Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brde et de Montesquieu (18 January 1689 10 February 1755), enera!!y re"erred to as si#$!

!y Montesquieu, %as a Fren&' so&ia! &o##entator and $o!iti&a! t'in(er %'o !i)ed durin t'e * e o" +n!i 'ten#ent, -e is "a#ous "or 'is arti&u!ation o" t'e t'eory o" se$aration o" $o%ers, %'i&' is i#$!e#ented in #any &onstitutions t'rou 'out t'e %or!d, -e did #ore t'an any ot'er aut'or to se&ure t'e $!a&e o" t'e %ord despotism in t'e $o!iti&a! !e.i&on,/10 and #ay 'a)e been $art!y res$onsib!e "or t'e $o$u!ari1ation o" t'e ter#s feudalism and Byzantine Empire, 2'i!oso$'y o" 'istory
Montesquieu's philosophy of history minimized the role of individual persons and events. He e pounded the vie! in Considrations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur dcadence that each historical event !as driven "y a principal movement# It is not chance that rules the world. Ask the Romans, who had a continuous sequence of successes when they were guided by a certain plan, and an uninterrupted sequence of reverses when they followed another. here are general causes, moral and physical, which act in every monarchy, elevating it, maintaining it, or hurling it to the ground. All accidents are controlled by these causes. And if the chance of one battle!that is, a particular cause!has brought a state to ruin, some general cause made it necessary for that state to perish from a single battle. In a word, the main trend draws with it all particular accidents."#$% $n discussin% the transition from the &epu"lic to the 'mpire, he su%%ested that if Caesar and (ompey had not !or)ed to usurp the %overnment of the &epu"lic, other men !ould have risen in their place. *he cause !as not the am"ition of Caesar or (ompey, "ut the am"ition of man.