La Guillotine Permanente: A French Revolutionary Timeline

This is very interesting! I'm not sure about the precise butterflies that would cause the Jay Treaty to fall through. Could greater French successes in Europe cause some US senators to see France as the 'winning side' and future hegemonic power? If the Coalition forces continue to get battered then Britain may seem like a power in deep decline, and not one worth assuaging. Thank you for bringing this up!
Well, it just depends on which party someone's in. The Jeffersonians/Democratic-Republicans believe that France's revolution is deeply linked to the American one, and the success of the French Revolution would be tied to the success of the USA. The Hamiltonians/Federalists strongly opposed the French Revolution, and view Britain as a stable and friendly trade partner, and wish to assuage its fears. It's not too late for the Senate to flip, although it initially passed on June 24th/Messidor 6th(I use https://stevemorse.org/jcal/french.html for calendar conversions it's very useful)- it could fail to be ratified by the Senate in the summer of 1795, and its initial signing/agreement would still spur the creation of the Democratic-Republicans.

@piratedude many Jeffersonians both dislike Britain and believe a war could be won handily, if Britain is weak. If the Jay Treaty falls through, and British impressment of American sailors continues, a war is very likely. After all, the War of 1812 happened during the 24-year dominance of the Jeffersonians, and if tensions that are present right now are never calmed down through the failure of the Jay Treaty, then Jefferson has no reason to not go to war as soon as he can after winning the election.
 
Subscribed, this is an impressive TL start!

By the way, as a native French speaker, your use of accents is really jarring; the correct spellings are Barère (<- this one really stings the eyes!), Fouché, Hébert, modérantisme (wrong accent here, it's the accute one). In case of doubt, omitting the accent is a bit less uncomfortable (we are quite used to it).
 
Subscribed, this is an impressive TL start!

By the way, as a native French speaker, your use of accents is really jarring; the correct spellings are Barère (<- this one really stings the eyes!), Fouché, Hébert, modérantisme (wrong accent here, it's the accute one). In case of doubt, omitting the accent is a bit less uncomfortable (we are quite used to it).
Thank you! I think the reason for this was that I almost exclusively used the wrong accent early on when writing this TL. I tried to go back to fix it, but Ctrl+F cant detect the difference in accents, so I had to do it manually and a lot slipped through. I really have no excuse for Barère though :oops:
 
It seems good ol' Napo adapted fairly quickly to Jacobin rule.
Napoleon actually was initially a Jacobin, and a personal friend of the Robespierres; Thermidor actually slowed his rise. He's likely much less hostile to democracy without Thermidor, however. I'm very interested to see how his career develops ttl.
 
Napoleon actually was initially a Jacobin, and a personal friend of the Robespierres;

He was promoted by Augustine but did he ever met Maximillian, not to mention being his personal friend?

Thermidor actually slowed his rise. He's likely much less hostile to democracy without Thermidor, however. I'm very interested to see how his career develops ttl.
I’m not sure that OTL regime established by Robespierre & Co can be classified as a “democracy” any more than what followed but, terminology aside, do you think that Napoleon would be happier to serve in the high personal risk environment than in OTL? Of course, the initial promotion to the general rank was nice but any military offset or disobedience to the high power or even suspicion of the excessive ambitions could cost one his head while the Directorate was much more forgiving.

Anyway, in wiki’s synopsis of “Le souper de Beaucaire” there is an interesting piece: “Napoleon concluded that the people of Marseille should reject counter-revolutionary ideals and adopt the constitution of the French Republic in order to end the civil war and allow the regular army to restore France.”
Which, IMO, is not too far from his later view regarding the way of “restoring” France by a military force.
 

marktaha

Banned
Interesting perspective.

Does that include things like the American Revolution? The Revolution in Romania that overthrew Ceausescu? The Velvet Revolution? English Civil War? he Glorious Revolution? Bolivar's Spanish American Wars of Independence? Mexican War of Independence? The later Mexican Revolution? The Easter Rising and Irish War of Independence?
I wish America had stayed British, much as I admire its Constitution. I wish the royalists had won the English Civil War, don't regard the Glorious Revolution as that glorious, and wish Ireland had stayed British. Rumania and the Velvet Revolution were not so much revolutions as liberation from a Communism that nobody was willing to defend-they really were jails in which it was nly necessary to get rid of the guards! I favour firm but fair ,orderly and democratic government.
 
I wish America had stayed British, much as I admire its Constitution. I wish the royalists had won the English Civil War, don't regard the Glorious Revolution as that glorious, and wish Ireland had stayed British. Rumania and the Velvet Revolution were not so much revolutions as liberation from a Communism that nobody was willing to defend-they really were jails in which it was nly necessary to get rid of the guards! I favour firm but fair ,orderly and democratic government.
You realize the process of getting orderly democratic government almost always involved concessions against the threat, implied or actually present, of mass revolution in the streets?
 
Interesting perspective.

Does that include things like the American Revolution? The Revolution in Romania that overthrew Ceausescu? The Velvet Revolution? English Civil War? he Glorious Revolution? Bolivar's Spanish American Wars of Independence? Mexican War of Independence? The later Mexican Revolution? The Easter Rising and Irish War of Independence?
Wouldn’t it be safer to say that most of the revolutions did include a considerable amount of a bloodshed with no guarantee that the end result will improve things, at least in a short run?

I wouldn’t put wars of independence (as ARW and Bolivar’s & San Martín’s wars for independence) in the same bucket as the “revolutions” and the same goes for what was practically a coup like “Glorious Revolution” (why not “Revolution of Catherine II”?) or non-violent transition of power like “Velvet Revolution”.

The fact remains that the big ones, Mexican Revolution, French Revolution and Russian Revolution (coup of October 1917 and followed RCW), both Chinese revolutions (1911 and 1949), were extremely bloody and none of them established a truly democratic regime (if this is considered an ultimate positive goal). Romanian Revolution of 1989 was different in the results but in comparison it was a very small potato.
 
You realize the process of getting orderly democratic government almost always involved concessions against the threat, implied or actually present, of mass revolution in the streets?
But quite a few revolutions (by a total of the people involved probably an overwhelming majority), while involving a big bloodshed, did not result in establishing “orderly democratic government”. OTOH, in quite a few countries the democratic governments had been established without revolutions.
 
But quite a few revolutions (by a total of the people involved probably an overwhelming majority), while involving a big bloodshed, did not result in establishing “orderly democratic government”. OTOH, in quite a few countries the democratic governments had been established without revolutions.
I'm not arguing "all revolution good," only the statement "some revolution (and autocrats granting democratic powers to avoid revolution) good," as opposed to the argument I was replying to which was "all revolution bad, democratic good government appearing by magic best". Many things like the reform bill of the 1830s in the UK or the like reformed autocratic or obsolete systems, but not out of the good of their hearts but because they knew the alternative was the specter of the Terror.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 6: The Campaign in the Rhine
Chapter 6
The Campaign in the Rhine
War of the First Coalition - WorldAtlas


"The General Order is always: To manoeuver in a body and on the attack, to maintain strict but not pettifogging discipline, to keep the troops constantly at the ready, to employ the utmost vigilance on sentry go, to use the bayonet on every possible occasion. And to follow up the enemy remorselessly until he is utterly destroyed."
Lazare Carnot, 1794


While the Campaign in Italy was one of initiative and success so rapid and unexpected it took everyone, including the revolutionary government in Paris by surprise, the Campaign in the Rhine had to be one of meticulous planning as they knew the Coalition was expecting an offensive in this front. One of the main advantages of the French going into the Campaign was that of the King of Prussia, Friedrich Willhelm II, who was the antithesis of everything his uncle, Frederick the Great was. He was fundamentally uninterested in military matters of any kind and was increasingly of the opinion that Prussia should just cut its losses with France and focus its attention on the far easier target of Poland [1].

The Campaign was unique in that its goals were focused entirely on the destruction of the main field army of Prussia. Prussian participation in the war was already somewhat half-hearted and unenthusiastic, and it was believed that if the Prussian leadership were to conclude that the humiliation of capitulation was less than the humiliation of repeated defeat, then they would exit the war. This was the thinking that led Carnot and Saint-Just to decide on the 'Decisive Battle' plan. Incidentally, somewhat similar to Bonaparte's plan in the Italian Campaign, they decided to try to stall the Austrian forces under Archduke Karl as much as possible to isolate and destroy the Prussian forces in one swift stroke. Archduke Karl was a somewhat cautious figure known to favor defense and holding strategic points over defeating enemy armies, making him vulnerable to falling for feint attacks. To confuse the Coalition leadership, the Jacobins ordered newspapers to begin printing stories, claiming that massive French armies were preparing for an attack on The Netherlands to liberate the country. These claims reached the Austrians, who proceeded to send reinforcements there as a result. The stunning success of Bonaparte forced the Archduke to send a sizable number of reinforcements away from the Rhine to Italy, further weakening the Coalition forces on the Rhine.

The French had spent the better part of three months meticulously preparing for the upcoming offensive. Over 120,000 men were gathered, compared to 50,000 Austrians and 65,000 Prussians. Saint-Just himself departed Paris to the Rhine to serve as representative on mission. He primarily served alongside the Army of the Rhine and Moselle under Jourdan due to personal animosity with Lazare Hoche.

The offensive began on 5 Vendémiare [2]. As the sun began to rise on the first day of the offensive, the sound of marching feet echoed across the fields, punctuated by occasional commands from an officer. The ground shook beneath the weight of thousands of soldiers, each determined to give their all for the nation. The battle plan called for a two-pronged attack on the Prussian Army while keeping the Austrians from coming to the aid of the Prussians using diversionary attacks. The advance from the north was led by Jourdan, whereas the southern advance was led by Hoche. To keep the Austrians occupied, some 15,000 men under Jean-Baptiste Kléber (who were mostly former National Guardsmen or garrison soldiers) launched probing attacks on their positions to make them believe that the main attack was coming for them. False reports and orders containing misinformation to lead the Austrians to believe there were as many as 50,000 French soldiers ready to assault their positions were planted on officers if they should fall in battle

The French advanced quickly, and on 10 Vendémiare [3], the Army of the Rhine and Moselle, encountered the Prussian army near the town of Pirmasens. The Prussian army was not fortified and was in open battle formation. However, they were well-trained and experienced soldiers, and their General, Charles William Ferdinand, the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was a seasoned veteran. The smell of gunpowder and smoke began to fill the air as the first shots were fired, signaling the start of the battle. As the two armies clashed, the noise was deafening. The roar of cannon fire was mixed with the sounds of muskets and bayonets clashing. Men shouted and screamed as they fought for their lives, and the chaos of battle made it difficult to tell friend from foe. Key to Jourdan's strategy was to utilize mobility and speed. He recognized that the French army's numerical superiority would not be enough to ensure victory, and that they would need to be able to move quickly and surprise the enemy to gain an advantage. To this end, he made use of light infantry and cavalry to conduct rapid flanking maneuvers and harassment of the enemy's rear. This disrupted the Prussian lines of communication and supply and helped to keep the enemy off balance. Another important aspect of Jourdan's strategy was his use of artillery. He recognized that artillery could be a decisive factor in breaking through enemy defenses and creating openings for infantry assaults. Jourdan made use of heavy artillery, such as 24-pounder guns, to pound enemy positions and create breaches in their lines. He also employed more mobile "flying artillery" units to provide support for infantry and cavalry. Jourdan was willing to take risks and make bold moves when the situation called for it so, he ordered a frontal assault on the Prussian line.

As the two armies clashed, the noise was deafening. The roar of cannon fire mixed with the sounds of muskets and bayonets clashing. Men shouted and screamed as they fought for their lives, the chaos of battle making it difficult to tell friend from foe. Through smoke and confusion, it was impossible to identify who had the upper hand. The battle was a maelstrom of violence and death, with soldiers falling on either side. The sight of wounded and dying men was all around, as was the stench of blood and sweat. The battle raged on for hours, with neither side able to gain a clear advantage. But even as the sun began to set, the fighting continued. Eventually, both sides withdrew from the fighting and began preparing for the following days.

As the night settled over the battlefield, the only sounds were the moans of the wounded and the occasional shot from a lone musket. The soldiers on both sides hunkered down, preparing for another day of fighting. The trap had been laid for the Prussians, and now, all that was necessary was to wait for them to bite. If the Prussians were to fully commit themselves to battle and send reinforcements, then their defeat would be certain. The Prussians, now believing the Army of the Rhine and Moselle to be the main French force leading the offensive that they had been dreading, called for all the available Coalition forces to come to their aid.

Archduke Karl quickly received word of the Battle of Pirmasens, but he determined the battle to be a mere feint. He concluded that the French had no real reason to attack the strategically unimportant town of Pirmasens, rather than taking his highly valuable ground in Baden-Württemberg. He reasoned that the attack was only an attempt to further draw troops away from his area, as it was both mountainous and served as an excellent route of attack across the Rhine and into the vulnerable plains of Alsace-Lorraine. Therefore, not only should Austrian reinforcements not be sent to Pirmasens, but any Austrian forces near the site of the battle should instead make haste to the Army of the Archduke before the French make their move, something that the Prussians vehemently disagreed with. The complete lack of coordination between the Coalition armies is something that had plagued them throughout the entire war and would never truly end. Coalition nations were often former enemies with differing strategic interests, and viewed each other with considerable suspicion. The lack of Austrian aid forced the Prussians to commit even further to the battle, as they feared that continued French success against them could result in defeat and further humiliation.

The days following the beginning of the battle were strangely quiet for the Prussians as the French, who had seemed so eager to recklessly assault them previously, now seemed uncharacteristically cautious. The Prussian Army continued to gather strength as the French just waited there with only the occasional skirmish interrupting the tense standoff. Had the Prussian leadership been forward-thinking in any sense of the word, they would have suspected something was wrong, as they were incredibly complacent; however, they did not think much of it, concluding that the French army simply lacked the will to fight any enemy that it did not severely outnumber. Unbeknownst to them, a second army was rapidly closing in near Pirmasens. The Army of the Sambre and Meuse under General Hoche made brisk progress and arrived at Pirmasens on 20 Vendémiare. It was over before it even began. The Prussians had already sealed their fates in the days prior by committing themselves to the battle. Now their end was inevitable.

The French armies had carefully coordinated their assault to occur simultaneously. Hoche and Jourdan both opened the assault by using massed artillery at the center of the Prussian lines to open gaps in the enemy line. Rather than attacking the Prussians in line formations, as was typical of linear warfare in the time of Frederick the Great, the French attacked them in several independent columns with large gaps between them to take advantage of the gaps in the enemy line created by massed artillery fire. It was possible that the Prussians could have taken advantage of this brief vulnerability to divide and crush them, but the Prussian leadership was so old-fashioned and puzzled by the French tactics that they merely attempted a passive defense across the whole front, which was not particularly strong anywhere.

The sound of artillery echoed across the valley, followed by the deafening roar of muskets firing in unison. The air was thick with the smell of gunpowder and the metallic scent of blood. The sun had just risen, casting an eerie glow over the battlefield as the French forces surged forward, their bayonets glinting in the morning light. The Prussian army, completely caught off guard, was unable to respond in time to the surprise attack. The Duke of Brunswick scrambled to get his troops into formation, but it was too late. The French had already seized the initiative, and their superior numbers were quickly overwhelming the Prussian lines. Prussian soldiers, now facing a two-pronged attack from both sides, were quickly thrown into disarray. Their disciplined ranks were shattered, and they began to retreat in panic. The French cavalry, now free to maneuver, swept across the field, sabers flashing as they cut down the retreating Prussians. The infantry, armed with bayonets and muskets, advanced steadily, firing volley after volley into the disorganized mass of enemy soldiers. The sound of musket balls hitting flesh and bone was sickening, and the ground became slick with blood and mud. General Hoche's forces, now fully engaged, had cut off any Prussian retreat. The Prussian soldiers were trapped between the two French armies, with nowhere to run. It was a massacre. The French troops, fueled by their success and revolutionary fervor, fought with ferocity and determination. The Prussians fought valiantly, but were outnumbered and outgunned. Inevitably, in the end, the French emerged victorious.

The Duke of Brunswick, humiliated and defeated, was forced to retreat. His army, once the pride of Prussia, was now a shattered remnant of its former self. Archduke Karl realized the graveness of his blunder far too late. The collapse of the Prussian army would make any defence west of the Rhine completely untenable, and Austrian forces scrambled to escape. Soon after the Battle of Pirmasens, Friedrich Willhelm II personally intervened to sue for peace. He deemed the costs of the war far too high compared to the potential gains (especially when compared to what would be necessary to achieve victory.) He secretly opened diplomatic channels through the French ambassador to the Swiss Confederacy, François de Barthélemy. France was to gain control of all German [4] territory west of the Rhine and would release its Prussian prisoners of war. This agreement was secret and not made public in any way in the immediate aftermath of its negotiation. Key to its formation was Saint-Just, who saw an end to the war as a priority of utmost importance and viewed securing a defensible buffer to prevent incursions into the French heartland as key to the revolutionary war aims. After Pirmasens, much of the territory had already fallen into French control due to the rapid abandonment of the area by Coalition forces.

There was considerable debate in Paris regarding what was to be done about the Rhine. Many believed that the Rhine was France's natural border and should be directly annexed. Others believed it should be given independence as a 'sister republic' under French guidance. Ultimately, the decision would be made for them by two men who were at the front. Ironically, Hoche and Saint-Just were completely in agreement with their support for independence despite their animosity toward each other. Rather than waiting for the government in Paris to come to a conclusion regarding what was to be done, they preemptively declared the Cisrhenian Republic in Koblenz to great adulation by the people. This forced the hands of the pro-annexation members of the government because going back on independence would cause mass outrage among the people there. Lazare Hoche would consequently take up the duty of forming an emergency government to cultivate revolutionary ideals in the populace. The Cisrhenian Republic was the first sister republic formed during the French Revolutionary War but certainly not the last.

Lazare Hoche - Wikipedia

Lazare Hoche, protector of the Rhine


[1]: Kościuszko's uprising was still ongoing at the time, presenting a potential opportunity for easy Prussian expansion

[2]: 26th of September, 1794

[3]: 1st of October, 1794

[4]: After Pirmasens, France de facto controlled everything west of the Rhine. This would become de jure as well pending permission from the Imperial Diet in which Prussia would support French claims.
 
Last edited:
Long live the free Rhine!

Long live Hoche and Saint Just!

Btw you wrote this twice:
''As the two armies clashed, the noise was deafening. The roar of cannon fire mixed with the sounds of muskets and bayonets clashing. Men shouted and screamed as they fought for their lives, the chaos of battle making it difficult to tell friend from foe''

Also, shane the duke managed to escape, would be a great prisoner.
 
Last edited:
Rather than waiting for the government in Paris to come to a conclusion regarding what was to be done, they preemptively declared the Cisrhenian Republic in Koblenz to great adulation by the people. This forced the hands of the pro-annexation members of the government because going back on independence would cause mass outrage among the people there. Lazare Hoche would consequently take up the duty of forming an emergency government to cultivate revolutionary ideals in the populace. The Cisrhenian Republic was the first sister republic formed during the French Revolutionary War but certainly not the last
Cool. I wonder if Brussels would remain the capital or if it would go to a different city.

And presumably such a quick decisive end to this campaign means that France could move fairly quickly to support the Batavian revolution in the Netherlands.
 
Russian Revolution (coup of October 1917 and followed RCW)
It was the October Revolution itself that was actually bloodless - with rare exceptions, the councils gained power without military clashes in most of Russia (for now, we put the events in Ukraine and other regions out of the brackets). Of course, there were uprisings, but they were localized and the counter-revolutionaries were organized no better than gangs of bandits. A big cowshed war could have been avoided if the Czechoslovak Corps could have been withdrawn from the country in time.
As for democracy, the "October coup" just established it, because it's not about the fact that power passed precisely to the Bolshevik Party, namely to the councils - after the Moscow uprising, local assemblies simply disarmed police and military units.
The erosion of Soviet democracy was due to the Civil War. At the same time, it’s not only the Bolsheviks who are to blame for this - in fact, immediately after the establishment of Soviet power in Petrograd, negotiations began on the formation of a “Homogeneous Socialist Government” (that is, a coalition cabinet of representatives of the socialist parties), but the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks refused, while boycotting the elections to the councils. At the same time, I note that intra-party democracy functioned in full force until 1927.

"Right Socialist - You killed democracy!
Bolshevik - We offered you to form a government before the next elections to the Soviet, but you refused.
Right Socialist - These meetings are not legitimate! And you didn't accept our reasonable terms.
Bolshevik - You yourself formed the soviets in February. And damn it - you only agreed to 5 seats from our party out of 18."

The Cisrhenian Republic was the first sister republic formed during the French Revolutionary War but certainly not the last.
I wonder if the Jacobins will agree to the approval of the French "Natural Borders" (an early nationalist concept according to which the borders of France should run along the Rhine and the Alps - and the Jacobins are just Nationalists)
 
Interestingly, the Cisrhenian Republic is being created now, in late 1794, three years before people who started to agitate for its creation did. I would personally expect it to be formalized only next year, after a separate peace with Prussia was signed, with Hoche currently just keeping order and spreading Republican ideas in the region.
The flag is another interesting question- it was based on the Italian/Cisalpine flag, and while that's set in stone by now, Italian Jacobins wearing green-white-red roundels, it's not big enough with the lack of any Italian Sister Republics for Cisrhenia to adopt. I'm not aware of any symbols used by German republicans in this time period, the schwartz-rot-gold likely originated in eastern Germany, roughly two decades later. They would definitely have a flag, but I just don't know what it would be. Oh well, for the time being the Liberty Pole works fine,

Fun fact: Now the Trump and Marx families are both in the Cisrhenian Republic. Well, Heinrich Marx hasn't changed his name from Herschel Levi, and he might become semi-influential- with Jewish Emancipation, a secular education, and a familial prominence in the Jewish community of Trier, I would expect a position in the government of the Republic, although he is only 17. His brother became chief rabbi of Trier and participated in Napoleon's Sanhedrin, so they are influential in the right circles. The Trumps are wealthy vineyard owners in Kallstadt. The Heinz family is also present, but I can't find anything on them other than they are intermarrying with the Trumps.

Of course, this is just a silly thing, the immediately important people are newspaper editor/teacher Joseph Gorres(although he's a bit young as of '94), Koblenz publishers Johann Heinrich Gerhards and Franz Georg Joseph of Lassaulx, Bonn natives Johann Baptist Geich and Franz Gall, and professor Matthias Metternich. These are the ones who would likely rise to power in the new Republic.
 
Well, Heinrich Marx hasn't changed his name from Herschel Levi, and he might become semi-influential- with Jewish Emancipation, a secular education, and a familial prominence in the Jewish community of Trier, I would expect a position in the government of the Republic, although he is only 17. His brother became chief rabbi of Trier and participated in Napoleon's Sanhedrin, so they are influential in the right circles.
In theory, Henry could still convert to Christianity, simply because the Rhenish Germans also mistrusted the Jews.
 
Glad to France successfully pull of the Kantai Kessen. Given that Jacobinism is still in vogue, its probably smart that the border wasn't expanded to the Rhine (who knows how the locals would take de-Christianization AND Francification at once)
 
That does sound like an interesting approach. Does that mean that a République Brabançonne gets formed in the former Austrian Low Countries and Liège, or is its annexation ineluctable ?
The Batavian Republic, however, will probably show up, and between Batavian Republic, Cisrhenan Republic and the Rhine in Alsace, the French northern flank then becomes secure.
Also, of note is that the exact borders of the Cisrhenan republic haven't been precised... and France could probably smooth out the border there and to nab some more of the Sarre.
 
Top