Where is the line between a leader's personal belief and the fate of a nation drawn? These hypothetical lines varied from leader to leader during the age of religious wars. Some failed to discern between the two, allowing an uncompromising demeanor to interfere with their political goals. Others though, set their personal beliefs aside for the good of political unity. Those who did so are referred to as politiques. Defined as "Rulers who held religious strife and civil war in check, subordinated theological doctrine to a cause of political unity, urged compromise, and moderation and toleration in matters.", Politiques...
three different religious sects, William of Orange was instrumental in the Netherland's revolt against Spain. In conclusion, the politique rulers who chose subordinate religious conflict were generally more successful. This is evident in all three examples presented. Henry of Navarre was able to find the middle of two extremes and still impose successful political and economic policies. Elizabeth I was effective in dealing strictly with separatists and keeping England religiously united during a time of religious extremism. William of Orange saw the necessity of religious toleration and used it to his advantage in revolting against Spanish rule.