Europe without the French Revolution?

[Valdemar II]

How would europe look in 1850 if the French Revolution failed?

[Thande]

Failed when - no underlying causes in the first place (e.g. due to France not participating in the ARW, or winning the Seven Years' War) ; Louis XVI manages to weather the economic crisis without recalling the Estates ; Mirabeau lives longer and the reform remains lawful ; the crowd storming the Bastille are given a whiff of grapeshot by Napoleon's older brother ( ) ; when? The precise nature will make a big difference.

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Thande

Failed when - no underlying causes in the first place (e.g. due to France not participating in the ARW, or winning the Seven Years' War) ; Louis XVI manages to weather the economic crisis without recalling the Estates ; Mirabeau lives longer and the reform remains lawful ; the crowd storming the Bastille are given a whiff of grapeshot by Napoleon's older brother ( ) ; when? The precise nature will make a big difference.

As later as possible, lets say Austria defeats the revolutionary forces and reinstall the French monarchy.

[snerfuplz]

the french goverment would likely need to change radically in order to ensure no new revolution.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

As later as possible, lets say Austria defeats the revolutionary forces and reinstall the French monarchy.

One POD I was going to post the other day, but forgot, is no whiff of grapeshot - without Napoleon the Bourbons would have probably been restored by internal revolution overthrowing the Directory...

Your earlier idea, avoiding the wars and thus the war-weariness, will probably not result in a very stable French state.

[Blizrun]

No Napoleonic Wars means no forcful spread of the French Enlightenment. This is a good thing.

[Atreus]

Anothe revolution at some point is likely. Where or when is hard to say, but the French people won't like having the king re-imposed by foreign soldiers. So another revolution, as in 1848, is likely.

Another change is that conscript armies are going to be far less common. Most armies during the period were solid professional groups. It took Valmy and Napoleon to prove that the levee en mass was effective, and even at the height of the Napoleonic wars, His opponents matched his troop numbers without consrcription. So, if the monarchies survive longer, and a WWI analouge rolls around, we won't see the same types of casualties.

[Advernt]

And definitely a much shorter war , it goes without saying .

[LordKalvan]

Originally Posted by Blizrun

No Napoleonic Wars means no forcful spread of the French Enlightenment. This is a good thing.

Allow me to disagree with your statement. Dissemination of the Enlightenement (who said that it was "forced", btw?) was one of the good things which came out of the French Revolution (another being the abolition of the surviving feudal rights, and a third a massive disbanding of religious orders).

If the revolution fails, and fails quickly, the steam is not released. Sooner or later (I think sooner) another revolution will rock Europe. IMHO, the social changes which came to be very significant in the 18th century (chief among them the raise of the bourgeoisie) cannot be stopped forever.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

Allow me to disagree with your statement. Dissemination of the Enlightenement (who said that it was "forced", btw?) was one of the good things which came out of the French Revolution (another being the abolition of the surviving feudal rights, and a third a massive disbanding of religious orders).

I dunno. Plenty of other monarchs disbanded religious orders; look at the Jesuits in Austria. And I'm not sure why they should be disbanded.

Likewise, some states abolished feudalism without having Napoleon tell them to do so at the point of a bayonet.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by Blizrun

No Napoleonic Wars means no forcful spread of the French Enlightenment. This is a good thing.

Depends what you mean by that. The Enlightenment in the 18th century sense of the term was never uniquely French to begin with; philosophical speculation about society, politics, etc., took place in much of Northern Europe, and there was a fair bit of international cross-pollination from the beginning.

If you mean more specifically things like the Napoleonic Code, the fact that it was retained in whole or in part in every country where it was implemented shows that it was a pretty sound concept. Even a Victorian Tory like Matthew Arnold openly praised it.

[LordKalvan]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I dunno. Plenty of other monarchs disbanded religious orders; look at the Jesuits in Austria. And I'm not sure why they should be disbanded.

Likewise, some states abolished feudalism without having Napoleon tell them to do so at the point of a bayonet.

Out of the top of my mind, I cannot remember European states abolishing feudal (or better aristocratic) privileges prior to the French revolution. England?

I was reading an interesting book a few month ago (the title might have been Religion and Ideology in Europe after the French Revolution, but I am not 100% sure. Might have been something similar), which made a case for the transformation of the religious faith into political faith as a way to hold society together. It's not the case to go into the details; the reason I mention it is that it gave a number of over 50,000 monks and nuns being released to lay status when the religious orders were disbanded. It is quite an impressive number for the France of late 18th century, and projected across catholic Europe would indicate that the social cost of the religious orders would be quite impressive.

[history_fanatic]

How would Prussia proceed without having to toe the french-line? Earlier German unification?

[pompejus]

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

Out of the top of my mind, I cannot remember European states abolishing feudal (or better aristocratic) privileges prior to the French revolution. England?

The Netherlands did. Most of the current Dutch nobility (which is very small) was created by king William I after the French revolution. But because the Netherlands was a republic, it was probably the exception in a contintent of monarchies.

[Thande]

The French Revolution ultimately led to the destruction of three republics and their replacement by monarchies or occupying powers: the United Provinces of the Netherlands, the Republic of Genoa, and the Republic of Venice.

[New Yorker]

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

Allow me to disagree with your statement. Dissemination of the Enlightenement (who said that it was "forced", btw?) was one of the good things which came out of the French Revolution (another being the abolition of the surviving feudal rights, and a third a massive disbanding of religious orders).

If the revolution fails, and fails quickly, the steam is not released. Sooner or later (I think sooner) another revolution will rock Europe. IMHO, the social changes which came to be very significant in the 18th century (chief among them the raise of the bourgeoisie) cannot be stopped forever.

Yes, change would have come anyway. But hopefully it would have been peaceful.

The French Revolution is problematic at best. No one can defend the lawless and cruelty of the first years of the Revolution. After that, however, there were some good things like the Napoleonic Code. But why is the disbanding of religious orders good? And why is the vehement secularism that arose, partly out of the French Revolution, good? Some would disagree. Some would agree.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

Out of the top of my mind, I cannot remember European states abolishing feudal (or better aristocratic) privileges prior to the French revolution. England?

Denmark. I'd like to say Sweden too, but I'm not sure.

The Habsburgs abolished serfdom in Austria too, didn't they?

I'm not sure how 50,000 people across Europe is a huge social coast; it's far fewer than died in the terror, say, and the people seemed to like the orders.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Denmark.

Details? AFAIK Denmark instituted serfdom in the eighteenth century, not abolished it.

[LordInsane]

No, they changed the name of serfdom in the 18th century.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Thande

Details? AFAIK Denmark instituted serfdom in the eighteenth century, not abolished it.

Twas abolished in 1788.

I can't find more than that online, though.