. It had to be a sense of responsibility. His other ministers would have insisted.
But doesn't it make you wonder how none of the king's men seemed to have known the project was underway? How did they not hear about it? How could any project so large - involving so much manpower and material not been noticed by everyone for hundreds of miles around? The King must have known all the time or the king was purposely kept in the dark?
The King might have really wanted it built? It fostered the arts and provided massive employment opportunities. It created a gusher of money like an oil well. It spurred the economy for miles around and helped to bring prosperity to the vicinity like a WPA project. Perhaps it gave him a chance to conspicuously display the long arm of the state he wanted to consolidate and develop? In other words, to have the cake of opulence and to eat the results under more responsible and honest control of his later finance ministers like Colbert.
Is it possible Fouquet also knew what he was doing all along and knew the way he spent state funds was going to get a massive reaction and spur reform?
How much foresight did any of the main characters in this financial and architectural drama really possess?
@@paulrosa6173 gulp. 🤔
Le pare bottes de l'enceinte dans un château permet de préserver les seules issues de sorties comme la hauteur du sur plafond entre les murs d'étages en étages pour que seul le propriétaire puis décider des changements qu'il en attend ou selon qu'il a souhaité; D'ailleurs, ne dit-on pas lorsqu'on est propriétaire, que nous le sommes à vie?
Le Nôtre André maître Champêtre. Gardien des jardins et des aménagements extérieurs de châteaux aux contre- forts.
Odd that Fouquet's private apartements would be located above the guest rooms and not his own wing 🤔
Ah, the construction of the dome was put off until the end of construction, which explains why the interior of the dome is unfinished.
Extremely interesting. Small note.. The music seemed a tad sinister.
Qui a soutenu le plus les murailles? Dans l'intendance d'économat de ce temps au régne à Vaux le Vicomte?
L'antichambre pour les Palais, n'a-t-elle jamais servit qu'à faire accepter de quoi démontrer et vérifier les choses entres missionnaires?
The gate looks kindof similar. Was a mistake for Fouquet to invite Louis XIV there. It made him jealous of Fouquet's wealth, and wonder did he get it from corruption, as Colbert was telling him.
Colbert et les colonnes de salles.
Toits arrêts de Toitures & murs porteurs!
L'ère mérovingienne.
Des pieds de falaise dans leurs bassins??
🇫🇷😂😪
Oooohh my GOD! Vaux le Vicomte IS NOT A CASTLE. It’s a palace! Not one thing about it was built to withstand and assault.
Hey !
"Château" and "Castle" don't exactly have the same meaning. In France, from the late XV° century, "châteaux" were not necessary built for military purpose. That is why you can find there many aristocratic properties called "châteaux" without any defensive structure.
On another hand, you can't use the word "palais" (English : palace) because in France, as in Italy, a "palais" is always an urban residence.
The best example I can give you that shows the difference between French and English is that, in French, Versailles is called "Château de Versailles" (when it was built, the château was in the countryside), and in English "Palace of Versailles".
@@clevelandaeromotive also, it does seem kinda built for some assault? Not the heavy military form, but withstanding at least some level of peasant uprising? Or at least scaring those away
@@wednes3day dear, the reflecting pools are only designed to pay homage to a “moat”. They are less than a meter deep. All other architecture which may appear as a suggestion to battlements are simply non-functioning homages. We see the same at Neuschwanstein in Germany. Also, not a castle.
@@wednes3day No, dear Wednesday. Nothing in a classical French château of the XVII° century is intended for scaring anyone.
@@heliedecastanet1882 Not scare but perhaps intimidate?
1:15 her blasphemy is getting a thumbs down for the full video
Huh?
@@epluribusunum1460 if video footage gets included in the film that contains blasphemy then it should at least be bleeped out to avoid it being heard. Hate speech is unacceptable.
@@andyb619 what hate speech?
@@tjs200 blasphemy is hate speech
@@andyb619 it is not, hate was not expressed towards anyone
A testament to the wastefulness of monarchy. French gardens are ugly. Could never compare to Central Park. 👎
A chacun ses goûts.
who is the owner of this castle ??? And does anyone live in this castle ?
16th-17th century to build palace in 13months?? That’s impossible, that masterpiece was very meticulously built, nobody in history of that palace would prove it. No evidence
It was actually pretty common in the Baroque era that buildings were built very fast. There’s tons of examples for this.
It took 18 months to finish the outside of the castle. The interior of the castle then had to be built. In total, the castle took 5 years to build, which is roughly the equivalent of skyscrapers today.